Bridging Gaps for Inclusive and Global Excellence in Higher Education

RAJEEV KUMAR MEHAJAN BIJU DHARMAPALAN

Imagine this, a parent researching the best colleges for their child or a student navigating India’s vast higher education (HE) landscape. Rankings like the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), launched in 2015, have become their guiding compass. For many, these rankings are more than just numbers—they are a beacon of hope in an overwhelming sea of choices. They promise transparency, accountability, and a measure of quality, empowering stakeholders to make informed decisions.

However, as India aspires to position itself as a global education hub, the question arises-Is the current NIRF framework equipped to meet these ambitious goals? Are we leveraging this tool to truly reflect the multifaceted excellence of our institutions? This question resonates across stakeholders as the nation strives to reimagine its higher education system, urging us to rethink and reboot the rankings revolution.

Bridging the Gap in Rankings

Global rankings like QS and Times Higher Education (THE) often spotlight parameters such as international appeal, research output, and infrastructure, favouring wealthier nations with robust resources. Recognizing these disparities, NIRF tailors its methodology to Indian realities, emphasizing teaching quality, inclusivity, and affordability. By focusing on what matters locally, NIRF provides a roadmap for improving education while aligning institutions with national priorities. Yet, the journey is far from complete.

NIRF’s Core Criteria: A Multi-Dimensional Framework

NIRF evaluates institutions through a five-pronged framework:

• Teaching & Learning (30%): Assessing teaching quality, faculty credentials, and available resources.
• Research and Practice (30%): Rewarding innovation through publications and patents.
• Graduation Outcomes (20%): Linking academic success to career readiness.
• Inclusivity (10%): Prioritizing representation across socioeconomic backgrounds.
• Perception (10%): Gauging public opinion, adding a subjective element.

This structured, data-driven approach has inspired institutions to improve academic programs, foster inclusivity, and prioritize research. It simplifies the overwhelming process of choosing a college, shifting decisions from reputation-based to data-backed insights.

NIRF: A Catalyst for Change

NIRF’s impact on India’s higher education landscape has been profound. By offering standardized metrics, it has introduced a level playing field that promotes transparency. Key contributions include:

• Standardization: Ensuring uniform assessment and clarity in performance metrics.
• Inclusivity: Expanding opportunities for underrepresented groups to access quality education.
• Research Excellence: Encouraging institutions to invest in innovation and global collaborations.

Yet, despite its positive influence, NIRF faces significant challenges that necessitate urgent attention.

Where Does NIRF Fall Short?

1. Teaching vs. Research Imbalance: The current framework’s emphasis on research risks sidelining institutions excelling in teaching and mentorship. This oversight undervalues their unique contributions.
2. Reliance on Self-Reported Data: The dependence on institutional submissions raises questions about data accuracy and integrity.
3. Regional Disparities: Urban institutions, with better resources, dominate rankings, leaving rural colleges underrepresented. Criteria adjustments for regional realities could foster greater equity.
4. Limited Global Alignment: Lesser attention to global metrics like international faculty, partnerships, and student exchange programs hampers global competitiveness.
5. Subjective Perception Metrics: Established institutions often enjoy higher perception scores, disadvantaging newer or regional players.

Charting a Better Future: A More Inclusive and Impactful NIRF

To truly revolutionize India’s HE rankings and meet the aspirations of stakeholders, NIRF must evolve. Here are key recommendations for rebooting NIRF:

I. Balance Between Teaching and Research

Develop a dual-track evaluation system to account for the distinct strengths of research- and teaching-focused institutions. Recognizing diverse contributions ensures a holistic representation of excellence.

II. Strengthening Data Verification

Incorporate third-party audits to verify self-reported data. Enhanced reliability will bolster stakeholder trust and the rankings’ credibility.

III. Regional Adjustments for Fairness

Adjust criteria to reflect the efforts of rural, resource-constrained, and underserved institutions. Acknowledging regional disparities ensures a more equitable assessment.

IV. Encouraging Global and Industrial Collaborations

Integrate metrics that capture international partnerships and industry collaborations. Such initiatives bridge the gap between academia and real-world applications, fostering global competitiveness.

V. Re-Evaluating Perception Metrics

Replace subjective perception scores with measurable outcomes, such as employment rates, alumni success, and real-world impact. This shift offers a fairer and more tangible assessment.

VI. Promoting Social Responsibility

Reward institutions engaging in social responsibility, community outreach, and environmental sustainability. Such initiatives align with national development goals and holistic education.

VII. Periodic Updates

Regularly update the framework based on stakeholder feedback to keep NIRF relevant and aligned with evolving educational priorities.

Beyond NIRF: Toward Unified Evaluation

As the education sector grows increasingly interconnected, the possibility of a unified evaluation system combining NIRF with other accreditation bodies like NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) and NBA (National Board of Accreditation) merits exploration. Such a system could economize efforts and present a more comprehensive view of institutional performance.

Conclusion

As Indian higher education evolves, so must its mechanisms for evaluation. NIRF stands at a critical juncture, offering an opportunity to reshape rankings into a tool for equity, excellence, and global relevance. By addressing its shortcomings and embracing a more inclusive, balanced approach, NIRF can go beyond rankings to drive transformative change.

This journey is about more than metrics; it’s about creating a system where institutions of all sizes and locations can thrive. A reimagined NIRF would not only reflect India’s educational aspirations but also position the country as a global leader in higher education innovation.

(Dr. Rajeev Kumar Mehajan is the former Scientist ‘G’ & Advisor at ANRF, DST, Government of India, and a Member of Technical Commissions at WMO, United Nations. E-mail:  rmehajan2@gmail.com. Dr Biju Dharmapalan, is the Dean (Academic Affairs) at Garden City University,   and an Adjunct Faculty at National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore. E- bijudharmapalan@gmail.com)