RANKING METHODOLOGY FOR UNIVERSITIES OFFERING ISLAMIC

ECONOMICS AND FINANCE PROGRAMME: A PROPOSAL

Miranti Kartika Dewi

Center for Islamic Economics and Business (PEBS) / Department of Accounting
Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia
UI Campus, 16424 Depok, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Ph. 00-62-813-154-12-831
Email: miranti_k_dewi@yahoo.com

Ilham Reza Ferdian

Master of Science on Finance Programme
Kuliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences
International Islamic University Malaysia
Gombak Campus, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Ph. 00-60-17-35-35-503
Email: iref.468@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

University rankings have become increasingly popular in present years. The rankings may imply quality and
performances of the universities’ academic, research, administrative, or even alumni. Additionally, the rankings are
often used by universities to market themselves and by prospective students to choose the best ones. The fact,
however, reveals that most universities offering Islamic economics and finance programme were not on the top of the
ranking list. This does not always mean that the universities are not performing. Rather, it may be caused by the
methodology used presently is somehow needed to be adjusted. This paper humbly aims to propose methodology that
can be used by ranking institutions to rank the universities offering Islamic economics and finance programme in the
world. After comparing and making necessary adjustments on existing universities ranking methodologies, this study
come with eight indicators to rank universities offering Islamic economics and finance programmes. Shall the
methodology adapted, the new-established universities ranking list that is fairer to the Islamic economics and finance
programme can be issued.

Keywords: University ranking, Ranking methodology, Islamic Economics, banking, and finance

 
1. Introduction
In current years, ranking of university has turned out to be increasingly popular and become an obvious part of
academic life. Many parties, including general public, media, as well as universities themselves, accepted it
widely. In general, ranking of university may give assurance on quality and transparency conducted in the
university sector. It may also be used as reference for students as well as donator who are looking for guidance in
evaluating the quality of different universities.
History of university ranking development has shown that there are two major issuers of university
ranking: institution and media. In its early development stage, raking of university was created since 1920s in the
USA to rank quality of graduate programmes offered in the country. While US News and World Report started
publishing "America's Best Colleges Ranking" by media in 1983. After years of development, nowadays there are
two global ranking lists which have fascinated much public attention. These two ranking lists including the
Shanghai ranking of world class universities, published by the Jiao Tong University in Shanghai since 2003
(Shanghai ranking list), and the Times Higher Education Supplement ranking of world universities, published
since 2004 (THES ranking list).
In recent times, university ranking to identify and assess the universities’ quality is conducted by using
many methodologies – some of them are controversial since it is still blurred what precisely they assess and what
influence they will have on the university standard and practice. Most of the time, university ranking concentrated
not only on universities as a whole, but also on some specific fields within the universities, such as teaching,
research, subject areas (such as economics, psychology, law) or programmes (such as Bachelor Degree, Master
Degree – MBA, Executive MBA, MSc or MA).
The development of Islamic economics and finance directs a call for high quality human resources.
Universities offering such programmes are gradually started to mushroom in many parts of the world, including in
Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bahrain, or even in Australia and the United Kingdom. Most of them are adopting
the commodification approach and the surface-learning method driven by market demand in developing their
curriculum (Kasri, 2008). However, until today, we are yet to see any lists which rank these universities in term of
the Islamic economics and finance programmes. Therefore, since these universities are focused on the specific
areas, it is then important to propose a guideline for ranking such universities. This paper is humbly aim to
provide the guideline by making comparison of existing university ranking methodologies and inserting some
adjustments with regard to the nature of Islamic economics and finance education programmes.

2. Motivation and Methodology

The study has a main objective to develop a ranking methodology which is suitable for universities offering
Islamic economics and finance programme. In order to meet the objective, this study will comparison method by

 
 making observation on the university ranking methodologies developed by leading international university
ranking institution, and consider their appropriateness to be used in ranking universities which are specifically
offered Islamic economics and finance programmes.

