US higher education is overhauling its main research classification system in a way that’s so focused on equity that it’s projected to weaken the significance of the measurement just as historically black campuses get ready to join.
The system, known as the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, currently has 146 institutions ranked in its top tier of research activity, known as R1. Changes just put in place for 2025 will greatly simplify and reduce the criteria for reaching R1 status, almost certainly giving a significant boost to the number of qualifying campuses, according to the classification’s managing entity, the American Council on Education, the chief US higher education association.
“As opposed to today’s sliding scale that creates unwarranted competition between institutions,” the ACE said in explaining its approach, “the new threshold establishes a clear and transparent target for institutions whose mission supports prioritising research.”
Institutions seen as likely to qualify under the new criteria include Howard University, which could become the first historically black campus at the R1 level since Howard itself fell out under a previous definitional revision, back in 2000.
Also hopeful of joining is Morgan State University, whose president, David Wilson, was part of the ACE grouping of campus leaders who developed the new criteria and has also been leading a multi-year effort to get several HBCUs recognised at R1 status.
The new Carnegie Classification revisions, Dr Wilson said, reflected a push for equity. “The previous methodology for determining a university’s R1 ascendancy was far more complicated, and seemingly spoke to only the highest echelon of higher education,” the Morgan State leader told Times Higher Education.
Less clear, however, is whether and to what degree the long-sought R1 accomplishment might now carry less reputational heft. Robert Kelchen, a professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, described the shift as part of broader aggressiveness among institutions to look better in terms of rankings and ratings that might end up weakening the overall value of the achievement.
Campus resource collection: Research excellence – what is it and how can universities achieve it?
In the end, said Professor Kelchen, the ACE was just reflecting the politics of its 1,700 member colleges and universities. “They likely took the path of least resistance from members by making it clear what colleges needed to do to qualify for Research 1 status,” he said.
Among other concerns, he said, the new ACE criteria seemed even more vulnerable to institutional gaming. The Carnegie Classification currently uses a mix of 10 criteria, including the number of doctoral degrees awarded over a wide range of fields. The new system will use only two criteria – annual minimums of $50 million (£40 million) in research spending and 70 doctorates awarded regardless of field.
That boosted the incentive, Professor Kelchen explained, for institutions to classify salary expenditures on faculty to count as research expenditures. “It’s entirely justifiable if faculty members have a research expectation, but also a good way to increase numbers,” he said. “And universities can increase funding for a few doctoral programmes in order to meet the threshold for number of PhDs. Any system can be gamed, but it’s easier to game a small number of metrics than a larger number.”
The ACE, for its part, said that its revisions reflected an emphasis on equity. The organising motivation of the shift, said the ACE’s president, Ted Mitchell, was to better group institutions in ways that “accurately reflect the broad scope of their work with students, communities and the broader public purposes of higher education”.
