It is increasingly difficult to take the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings seriously but the tone-deafness, doublethink, obfuscation and self-delusion becomes ever more extraordinary. The only blot on the comedic value of the Rankings is that they continue to highlight Russia and Afghanistan universities – one group in a country in thrall to a leader whose war has killed tens of thousands and the other in a country where women cannot enrol in higher education. There seems no way in which the SDGs were intended to be used to provide publicity and credibility for countries deliberately applying policies decried by the United Nations.
Same Old, Same Old
We are told that the “The Impact Rankings are inherently dynamic…we expect and welcome regular change in the ranked order of institutions (and we discourage year-on-year comparisons)…”. Unfortunately, the THE corporate communications department didn’t read the memo because they announced, “Western Sydney University claims the Impact title for the second year running with a near-perfect score” – which sounds rather like a year on year comparison. Further diminishing the sense of dynamism is that eight of the top twelve are the same as last year.
Five of the 2023 top twelve have been in the top twelve since 2020. It would probably be higher but Kings College, University of Leeds and University of Sydney, who were in the top twelve in 2020, have all dropped out of the table completely. There seems to be the possibility that some of the very best universities with strong SDG credentials are ignoring the Impact Rankings because they recognize the inherent weaknesses.
It should not be surprising that universities who choose to be part of this manipulable process are able to enhance their performance. Universities are full of administrators and academics who are good at passing exams so shame on Newcastle University and Hakkaido University for falling from eight and ten last year to 24 and 22 in 2023. Perhaps a new ranking should be based on calling out institutions that cannot maintain or improve their position on a yearly basis.
It is slightly bemusing that King AbdulAziz University was a non-runner in 2023 after being in fourth place the year before. Is it possible that they could not find any researchers willing to sign over a sufficient number of citations or maybe the failure to come top was too much to bear? A related anomaly is that it features rankings from AWRU, QS and US News World Report on its International Rankings page but nothing from THE.
Living In the Past
As previously noted, the data in the rankings is based on 2021, the era before ChatGPT, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the implosion of Boris Johnson’s premiership. Unfortunately, this means that any student relying on the rankings to make judgements about institutions is going to be sadly misled. Not that this matters to the way THE and their enablers like Study Portals use rankings to monetize student eyeballs.
The most egregious example of the Impact Rankings failure to keep up to date is the increase in the number of Afghanistan universities in the Impact Rankings. Going from two to three listed entrants is bad enough after a year in which they have followed their government’s edict to prevent women going to university. Two of the three have scores under SDG 5, which is specifically about Gender Equality and the aim to “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, while to add insult to grievous injury their score in that category is better than hundreds of other institutions.
It seems extraordinary that nobody at the THE was paying sufficient attention to understand the condemnation of the world at the exclusion of women from education in Afghanistan. As noted in previous blogs it might be reasonable to think that the lack of women in the board ranks of THE and its owners contributes to this indifference. It is, however, very difficult to think of a good excuse for the Advisory Board which one might hope has some members with a broader perspective on justice, equity and decency.
From Glasnost to Skrytnost
It was all the rage to celebrate glasnost and perestroika in the 1980s but openness and restructuring in Russia have long given way to autocratic rule and whim. Maybe that’s why the THE’s treats some Russian university scores in the spirit of what the Washington Post termed “skrytnost: – derived from the Russian verb skryt meaning “to conceal”. It is unacceptable for a ranking that trumpets its supposed transparency to offer no explanation for blanking Russian university scores for SDG 16, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.
It must be bad enough for the compilers that Russian universities continue to be the single largest number of entrants to the Impact Rankings but totally infuriating that many choose to be scored on their support of the very virtues that the country currently seems to lack. Unfortunately, the THE seem to accept whatever is submitted, adds it to the total, then blanks it out as if it was some secret. There is no explanation in the methodology which only reminds everyone that the scoring itself is a matter of, um, autocratic rule and whim.
The continued presence of Russian universities in the league tables and the way they are publicized as study destinations by THE Student is another reminder that the entire premise of the tables is to commercialize data and sell consultancy rather than enrich the sector. While the Ukranians are on a counter-offensive to remove the aggressors from their lands the Impact Rankings celebrate universities whose Rectors publicly endorsed Putin’s war. If their decision was based on a quick Russian victory it is time to reconsider.
Reputation Bust?
For all the noise from those going up in the Impact Rankings an analysis shows that only three of the top 12 institutions (Manchester, Arizona State and Alberta) feature in the THE’s own World Reputation Rankings. This might suggest that academics see the Impact Rankings as a refuge for those who feel the need to please their governing bodies but not as a genuine marker of global quality. It’s a bit like football fans getting excited when their team wins the Europa Conference League while those supporting serial contenders for the Champions League are not so easily impressed1.
Nobody expects the THE to give up on its money-go-round of league tables any time soon but it is remarkable that after five years most universities have declined to spend the time, effort or money to engage in the Impact Rankings. One might argue this is because they recognize the dangers of being involved in a competition that is easily rigged and where the referees might just be willing to tip the scales a different way to create a headline. The evidence suggests that absence does not impact the credibility of absentees at all.
Notes
1. For those who do not follow European football, the Europa Conference League is the third tier of European competition after the Champions League and Europa League. With apologies to West Ham United fans I would say it has much in common with any other conference – you go not knowing anything about the people you’ll meet, you end up in many dreary rooms discussing irrelevant things and you return to a pile of work. Football fans will know that in that sentence you can replace “people” with teams, “rooms” with stadiums and “pile of work” with relegation trouble. If you’re lucky you get a certificate of attendance (known as the Europa Conference League trophy).
Image by WikiImages from Pixabay