3. Findings and Discussion

3.1. Education of Islamic Economics and Finance
Development of Islamic economics has reached its third decade now after the First International Conference
on Islamic Economics held in Makkah in 1976. Currently, when many parts of the world are attempting to
update their economic system to support Islamic economic and finance, they need high quality human
resources who able to carry the growth. In this case, education institutions are significantly essential. Many
universities are starting to offer programmes on Islamic economics and finance in their undergraduate, master
or even doctoral programmes. Nienhaus (2007) noted that master level programmes, particularly MBA and
MA/MSc in Islamic banking and finance, are among the most popular programs offered by those learning
institutions.
Although the education institutions, especially universities have tried to support the rapid
development of Islamic economic and finance, some critics are appointed to them. Some of the critics notated
that the universities are having tendency on producing students according to the market requirements, rather
than developing human resources who can support the development of original ideas from Islamic economic
and finance. Not only that, critics also come from students who enroll in the Islamic economics and finance
programme that they are not satisfied with the course structure which give less emphasize on the practical
aspects of theories.
From the issues above, it is important for the universities to make reflection on what they are offered
in order to support the development of Islamic economic and finance. While self-reflection is somehow bias,
assessment by independent institution can be a more objective one. This assessment later can be rank in order
to find out which university is performing better than others, thus it can be a mean to develop healthy
competition among them with the main objective to be able to offer better education in supporting the growth
of Islamic economic and finance.

3.2. Survey of Existing Ranking Methodology

As discussed above, the universities offering Islamic economics, banking, and finance programme also need
to be qualified in teaching, research, as well as producing of high-quality graduates. Thus, it is enviable to
start the proposal with a survey of common methodologies used to rate the universities in general. In

 
 addition, it is somehow more comfortable to make necessary adjustment from mainstream methodologies
rather than to build from scratch.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) ranks world universities based on four criterions, including
quality of education, quality of staff, research output and size of the universities. Detail of indicators used for
each criterion, together with their weights, is presented below:

Table 1: Indicators and Weight Used in Shanghai ranking list 2008

Criterion Indicators Weight

Quality of 1. Number of alumni who earned a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal since 1901. 10 %
education
Quality of staff 2. Number of researchers who earned a Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, medicine or 20 %
economics and/or the Fields Medal in mathematics since 1911.
3. Number of highly cited researchers in the fields of life science, medicine, physics, 20 %
engineering and social sciences.
Research Output 4. Number of articles published in Nature and Science between 2003 and 2007. 20 %
5. Number of articles listed in Thompson Scientific's Science Citation Index 20 %
Expanded and its Social Sciences Citation Index in 2007. Added to the article count
in 2006, listings in Social Sciences Citation Index the count double.
Size of the 6. The weighted score of the above five indicators divided by the number of full-time 10%
institution equivalent academic staff. If the number of academic staff for institutions of a
country cannot be obtained, the weighted scores of the above five indicators is used.
Source: Shanghai Jiao Tong University

In addition, SJTU also provide ranking list which groups universities into five broad fields of
research, namely 1) Natural sciences and mathematics, 2) Engineering sciences, technical sciences and
information technology, 3) Life sciences and agriculture, 4) Clinical medicine and pharmacy, and 5) Social
sciences. For this type of ranking list, SJTU uses two criterions, which are alumni and awards as well as
research output. Detail of indicators used for each criterion, together with their weights, is presented as
follows:

Table 2: Indicators and Weight Used in Shanghai ranking list – By Fields of Research
Criterion Indicators Weight

Alumni and 1. Number of alumni who earned a Nobel Prize or the prestigious Fields Medal in 10 %

 
 awards mathematics since 1951.
(excl. field 2. Number of researchers who earned a Nobel Prize in the fields of physics, chemistry, 15 %
2) medicine or economics and/or the prestigious Fields Medal in mathematics since 1961.
Research 3. Number of highly cited researchers in all five subject fields. 25 %
output 4. Number of articles listed in Thompson Scientific's Science Citation Index Expanded 25 %
and its Social Science Citation Index in 2006.
5. Percentage of articles published in the top 20% of scientific journals. 25 %
For field 2 1. Total expenditure devoted to research in the fields of Engineering/technology and 25 %
only computer science.

Source: Shanghai Jiao Tong University

British Times Higher Education Supplement (THES), which was compiled for the first time in 2004,
provides a worldwide ranking of 200 world universities based on five qualitative and quantitative indicators
mainly highlighted on how each university is contributing in international level. These indicators include
international reputation of university, international reputation among recruiters, international research
impact, teaching quality, and international outlook. To come to the final university ranking list, THES selects
about 600 universities. These universities were identified by scientific experts. Furthermore, global
ranking, rankings will be made by scientific fields. In addition, contrasting to the SJTU list, the THES
ranking list incorporates an internationally performed “Peer Review”. For about 6000 academics from five
continents have been inquired to recommend leading universities in the areas in which they are believed
experts. To avoid biases, the experts conducting the peer review cannot make any reference to their own
institution. Detail of indicators used for each criterion, together with their weights, is presented in the
following table:

Table 3: Indicators and Weight Used in THES

Criterion Indicator Weight

International reputation of 1. Peer Review: 6354 (in 2008) leading scholars evaluate universities in 40 %
university specific research areas.
International reputation (2) Worldwide interviews with 2339 (in 2008) recruiters at international 10 %
among recruiters corporations regarding the 20 universities with the most qualified
graduates.
International research 2. Number of citations in Thomson Scientific Database (2004-2006) or Scopus 20 %
impact (2007-2008) per faculty member.

