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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Classifi cations use the principles of ordering and comparison to categorize. A European classifi cation of higher education institutions allows categorizations of these institutions according to the number of dimensions being applied in the classifi cation. As was indicated before, the classifi cation to be developed here is a multi-dimensional instrument, providing a number of categories in which institutions are grouped that show similar ‘scores’ on characteristics. The European classifi cation of higher education institutions thus differs from aggregated rankings in that it allows multiple scores for individual institutions. It also differs from rankings in general because it does not intend to create hierarchical comparisons, leading to one ‘league table’. However, this will not stop users from developing their own rankings of tailor made subsets of institutions within the classifi cation. This is not necessarily a bad thing. At least the use of subsets of institutions reduces the diversity within the group of institutions ranked and therefore reduces the risk that incomparable institutions are compared and unfairly ranked. In this sense the European classifi cation of higher education institutions is a relevant and signifi cant prerequisite for better rankings in higher education. 11 2.2 The draft-classification During the fi rst phase of the classifi cation project the option of designing and constructing a European classifi cation of higher educations institutions was explored. The conclusion was that Europe would certainly profi t from a classifi cation of its many and diverse higher education institutions. As the Carnegie Classifi cation has done in the US since the early 1970s, a European classifi cation of higher education institutions would create a level of transparency in the European higher education area which would support the various stakeholders in this area. • Business and industry will better be able to identify the institutions they wish to relate to with respect to hiring graduates, commissioning research, organizing knowledge transfer, etc. • Policy makers (at various levels) will be better able to target policies and programmes. • Students will be better able to identify their preferred higher education institutions and to make better choices regarding their study-programmes and labour market perspectives. • Higher education institutions will be better able to develop their missions and profi les and to engage in partnerships, benchmarking and networking. A European classifi cation of higher education institutions will create transparency and reveal the rich diversity of European higher education. As was indicated before, we see the European classifi cation of higher education institutions as a descriptive tool, using principles of measurement, ordering and comparing to categorize higher education institutions in multi-dimensional ways. During the fi rst phase of the project a set of so-called ‘design principles’ was formulated. These principles were the result of extensive communication with the various stakeholders. The design principles were the following: • the classifi cation should be inclusive of all European higher education institutions; • the classifi cation should be based on a posterior information, describing the actual conditions and behaviour of higher education institutions, • the classifi cation should be multi-dimensional and allow several ways of categorizing higher education institutions; • the classifi cation should be non-hierarchical in terms of dimensions, criteria and categories; • the classifi cation should be based as much as possible on ‘objective’, empirical and reliable data; • the classifi cation should be descriptive not prescriptive; MAPPING DIVERSITY
• the classifi cation should allow fl exibility in the sense that institutions can ‘move’ between 12 categories and that dimensions, criteria and categories can be adapted; • the classifi cation should be parsimonious regarding extra data-gathering needs; • the classifi cation should be related to the European policy on quality assurance, in particular the European Quality Assurance Register in Higher Education (EQAR). Based on these principles a draft-classifi cation was developed that consists of 14 dimensions and a set of indicators per dimension. The dimensions and indicators were selected in an interactive process with the stakeholders and experts and were developed to cover the crucial characteristics of higher education institutions in Europe and to allow relevant differentiation between these institutions. Regarding the relationship between the European classifi cation and quality assurance, the following suggestions were made: • the classifi cation should not be seen as an instrument for ranking higher education institutions. The multi-dimensional and non-hierarchical characteristics of the classifi cation imply that a number of different comparisons and categorizations of higher education institutions can be made, that cannot lead to one ‘league table’. However, the classifi cation instrument cannot prevent users from ranking institutions per dimension. Such rankings may be assumed to be more useful and fair than aggregated rankings; • the classifi cation is not an instrument for institutional quality measurement. It does not generate quality judgments about higher education institutions, nor about their educational and research programmes. It describes the ‘profi les’ of these institutions on the basis of ‘objective’, empirical and reliable data. These descriptions can of course be used in quality measurement and assurance processes, but in order to be able to do so criteria for the judgment of quality have to be added to the descriptions; • in order to create a clear relationship with the European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies (EQAR), only those higher education institutions whose programmes are successfully reviewed by a registered quality assurance or accreditation agency should be included in the classifi cation. In this way only reputable higher education providers will be included. Table 1 offers an overview of the draft and classifi cation. As was indicated earlier this classifi cation consists of 14 dimensions and a set of indicators per dimension. The indicators make it possible to differentiate between institutions and to construct different categories per dimension. In the draftclassifi cation these categories were only provisionally developed. MAPPING DIVERSITY
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 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?