THE Impact Rankings 2020 by SDG: gender equality (SDG 5) methodology

April 17, 2020

Browse the full Impact Rankings 2020 results


This ranking focuses on universities’ research on the study of gender, their policies on gender equality and their commitment to recruiting and promoting women. The SDG itself phrases this explicitly as supporting women. We cannot hope to develop the world sustainably if the needs of over half of our population are not addressed.

Please view the methodology for the Impact Rankings 2020 to find out how these data are used in the overall ranking. 

Metrics

Research (27%)

  • Proportion of a university’s total research output that is authored by women (10%)
  • Proportion of papers on gender equality in the top 10 per cent of journals as defined by Citescore (10%)
  • Number of publications on gender equality (7%)

This focuses on research that is relevant to the study of gender, measuring the proportion of papers in the top 10 per cent of cited journals and the volume of research produced. We also look at the proportion of publications authored by women.

The data are provided by Elsevier’s Scopus dataset and based on a query of keywords associated with SDG 5 (gender equality). The dataset includes all indexed publications between 2014 and 2018. The gender of authors is estimated by Elsevier. The data are normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Proportion of first-generation female students (15.4%)

This is defined as the number of women starting a first (bachelor’s) degree who identify as being the first person in their immediate family to attend university, divided by the total number of women starting a first (bachelor’s) degree. All data are provided as full-time equivalents.

The data were provided directly by universities and normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Student access measures (15.4%)

  • Track application, acceptance and completion rates for female students (1.6%)
  • Policy addressing application, acceptance, entry and participation rates for female students (4.6%)
  • Provision of appropriate women’s access schemes, such as mentoring (4.6%)
  • Encourage applications in areas where women are under-represented (4.6%)

The data and evidence for these metrics were provided directly by universities. The evidence was evaluated and scored by Times Higher Education and is not normalised.

Proportion of senior female academics (15.4%)

This is defined as the number of women in senior roles, divided by the total number of senior roles in the university. Senior roles can include professorships, deanships and senior university leaders. The category does not include honorary positions. All data are provided as full-time equivalents.

The data were provided directly by universities and normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Proportion of women receiving degrees (11.5%)

This is defined as the number of women who are awarded a first (bachelor’s) degree, divided by the total number of students who are awarded a first (bachelor’s) degree. The data are provided as headcounts and subject-weighted against three broad areas: STEM; medicine; and arts, humanities and social sciences.

The data and evidence were provided directly by universities. The data are normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Women’s progress measures (15.3%)

  • Policy of non-discrimination against women (1.95%)
  • Policy of non-discrimination against transgender people (1.95%)
  • Maternity and paternity policies that support women’s participation (1.9%)
  • Accessible childcare facilities for students (1.9%)
  • Accessible childcare facilities for staff (1.9%)
  • Women’s mentoring schemes, in which at least 10 per cent of female students participate (1.9%)
  • Track women’s graduation rate compared with men’s and scheme in place to close any gap (1.9%)
  • Policy protecting those reporting discrimination (1.9%)

The data and evidence for these metrics were provided directly by universities. The evidence was evaluated and scored by Times Higher Education and is not normalised.

Evidence

When we ask about policies and initiatives, our metrics require universities to provide the evidence to support their claims. Evidence is evaluated against a set of criteria and decisions are cross validated where there is uncertainty. Evidence is not required to be exhaustive – we are looking for examples that demonstrate best practice at the institutions concerned.

Timeframe

Unless otherwise stated, the data used refer to the closest academic year to January to December 2018.

Exclusions

Universities must teach undergraduates and be validated by a recognised accreditation body to be included in the ranking.

Data collection

Institutions provide and sign off their institutional data for use in the rankings. On the rare occasions when a particular data point is not provided, we enter a value of zero.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Sponsored