 
 Teaching quality 3. Student/faculty ratio 20 %
International outlook 4. Number of international students 5%
International outlook 5. Number of international faculty members 5%
Source: Times Higher Education Supplement

Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), since early 2007, has built
up a ranking list which is exclusively based on bibliometric indicators. The list presented ranking results for
the 100 European universities with the greatest number of scientific publications. There are four indicators
used in producing the rank, which are:
1. Largest number of publications (P)
2. Number of citations per publication (CPP)
3. Total number of publications multiplied by the relative impact in the given field (P*CPP/FCSm)
4. The number of citations per publication divided by the average impact in the given field (CPP/FCSm)

Another ranking list is developed by the CHE. Not like other discussed ranking lists, this list does not
rate universities on the basis of the total number of points that they receive. Instead, the list made based on
the assumption that results obtained using the various assessment criteria cannot be aggregated and,
therefore, it is not possible to decide which university is the best. The universities can only be compared on
the basis of a given subject or partial aspect. Thus, the list is more of a rating system, in which universities
are measured based on a large number of indicators for each area of studies. The CHE list incorporates some
indicators which are purely informative in value and cannot be compared directly between universities.
Therefore, universities will rank in a different way depending on which indicator is used. By this
measurement, a university may find itself at the top of the list in one ranking and at the bottom of the list in
another. Not only that, the university also can assess its strengths and weakness as compared with others.
Additionally, the CHE list is found to be more objective since it takes the opinions of students, teachers and
university administrators into account. However, until today, the CHE ranking list is limited to German-
speaking universities, which makes international comparison very difficult.

3.3. Some Methodological Suggestions for Ranking of Universities Offering Islamic Economics and Finance
Programme
After observing the above ranking methodologies, this study attempted to develop a proposal for ranking the
universities offering Islamic economics and finance programmes by making some necessary adjustments
from the existing methodologies.

 
 Firstly, in order to select which universities should be taken into ranking qualification, independent
peer review has to be conducted. Not only that, surveys should also be sent to some recruiters who mainly
come from Islamic financial institutions. Shall the list of universities have been generated; ranking process
can be continued by assessing quality of teaching and staffs by looking at student/faculty ratio and number of
staffs/researchers who earned an IDB Prize or the prestigious Fields Medal in Islamic Economics and
Finance since the year of 2000. Furthermore, research output as well as size of the institution also be
considered as important indicators in this ranking process.
In addition, this study adds one indicator related with quality of study material. With this indicator,
comprehensiveness of study materials offered in the universities is assessed. This study recommends that
comprehensiveness of study materials should cover at least subjects of Fiqh Muamalah, Islamic Economics,
Islamic Banking, Islamic Financial Institutions and Market, Islamic Accounting. The indicator can be
assessed by calculating IEF subjects divided by total subjects taken by the students. However, this study does
not recommend international outlook to be taken into raking indicators since most of the lecturers as well as
students involve in the Islamic economics and finance programmes mostly are coming from local countries.
However, this indicator can be inserted later when the programmes have been developed further in the
future. After those considerations, the study comes with eight suggested indicators and their weights to be
used in ranking universities offering Islamic economics and finance programme.

Table 4: Some Suggested Indicators and Weight which can be Used in Raking Universities Offering
Islamic Economics and Finance Programme
Criterion Indicator Weight

Reputation of university
Reputation among
recruiters
Quality of Teaching
Quality of Staffs
Quality of Study Material
1. Peer Review: leading Islamic Economics and Finance scholars evaluate 10 %
universities.
2. Worldwide interviews with recruiters at international institutions which core 10 %
activities in Islamic Economics and Finance area regarding the 20 universities
with the most qualified graduates.
3. Student/faculty ratio 15 %
4. Number of staffs/researchers who earned an IDB Prize or the prestigious 15 %
Fields Medal in Islamic Economics and Finance since 2000.
5. Comprehensiveness of study materials which cover at least subjects of Fiqh 15 %
Muamalah, Islamic Economics, Islamic Banking, Islamic Financial Institutions
and Market, Islamic Accounting. This can be assessed by calculating IEF
subjects divided by total subjects taken by the students.

