Abstract
Higher education performance assessment systems are under scrutiny as they are viewed as driving scholarship away from its fundamental purpose which is to recognize and reward scholarship that addresses the questions that matter most to society. This is further perpetuated by university rankings which might be good for the university's image but not for scholarship and involved researchers. Performance assessment indicators used by higher education institutions need to measure impact validly and reliably in different parts of society. A challenge to institutions and funders is to develop a methodology that can enhance quality control and research management and policy on top of equity rather than further exposing marginalized groups to epistemic injustices in these traditional systems. Hence the purpose of this study, which draws from a doctoral study on research impact assessment, is to explore how higher education institutions can use performance assessment to drive research impact in the global South.
TopIntroduction
A growing number of research leaders believe that the current system of higher education incentives (promotion, grants, researcher evaluation and ratings, etc.) and rewards (salary, bonuses, service, and excellence awards, etc.) are misaligned with the needs of society. The scientific community has raised concerns about validity and reliability of bibliometric measurement, and this is coupled with an increased desire from funders (public and private) to show return on money invested in research in terms of societal impacts. Even though the use of bibliometric indicators can provide a valuable supplement to the peer review process, these indicators are all too often used inappropriately. They are taken out of context, and applied without a complete understanding of the bibliometrics research on which they are based. Hence, bibliometrics has been criticised for homogenisation of the sciences, a lack of true objectivity and, of bias. Moreover, researchers and research institutions are enduring a disparity of polar objectives: i) the pursuit of real-world impact versus the need to demonstrate scholarly impact; ii) the requirement to meet funding priorities versus the need to pursue intellectual inquiry; iii) the imperative to collaborate versus the need to compete; and, iv) the open dissemination of research findings to those who will benefit from the research knowledge versus the pressure to publish in high impact factor journals to maximise individual and institutional reward (Doyle, 2018). These opposites need to be addressed for universities to contribute meaningfully and to drive impact in the global South rather than focus on quantifying performance which has resulted in limited improvement at local scale in how institutions in this region are contributing to local realities. Hence Adler and Harzing (2009) question whether scholarship has gone astray because of academic rankings and performance management systems used.
University ranking, also known as league tables, were initially targeted at the public such as prospective students as they would consult the rankings to assess the quality of universities and to compare them. Scholars have noted the increased usage of these league tables beyond the initial external media use, the league tables are now increasingly used in informing policy and key management decisions (Johnes, 2018). University rankings are published annually and the three popular ones, internationally, include, The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University; The Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings; and The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings. These have been published since the early 2000s. University rankings have for a long time been used to rank universities based on quantity still many have noted that it is impossible to measure and quantify quality through these indicators and weights used (Rauhvargers, 2011). This is in line with the notion shared by Albert Einstein - “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”. These league tables tend to push universities to improve on those areas that enhance their performance in the ranking but the question which has not been fully interrogated is how these university rankings and criteria developed elsewhere benefit universities in Africa and the broader global South and their impact in the global South. This question on the benefit of the rankings on the global South becomes a critical question to explore, as many funders and governments in these regions consider the impact agenda in funding and evaluation of higher education institutions. Therefore, it is vital to determine to what extent do university ranking systems and performance management systems drive research impact and local priorities of global South universities. In this chapter, we provide contribution to theoretical debate on global university rankings and research impact from global South perspective. It discusses examples from the African continent.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Impact Agenda: Policymakers’ attempts to impose accountability on academics and researchers for the public funding of research. The impact agenda thus requires academics to address not only the intrinsic value of their research in advancing knowledge (its academic merit) but also, the value their research has for society (its broader impacts).
Research-intensive University: As opposed to research-led university, a research-intensive university stresses the central place that the institution gives to research without downgrading the importance and quality it gives to teaching; it fosters master’s degrees, PhDs, research outputs and technological innovations.
Research Impact: The contribution or benefits that result from the research. It also speaks to the context within which that impact takes place, which is broad beyond academia in the realms of society, economy, public policy, etc. Research impact is thus not limited to a certain area in society or grouping, hence broader impact of research which includes both academic and societal impact.
Societal Impact: The impact of science on various levels and areas of society. It is an umbrella term that covers all types and forms of impact that research can have at different levels and areas of society: social, cultural, environmental, and economic returns (impact and effects) from results (research output) or products (research outcome) of publicly funded research.
Engaged Scholarship: A form of social responsiveness, refers to the utilisation of an academic’s scholarly and/or professional expertise, with an intentional public purpose or benefit demonstrates engagement with external (non-academic) constituencies.
Global South: A more inclusive term used to refer to lower-income and socio-politically and culturally isolated regions of the world. The term global South is generally viewed to be a term that is a more open alternative to ‘third world’ or ‘developing’ regions of the world.