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

of information on non-degree offerings have convinced the project team to leave out non-degree
offerings.
In some systems, higher education institutions provide special products for the LLL market. Therefore
it was suggested to include a question on students enrolled in specifi c LLL offerings.
23
5. Research intensiveness
The music and arts sector suggested including an indicator that would be more in-line with the
research activities undertaken in this sector. There will be no follow-up of this suggestion because the
introduction of such an indicator would reduce the legitimacy of the dimension for other institutions
(especially the traditional research universities).
It was strongly suggested to use ‘total research revenues’ as an additional indicator of research
intensiveness. The information is already included but in many national systems direct government
funding is provided as a lump sum for both teaching and research activities. To calculate total
research income requires the research income part of the lump sum to be determined (which proves
to be diffi cult).
6. Innovation intensiveness
It was suggested to use the indicator on start-up fi rms as an indicator for regional engagement as
well.
The way an institution is costing its activities may infl uence the results on the indicator on research
contracts. Full academic costing (FAC) is not a common practice in all countries yet. It was suggested
to introduce a checkbox on whether FAC is used.
There were also comments on the narrow focus of the indicators chosen for this dimension. It was
suggested that some indicators should be included to signal innovative activities in the set up of
teaching and curricula and of research, as well as for the innovative character of artistic activities.
For the latter the use of a community will be considered. A community is a group of institutions that
is willing to invest in developing a more comprehensive set of indicators for a particular dimension.
Such a community of interested institutions could play an active role in developing indicators and
advise the project team on these particular indicators. Participation would be on a voluntary basis.
Working with such a community could enhance the validity, feasibility and legitimacy of the indicators
used.
7. International orientation: teaching and staff
It was suggested to introduce ‘academic staff by time spent abroad (study/work)’ as an additional
indicator since nationality does not say enough about the real international orientation.
The indicators on student mobility are mainly focused on EU exchange programmes. By broadening
the scope of these indicators to all international exchange programmes this ‘EU-bias’ could be
reduced.
It was furthermore suggested to use the ‘nationality of the qualifying diploma’ (where the diploma of
secondary education was awarded) instead of the ‘nationality of the student’ to distinguish national
versus international students.
It was recommended to the project team to set up a community of institutions that is willing to invest
in developing a more comprehensive set of indicators for this dimension. The project team was
advised to include an indicator on joint degree programmes or double degrees awarded.
8. International orientation: research
The scope of this indicator was seen by many as too limited. Expanding the scope from EU research
programmes to all international research programmes would enhance the relevance and validity of
this indicator.
MAPPING DIVERSITY