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

22
the strengthening of Europe’s performance in the areas of education, research and innovation (the
knowledge triangle).
Fifth, the issue of how to ensure that the data provided by institutions are correct was mentioned
both by responding higher education institutions and stakeholders. The project team underlines
the importance of this issue but concrete action to develop procedures to ensure the reliability of
the information provided has been postponed to the third phase of the project which will focus on
operational aspects.
A fi nal general issue refers to the question ‘Who owns the data?’ In phase two of the project, the
data provided by the institutions are owned by the project team. The project team has made it clear
to the respondents that the data provided will only be used to develop the classifi cation. In a later
stage of the project the data could also be used to classify institutions but the project team will only
do so with specifi c consent from the individual institutions.
4.2 The indicators (by dimension)
In this section we present the conclusions regarding the various indicators. The conclusions and
remarks are presented in the sequence of dimensions and indicators as presented in table 2.
1. Types of degree offered
In addition to the two original indicators, two new indicators were suggested for this dimension.
The fi rst was ‘dominant degree level’: the degree level at which more than 50% of all degrees at
the institution are awarded. Due to the fact that there was a substantial number of higher education
institutions with ‘no dominant degree level’, an alternative indicator was calculated using 40% as the
cut-off point. The second new indicator was ‘graduate intensity’: the sum of master and doctorate
degrees as a percentage of overall degrees.
2. Range of subjects offered
It was suggested that checking what subject areas are offered is not specifi c enough, although it
provides a general idea of the scope of the institution’s activities. This might become more precise if
information on the number of graduates per subject area was included, allowing the determination
of predominant fi elds of study. This may be of particular interest to students.
MAPPING DIVERSITY
3. Orientation of degrees
The link to the European list of regulated and certifi ed professions (used in the indicator questionnaire)
did not work properly for all countries. It was suggested to include the lists for each country in the
background information.
Furthermore it was advised to include the number of student placements in fi rms, hospitals etc.
as an indicator for this dimension. A high number of placements signals a strong professional
orientation.
4. Involvement in life long learning (LLL)
The breakdown of enrolment by age group and level of programme proved to be problematic in
terms of feasibility. It was suggested to take out the breakdown by level of degree and to include a
breakdown by mode of enrolment (full-time versus part time).
From the comments, we deduced that many LLL activities are taking place outside degree
programmes. By limiting the questions to degree granting activities, a substantial part of LLL
activities might become invisible. However, anticipated problems in comparability and interpretation