THE Impact Rankings 2020 by SDG: no poverty (SDG 1) methodology

April 17, 2020

Browse the full Impact Rankings 2020 results


This ranking focuses on universities’ research on poverty and their support for poor students and poor members of their local community.

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

Metrics

Research (27%)

  • Field-weighted citation index of papers related to poverty (10%)
  • Number of publications related to poverty (10%)
  • Proportion of all research papers co-authored with low-income countries (7%)

This focuses on research that is relevant to poverty, measuring citation impact and the volume of research produced. The field-weighted citation index is a subject-normalised score of the citation performance of publications.

The data are provided by Elsevier’s Scopus dataset, based on a query of keywords associated with SDG 1 (no poverty). The dataset includes all indexed publications between 2014 and 2018.

The third indicator measures the proportion of publications where one or more co-author is associated with a university that is based in a lower- or lower-middle-income country. The indicator is normalised.

All three metrics are normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Proportion of students receiving financial aid (27%)

One of the key barriers to participation in higher education is the financial ability to attend university. This indicator measures the proportion of a university’s students who receive significant financial aid in order to attend the institution because of poverty.

It is based on data for full-time equivalent students across both undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the 2018 academic year.

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

University anti-poverty programmes (23%)

  • Targets to admit students who fall into the bottom 20 per cent of household income in the country (4.6%)
  • Graduation/completion targets for students who fall into the bottom 20 per cent of household income in the country (4.6%)
  • Support for students from poorest families to enable them to complete university – for example, in relation to food, housing, transportation, legal services (4.6%)
  • Programmes to assist students who fall into the bottom 20 per cent of household income in the country to successfully complete their studies (4.6%)
  • Schemes to support poor students from low-income countries – for example, offering free education or grants (4.6%)

Universities have a responsibility to address the poverty of their students and potential students. 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.

Community anti-poverty programmes (23%)

  • Education or resources to assist the start-up of sustainable businesses in the local community – for example, mentorship programmes, training workshops, access to university facilities (5.75%)
  • Financial assistance to aid the start-up of sustainable businesses in the local community (5.75%)
  • Training or programmes to improve access to basic services for all (5.75%)
  • Participate in policymaking at a local, regional, national and/or global level to implement programmes and policies to end poverty (5.75%)

Universities have a responsibility, as stewards of significant resources, to support the wider community in tackling poverty. The programmes can be community-led but they must be supported by the university.

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