2020年度泰晤士高等教育大学影响力排名:研究方法

THE大学影响力排名评估全球高等教育部门如何实现联合国可持续发展目标的努力。在此,我们将详细解释如何得出这些结果

四月 17, 2020

2020年度泰晤士高等教育大学影响力排名于4月22日中午12时(英国夏令时)公布


泰晤士高等教育大学影响力排名是唯一一个基于联合国可持续发展目标(SDGs)来评估全球大学的排名。我们采用经过精心校准的指标来全面且均衡地比较3个宽广领域,包括:研究推广管理

该排名包括哪些可持续发展目标?

联合国可持续发展目标共有17个,在第二版大学影响力排名中,我们评估大学在所有17项目标中的表现(点击查看单个类别的研究方法):

大学可以尽可能提交更多SDGs数据。每一个目标都有一系列指标来评估大学在该项的表现。

任何提供了SDG 17与至少3项其他可持续发展目标数据的大学将进入总排名。

除了总排名外,我们还将在17个单独排名中公布单项SDG的结果。这让我们能够为任何参与大学提供一个排名,即便它们无法进入总榜单。

排名是如何产生的?

一个大学的总分是根据SDG 17及剩余16项SDGs中最佳数据前三而综合计算的。其中,SDG 17占总分22%,而其他单个SDG各占26%。这将使不同大学能基于各自的重点领域获得不同目标组合的评分。 

每项SDG的评分均经过比例化,因此在总体计算中每个SDG的满分是100。这是为了对每个SDG得分范围内的细微差异进行调整,并确保公平地对待大学(无论该大学提供的是哪些SDG)。我们使用这些比例化的分数来确定大学在哪些SDG上表现最出色;它们有可能并非一所大学排名最高或未比例化分数最高的SDG。

这17项SDG的指标均展示在单项研究方法页面上。 

单项SDG内的评分

每项SDG中都有3类指标: 

研究指标来自爱思唯尔提供的数据。针对每项SDG,都有一个特定的列表,该列表将指标范围缩小到与该SDG相关的论文。与世界大学排名一样,我们使用的是2014年至2018年间的5年窗口期。唯一的例外是SDG 9中引用研究专利的指标,这与专利发布的时间框架有关,而非研究本身的发布时间。每项SDG所选择的文献计量有所不同,并且始终至少使用2种文献计量。

延续性指标旨在衡量在一个范围内持续的影响力的贡献,例如,获得健康相关学位的毕业生数量。这些通常根据机构规模进行标准化。

当我们询问政策和计划时,比如是否存在指导计划,我们的指标要求大学提供证据以支持其主张。在这些案例中,我们鼓励提交证据,尤其是公开数据。这些指标通常不会按照机构规模进行标准化。 

依照一组标准,我们将对证据进行评估,并在具有不确定性的部分进行交叉验证以做决策。所提交的数据并不需要彻底详尽——我们正在寻找一些有关院校的最佳实践作为示范。

时间线

除非另有说明,否则所用数据为距2018年1月至12月最近的学年。

排名资格

提交数据的大学必须教授本科生,并得到权威教育机构的认可,才能被纳入排名。

数据采集

机构提供并签署其用于排名的数据。在极少数情况下,如果特定数据点未被提供,我们将输入零。

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (8)

Given the existence of gender and ethnic inequalities in many universities across the world, it is necessary to make the following adjustments to the SDGs for future rankings: a.) Remove Reduced Inequalities with Reduced Ethnic Inequalities; b.) Change Gender Inequalities to Reduced Gender Inequalities; c.) Change Peace to Reduced Institutional Conflicts and put this as a separate SDG; d.) Put Justice and Institutional Strength as separate SDGs because the indicators of each are completely different. Given the negative impact of of gender and ethnic inequalities on health and wellbeing, then such universities should be placed on th lower end of the rankings for sDG3 Health and Wellbeing and SDG16 Peace and Justice. Also future university evaluations for ranking purposes should be conducted by different teams of researchers for each year. The same team should not conduct consecutive evaluations.
In the Impact Rankings Masterclasss on April 22nd 2020, it was mentioned that there were Four Aspects of Theory of Change: Research, Teaching, Stewardship and Outreach. Here it is mentioned that there are three categories of metrics. Can you please explain?
Thanks for your feedback. We have now updated this page and the four areas are listed at the top.
I've heard at other meetings that teaching is hard to integrate and doing so requires more work.
Can you please provide an update on the inclusion of Teaching (and associated methodological changes if any) for the next year's rankings across all SDGs but also specifically for SDG-11?
Hi, this page doesn't actually define what each of research, outreach and stewardship entail. Also, two other commentators above stated, it looks like these areas have been redefined as Research, Teaching, Stewardship and Outreach. Is this correct? If so, how is each defined? Thanks!
Thanks for your feedback. We have now updated this page and the four areas and definitions are listed at the top.
The UN SDGs are very important naturally, but they are not the sole preserve of universities. There are many other players and factors that are present. Are we in danger of making universities lose sight of their primary functions (which can include SDG 4 of course) over which it is they who have the most control, in their pursuit of ticking all the boxes to get higher in the university rankings?