RAG Project – Methodology

RAG Project Framework

Methodology

This methodology outlines how RAG Project collects evidence, categorises universities, and validates final rankings using a Red / Amber / Green framework.

Research Phases

First Phase: Data Collection

The research team collects data on universities worldwide using open-source material and accountable documentation. Priority is given to universities with military/intelligence ties, operations in occupied territories, or service/research transfer linked to occupation structures.

Sources of Information

  • Open-source information.
  • Documents that can be used as accountable references.

Targeted Universities

  • Contracts/partnerships with occupation military or intelligence community.
  • Operations in occupied territories.
  • Services, research, or knowledge transfer to occupation schemes.

1) Academic ties with the occupation (ATOC)

  • ATOC-ReP - Research funding or partnerships
  • ATOC-G - Grants
  • ATOC-SoF - Scholarships funding
  • ATOC-MaP - Mutual academic programs

2) Non-Academic ties with the occupation (NATOC)

  • NATOC-DiV - Direct/indirect investments
  • NATOC-TrsT - Trust establishments
  • NATOC-DoN - Donations
  • NATOC-CoM - Commercial partnerships

3) University management relations (RELAC)

  • RELAC-B - Board of trustees
  • RELAC-D - Deans of university

4) Position from the cause (PoC)

  • PoC-PaN - Public announcements
  • PoC-ReG - Regulations in favor/against
  • PoC-SaP - Support of solidarity groups
  • PoC-HeV - Events held in favour/against

Ranking Process

Second Phase: Complicity Scoring

Each sub-criterion records the actual number of documented ties in that category - partnerships counted, investments named, events identified. These counts are summed into two composite totals that together determine the final RAG rating.

1
Counting documented ties For each of the 14 sub-criteria, the research team counts the actual number of documented ties - research partnerships, grant programmes, named investments, scholarship schemes, board connections, events hosted, arrests made. The number entered is a count, not a judgment score.
2
Composite totals Counts are aggregated into two totals: the Complicity Score (sum of all ATOC, NATOC, RELAC, and pro-occupation PoC counts) and the Anti-Occupation Score (number of distinct anti-occupation institutional actions documented).
3
RAG classification The final rating is determined by the balance of both totals using the thresholds below. Qualitative overrides apply where institutional context - such as a formal academic boycott, a comprehensive divestment, or state-mandated pro-occupation policy - significantly changes the picture beyond what the raw count captures.
4
Evidence standard Only publicly verifiable ties are counted - FOI disclosures, university websites, SEC filings, investigative journalism, PACBI and PSC databases. Unverified claims, rumours, or indirect inferences are excluded. Where a tie is documented but its scope is uncertain, it counts as one.

Complicity Score

Sum of all documented ties across ATOC, NATOC, RELAC and pro-occupation PoC

Anti-Occupation Score

Count of distinct anti-occupation institutional actions documented

Rating Complicity Score Anti-Occupation Score Classification criteria
Red High count, or moderate with suppression / governance ties Any High or direct complicity. Named Israeli partnerships, significant endowment exposure to IDF-linked companies, and/or active suppression of Palestinian solidarity. No meaningful institutional counteraction.
Amber Moderate count Below Complicity Score Partial or indirect complicity. Documented ties without comprehensive divestment or a formal academic boycott. May include some pro-Palestine actions that do not outweigh the overall complicity profile.
Green Low or zero, or overridden by decisive boycott action Meets or exceeds Complicity Score No complicity, or active opposition. No documented institutional ties - or the university has formally severed ties, implemented divestment, passed binding resolutions, or taken other decisive institutional action.
Why counting, not scoring? Each sub-criterion records the actual number of verified documented ties rather than a 0-5 depth judgment. This means volume matters: a university with 45 research partnerships with Israeli institutions registers higher than one with 2, which better reflects the true scale of institutional entanglement. Where volume is not available, the count reflects the number of distinct documented instances.

Final Assessment

Third Phase: Validation and Updates

  • A committee of accountable specialists approves university categorisation and ranking outcomes.
  • Updates are planned every 6–9 months, or earlier when verified new evidence or policy changes emerge.
RAG Project Methodology
Scroll to Top