The National Institution Ranking Framework (NIRF), an initiative by the Ministry of Education, recently released its national rankings for universities. However, several experts have pointed out flaws in the ranking system. This article sheds light on the NIRF’s ranking methodology, problems with the current approach, and potential repercussions of flawed rankings. It further proposes ways to improve this ranking system.
Understanding NIRF Ranking Methodology
NIRF releases rankings across several categories such as ‘Overall’, ‘Research Institutions’, ‘Universities’, and ‘Colleges’, and specific disciplines like engineering, management, pharmacy, law, etc. It determines ranks based on a total score derived from five indicators: Teaching, Learning & Resources (30% weightage); Research and Professional Practice (30%); Graduation Outcomes (20%); Outreach and Inclusivity (10%); and Perception (10%).
Identifying Issues with NIRF Ranking
The academic community has raised concerns about the methods used to establish these indicators. The current evaluation significantly focuses on research and professional practices, with considerably less importance given to other intellectual contributions. Critics argue that bibliometric measures overshadow non-traditional outputs such as books, popular articles, and other forms of grey literature. However, bibliometrics—measurable aspects of research like the number of papers published, citations, impact factors of journals—are favored due to their efficiency and convenience compared to qualitative assessments.
Repercussions of Flawed Rankings
Flawed rankings can mislead prospective students and parents, undermining the credibility and usefulness of the ranking framework. It could also lead to unfair competition among institutions and incentivize manipulation of the system. Additionally, important aspects of institutional excellence such as innovation, diversity, and social impact could be neglected. There are concerns that these flawed rankings could negatively affect foreign educational institutions’ reputation and competitiveness if they set up campuses in India.
Suggestions for NIRF Ranking Improvement
Improvements in the NIRF Ranking can be achieved by nurturing faculty research output through resources, incentives, and recognition. It is crucial that bibliometrics not be the sole criteria for evaluation and should be combined with other assessment forms, such as peer review, for informed decisions. An institutional repository to highlight and disseminate research publications and impact could also help.
Improvements in the teaching-learning process can be achieved by creating an outcome-based curriculum, using innovative pedagogies, and taking into account student feedback. The graduation outcomes can be enhanced by improving placement, entrepreneurship, and higher education opportunities for students.
Promoting outreach and inclusivity is also essential, which can be done by increasing diversity among students, faculty, staff, and active locale and global community engagement. Finally, NIRF Rankings must uphold transparency about what data they collect, how it is collected, and how it becomes the basis for the total score.