Readers might need some inspiration for trivia questions about the latest Times Higher Education Impact Rankings so I thought I’d help out. The Russia Federation had more universities represented than any other country in the 2022 rankings BUT in which SDG category are none of them listed? It’s a good test of whether anyone can remember all the SDGs but for those that can, the unsurprising answer would be Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.
This is despite the fact that 49* Russian institutions were listed in that category in the 2021 rankings and it highlights the big problem when you allow universities to self-report and select which categories they enter because they can be really quite good at some things but ignore or even oppose others. It is difficult to see how a Russian institution could be good at, say, “peace” when there could be 15 years in prison and other serious penalties for mentioning “war” or “invasion”. Strong institutions also come under serious pressure when Russian Political Rights rank a 5/40 and Civil Liberties rank 14/60 according to Freedom House.
Universities can be enfeebled as institutions by political power and the outcome can be that they even become agents of coercion and repression. Examples include the Higher School of Economics restricting political activism on campus in 2020 and more recently hundreds of students reported as having been expelled and some students playing an active role in hunting down activist teachers. The tightening of the Russian Government’s grip on senior administrative appointments and strategic direction is well documented and one author has suggested, “controlling universities via rector appointment may serve as an instrument for controlling young minds.”
THE Fails On Effective Action to Minimise Credibility, Prestige and Marketing
Also, unsurprising is that the universities have continued to use their presence in the Impact Rankings to publicise themselves despite the words of Times Higher Education Chief Executive Paul Howarth on 4 March that “we will be taking steps to ensure that Russian universities are not using branding or other promotional opportunities offered by THE until further notice.” Here’s a snip from Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University showing how feeble that statement was and why the THE should ban institutions from the rankings.
It would be good to think that the full weight of the THE’s legal machinery might come crashing down on the Russian universities that are continuing to use the organization’s logo and public properties for their own promotional purposes. But as we have seen in a previous blog Study Portals, the THE’s partners in monetizing student mobility, also continues to promote the THE ranking of Russian universities. The statement from THE looks increasingly like a cynical PR ploy to play for time and hope that nobody remembered the promises made.
Lilliput or Brobdingnag
In Jonathan Swift’s books Gulliver becomes a giant amongst the people of the island country of Lilliput during his first voyage because they are only 6 inches tall. But the second voyage takes him to a peninsula called Brobdingnag where he lives with a farmer who is about 72 feet tall. It is a reminder that there is a perspective to most things and the Impact Rankings are worth considering in that respect.
So, another good trivia question might be – universities in which countries seem disinterested in the Impact Rankings? A good answer might be the USA where only 42 universities are shown but even lower is China where only 13 universities are featured. The USA number is even down on last year’s 45.
It is difficult to believe that the USA does not have more than that number of institutions with a strong record in sufficient SDG categories to make a bid for the top place. As it is, only one of the 12 US institutions who rank in the THE’s own world top 20 seems to have taken part. Neither of the Chinese universities in the world top 20 are mentioned in the Impact Rankings and the three from the UK are also missing.
Professor Barney Glover of the table topping Western Sydney University recognised the problem and commented, “there are too many of the very strong and powerful universities in the world that are not recognised” in the Impact Rankings.” His university’s website doesn’t go so far as to acknowledge that situation or that less than half the universities in the World Rankings feature in the Impact Rankings. But I think he may realizes that WSU was visiting Lilliput on this occasion.
Writing in University World News Dr Anand Kulkarni makes the point that while the number of Indian universities participating grew that “what is also noticeable is that, unlike the World University Rankings, the famed Indian Institutes of Technology are not as prominent.” Rankings expert Ellen Hazelkorn noted that absence of many leading universities “may not be due to their poor(er) performance but rather their choice not to participate” and commented on the THE Impact Rankings reliance on “self-reported and interpreted data”. If, as claimed by THE chief knowledge officer, Phil Baty the Impact Ranking are “redefining excellence in global higher education” it rather makes one wonder why the THE don’t have the courage of their convictions and drop their other league tables.
There is a tradition in the English Football Association Challenge Cup (the FA Cup) that there are qualifying rounds before the First Round Proper when teams from the bottom two tiers of the professional Leagues join. The Second Round Proper sees the teams from the second tier join and finally the Premier League teams join for the Third Round Proper. The Impact Rankings look a little like selecting the winner of the FA Cup long before the Third Round Proper.
Not The Only Game In Town
This is not to argue that many of the institutions who enter aren’t doing magnificent work in some areas related to the SDGs. But it does suggest that some institutions have recognized that the THE Impact Rankings are just another attempt to build rankings for commercial benefit and private equity gain or are simply unwilling to undertake the extra administration for little gain. There are also other channels, with Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech, Rice, Harvard and Northeastern not featuring in the Impact Rankings but all being mentioned in a recent United Nations Foundation blog highlighting innovative ways progress on the SDGs is being driven by universities in the US.
There is also increasing evidence that students are less interested in rankings and more focused on employability while interest in the SDGs seems less evident. The THE’s own research suggests that “only 16 per cent said they would choose a university that had a worse reputation for teaching and research if it had a better reputation for sustainability.” It may be that the refusal of significant numbers of universities to become involved is a sign that the merry go round of league table mania has passed its peak.
Note:
The title of this blog is a small nod to the classic tune “(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace Love and Understanding” written by Nick Lowe and originally released by his band Brinsley Schwarz in 1974. It became more famous when recorded by Elvis Costello and the Attractions in 1978 but even then was only a B-side. It has been played by many artists to reflect hope in troubled times and the message seems very pertinent right now.
Image by Joan Cabras from Pixabay
*As a note of clarification. In its Overall Rankings list the THE only shows the top three scores of the institution plus their SDG17 ranking. They list separately, presumably for all institutions registering a score in the specific category, the ranking for each individual SDG. Thus, in 2021, 27 out of 75 Russian institutions had SDG 16 count towards their overall ranking but 49 were listed as having a score in the SDG 16 category.