Are You Satisfied with the NIRF 2018 Rankings of Engineering Institutes?
Introduction
The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2018 rankings of engineering institutes have been a topic of much debate among academics and administrators alike. While the NIRF initiative aims to provide a fair and transparent methodology for ranking universities, there are significant concerns and criticisms regarding the accuracy and fairness of the ranking system.
Challenges in Ranking Institutes
The process of ranking institutes based on various parameters is inherently complex and fraught with uncertainties. Let's explore the difficulties inherent in such a system. The golden rule is that numerical rankings do not accurately capture the true essence of an institute's capabilities and performances.
Research Output vs. Quality of Research
A key criticism of the NIRF ranking system is its reliance on sheer volume of publications as a proxy for research quality. Consider this scenario: Institute A publishes 500 papers annually across a wide range of journals, many of which may be unknown or obscure. Meanwhile, Institute B specializes in producing high-quality research, focusing on top-tier venues where only a fraction of the total output is published (around 100 papers annually).
The question then arises: Which institute should be ranked higher? The NIRF ranking system, it appears, has limited or no understanding of the nuances of research outputs, including where these papers are published.
Are Top Venues Standardized?
It's disconcerting that the criteria often mentioned are broad and encompassing, like IEEE, Scopus, Web of Science, without providing specific criteria. Such a blanket statement is not sufficient to gauge the quality of research. A more nuanced understanding, like differentiating between top journals and platforms for various research areas would be more equitable.
Government Initiative and Effort
Despite the shortcomings, it is commendable that the Government of India, through the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), is linking NIRF participation and ranking to funding for government-funded institutes starting from the next fiscal year. This move aims to incentivize institutions to perform well in the ranking process.
The effort to make the ranking system a significant factor in funding allocation shows that the government is taking a proactive stance. Nonetheless, the ranking should be taken with a pinch of salt and not as the sole indicator of an institute's success.
Focus on Quality and Research Performance
A more focused approach to research work, regular and high-quality faculty recruitment, and minimizing bureaucratic red tape should be the priorities for any engineering institute. Instead of manipulating parameters to improve rankings, institutions should focus on substantive research outcomes and contributions to the field.
To summarize, the NIRF rankings, while a valuable initiative, should be viewed critically and complemented with other measures of institutional performance. The ranking should not dictate the true essence of research and academic excellence.