Mapping Diversity: Developing a European Classification of ... - U-Map

More documents

Recommendations

Info

with university rankings, rankings are ‘here to stay’. We should try to improve them rather than fi ght them (Dill and Soo 2005; Van Dyke 2005; Marginson 2007; Marginson and van der Wende 2007; Sadlak and Liu 2007; Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, Open University et al. 2008; van der Wende 2008). Several issues have been identifi ed that should be addressed when improving the current ranking approaches. 9 A fi rst issue regards the distinction between aggregated and multi-dimensional rankings. In an aggregated ranking the information on a number of indicators regarding institutional performance is combined to create an overall institutional league table. In this approach certain weights are assigned to each indicator according to their perceived importance and a straight hierarchical ranking is produced. A multi-dimensional ranking provides multiple scores for each individual higher education institution, offering information on a set of different aspects without necessarily combining these in a unique hierarchy. The problem with aggregated rankings is that they hide signifi cant differences between higher education institutions and they cannot address the specifi c interests of stakeholders. In addition the choices regarding indicators and their weights in the overall score are made by the ranking organisation and the underlying rational for these choices is often unclear. Multi-dimensional rankings, on the other hand, recognize the diversity of higher education institutions and acknowledge that a single hierarchy cannot refl ect this diversity. In addition, multidimensional rankings tend to accept that the choices of indicators and weights should usually relate to the users’ or stakeholders’ points of view and that hence these users/ stakeholders should be involved in making these choices. A second issue with respect to rankings concerns the fact that rankings usually appear to capture the prestige or reputation of higher education institutions, rather than their actual performance. Most international rankings are prestige rankings, largely focused on criteria like ‘excellence in research’ and subjective peer reputation. Particularly when prestige surveys amongst academics are used, the problem with these rankings are manifold. Academic peers cannot be assumed to have a comprehensive overview of the academic quality of all relevant institutions. In addition misleading ‘halo-effects’ will result from quality judgements based on reputations (with world famous universities being higher rated because of their reputation rather than their performance). Furthermore circularity effects occur as a result of historical reputation (with historically highly reputed institutions receiving positive judgements regarding their present or future rating). A third issue regards the selection of the indicators to be used in rankings. Such a selection should satisfy attributes like relevance, comprehensiveness, comparability, validity and reliability. The indicators should refl ect the dimensions that are judged to be important by various stakeholders and provide reliable information. To date rankings are confronted with the problem of a lack of indicators that suffi ciently capture the performance of higher education institutions more widely. Especially in areas other than research, notably teaching and other forms of knowledge transfer, lifelong learning and innovation. A fourth and fi nal issue regarding rankings concerns their impact on the behaviour of higher education institutions and on the dynamics of higher education systems. Rankings appear to trigger reactions by various stakeholders, often producing unintended effects. Higher education institutions for instance react to their ranking positions by increasing their investments in costly programmes and creating higher access selectivity barriers. Policy-makers stimulate institutions to improve their position on particular prestige rankings. Rankings are in this respect not neutral information instruments but rather highly ‘political’ tools that produce various reactions and effects (Salmi and Saroyan 2006). MAPPING DIVERSITY
While rankings are criticized for their conceptual and methodological problems and for their potentially 10 dysfunctional effects, they are nevertheless seen as ‘here to stay’. The challenge therefore is to offer constructive contributions to the process of improving the quality and effectiveness of rankings. This is one of the intentions of this project. 2.1.3 Classifications ‘A classifi cation is a spatial, temporal or spatio-temporal segmentation of the world’ (Bowker and Star 2000, p.10). Or in simpler terms it is ‘… the general process of grouping entities by similarity’ (Bailey 1994, p.4). In the literature on classifi cations, a number of related terms are used, sometimes interchangeably, which can lead to confusion. In order to be explicit about the concepts used in this project we provide a short resumé of the relevant terms. A classifi cation should be distinguished from a typology. A typology is a conceptual classifi cation. A classifi cation orders empirical cases while a typology addresses conceptual entities. The cells in a typology represent concepts rather than empirical cases. These concepts are generally defi ned in a monothetic way: they comprise entities that are all identical on all