 
 Research output 6. Number of highly cited researchers in Islamic Economics and Finance. 15 %
7. Number of articles on Islamic Economics and Finance listed in referred 15 %
international journals.
Size of the institution 8. The weighted score of the above seven indicators divided by the number of 5%
full-time equivalent academic staff. If the number of academic staff for
institutions of a country cannot be obtained, the weighted scores of the
above seven indicators is used.
TOTAL 100%
Source: Author’s analysis

4. Conclusion and Recommendation

4.1. Conclusion
The study enlightens the need for adjusted ranking methodology to assess the quality of universities offering
Islamic economics and finance programme – types of learning programme which gradually become famous
after rapid development of the Islamic economics and finance sector in the world. This becomes an important
issue since current ranking system established by some international ranking institutions is found to be unfair
with these universities. In another side, ranking is needed for the universities to measure their strengths and
weaknesses as compared with other universities offering the specific programme of Islamic economics and
finance. Ranking is also needed for prospective students to find the best place for continuing their study in
Islamic economics and finance field. By comparing and contrasting existing ranking methodologies as well
as making necessary adjustments on the methodologies, the study recommends eight indicators to be used in
ranking universities offering Islamic economics and finance programme.

4.2. Recommendation
a. There should be an effort to address the many methodological problems of ranking lists for universities
offering Islamic economics, banking, and finance programme and to produce a series of quality principles and
good practices. These tasks can be conducted by prominent bodies such as IRTI-IDB or other international
center for higher education. In this case, experiences of International Ranking Expert Group1 and the Institute
for Higher Education Policy in Washington, D.C in producing the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher
Education Institutions can be taken as one of the learning sources.

                                                            
1
 This institution was founded by the UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education (UNESCO-CEPES) in 2004. 

 
 b. The eight indicators recommended in this study have to be reviewed by wide range of respondents to assess
its fairness and suitability. This task is beyond scope of this study and has to be continued in the next
research.

5. Reference
Ahmadi, A.M. (2005). Challenges Facing Islamic Economics Teaching System. Quarterly Journal of Islamic
Economics, 5 (18).

Haneef, M.A and Amin, R.M (2005). Teaching Islamic Economics at the Department of Economics, International
Islamic University Malaysia. Paper Presented at the 6th International Conference on Islamic Economics and
Finance, Jakarta.

Haneef, M.A. (2005). A Critical Survey of Islamization of Knowledge. Kuala Lumpur: IIUM.

Iqbal, M., and Molyneux, P. (2005). Thirty Years of Islamic Banking: History, Performance and Prospects. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kasri, R. A. (2008). Islamic Economics Higher Education: A Critical Survey. IAEI International Conference.
Surabaya.

Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). Retrieved June 25, 2009, from.
www.cwts.nl/cwts/LeidenRankingWebSite.html

Nienhaus, V. (2007). “Human Resources Management of Islamic Banks: Responses to Conceptual and Technical
Challanges” in Archer, S and Abdel Karim, R.A (eds), 2007, Islamic Finance: The Regulatory Challenge,
Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

Obaidullah, M. (2005). “Rating of Islamic Financial Institutions: Some Methodological Suggestions”. June 20,
2009, from http://islamiccenter.kaau.edu.sa/english/Publications/Obaidullah/rifi.pdf.

Siddiqi, M.N. (1997). Teaching of Economics at the University Level in Muslim Countries. Paper presented at the
World Conference on Muslim Education, Mecca.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University. (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2009, from www.sjtu.edu.cn/english 

The Times Higher Education Supplement. (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2009, from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

DAAD - CHE University Ranking. (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2009, from
http://www.daad.de/deutschland/hochschulen/hochschulranking/06543.en.html

 
 Annexure 1: University Ranking Issuers across the Universe

Rankings by educational authorities and institutions

1. China: Shanghai ranking list by Jiao Tong University in China.
2. German: Teaching and research ranking lists established by the "Zentrum für Hochschulentwicklung" (CHE),
published in "Die Zeit".
3. Netherlands: Leiden ranking list by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University.
4. USA: National Research Council's ranking list of research doctorate programmes

Rankings by magazines
5. Canada: Mac Lean's Magazine
6. France: Le Nouvel Observateur, Libération
7. Germany: Spiegel, Fokus, Wirtschaftswoche, Karriere
8. United Kingdom: Financial Times, The Times, Times Higher Education Supplement, The Guardian, Economist
9. USA: US News and World Report, Washington Monthly, Newsweek, Forbes, Business Week, Wall Street
Journal
 

10