How Does Faculty Professional Development Influence Global University Rankings?

Faculty professional development can influence global university rankings, but usually through an indirect chain: stronger academic capabilities support better teaching, research and collaboration, which may eventually affect selected ranking indicators. Completing a course does not itself earn a university ranking points. For university leaders, the practical question is therefore not how many certificates staff collect, but whether development changes academic work.

A credible strategy begins with institutional priorities and treats ranking performance as one possible consequence. It also recognises timing: an improved supervision practice may benefit students immediately, while publication visibility or international reputation may develop over several years.

Separate development activities from ranking indicators

The QS World University Rankings methodology includes indicators such as Academic Reputation, Citations per Faculty, Employer Reputation and International Research Network. Faculty training attendance is not a listed indicator. A research development programme may help academics produce more rigorous, discoverable work, but a subsequent citation change cannot automatically be attributed to that programme.

Similarly, the Times Higher Education methodology groups measures under teaching, research environment, research quality, international outlook and industry. Its teaching pillar should not be read as a direct classroom observation score. Leaders should examine each underlying measure before claiming that pedagogical training will affect it.

EUCPD membership does not affect ranking eligibility or scores. Keep membership status, participation certificates, accreditation decisions and ranking results separate in governance documents and public communications.

Build development around three quality mechanisms

1. Improve learning and assessment

Useful teaching development addresses problems that academic teams can identify: unclear assessment criteria, inaccessible materials, inconsistent feedback or weak alignment between learning outcomes and examinations. Workshops should lead to reviewed course designs, observed practice and opportunities to revise teaching.

The European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance explicitly address opportunities for teaching staff development and encouragement of innovation in teaching. This supports a quality-assurance case for investment; it is not evidence that a particular course produces ranking gains.

Evaluate changes using moderated samples of student work, assessment reliability, student feedback and progression patterns. Interpret results alongside changes in admissions, curriculum and student support. Satisfaction alone is insufficient evidence of improved learning, and small cohorts require careful interpretation.

2. Strengthen research practice

Research development can cover study design, statistical reasoning, research ethics, data management, grant preparation and responsible authorship. Match provision to career stage: doctoral supervisors may need different support from new principal investigators or colleagues returning after a career break.

Combine training with practical infrastructure. A seminar on reproducibility has limited value if researchers lack secure storage, methodological advice or time to document their work. Assess whether staff adopt the intended practices before looking for changes in external indicators.

The CoARA Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment prioritises qualitative judgement, supported by responsible quantitative indicators. Accordingly, use expert review of research contributions rather than rewarding staff solely for publication counts or journal prestige.

3. Make collaboration more effective

International collaboration requires more than signing agreements. Staff may need skills in partnership governance, intercultural communication, shared supervision and cross-border project management. Development should help teams establish equitable responsibilities, workable budgets and clear authorship arrangements.

Look for evidence of sustained activity: jointly supervised projects, completed exchanges with academic outputs, shared resources or collaborative research that addresses a defined problem. These are more informative management signals than the number of partnership announcements.

Design an evidence chain before commissioning courses

For each investment, record the institutional problem, intended capability, expected practice change and evidence source. Name an academic owner and agree when the programme will be reviewed. This prevents a training catalogue from becoming a substitute for strategy.

• Participation: who accessed development, including temporary and part-time staff?
• Capability: what can participants demonstrate after the activity?
• Practice: what changed in courses, supervision or research workflows?
• Outcomes: what credible evidence suggests an improvement, and what alternative explanations remain?

Consider an illustrative engineering faculty whose students receive inconsistent project feedback. It introduces assessor calibration, peer review of rubrics and follow-up coaching. The evaluation compares feedback quality and marking consistency before and after implementation. No invented ranking uplift is needed: the first test is whether assessment became more dependable.

If the university later observes stronger graduate outcomes or reputational signals, it should investigate several contributing factors rather than assign the entire change to staff development. Maintain this distinction in reports to the governing body.

Protect time, access and academic judgement

Development competes with teaching, administration and research. Provide protected time, accessible delivery and department-level support for applying new skills. Otherwise, participation may favour already well-resourced teams and widen internal inequalities.

Avoid universal targets that treat every discipline alike. Clinical practice, creative work and laboratory research require different development pathways. Budget for mentoring and peer learning as well as formal courses, and review programmes that create substantial administrative burden without demonstrated benefit.

Frequently asked questions

Does faculty CPD directly raise QS or THE scores?

Neither methodology cited here lists CPD attendance as a direct indicator. Development may support activities reflected in certain measures, but the relationship is indirect and does not guarantee a higher score or position.

How soon should leaders evaluate results?

Review participation and capability soon after delivery, then assess practice changes during the following academic cycle. Set longer review periods for research and reputation outcomes, explaining why those outcomes cannot be evaluated on a workshop timetable.

Make the next investment testable

Select one academic challenge, establish a baseline and fund a development pathway with follow-up support. Ask the responsible team to report both benefits and limitations. A university gains a stronger foundation for international standing when professional development demonstrably improves its work, not when ranking ambition replaces educational purpose.