variables or dimensions measured. A taxonomy is a special case of classifi cation with the main difference being that each cell (taxon) comprises an empirical case. This term is generally used in biological sciences. In this project we are building a classifi cation: we develop a set of grouping criteria and use it to group empirical cases (in our case: higher education institutions). Classifi cations can be unidimensional or multi-dimensional. In this project a multi-dimensional classifi cation is aimed for. Generally speaking, classifi cations help to describe a fi eld. They may contribute to the reduction of complexity and to increasing transparency. In addition they may be used to identify similarities and differences between entities. A classifi cation is also an instrument for information and communication. It intends to assist stakeholders in their decisions and actions. MAPPING DIVERSITY As is the case with rankings, in classifi cations the selection of the entities to be classifi ed and particularly of the ‘grouping criteria’ to categorize these entities are crucial decisions. Building a classifi cation should therefore be a user-oriented process. The most crucial aspect of a classifi cation is to determine who the potential or intended users (stakeholders) are and what they want to use the classifi cation for. Classifying entities is a process that consists of a number of steps. The fi rst one is to identify the entities to be classifi ed. The user-oriented perspective provides suffi cient guidance here. Once the entities for the classifi cation have been identifi ed the second step can be taken: the defi nition of relevant and adequate grouping criteria. The choice of the dimensions (as we shall call the grouping criteria or key characteristics from now on) should allow the users of the classifi cation to group the entities the way they want. The more dimensions are selected the more the entities can be grouped and described in detailed and different ways. Here again, the user-oriented perspective is crucial. Only when the relevant stakeholders are able to contribute to the selection and defi nition of dimensions can relevant classifi cations be produced. The fi nal step is to identify how the entities score on the different dimensions. During this step the entities are allocated to the cells of the classifi cation on the basis of empirical information.
Page 1 and 2: Mapping Diversity Developing a Euro
Page 4 and 5: Mapping Diversity Contents Developi
Page 6 and 7: The research project team consisted
Page 8 and 9: 2. Building a European Classificati
Page 12 and 13: Classifi cations use the principles
Page 14 and 15: Table 1: Draft and classifi cation
Page 16 and 17: • Fontys Hogescholen, the Netherl
Page 18 and 19: 3.1.2 Response to the survey 67 Res
Page 20 and 21: The question ‘this dimension is e
Page 22 and 23: 4. Conclusions 21 In this chapter w
Page 24 and 25: of information on non-degree offeri
Page 26 and 27: 4.3 Reduction of the number of dime
Page 28 and 29: Dimension Indicator new and suggest
Page 30 and 31: 5. Operational implementation Part
Page 32 and 33: etter world’ from 19 th to 20 th
Page 34 and 35: Government model In this model gove
Page 36 and 37: also underline the need for coopera
Page 38 and 39: Bailey, K. D. (1994) Typologies and
Page 40 and 41: Annex I: Exploratory analysis of ex
Page 42 and 43: EU The Rebaspinoff projects (part o
Page 44 and 45: World of Learning. If a further bre
Page 46 and 47: Annex II: The case studies 45 Case
Page 48 and 49: Indicator 1.3.1.: number of program
Page 50 and 51: Indicator 3.1.2a.: number of Europe
Page 52 and 53: Case Study: University of Strathcly
Page 54 and 55: Indicator 1.3.2.: number of program
Page 56 and 57: Indicator 4.2.2.: number of part ti
Page 58 and 59: The dimension ‘cultural engagemen
Page 60 and 61:
Figure 4: Institutional profi les b
Page 62 and 63:
and life long learning. Feasibility
Page 64 and 65:
Conclusions The pilot survey showed
Page 66 and 67:
Indicator 10b: The percentage of pr
Page 68 and 69:
Figure 32: Higher education institu
Page 70 and 71:
Introduction 69 Rationale for the s
Page 72 and 73:
Table 2: Age strata IAU based strat
Page 74 and 75:
What is more problematic (or more d
Page 76 and 77:
Table 5: Overview of indicators and
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 3: Opinions regarding the st
Page 80 and 81:
Figure 4: Opinions on the statement
Page 82 and 83:
enrolment and 12a: legal status) or
Page 84 and 85:
Data from existing sources The ques
Page 86 and 87:
Valid cases The fourth indication o
Page 88 and 89:
ate (3r d doctor cycle) or (1st bac
Page 90 and 91:
If 40% is used as a cutoff point, t
Page 92 and 93:
doct er mast Figure 16: Higher educ
Page 94 and 95:
As a result of the discussion on th
Page 96 and 97:
Indicator 6d: Financial volume of p
Page 98 and 99:
doctorate er mast or bachel or +mas
Page 100 and 101:
Indicator 9a: Enrolment The number
Page 102 and 103:
er mast or bachel er mast or bachel
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Indicator 13b: Exhibitions 105 The
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
The clustering is based on the corr
Page 112 and 113:
as well as dimension 4 (involvement
Page 114 and 115:
Appendix 1: Comments 113 Dimension
Page 116 and 117:
7e number of program offered abroad
show all

Mapping Diversity: Developing a European Classification of ... - U-Map

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?