Productivity of research in natural sciences, technology and clinical medicine of 48 east Asian and north european top 300 ranked universities: A comparison of 8 countries scoring high in science and mathematics PISA

The global university rankings are here to stay. The ranking positions tell the universities’ recognized success in the reputation markets. Whether deliberate or not, the rankings tend to establish a ‘single norm of excellence’ and reduce complex global higher education landscape into an ordinal order from best to worst. (Hazelkorn, Kauppi & Erkkilä; EAU) If governments are to strive for evidence-based science policy, they have to know, how productive the research in a country is, especially in such costly and facility intensive fields like natural sciences, technology and clinical medicine. The more detailed question is, which institutions produce the best or worst results and at what price. The emergence of Asian universities and scientific research is actualising in inreasing numbers of appearances in the global university rankings (ARWU, THES, QS and HEEACT) hitherto dominated by North American universities accompanied by some European universities.

The productivity analysis utilizes input (research man-years) and output (Web of Science articles and articles in Hi-impact journals) data of 48 Top 300 ranked East Asian and North European universities. Based on the results of the analyses the 48 universities are rated from A₀ (output falling short of input) to A⁺⁺ (output exceeding input). The paper focuses on Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong from East Asia vis-à-vis Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden from North Europe, all of which belong to PISA elite (Programme for International Student Assessment) in science and mathematics. A high rank in science and mathematics PISA shows high level of learning outcomes which according to our understanding indicates that the “school culture” of the country has a specific “science ethos” and students’ high academic potentiality. Finally, the paper shows how the “science ethos” indicated by PISA manifests in productivity of research in natural sciences, technology or clinical medicine.