General Studies Paper 2
Introduction
- In a country as diverse as India, ranking universities and institutions is not an easy task. The Ministry of Education established the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) in 2016 to determine the critical indicators in which institutions’ performance could be measured. Since then, institutions nationwide, including universities and colleges, eagerly await their standings in this nationally recognised system every year.
Ranking by NIRF
- NIRF ranks institutes by their total score and it uses five indicators to determine this score — ‘Teaching, Learning & Resources’ (30% weightage); ‘Research and Professional Practice’ (30%); ‘Graduation Outcomes’ (20%); ‘Outreach and Inclusivity’ (10%); and ‘Perception’ (10%).
- Academic communities have had concerns about the construction of these indicators, the transparency of the methods used, and the overall framework.
- An important part of it is focused on the research and professional practices part of the evaluation because they pay a lot of attention to bibliometric measures.
- Currently, the NIRF releases rankings across various categories: ‘Overall’, ‘Research Institutions’, ‘Universities’, and ‘Colleges’, and specific disciplines like engineering, management, pharmacy, law, etc.
- The rankings are an important resource for prospective students navigating the labyrinth of higher education institutions in India.
Bibliometrics
- Bibliometrics refers to the measurable aspects of research, such as the number of papers published, the number of times they are cited, and the impact factors of journals.
- The allure of bibliometrics as a tool for assessing research output lies in its efficiency and convenience compared to qualitative assessments performed by subject experts, which are more resource-intensive and require time.
- However, science policy experts have cautioned authorities against relying too much on bibliometrics as a complete assessment.
- They argued that bibliometric indicators don’t fully capture the intricacies of scientific performance, and that we need a more comprehensive evaluation methodology.
Issue with overly relying on bibliometrics
- This criticism has been levelled against the NIRF vis-a-vis the efficacy and fairness of its approach to ranking universities.
- For example, the NIRF uses commercial databases, such as ‘Scopus’ and ‘Web of Science’, to get bibliometric data. But these entities aren’t impervious to inaccuracies or misuse.
- The NIRF’s publication-metrics indicator solely considers research articles, sidelining other forms of intellectual contributions, such as books, book chapters, monographs, non-traditional outputs like popular articles, workshop reports, and other forms of grey literature.
- As a result, the NIRF passively encourages researchers to focus on work that is likelier to be published in journals, especially international journals, at the cost of work that the NIRF isn’t likely to pay attention to.
- This in turn disprivileges work that focuses on national and local issues, as international journals prefer work on topics of global significance.
Transparency of NIRF
- University rankings are controversial. NIRF, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, and the QS World University Rankings all have flaws.
- Experts have emphasised that they ought to be transparent about the data they collect, the sources and how they collect it, and how that data becomes the basis for the total score.
- The NIRF is partly transparent as it publicly shares its methodology, but it doesn’t provide a detailed view.
- The framework for assessment and scoring are based on bibliometric data. However, there is a potential discrepancy in how they label research quantity and quality. The labels in question are imprecise and potentially misleading.
Conclusion
No matter how rigorous the methods, university rankings invariably involve some level of ambiguity. The NIRF’s emphasis on rankings can lead to unhealthy competition between universities, fostering a culture that puts metrics in front of the thing they are trying to measure: excellence in education and research.
Read More