Financial Times Research Insights Rankings: Bridging the Academic-Business Divide
The Financial Times’ second annual Research Insights Rankings for 2025 reveals a persistent challenge in business education: academic research that rarely translates into real-world impact. While scholars publish prolifically to advance their academic careers and their university’s standings, critics argue that much of this work “makes no real difference to anyone but clogs the pages of journals.”
The problem stems from traditional academic incentive structures. Junior faculty seeking tenure focus on theoretical publications in specialist academic journals, with engagement outside academia potentially harming promotion prospects. In academia, citation, not business impact, determines success. Hence, the urgent need for these rankings and the initiatives they will inspire, initiate, and reward.
How are the FT Research Insights Rankings Decided?
FT Research Insights Ranking Methodology
The 2025 FT Research Insights Ranking evaluates 179 institutions which participated in at least one of the FT degree rankings in 2025 or 2024. Using seven metrics, the ranking measures the “relevance, resonance, and rigor” of academic work. The ranking encompasses nearly 34,000 peer-reviewed articles published between 2020-2025, sourced from OpenAlex, an open-access article repository and cross-verified with Clarivate’s Web of Science and Lens platforms. The top 50 schools comprise the final ranking.
The FT Research Insights Ranking attempts to measure broader impact through multiple metrics beyond traditional citations. It uses “positive citations” developed by Scite to assess academic credibility, which measures how often fellow scholars affirm new work’s validity. “Facutly Productivity” measures the total articles divided by faculty size.
“SDG related articles” conflates article content with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Teaching influence uses seven-year sales data for widely-used cases from benchmark sources: Harvard Business Impact, Ivey Publishing, and The Case Centre.
To gauge non-academic reach, the ranking tracks policy document references via Overton’s database. It also looks at media coverage and social media engagement through Digital Science’s Altmetric tool, and practitioner downloads from SSRN. The ranking examines outputs up to five years post-publication (seven for teaching cases) to capture representative impact levels over time.
Top 10 Business Schools by Research Impact At A Glance
In 2025, business schools from the United States dominated the top 10 and the rankings overall. This signifies a clear bias for impact from English-language research. See the full table of 50 business schools here.
1. University of Pennsylvania: Wharton
Dominated across metrics with first place in positive citations, SDG-related articles, practitioner downloads, and Altmetric attention.
2. Harvard Business School
Second overall with top teaching case studies and strong policy citations.
3. Stanford Graduate School of Business
Consistent top-10 performance across most categories.
4. University of Chicago: Booth
Excelled in positive citations and policy influence.
5. MIT: Sloan
Strong productivity ranking (4th) despite smaller faculty.
6. UC Berkeley: Haas
Balanced performance across impact measures.
7. Columbia Business School
Notable for policy citations (10th).
8. Yale School of Management
Strong faculty productivity (3rd).
9. Northwestern University: Kellogg
Solid across multiple dimensions.
10. New York University: Stern
Competitive citations and practitioner reach.
Top of the Table Analysis
For the second year, the Wharton School topped the table with strong performance across all metrics. Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Chicago – Booth School of Business ranked closely behind. Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University, scored highest in Europe, in 14th place, immediately followed by Hong Kong University Business School and the University of Oxford – Saïd Business School.
Limitations
Despite these exemplary efforts, multiple challenges persist. Wharton’s Dean Erika James has long argued that “business schools need to be in service to business.” She reports that research is becoming more oriented toward practical applications, particularly at larger schools where executive education programs demand accountability.
The ranking methodology has limitations, as it favors larger, English-speaking institutions and cannot demonstrate ultimate practical implementation. Yet traditional citation counts are equally manipulable and separated from real-world value.
Research For Real-World Results: What Comes Next?
The good news is that change may be accelerating. The AACSB accreditation agency has formed a Global Research Impact Task Force, and networks like Responsible Research in Business and Management now award practical publications.
The Kroner Center for Financial Research at UC San Diego’s Rady School of Management exemplifies a rare solution. Since 2019, it has connected investment executives with academics to tackle practical business questions.
As funding pressures mount and senior scholars advocate for relevance, business schools face growing pressure to justify their existence by serving actual business needs rather than merely advancing academic careers.
You might also like…
Times Higher Education Impact Rankings 2025
We’ve looked at the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings for 2025 to analyze which universities perform best according to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Find your ideal school in terms of sustainable education and impact with the latest rankings.
Read more
