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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Fontys Hogescholen, the Netherlands; • Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Germany; • Universiteit Twente, the Netherlands. 15 For this analysis a pilot survey was developed that was sent to these six institutions as well as to the two in-depth case study institutions. The report on the pilot survey of the eight institutions is included as Annex III. The case studies provided very positive reactions to the possible use of the classifi cation. All institutions appeared to be convinced that they would be able to work with the classifi cation as a tool for their own strategic management processes. The classifi cation was judged to be a relevant instrument for sharpening an institution’s mission and profi le. By focusing on the relevant dimensions and indicators of the classifi cation the institutions indicated that they would be able to strengthen their strategic orientation and develop and communicate their profi le. In addition the institutions in the case studies indicated that they would be highly interested in identifying and learning from other institutions comparable to them on a number of relevant dimensions and indicators. Developing and expanding partnerships and networks with these colleague institutions and setting up benchmarking processes were seen as important benefi ts of the classifi cation. The case-studies also provided a number of suggestions for the adaptation and elaboration of the dimensions and indicators of the draft-classifi cation. These suggestions were incorporated in the adaptation of the classifi cation used in the survey amongst a larger number of higher education institutions. 2.3.3 The classification survey The survey amongst a number of higher education institutions was the major element of the second phase of the research project. The survey was intended to test the (adapted) draft-classifi cation and to assess the relevance, validity, reliability and feasibility of the classifi cation instrument. The outcomes of this survey provide a clear set of indications for the further development of the classifi cation. These outcomes are reported in the next chapter of this report (chapter 3) and in Annex IV. MAPPING DIVERSITY
16 3 Analyzing the Results of the Classification Survey 3.1 Rationale for the survey The classifi cation is intended to be based on the actual behaviour of higher education institutions. The relevant aspects of that behaviour are organized in 14 dimensions and measured with 32 indicators. The information on these indicators at the institutional level is diffi cult to fi nd in international databases. National data sources usually have more relevant information but the use of such data sources is limited because of various practical, legal and methodological problems. Therefore a survey among higher education institutions was designed. This survey served three purposes: • to assess the relevance of the dimensions selected • to assess the quality of the indicators selected • to provide data that will allow further analyses of the dimensions and their clustering and of the indicators and their potential and pitfalls. A fuller report on the Survey can be found in Annex IV. 3.1.1 Survey design The survey consisted of two questionnaires: a questionnaire on the dimensions, querying the relevance of the dimensions and the indicators selected, and a questionnaire on the indicators. The latter comprised questions regarding data on the indicators selected as well as an assessment of the indicators. Draft questionnaires were developed based on the dimensions and indicators identifi ed and selected at the end of phase I of the project. These draft questionnaires were tested and discussed in the two sets of case studies, as described in chapter two. Based on the results of these tests, the questionnaires were adjusted and placed on-line for the survey 1 . MAPPING DIVERSITY The intended size of the sample for the survey was 100 higher education institutions. To keep the non-response rate as low as possible, networks of higher education institutions as represented in the Advisory Board were asked to introduce the project and identify contact persons. Around 160 higher education institutions were contacted. A second channel through which potential participants to the survey were identifi ed was through an open web-based procedure. On the project website (www.cheps.org/ceihe) higher education institutions could express their interest in participating. Based on the information provided the project team decided whether an interested institution could participate. In total 16 higher education institutions were selected this way. A fi nal way to invite institutions to participate was through national and international conferences. On a number of occasions the project was presented and a call for participation was made. To create the required diversity in the experimental data set, the sample was stratifi ed. The strata in age and size were based on the information on over 3000 higher education institutions in the database of the International Association of Universities (IAU). For the identifi cation of regions, the United Nations classifi cation of regions was used 2 . In this classifi cation Europe is divided into Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Europe. 1 for pdf versions of the questionnaires see www.cheps.org//ceihe_dimension.pdf and www.cheps.org//ceihe_ indicators.pdf. 2 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe
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 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?