Country ranking

This Impact Report identifies and summarises the diverse impacts, resulting from the £500m of UK funding of Science and Technology in 2013, using numerous quantitative metrics and short case study extracts.  It shows how the varied impacts of a national science and technology organization and its many funded programmes can be annually identified, captured, tracked, and summarised in a public document.

The report was produced for, and by, the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) -  the UK Research Council responsible for funding: (1) all UK astronomy, particle and nuclear physics research, (2) related UK science and technology facilities (e.g. as Harwell and Daresbury), (3) the UK contribution to international science (e.g. CERN, international telescopes and space missions), (4) innovation and business spin-off programmes, and (5) UK public engagement activities.

The Report was co-researched and co-authored by the STFC Impact Team, including myself while Impact Evaluation Manager in 2013, with Dr. Claire Dougan-McCallie (lead author/Head of Impact) and Jenny Beard, with additional input from senior managers, and many data and case study contributions from other key managers across STFC.

Varied key impacts are identified and reported including:

• Research amongst the best (by citation impact) in astronomy, nuclear and particle physics.
• Supported research of 226 Principal Investigators in 70 universities, led to 1,100 peer-reviewed papers in 2012.
• Facilities (the Diamond Light Source, ISIS and CLF) were used in 2012/13 by over 4,200 unique users , in over 2,400 experiments, producing over 1,000 papers in peer-reviewed journals.

• Technology from CERN benefited the UK economy by over £100 billion every year.
• Funding the development of the UK’s space, internet and computer animation industries, returned over £500 billion to the UK economy per annum.
• Funded Innovation Campuses hosted over 230 enterprises and supported over 5,000 jobs.
• UK industry won £43 million in contracts from the international subscriptions funded, and had accumulated a total of £150 million since 2005.

• Funded research inspired future generations to study STEM subjects, attracting 90% of UK undergraduates to study physics, funded 782 PhD students  and 16,800 student training days.
• Between 2009 to 2012 public engagement programmes engaged people on 58 million occasions, with 2 million people engaged in face-to-face activities in 2013 alone.

Companies seeking to expand abroad are faced with the complex task of screening and evaluating foreign markets. How can managers define, characterize, and express foreign market opportunity? What makes a good market, an attractive industry environment? National markets differ in terms of market attractiveness, due to variations in the economic and commercial environment, growth rates, political stability, consumption capacity, receptiveness to foreign products, and other factors. This research proposes and illustrates the use of two complementary approaches to preliminary foreign market assessment and selection: country clustering and country ranking. These two methods, in combination, can be extremely useful to managerial decision makers in the early stages of foreign market selection.

The reasonability of the construction of classificatory rankings of societies and related theoretical implications are considered in this paper. I argue that existing classificatory rankings are based on the essentialist views and represent societies as homogenous entities whereas they ignore intra-societal variety. Moreover, the quantitative methodology and methods which underlie those rankings are based on the etic approach and use concepts and indicators which are constructed in the west and don’t reflect indigenous socio-cultural dynamics. Besides, existing rankings simply equalize particular aspects to the whole societal development. For example, gross domestic product is equalized to the level of societal development; however, it actually can’t fully reflect even the situation in the economic field. Though it can be still reasonable to use such impersonal indicators as gross domestic product or longevity which are based entirely on impersonal data and are free from subjective interpretations, for the exploration of general tendencies in particular fields, however, we should restrain ourselves from invalid generalizations. Krys et al. proposed to elaborate culturally sensitive approach, however, still remained in frame of the etic approach, whereas I argue that the only way for the comprehensive and deeper assessment of the level of societal development is to construct a fully emic and indigenous approach that implies the usage of only locally constructed concepts during the definition of indicators. Those indigenous concepts most probably won’t be translatable to other languages that make the aim of the creation of a unified scale theoretically impossible; however, this is the only way for getting valid results at least concerning particular societies with current methodological apparatus. The solution to this issue requires further theoretical development and methodological innovations.

Ranking of agents competing with each other in complex systems may lead to paradoxes according to the pre-chosen different measures. A discussion is presented on such rank–rank, similar or not, correlations based on the case of European countries ranked by UEFA and FIFA from different soccer competitions. The first question to be answered is whether an empirical and simple law is obtained for such (self-) organizations of complex sociological systems with such different measuring schemes. It is found that the power law form is not the best description contrary to many modern expectations. The stretched exponential is much more adequate. Moreover, it is found that the measuring rules lead to some inner structures in both cases.

In the late 1990s, some institutions started discussing the idea of comparing universities and educational institutions according to certain criteria. Since then, the rankings of universities have become widespread. With the rapid spread, extended and developed scientific progress and technological development every day as we have not seen before, and with the increasing spread of the Internet, these sites have become dependent on the Internet to obtain the data they rely on in the ranking of these universities. Because the ranking of universities, educational institutions, higher education institutions, colleges, and institutes is one of the main elements that have been used in the past two centuries, and because the ranking of universities has become one of the most important ways and means to measure the development or decline of universities, it was important to clarify the mechanisms of the ranking of universities in This period of the twenty-first century and the expected perception for tanking of university for the future period. The aim of this research paper is to present a study on the methods and methodologies that can be used to measure the ranking of universities, taking into account the technological development that has taken place over the past period and to determine what is the possibility of relying on the ranking in the future as a tool to measure the progress and development of universities and the possibility of relying on the Internet as a reliable means of ranking. Observations regarding the educational institutions' perception of ranking are also discussed.

City rankings disclose strategic information about cities. Due to the nature of rankings, they inherently encourage people to take a relational and competitive view of cities, which contributes to the knowledge base of local economic policy. However, such a view is hampered by poor methodology and the generalist approach typical of many rankings. Especially when they use multiple criteria, this dramatically affects the overall scores and ranking order.