Fluctuations, lack of transparency and reliance on self-reported data among NIRF inconsistencies: Study | Education

The paper, authored by former IIT-Delhi director and current Birla Institute of Technology and Science vice-chancellor V. Ramgopal Rao, has been published in the journal ‘Current Science’. Abhishek Singh, also from BITS, Pilani, is a co-author.

The ninth edition of the National Institutional Classification Framework was announced earlier this month.

“While NIRF ratings are intended to enhance transparency and accountability, the present study has identified several inconsistencies, raising concerns about their reliability,” the paper titled ‘Uncovering Inconsistencies in NIRF Ratings’ states.

“These include huge fluctuations in rankings, an overemphasis on bibliometrics that neglects non-traditional research outputs, the subjective nature of perception rankings that introduces bias, challenges in regional diversity metrics, overlooking teaching quality, inadequate transparency in methodology, questions about data integrity, and limited global benchmarking,” he noted.

The academics pointed out that the NIRF rankings lack specific mechanisms to directly assess teaching quality, overlooking crucial aspects such as classroom observations, student evaluations and feedback from alumni.

“The omission of these assessment methods makes a comprehensive evaluation of teaching effectiveness difficult, leading to an incomplete description of an institution’s educational prowess.

“Furthermore, NIRF rankings overlook the practical dimension of teaching, a crucial aspect in several disciplines,” the document notes.

The study also highlighted the variability in the institutions’ positions from one year to the next.

“While some fluctuations can be attributed to genuine changes in performance, others could be the result of factors beyond an institution’s control, such as temporary variations in data reporting or errors in interpretation.

“Unlike some international ranking systems, such as the QS World University Rankings, which use a damping mechanism to distribute large interannual swings in the data, the NIRF rankings lack a similar mechanism,” he said.

The absence of a comparable mechanism in the NIRF framework raises questions about the system’s ability to correct anomalies and errors, which could affect the stability and reliability of the classifications, the study notes.

The paper noted that relying on self-reported data raises relevant questions regarding the consistency and accuracy of the information presented.

“Institutions that vary in size, structure and resources may interpret and report data differently, which can lead to disparities in ranking results. The absence of strict mechanisms to verify the accuracy and consistency of reported data introduces an element of uncertainty into rankings,” he noted.

Without standardized reporting practices, rankings can inadvertently favor institutions that are adept at presenting data favorably rather than those that truly excel on academic metrics.

This, in turn, has profound implications for the credibility of the rankings, as their reliability depends on the accuracy and consistency of the data underpinning the assessment process, he added.

The study noted that while NIRF rankings have certainly proven to be a valuable tool for evaluating and comparing educational institutions in India, it is essential to adopt a cautious and discerning approach.

“The inconsistencies identified underscore the need for ongoing dialogue and refinement of the classification framework. It is essential to recognize that classifications, by their nature, subtly influence perceptions.

“Therefore, the identified issues, if not addressed, may affect the credibility and relevance of NIRF rankings, potentially affecting the perceptions of stakeholders such as students, parents and policy makers,” he said.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without any modifications to the text.