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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix 1: Comments 113 Dimension Comments 1: types of degrees offered Only few comments were made. There was mention of including non- degree program offerings and some confusion regarding the term ‘qualifi cations’ 2: range of subjects offered There were very few comments made: two respondents stated that the ISCED classifi cation was not suited for describing the range of subjects 3: orientation of degrees Comments referred the subjective and ‘vague’ character of indicator b. There were furthermore some comments that the indicators could not differentiate between academic and non-academic or professional institutions. The project team deliberately avoided this ‘traditional’ dichotomy in the defi nitions, to break free of these high institutionalized labels. 4: involvement in life long learning Comments were on the cut-off point. In some systems other defi nitions of ‘mature’ students are used (e.g., over 21 years on entrance in the UK), which may lead to confusion. It was also mentioned that national differences in entrance age and different way in which the programs are organized may lead to different age structures of the student body. In those cases the indicator does not identify differences in involvement in LLL but systemic differences. 5: research intensiveness Some respondents commented that the indicators do not apply to universities of applied sciences or art schools. It was furthermore commented that some obvious indicators are missing (like fte for research, other research outputs, and third party funds for research). Some of these indicators may be derived from the answers to other dimensions. 6: innovation intensiveness Comments mainly referred to national differences in patenting practices 7: international orientation: teaching and staff 8: international orientation: research There were few comments on the narrow, European scope of the indicators and on the impact the national context has on student mobility (e.g., UK receives much more students than Finland). Some respondents missed joint degrees or double degrees as indicators Most comments were on the EU-scope of the indicator: it is considered to be too narrow and should include other European and international funding sources. 9: size Two respondents suggested to include student staff ratios as an indicator. There was also the suggestion to use the number of degrees awarded (1b) as an indicator in this dimension. 10: mode of delivery Very few comments here. One respondent missed the number of students participating in distance learning programs. 11: public/private character Comments touched upon three issues.. The outcomes depend on the national public funding mechanism. Public versus private is a legal issue that should not be confused with the dependency on public sources [the new of the dimension is misleading]. Other private income like donations are not included. 12: legal status Very few comments 13: cultural engagement The indicators are considered to be too ‘simplistic’ and not covering the full width of cultural activities. 14: regional engagement Comments revealed some problems regarding the demarcation of the region, and the weak link between the eligibility of the region for structural funds and the regional engagement of a higher education institution. It was furthermore suggested to use the indicator on start-ups (6a) as an indicator for this dimension as well. MAPPING DIVERSITY
114 Indicator Comment 1a: highest level of degree program offered Some comments that institutions are revising their degree structure following the Bologna architecture 1b: number of qualifi cations granted in each type of degree program Mainly clarifi cations of what is reported MAPPING DIVERSITY 2a: number of subject areas covered by an institution using the UNESCO/ISCED subject areas 3a: the number of programs leading to certifi ed/ regulated professions as a % of the total number of programs 3b: the number of programs offered that answer to a particular demand from the labour market or professions (as % of the total number of programs) 4a: number of adult learners as a % of total number of students by type of degree 5a: number of peer reviewed publications per fte academic staff Few comments, mainly on ambiguity on what goes into the broad ISCED-categories Next to clarifi cations of what is reported, there are some comments on defi nition of professional and regulated profession; to some of the respondents the defi nitions are not clear. Again some clarifi cations given. There are two types of comments: ‘professional’ is ill-defi ned, and ‘all programs answer to a demand from the labour market’. All comments are on the problems providing the data by specifi ed age group or type of program. Most comments are clarifi cations on what was reported or why nothing was reported. It proves that not all institutions have the information available or think the information is relevant. 5b: the ISI based citation indicator, also known as the ‘crown indicator’ 6a: the number of start-up fi rms Comments referred to the fact that institutions did not have the information 6b: the number of patent applications fi led Comments are mainly clarifi cation of what was reported 6c: the annual licensing income Comments are mainly clarifi cation of what was reported 6d: the revenues from privately funded research contracts as a % of total research revenues 7a: the number of degree seeking students with a foreign nationality, as % of total enrolment 7b: the number of incoming students in European exchange programs, as % of total enrolment 7c: the number of students sent out in European exchange programs 7d: international staff members as % of total number of staff members There are some comments on the diffi culty to obtain total research revenues since part of research revenues are in the lump sum provided by the government. From the comments we also can learn that respondents treat medical research in different ways (in- or excluding it). The remaining comments are clarifi cations. The are two comments on the defi nition of foreign student, both stating that nationality may not be a good indication of the international orientation. Most other comments are clarifi cations on data provided Comments clarify the data provided. It proved to be diffi cult sometimes to report data on bachelor level only. Comments clarify the data provided. It proved to be diffi cult sometimes to report data on bachelor level only. Comments clarify the data provided.
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 10 and 11:
with university rankings, rankings
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 106 and 107: Indicator 13b: Exhibitions 105 The
Page 110 and 111: The clustering is based on the corr
Page 112 and 113: as well as dimension 4 (involvement
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?