[GUIDE] A closer look for research leaders – Avis

The score was calculated as:

  1. 26% of SDG 15 +
  2. 26% of SDG 14 +
  3. 26% of SDG 3 +
  4. 22% of SDG 17.

However, THE goes on to say,

The score from each SDG is scaled so that the highest score in each SDG in the overall calculation is 100. This is to adjust for minor differences in the scoring range in each SDG and to ensure that universities are treated equitably, whichever SDGs they have provided data for. It is these scaled scores that we use to determine which SDGs a university has performed most strongly in; they may not be the SDGs in which the university is ranked highest or has scored highest based on unscaled scores.

The Overall Impact Ranking has detractors. Can you add Gender Equality to Life Below Water? And then compare to another institution who is contributing to No Poverty and Zero Hunger?

In a piece written by Cesar Wazen, Director of International Affairs Office at Qatar University called, “Did the overall ranking mess it up?” he raises the point,

Why would you include an overall ranking if you want to highlight the efforts on each SDG, especially as some universities, by the constitution, cannot tackle all #SDGs, or at least 4 as the ranking requires?

stop watchWazen proposes that the Impact Rankings Overall Rank be more akin to the Formula 1 racing point system.

  1. 25 pts.
  2. 18 pts.
  3. 15 pts.
  4. 12 pts.
  5. 10 pts.
  1. 8 pts.
  2. 6 pts.
  3. 4 pts.
  4. 2 pts.
  5. 1 pts.

Wazen proposes that the Formula 1 style system rewards institutions that perform well in one SDG more than the current system. For example, a university with a great community connection and serves food to those in need, and does significant research into poverty reduction, is ranked high for SDG 2: Zero hunger. The high rank should carry more weight than a university with decent programs across the board, so their overall position is better. That is, Wazen says that high performers should get high benefits in the overall ranking system.

[GUIDE] A closer look for research leaders – Avis
4.9 (98%) 32 votes