Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Posted: November 28th, 2013

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Name:

Course:

Institution:

Lecturer:

Date:

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Students have often used college rankings on various programs to determine the best learning institution to attend for higher education. Colleges are also using rankings on educational subjects as a way of attracting potential students. It is no wonder then that every college wants to have top rankings. The issue of college rankings has often been criticized by scholars and other college administrators, especially in PhD programs since they offer differing views on the ranking methods. In his article, A multi Attributes Approach for Ranking PhD Programs, Frank Urbancic has offered an analysis of the various historical approaches used to rank PhD programs. He also notes that the ranking methods have employed a single attribute thereby acting as a limitation. Additionally, some attributes that have been used in the past focus on people’s perception concerning program quality, number of articles that have been published by the graduates and the representation of graduates on the editorial boards of academic journals among others.

Focusing on one attribute imparts numerous limitations since the approach becomes objective-oriented. Urbancic has proposed a model that uses different ranking attributes for the given programs. Although specified for accounting programs, the method can be used in different settings. The advantages attached to this model are that it is research-based and additionally, it employs three attributes in determining PhD college rankings. Different programs require different levels of research and therefore the research quality acts as an important indicator when ranking the programs. The impact that the research provides to the audience is also important. It is not sensible for scholars to conduct research that is not impactful to the society. It is important for individuals to consider a wide range of attributes when conducting research because this enhances a study’s scope thus allowing for extensive objectives and an unbiased analysis.

The author seeks to fulfill the requirement set by the Association to Advanced Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) in the development of the PhD rankings. Urbancic has fulfilled this mandate by developing the multi attribute system to deal with the given challenge. However, to justify the need for a new system, an examination of the present approaches in terms of limitations has been offered. Urbancic focuses on the attributes used to develop the other approaches in identifying the limitations. However, he fails to mention recent research development, which focuses on other elements apart from the six attributes he has indicated. For instance, Urbancic has not addressed societal indicators required for proper research. Note that, societal indicators are an important element since they are able to impart meaning on research requirements.

It is insensible for scholars to conduct research and generate many research proposals, if they do to affect the society in any way. Such researches not only moderate investigations within the business environment, but they fail to give credible meaning and impacts. In as much as Urbancic outlines the limitations of individual attributes used by different people in the past, the author fails to introduce new attributes for proper development of his proposed model. Urbancic has incorporated past methods to develop his own model. The benefit attached to this is that it aids the author in the management and optimization of the given strengths noted for the various approaches. By doing this, Urbancic has managed to work well within the creation of a superior ranking system for PhD programs.