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

4. Conclusions
21
In this chapter we draw conclusions on what we have learned from the case studies, the review of
the existing databases and the survey. We particularly report the suggestions and remarks offered
by the stakeholders and the institutions involved in the project. The issues are presented in three
categories:
• general issues on the development and use of the classifi cation;
• the validity and feasibility of the indicators (Which indicators should be redefi ned, omitted or
added?);
• the relevance of the dimensions (Which dimensions should be retained or merged?).
4.1General Issues
We fi rst present an overview of a number of general suggestions regarding the further development
of the classifi cation. These suggestions will lead to further adaptations of the current draftclassifi
cation.
First of all, it was suggested by several stakeholders and higher education institutions to include an
open question regarding the mission of the institution. Such a question, preferably in the dimensions
questionnaire, will give the institution an opportunity to include its intentions and, where there is a
large discrepancy with its ‘empirical’ profi le, to use this as a starting point for its further strategic
development. This information should not be used to classify institutions but be presented as
additional contextual information.
Secondly, there were several comments and suggestions that referred to the infl uence the national
context has on the answers provided by the institution (1b, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6, 7d, 7e, 8a, 9b, 10a.
10b, 11a, 12a, 14a). There may also be some confusion/ bias caused by national differences in the
reference period. Academic years are not always the same and the academic year (most frequently
used for student related data) differs in many countries from the calendar year (most frequently used
for fi nancial data). To address this issue, in the next version of the classifi cation the use of country
specifi c background information will be considered. We conclude that the questions should remain
the same for all countries; but the information behind the info-buttons (see the questionnaires) can
be made country specifi c. The national information will be developed and checked with national
experts.
Another general issue that was mentioned was the relation of the project with existing institution
based comparative initiatives. On the one hand there are projects related to student surveys and
student’s opinions on programmes (such as the German CHE ranking 4 ). The suggestion was not to
integrate this information into the classifi cation but to present the information as relevant background
information. Such linkages may increase the use and usefulness of the classifi cation for students.
A similar recommendation followed from the analysis of existing data sources. Based on the results
of that analysis it was recommended that the development of comprehensive, systematic and
comparable data on the main functions and characteristics of higher education institutions should
be fostered. To this end existing initiatives and centers of expertise in Europe should be stimulated
to cooperate, thus enhancing the ongoing work on European frameworks and instruments that
enable diversity to become more transparent. This will be a major and indispensable contribution to
6 http://www.che-ranking.de/cms/?getObject=2&getName=CHE-Ranking&getLang=de
MAPPING DIVERSITY