THE University Impact Rankings 2019 by SDG: gender equality methodology

April 2, 2019

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 more than half its population are not addressed.

View the methodology for the University Impact Rankings 2019 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). It includes all indexed publications between 2013 and 2017. The gender of authors is estimated by Elsevier. The data are normalised across its 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.

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

Student access measures (15.4%)

  • Tracking application, acceptance and completion rates for female students (1.6%)
  • Taking account of regional issues when developing policies on women’s participation (4.6%)
  • Provision of appropriate women’s access schemes, such as mentoring (4.6%)
  • Encouraging applications in areas where women are under-represented (4.6%)

We asked for evidence of approaches for recruiting more female students, including evidence that applications are tracked by gender, and that the university makes additional effort in areas where women are under-represented.

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. It does not include honorary positions. All data are provided as full-time equivalents.

The data and evidence were provided directly by universities. The data are 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. The data is 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%)

  • Policies of non-discrimination against women (1.95%)
  • Policies 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 with broad participation (1.9%)
  • Women’s graduation rates, with appropriate action plans (1.9%)
  • Policies protecting those reporting discrimination (1.9%)

These measures look at the ability of women to progress in 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 2017.

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.

The methodology was developed in conjunction with our partners Vertigo Ventures and Elsevier, and after consultation and input from individual universities, academics, and sector groups.

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Related articles

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments