Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Sioux McKenna, Professor of Higher Education, Rhodes University, South Africa, Rhodes University

The Sorbonne University, founded in Paris in 1253 and known globally as a symbol of education, science and culture, has just announced that, starting in 2026, it will stop submitting data to Times Higher Education (THE) rankings. It is joining a growing movement of universities questioning the value and methodology of these controversial league tables.

Rankings companies add together various indices that purport to measure quality. The indices include research outputs, the results of reputation surveys, the amount of money they receive in research grants and donations, and how many Nobel prize winners they have ever employed.

Nathalie Drach-Temam, president of the Sorbonne, stated that

the data used to assess each university’s performance is not open or transparent

and

the reproducibility of the results produced cannot be guaranteed.

This echoes wider concerns about the lack of scientific rigour of ranking systems that claim to measure complex institutional performance through simplified metrics.

The problem is that the general public believe that the rankings offer an indication of quality. As a result rankings have enormous influence over the market. This includes the choice of where to study and where to invest funding.

The university’s decision aligns with its commitment to the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, an agreement signed by over 700 research organisations, funders and professional societies, and the Barcelona Declaration, signed by about 200 universities and research institutes. Both advocate for open science practices to make scientific research, data, methods, and educational resources transparent, accessible and reusable by everyone without barriers. And both recommend “avoiding the use of rankings of research organisations in research assessment”.

The Sorbonne joins a growing list of high-profile institutions abandoning rankings. Columbia University, Utrecht University and several Indian institutes have opted out of major ranking systems. In the US, 17 medical and law schools, including Yale and Harvard, have withdrawn from discipline-specific rankings.

There are five major rankings companies and at least 20 smaller ones. On top of these are a similar number of discipline specific and regional rankings. Together they make up a billion dollar industry. Yet the rankings are accessible without charge.

The rankings industry has increasingly targeted African countries. It sees the continent as a new market at a time when it is losing traction among high profile institutions in the global north.

There has been a rapid increase in snazzy events run by rankings organisations on the continent. These events are very expensive and often quite luxurious – attended by vice-chancellors, academics, consultants and others.

As an academic involved in higher education teaching, I believe that chasing the rankings can harm Africa’s fragile higher education system. There are two main reasons for this.

Firstly, the rankings metrics largely focus on research output, rather than on the potential for that research to address local problems. Secondly, the rankings fail to consider higher education’s role in nurturing critical citizens, or contributing to the public good.

The Sorbonne’s decision reflects a growing body of opinion that the rankings industry is unscientific and a poor means of measuring quality.

Nevertheless, many vice-chancellors are not willing to risk the cost of withdrawing. Rankings might do a poor job of indicating quality, in all its nuanced forms. Nevertheless, they are very good at shaping public opinion. And even if a university chooses to stay out of the ranking by refusing to hand over its data, the industry continues to include it, based only on limited publicly available data.

The ranking industry

Rankings themselves are available for free. The ranking industry derives most of its revenue from reselling the data that universities provide. Universities submit detailed institutional data to ranking companies without charge. That information is then repackaged and sold back to institutions, governments and corporations.

This data includes institutional income. It often also includes contact details of staff and students. These are used for “reputation surveys”. In the case of QS University Rankings, “reputation” makes up more than 40% of the rankings.

This business model has created what can be described as a sophisticated data harvesting operation disguised as academic assessment.

Mounting criticism

Academic research has extensively documented the problems with ranking methodologies. These include:

• the use of proxy metrics that poorly represent institutional quality. For example, while many university rankings do not include a measurement of teaching quality at all, those that do, use measures such as income, staff to student ratio, and international academic reputation.

• composite indexing that combines unrelated measurements. The metrics that are collected are simply added together, even though they have no bearing on each other. Our students are repeatedly warned of the dangers of using composite measurement in research, and yet this is at the heart of the rankings industry.

• subjective weighting systems that can dramatically alter results based on arbitrary decisions. If the system decides to weight reputation at 20% and then make university income worth 10%, we have one order of institutions. Switch these weightings to make the former 10% and the latter 20% and the list rearranges itself. And yet, the quality of the institutions is unchanged.

Rankings tend to favour research-intensive universities while ignoring teaching quality, community engagement and local relevance.

Most ranking systems emphasise English-language publications. This reinforces existing academic hierarchies rather than providing meaningful assessment of quality.

Where new rankings are being introduced, such as the Sub-Saharan Africa rankings, or the Emerging Economies rankings, or even the Impact rankings, they sadly still have the problem of proxy measures, and composite and subjective weightings.

In addition, many of the ranking companies refuse to reveal precise methodological detail. This makes it impossible to verify their claims or understand on what basis institutions are actually assessed.

Researchers argue that rankings have thrived because they align with the idea of higher education as a marketplace where institutions compete for market share. This has led universities to prioritise metrics that improve their ranking positions rather than activities that best serve their students and communities.

The emphasis on quantifiable outputs has created what scholars call “coercive isomorphism” – pressure for all universities to adopt similar structures and priorities regardless of their specific missions or local contexts.

Research shows that striving for a spot in the rankings limelight affects resource allocation, strategic planning and even which students apply to institutions. Some universities have shifted focus from teaching quality to research output specifically to improve rankings. Others have engaged in “gaming” – manipulating data to boost their positions.

Looking forward

Participation in methodologically flawed ranking systems presents a contradiction: universities built on principles of scientific research continue to support an industry whose methods would fail basic peer review standards.

For universities still participating, Sorbonne’s move raises an uncomfortable question: what are their institutional priorities and commitments to scientific integrity?

Sioux McKenna does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. University ranking systems are being rejected. African institutions should take note – https://theconversation.com/university-ranking-systems-are-being-rejected-african-institutions-should-take-note-265914

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Nicodemus Minde, Researcher, United States International University

Tanzania has conducted regular polls since the first multiparty elections in 1995. But they have often failed to meet democratic standards. The opposition has been persistently excluded and restricted, and media freedoms and civil rights have been suppressed. This pattern has come to be identified as electoral authoritarianism.

Tanzania’s ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), will seek to extend its dominance on 29 October 2025. It has been in power since independence in 1961, making it one of Africa’s longest-serving ruling parties.

I have studied Tanzania’s political party dynamics for a decade and in my view CCM’s candidate, Samia Suluhu Hassan, is destined for a landslide victory after the disqualification of two major opposition parties. Samia became president following the death in office of John Magufuli in 2021.

Chama Cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema) was disqualified for refusing to sign the election code of conduct. The party’s chair, Tundu Lissu, faces treason charges for calling for electoral reforms. The presidential candidate of the second-largest opposition party, ACT Wazalendo, has also been disqualified following a petition filed by the country’s registrar of political parties.

This makes the election significantly different to the last poll, held in 2020. That year, opposition parties participated, despite electoral flaws. This time, the ruling party goes to the polls virtually unchallenged. It will be looking for a seventh consecutive election victory.

The campaign is now dominated by CCM at all levels. There are indications that voter turnout will be low, with little public enthusiasm, especially knowing that a CCM victory is certain. Since 2010 the voter turnout has been shrinking. The elections in 2010 and 2020 experienced notably low voter turnout, with rates of 42.7% and 50.7%, respectively.

Tanzania continues to experience a decline in democracy, accompanied by heightened political repression and restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. The country’s status in the Freedom House democracy index dropped from the Partly Free category in 2020 to the Not Free category going into 2025.

Polling

Tanzanian general elections include three main categories: presidential, parliamentary, and councillor seats. They take place across the mainland and Zanzibar, Tanzania’s semi-autonomous state.

The 2025 elections feature 272 constituencies, 222 of which are mainland and 50 of which are in Zanzibar. Eight new constituencies were created in the mainland earlier this year.

The Independent Electoral Commission announced that a total of 37.7 million people had registered as voters in the 2025 elections, compared to 29.8 million at the last election: a 26.55% increase. According to the commission this reflects a rise in population but critics allege a scheme to manipulate the vote during the elections.

The electoral commission has cleared 16 presidential candidates. Samia, a native of Zanzibar, is running for her first full term. Her running mate, Emmanuel Nchimbi, has deep roots within CCM.

Chadema has called for electoral reforms, a stance which has brought charges of treason and incitement against Lissu.

ACT-Wazalendo’s candidate Luhaga Mpina was barred from running after the attorney general said his party had not followed nomination procedures.

With Chadema and ACT-Wazalendo out of the presidential race in mainland Tanzania, Chama Cha Ukombozi wa Umma (Chaumma), a fringe party that has benefited from the defections of some Chadema members, has emerged as the only challenger.

Its presidential candidate and running mate are Salum Mwalimu and Devotha Minja, who defected from Chadema earlier this year.

Chaumma’s apparent campaign resources have led some to conclude that it is surreptitiously backed by the ruling party. Chaumma and the 15 other fringe parties run the risk of legitimising an already flawed electoral process.

In Zanzibar, incumbent Hussein Mwinyi of CCM is seeking another term. He faces competition from Othman Masoud of ACT-Wazalendo. This will be the first general election in Zanzibar without opposition icon Seif Shariff Hamad, who died in 2021. He was a perennial presidential candidate in Zanzibar, always claiming that he had won but never becoming president.

In 2010 a government of national unity was formed in which he became the first vice president in a gesture aimed at reconciliation.

Campaign issues

The CCM is promising to deliver a strengthened economy, infrastructure development and improved healthcare. It has also pledged a new constitution. This last promise is part of the rhetoric previously peddled during political campaigns.

When Samia took office in 2021, she initiated reforms that promised improvements in governance. These are long forgotten.

Chadema’s “No Reforms, No Elections” position continues to shape public discourse. The call has focused minds on the governance and human rights issues facing Tanzania. These include attacks on media freedom, the targeting of government critics, and gross violations of human rights and abductions.

It has had an effect too on international opinion of Tanzania. Several international organisations including the African Commission on Human Rights and the European Parliament have voiced their concern about the deteriorating human rights situation in Tanzania.

ACT-Wazalendo has resolved to pursue reforms by participating in the election, with the rallying call of Linda Kura (protect the vote).

What’s different (and what’s not) this time

There is a new electoral framework for the 2025 election.

Three new electoral laws were passed. These are the National Electoral Commission Act (2023), the Presidential, Parliamentary, and Local Government Elections Bill (2023), and the Political Parties Affairs Laws (Amendment) Bill (2023). These changes led to the establishment of a new electoral body, the Independent National Electoral Commission, with the promise of reforming the electoral system.

A multi-stakeholder engagement recommended changes to enhance the electoral body’s independence. On this basis, a government task force recommended the creation of an “independent” committee, chaired by the chief justice, to vet applications of electoral commissioners.

Despite these changes, the executive branch still maintains significant influence over the electoral structure and decision making. The president still has the powers to appoint the chair, vice chair and commissioners of the electoral body.

With the opposition pushed aside and a controlled electoral process under way, CCM’s victory is all but certain. The key question now is the future of Tanzania’s democracy.

Nicodemus Minde is affiliated with the Institute for Security Studies.

– ref. Tanzania’s ruling party has crushed the opposition – the elections are a mere formality – https://theconversation.com/tanzanias-ruling-party-has-crushed-the-opposition-the-elections-are-a-mere-formality-265771

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Tim Forssman, Senior Lecturer, University of Mpumalanga

Museums are usually in cities. So, where transport is poor and it’s expensive to travel, many people can’t visit them. We decided to experiment with a way of getting around the problem: we built a travelling museum.

I’m an archaeologist working in the Limpopo Valley, in the north of South Africa, studying hunter-gatherers and the rise of precolonial kingdoms. I am interested in how crafted goods and local wealth shaped social relations and became the pillars upon which state society was built.

Together with Justine van Heerden, I designed a mobile museum to share our research. It’s a sturdy, portable cabinet with drawers that each tell a chapter of regional history. There are five layers, with the bottom ones stretching back over 250,000 years, and the top only a few hundred years. Inside the drawers are objects from teaching collections or which have been handed to us over the years, like pieces of pottery or stone tools.

We travel with our museum to the field, to conferences and to meetings with land-owners, and we have written a paper to share with our community what we’ve learnt about community engagement programmes, and why this initiative works.

Justine surveyed and interviewed people who saw our museum for her master’s research. The main lessons we learnt are that:

• people learn best from touching something, not just listening to a talk

• visits with the museum should be short and frequent

• people respond to seeing something that’s locally relevant

• “experts” can learn from community engagement.

To make it work, a travelling museum needs maintenance. Objects must be durable or replaceable. Facilitators need training. And the initiative needs funding.

But taking the museum to rural schools and communities matters. Giving people a chance to engage with their past signals that the past is theirs and that expertise grows where they are.

What it is (and why touch matters)

The oldest display in our mobile museum cabinet is from Earlier and Middle Stone Age tool makers. Younger items include a Later Stone Age or hunter-gatherer display, and the top drawer includes a display on our current research. Inside each are artefacts, replicas and teaching aids designed to be handled. No glass. No alarms. No “do not touch” signs.

We emphasised touching because learning changes when your hands are involved. Feeling the edge of a stone tool or the weight of a ceramic sherd (a piece of broken pottery) transforms an abstract idea (“people lived here a thousand years ago”) into something immediate (“someone shaped this with their hands”).

For people who are learning about concepts in the museum for the first time, that moment of contact is powerful. They are learning from their fingertips.

Who we work with

We use the travelling museum in three main settings:

• Schools and community centres in our research area of northern South Africa, where many artefacts we study originate. Teachers tell us it’s far easier (and cheaper) than bussing students to a city museum. But it is not confined to the area we work in and we’ve brought the museum to South Africa’s capital city, Pretoria, and Skukuza in the east of the country to present heritage to interested groups, including students from abroad.

• Field visits and public talks, where elders, park staff and local guides share knowledge that seldom makes it into display labels. On a tour to the northern Kruger National Park, when we visited local archaeological sites such as Thulamela with the South African Archaeology Society, the museum accompanied us and we presented it to the group as an evening lecture.

• Importantly, the museum visits university classrooms regularly. Here, it acts as a bridge between lectures and excavations; students practise describing, recording and interpreting real materials before heading into the field. Showing up with something useful – something that makes learning easier and more enjoyable – goes a long way.

Learning from a travelling museum

A mobile display doesn’t replace a traditional museum, which stores, conserves, researches and presents a variety of items. But it does what big buildings can’t: reach people where they are, on their terms, at short notice, without a ticket price.

We’ve learnt that even 30 minutes of guided handling beats an hour of talking. Holding an artefact, which might be hundreds of years old, can be a profound experience.

We plan multiple small sessions instead of one large event. This allows us to regularly engage, revisit groups and present our museum in various ways. We’ve also produced posters, videos and slideshows about the exhibit.

Local relevance is key. People light up when objects and stories come from places they know, where they live, or where they’ve travelled to.

There is a risk with our approach. Letting the public touch objects means wear and tear. We manage that with robust replicas and careful choice of what we present. We believe that respectful risk is necessary because of the benefits it leads to.

Read more:
What it’s like curating ancient fossils: a palaeontologist shares her story

A travelling museum takes upkeep, money, planning and partners. Incorporating it into our research programme overcomes many of these challenges and tells the story of what we’re doing.

Why this matters beyond archaeology

Mobile museums are about equity as much as education. If cultural heritage remains behind glass in places that may be difficult to visit, it quietly reinforces the idea that knowledge lives elsewhere and belongs to someone else.

Read more:
Looting of the Sudan National Museum – more is at stake than priceless ancient treasures

It is also not only about facts, but about exchange and connections. It’s about ownership and voice. When people handle the finds that came from their region, they ask different questions and offer different insights. Those conversations often redirect our research questions too. We’ve often been struck by people’s desire for a deep connection with the past.

Heritage is a public good, and it surrounds us in South Africa – it’s in the hills, caves, under earth and in our backyards. If it clusters around privilege, it narrows the stories a society can tell about itself.

Tim Forssman receives funding from the National Research Foundation.

– ref. Museum in a box: on the road with South Africa’s heritage – https://theconversation.com/museum-in-a-box-on-the-road-with-south-africas-heritage-266108