Times Higher Education (THE) released its seventh edition of its Impact Rankings (IR) on 18 June. It is the biggest edition ever and one that is likely to be widely discussed, because of its continued volatility and the need to address several shortcomings.
This volatility is driven by a significant increase in the number of participating institutions; amended guidance from THE, limiting the assessable evidence to one piece per indicator, when previously it was two or three pieces per indicator; and THE needing to expand its panel of reviewers and assessment processes, given the increased participation of institutions.
Western Sydney does it again
Australian universities still perform remarkably well and dominate at the top. Among the world’s top 50, 10 are from Australia, followed by Canada (7), the United Kingdom (6), and South Korea (5).
Western Sydney ranks first globally for a fourth consecutive year. This is an impressive achievement considering this ranking continues to evolve and is resource intensive to undertake.
Griffith made a significant improvement from 72nd in 2023 to 24th last year and is now equal 4th globally with Tasmania, along with UNSW at 11th globally.
Another six institutions are included in the world’s top 50: Flinders is a new entrant and ranked equal 21st with Japan’s Yonsei University; Central Queensland, Wollongong, UTS, Newcastle and Macquarie rank in the 25 to 50 range. Overall, 11 Australian universities are ranked in the top 100.
As I have previously argued, this is remarkable for a country that shows mixed performance when it comes to demonstrating progress towards achieving targets for the United Nations’ sustainable development agenda. Australia’s 2024 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) scorecard report indicates that moderate progress is seen in eight SDGs, stagnating progress in seven, decreasing progress in one (SDG 1 no poverty), and maintaining achievement in one (SDG 5 Gender equality).
Globally more unis but fewer Australian
The global appetite for participation in this ranking remains unabated. This year, 2,318 institutions across 130 countries have an overall rank, compared to 1,963 institutions in 2024 or 462 in 2019.
Once more, we see that there were fewer Australian universities that submitted data to at least two or more SDGs – 24 compared to 26 in 2024. However, only 20 are included in the overall rank.
Interestingly, Australian universities are actively engaged in global rankings and use them to attract students and talent, but the fact that approximately half of Australian universities participate in THE IR is a concern. Coincidently, no Australian university has participated in the GreenMetric Ranking since 2019, and only two have current rating for the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS).
Out of the 43 Australian universities, 10 have participated in THE-IR every year: ACU, CQU, Charles Darwin, Macquarie, QUT, RMIT, Tasmania, Wollongong, UNSW, and Western Sydney.
Global standouts
Over the past seven years, the University of Manchester has been the only institution that has ranked every year in the world’s top 10.
Western Sydney also stands out as it has ranked every year in the top 20; but most importantly, it has been number one for the past four years.
The University of Auckland also stands out as it has ranked four times in the top 10, twice in the top 20. and now stands 28th globally.
Bologna, British Columbia, McMaster, RMIT, Queen’s, Alberta, and Arizona State are also universities that have done very well over the years.
Furthermore, Korea’s Kyungpook National University, Aalborg, Airlangga have made considerable progress over the years in THE IR and are among the world’s top 10.
All these universities have been committed to environmental sustainability and progressing the development goals for several years.
Listings and preferred SDGs
This ranking is designed to showcase how institutions are working towards addressing the United Nations’ SDGs.
As we have seen, the 17 SDGs are not all viewed equally across countries and world regions. Universities prefer some SDGs over others due to differences in institutional missions, priorities, or hierarchical needs. It is also driven by the likelihood of ranking higher in the rankings.
There are 36 instances across the 17 SDGs in which Australian universities rank in the top 10. These listings are across 13 universities, of which Western Sydney has 10 followed by Griffith with eight.
Aside from the compulsory SDG 17 (Partnership for the Goals), the top four most reported SDGs by Australian universities, in descending order, are SDG 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).
The least reported SDGs among Australian universities, in ascending order, are SDG 1 (No Poverty), followed by SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).
In turn, the top four most reported SDGs globally are, in descending order, SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing), SDG 5 (Quality Education), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). Whilst the least reported SDGs globally are, in ascending order, SDG 14 (Life below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
The University of Tasmania is ranked 1st globally in SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). Flinders is ranked 2nd globally in SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and Newcastle is ranked 2nd globally in SDG 13 (Climate Action).
We should celebrate the nine Australian universities which submitted data and evidence to all 17 SDGs. These institutions are Wollongong, Newcastle, Canberra, Charles Sturt, Tasmania, Federation, UNSW Sydney, Western Sydney, and Southern Cross.
Not for the faint-hearted
Let me reiterate two observations I made in 2022. Firstly, participation in THE IR is not for the faint-hearted.
There are years in which an institution’s performance will be up and then down. We have seen how some institutions have done very well in some years and then drop. And we have observed that institutions that have long-term strategic objectives reap the rewards years down the line. Dissecting the results and comparing performance against the best practices provide a solid basis to develop a plan for improvement.
Secondly, attention to detail matters when preparing submission for THE; in 2024 alone, THE says it received more than 270,000 evidence documents from participating institutions across the globe. We have also seen that weak or poorly presented evidence is costly.
AI assessing evidence
The sheer volume of information submitted by institutions has required THE employ more staff to assess all evidence provided by institutions. THE has also said that about 50% of the evidence submitted in 2024 by institutions was found to be not relevant, highlighting a real struggle among universities to identify and submit appropriate supporting materials.
THE has said that using traditional human validation methods alone is unsustainable given the volume of evidence submitted, while also ensuring consistency and accuracy.
As a result, THE is increasingly adopting AI practices as a step in the evaluation process. Large language models are being considered to support the evidence validation process. This step is welcome and a game changer, but it will also bring a degree of variability and ongoing adjustment.
The use of AI also has the potential to further entrench institutional inequalities. Resource-rich institutions and those who have developed AI frameworks and models are likely to benefit the most.
In coming days, THE will be announcing changes to the impact rankings. In a subsequent commentary, I will discuss the implications of these changes. However, I would suggest that stability in results and increased participation of research intensive, historical and resource-rich institutions is by no means a fait accompli.
Angel Calderon is Director, Strategic Insights at RMIT University and is a member of the advisory board to QS World University Rankings.