- Page 1: Mapping Diversity Developing a Euro
- Page 5 and 6: 4 1. Introduction In August 2005 th
- Page 7 and 8: Part I
- Page 9 and 10: downward mobility. A diversifi ed s
- Page 11 and 12: While rankings are criticized for t
- Page 13 and 14: • the classifi cation should allo
- Page 15 and 16: and checked, consistency of analysi
- Page 17 and 18: 16 3 Analyzing the Results of the C
- Page 19 and 20: Table 2: Overview of adapted indica
- Page 21 and 22: uild on standard data, whereas othe
- Page 23 and 24: 22 the strengthening of Europe’s
- Page 25 and 26: 24 The indicator on the importance
- Page 27 and 28: 26 Dimension Indicator new and sugg
- Page 29 and 30: Part II
- Page 31 and 32: 30 5.1.2 Stakeholder Group The part
- Page 33 and 34: 32 5.2 Criteria for institutionalis
- Page 35 and 36: 34 5.4 Conclusion and consideration
- Page 37 and 38: References
- Page 39 and 40: Annexes
- Page 41 and 42: Indicator 3a: number of programmes
- Page 43 and 44: The report (Jongbloed, Lepori et al
- Page 45 and 46: 44 Dimension 13: Cultural engagemen
- Page 47 and 48: A crucial issue which needs further
- Page 49 and 50: 48 Indicator 2.2.2a.: number of sta
- Page 51 and 52: 50 New indicator: budget/total turn
- Page 53 and 54:
Dimensions and Indicators 52 During
- Page 55 and 56:
54 addition to the volume of the co
- Page 57 and 58:
56 Annex III: The pilot survey Intr
- Page 59 and 60:
The respondents were asked also to
- Page 61 and 62:
The shapes of the profi les differ
- Page 63 and 64:
Dimension 9: Size 62 The two indica
- Page 65 and 66:
64 Annex IV: The CEICHE II survey C
- Page 67 and 68:
66 List of figures MAPPING DIVERSIT
- Page 69 and 70:
68 List of tables Table 1: Sampling
- Page 71 and 72:
channel, it was obvious that the st
- Page 73 and 74:
72 Overview of the opinions The que
- Page 75 and 76:
74 The indicators The position of t
- Page 77 and 78:
76 Validity of indicators For each
- Page 79 and 80:
78 Reliability The indicators selec
- Page 81 and 82:
80 Time needed to collect informati
- Page 83 and 84:
82 Figure 7: scores on ‘the infor
- Page 85 and 86:
84 Figure 8: Number of responding h
- Page 87 and 88:
86 Overview Calculating an overall
- Page 89 and 90:
doct er mast bachelor ee sub-degr h
- Page 91 and 92:
Pr opor ti on of 3a: ogr ammes l ea
- Page 93 and 94:
doct er mast Figure 18: Higher educ
- Page 95 and 96:
94 Indicator 6b: Number of patents
- Page 97 and 98:
doct er mast or bachel levels all e
- Page 99 and 100:
er mast or bachel 98 Indicator 7e:
- Page 101 and 102:
In addition to academic staff, high
- Page 103 and 104:
or ate doct er mast or bachel level
- Page 105 and 106:
104 Indicator 12a: legal status The
- Page 107 and 108:
106 Indicator 14 b: Graduates in th
- Page 109 and 110:
108 Discussion In this chapter we d
- Page 111 and 112:
We mapped the dimensions and their
- Page 113 and 114:
112 References Moors, J. J. A. and
- Page 115 and 116:
114 Indicator Comment 1a: highest l
- Page 117:
Project Identifi cation number 2006