Tag: russiaukrainewar

Rankings Have No Deep Impact

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

THE’s Russian Ranking Reprise

Despite a year of slaughter, destruction and probable war crimes in Ukraine the Times Higher Education (THE) continues to turn its eyes away from the obvious step of excluding the names of Russian universities from its rankings.  As the drumbeat starts for the launch of the 2023 Impact Rankings at the end of May 2023, the THE has already announced that Russia will again have the most institutions taking part.  We are also told that they are “expecting data to come from a single academic year: 2021” so there would appear to be no chance of revulsion at an institution’s support for unprovoked war, deaths and a refugee crisis impacting on its ranking.

The Sustainable Development Goals are a decent and positive attempt to build a better world and universities are right to consider how they might play a part in that endeavour.  This makes it particularly unfortunate that the THE Impact Rankings have ignored the underlying principles to give continued encouragement to institutions that have backed Putin’s war.  There is even more to suggest how this distorted world view undermines the credibility of the rankings and the organization.      

Indifference and Inaction

The THE Chief Executive Office expressed “solidarity with Ukranian people” on behalf of the company in March 2022 and claimed “we will allow the rankings to do what they are designed to do, and show the world the impact of those [Russian government] decisions..”.  He conveniently forgot to mention that it would be years before the rankings reflected the impact of the war and may even have hoped, in best WW1 jingoistic fashion, that it would all be over by Christmas.  Imagine if every other business, Government and individual that has supported Ukraine through resources, funding, boycotts or direct action, had decided it would wait more than two years before doing anything.

He went on to say that “..we will of course keep the situation under constant review, and will not hesitate to take further steps if we believe it is necessary to do so.”  As far as one can see there has been no further action, no further statements and no further interest despite more than a year of bloodshed and atrocities.  In that respect, the Impact Rankings have become a monument to the indifference of the THE’s leadership.      

Lack of Transparency

Even the THE doesn’t seem able to stomach the notion of Russian universities parading their credentials on SDG 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Social Institutions.  It is difficult to see any other reason that they would blank the scores for this SDG in the rankings of Russian institutions.  However, there is no explanation in the methodology as to whether there is still a score counting towards the overall ranking of the institution, whether it is zeroed or if there is some other fix.

When a senior data scientist at the THE was asked to explain the methodology no response was received1.  It’s not a very good look given claims about the openness and integrity of the rankings. But it should be a timely reminder to every participant that the methodology is subject to the whims of the compilers.

Allowing Brand Endorsement

Meanwhile, Russian universities remain entirely content to maximise the publicity they get from featuring in the rankings. For example, Altai State University features their ranking, complete with blanked out boxes on SDG 16, as part of their marketing.  Their corporate statement reflects glowingly on what they position as “the third nomination, in which the university was awarded, was…Goal No. 16.”

It seems beyond belief that the THE cannot see that its logo, rankings and reputation are being used as an endorsement for Russian universities.  Neither do they seem to realize that league table endorsement is exactly what the Russian government requires of the institutions. The minimal efforts made by the THE to reduce these bragging rights have manifestly failed and allows Putin’s regime to claim a semblance of normality and acceptance in the world university community.

Promoting Russia as a Study Destination

The THE continues to actively promote Russian universities, allowing easy and searchable access to university courses to 457 courses in the Russian Federation.  Courses from HSE University (shown here) are also publicized, along with many other Russian universities, by Studyportals who act as a THE partner and facilitator in exploiting student eyes on league tables.  It is difficult to see that this is not contributing to Russia’s continued success in attracting international students. 

Hapless, Hopeless or Worse

It seems reasonable to accept the Ukranian group Progresylni taking any opportunity to understand how they can raise the profile of Ukraine and its fight for academic survival. We should all feel humbled by their willingness to look forward while facing a devastating attack on their country. The uncomfortable truth is that the THE’s unwillingness to act means that the names of Ukranian institutions in the rankings continue to stand next to those from an invading power which continues to build a reputation for crushing academic freedom.

In the Impact Rankings Ukranian institutions are outnumbered by around three Russian universities to one Ukranian which, according to Statista, makes the ratio slightly better than the advantage that Russia has in active soldiers.  With a single decision the THE could allow Ukrainians to enjoy the rankings without the presence of the aggressors. A reformulation of a line from David Sedaris might suggest that these are circumstances where humbled can be found between hapless and hypocrisy in the dictionary. 

Keeping Bad Company

Nobody really expects the THE to give up on the money-go-round that is the university rankings and they may have already anticipated an end game in the war.  It could come down to a calculation of the odds on who prevails or who will have the most university buildings left standing in the long-term.  The needs of private investors and owners, Inflexion, may also make it seem important to keep the doors to revenue open for all possibilities.

What we do know is that the Impact Rankings are manipulable and there is an emerging consistency about those who most want to be involved.  The top three countries involved in 2023 will be Russia (92), Japan (91) and Turkey (84) with two sharing the distinction of having a so called “hard man” at the top and all three being in the bottom 40% of the Academic Freedom Index. In the 2022 Impact Rank the five countries with the most entries – Russia (94), Japan (76), Pakistan (63), India (61) and Turkey (57) – were all in the bottom 40% of the Index.  

In Turkey (which is in the bottom 10% of the Index), President Erdogan signed a decree that allowed him to appoint a president to any university in the country and did so at Bogazici University which he claimed, “failed to understand and incorporate itself to the nation’s values.”   He appointed Melih Bulu as president and while protests erupted and students were arrested “Bulu kept repeating his main promise of improving Bogazici’s international university ranking…”.  While Bulu was eventually removed2 it suggests how pernicious the rankings can be in creating a lever for politicians to ride roughshod over academic freedom.

Even in countries considered to be relatively liberal democracies the rankings have become a dumbed down touchstone for awarding visas in a way that is both vapid and discriminatory.  It is not too far-fetched to believe that rankings are already a vanity project for every wannabe dictator or authoritarian government that wants credibility on the world stage and are becoming a simplistic measure for politicians to judge value in higher education.  It is, after all, much easier to expect universities to manipulate their rankings submission, than to allow academics and students to build a liberal, challenging community where governments are critiqued and challenged. 

NOTES

  1. The individual had been openly looking at my LinkedIn profile. After the message was sent they disappeared from view on my account. Strange behaviour.
  2. Before cheering the demise of Melih Bulu it’s worth noting that Professor Mehmet Naci Inci was appointed (by Erdogan) despite the opposition of 95% of the institution’s academics. In January 2022 he removed three deans of school for their part in protests then in August 2022 he suspended 16 academics who protested “..against presidentially appointed rectors at the school..”. In February 2023 an Istanbul court sentenced 14 Boğaziçi University students each to six months in prison for staging a protest over his appointment.

Image by Andrew Martin from Pixabay 

(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions?

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.