Browse the full results of the Impact Rankings 2024

This ranking focuses on universities¡¯ research on the study of gender equality, 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 Impact Rankings 2024?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 equality, 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 female authors across all indexed publications.

The data are provided by Elsevier¡¯s Scopus dataset and based on a query of keywords associated with SDG?5 (gender equality) and supplemented by additional publications identified by artificial intelligence. The data include all indexed publications between 2018 and 2022. The gender of authors is estimated by Elsevier. The data are normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Proportion of first-generation female students (15.4%)

This is defined as the number of women starting a degree who identify as being the?first person in their immediate family to attend university, divided by the total number of women starting a degree. All data are provided as full-time equivalents.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The data were provided directly by universities and normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Student access measures (15.4%)

• Systematically measure and track women¡¯s application rate, and acceptance or entry rate (1.6%)
• Policy addressing application, acceptance, entry and participation rates for female students (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%)

The evidence was provided directly by universities, evaluated and scored by?THE?and 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. The category does not include honorary positions. All data are provided as full-time equivalents.

The data were provided directly by universities and 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 degree, divided by the total number of students who are awarded a degree. The data are provided as headcounts and subject-weighted against three broad areas: STEM; medicine; and arts, humanities and social sciences.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The data were provided directly by universities and normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Women¡¯s progress measures (15.3%)

• Policy of non-discrimination against women (1.95%)
• Policy 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 in which at least 10?per cent of students participate (1.9%)
• Track women¡¯s graduation rate compared with men¡¯s and scheme in place to close any gap (1.9%)
• Policy protecting those reporting discrimination (1.9%)

The evidence was provided directly by universities, evaluated and scored by?THE?and not normalised.

Evidence

When we ask about policies and initiatives ¨C for example, the existence of mentoring programmes ¨C our metrics require universities to provide the evidence to support their claims. In these cases, we give credit for the evidence, and for the evidence being public. These metrics are not usually size-normalised.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Evidence is evaluated against a set of criteria, and decisions are cross-validated where there is uncertainty. Evidence need not be exhaustive ¨C we are looking for examples that demonstrate best practice at the institutions concerned.

Time frame

In general, the data used refer to the closest academic year to January to December 2022. The date range for each metric is specified in the full methodology document.

Exclusions

The ranking is open to any university that teaches at undergraduate or postgraduate level. Although research activities form part of the method?ology, there is no?minimum research requirement for participation.

THE?reserves the right to exclude universities that it believes have falsified data, or are no longer in good standing.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.