What’s in a research designation?

In a September 2022 virtual session from our event, The Underpinnings of the Cost of Competition in Research, we discussed how different designations and rankings impact a university’s research reputation.

Attendees shared their thoughts on which designations have the largest impact and how they are leveraging designations at their institutions to grow their research brand and increase competitiveness. Explore the takeaways below.

Review the Key Takeaways

“Designations” can be divided into sub-categories that allow institutions to determine which designations to pursue, promote, or abandon

This simple framework helps delineate designations into three categories based on the transparency of their metric/review process, the consistency and timeliness of reviews, and the willingness of designators to add or withdraw status from participating institutions.

R1 remains the most desirable designation, and it feels attainable to more schools than before

The changes in the Carnegie Classification® standards in 2018 created more opportunity for universities to push upward in the Research category and allows more to achieve R1 status than before. And this isn’t a naïve sentiment—there are more Very High Research Activity (R1) universities today (146 universities) than High Research Activity (R2) universities (133 universities).

While the R1 tent may be bigger than before, participants don’t find the value of the designation diminished: the same tangible benefits that come from enhanced reputation, greater international student attention, and inclusion in more selective grant considerations remain even for a larger R1 cohort.

Beyond R1, designations in research are more exclusive and feature less prominently in university identity

Other designations would include membership in groups that weigh research heavily like the AAU (65 universities) or Canada’s U15 as well as specific recognitions that require intensive research such as NCI-Designated Cancer Centers (71 centers). Research is also a factor in other designations that an institution can receive, such as Carnegie’s Elective Classification for Community Engagement (357 institutions).

And while the federally assigned designations such as Sun Grant (six university regional centers) or Sea Grant (34 universities) remain important, many believe the next frontier of federal designations will be assigned by NSF’s “hub” funding programs such as the Engineering Research Centers and AI Research Institutes. While these are open funding competitions, the lead institutions are typically selected from among the same top research universities, creating few chances for rising research institutions to receive these designations.

Most organizations utilize nuanced hierarchies intended for different audiences

Understanding the scope of different rankings organizations use is the first step to understanding their reach and the impact of their ranking on an institution’s perception and reputation. And while most domestic rankings don’t weigh research heavily if at all (like U.S. News and World Report), research still features many of the measured outputs that rankings do weigh, such as graduation rates, faculty resources, and overall academic reputation.

In more international rankings such as Times Higher Education and QS, research features prominently and is measured on inputs, outputs, and reputational factors.

Rankings come in different shapes and sizes

• International: Comprehensive rankings of institutions across the globe
• National: Comprehensive rankings of institutions within a certain country
• Programmatic: Rankings specific to an academic program or discipline area
• Specialty (and other): Rankings for characteristics other than academics, like impact or sustainability

Social mobility and impact are poised to feature prominently in more rankings and classifications moving forward

This is welcome news across the board as such factors reward institutions for activities that have a positive outcome for their students and communities and allow for a greater diversity of institutions to achieve higher rankings.

The most anticipated of these new measurements will be from Carnegie in partnership with ACE as they seek “to reflect the nation’s pressing social, racial, and economic concerns and challenge higher education institutions and their public, social, and commercial sector partners to meaningfully address them.”

While designations should never be the end goal, they can be useful mile markers on the longer road to achieving an institution’s goals

Ultimately, classifications and rankings reflect back performance in certain categories in which every university wants to improve. Better understanding what goes into each ranking can help identify common methodologies and how different metrics correlate to different strategic goals. From there, more targeted action steps and progress measures can be assigned for achieving goals, improving ranking positions, and receiving desired designations.

Rankings: think strategically

Harmonize actions with your strategy

• Long-term actions you take to improve your rankings should be compatible with the long-term improvement of your program.
• Build consensus among the faculty and staff about priorities and actions to be taken.

Learn how your rankings work

• Each ranking has its own data and its own formulas. Know these thoroughly to avoid mistakes or omissions.
• Find help on campus to ensure the accuracy of data.  And don’t “massage” the numbers.

Watch out for negative impacts

• Rankings have been criticized as being subject to various forms of bias. Don’t let the quest for rankings hurt program diversity.
• Test new ideas against prior entering classes.  What impact(s) would this change have had?