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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
24 The indicator on the importance of regional sources of income does provide information on the relative importance of international sources of income as well. 9. Size No comments were made regarding this dimension. 10. Mode of delivery The issue of blended learning (combining on-campus and distance learning elements in one programme) was discussed by some respondents. However, due the methodological problems this may cause, it was decided not to include an indicator on this item. In the questionnaire there is a question on the provision of distance learning programmes, but there is no question on the size of those programmes in terms of enrolment. Including such an indicator would enhance the validity of the set of indicators for this dimension. 11. Public/private character It was suggested to breakdown public funding into direct lump sum public funding and indirect competitive public funding. It was suggested that the former was a better indicator of public character than the latter. Using the direct lump sum public funding would therefore increase the validity of the indicator. There were suggestions to include revenues from donations as an additional indicator in this dimension. Although this source of income may not be relevant in many higher education institutions yet, the project team decided to included the indicator in the list of suggested indicators. It is expected that the relative importance of this indicator (as an indicator that clearly differentiates groups of institutions from one another) will increase in the future. 12. Legal status The few comments made regarding this dimension did not lead to any changes to the dimension or the indicators used. 13. Cultural engagement The current indicators were criticized by the music and arts sector. It was recommended to the project team to set up a community of institutions that is willing to invest in developing a more adequate set of indicators for cultural engagement. MAPPING DIVERSITY 14. Regional engagement The indicator ‘graduates in the region’ was dropped because of methodological problems. The other indicators were challenged but it was decided to keep these indicators in order to be able to distinguish institutions that invest in these activities (as part of their profi le). It was recommended to the project team to set up a community of institutions that is willing to invest in developing a more adequate set of indicators for regional engagement. It was suggested to use the indicator ‘number of extracurricular courses’ both as an indicator for the dimension ‘LLL’ and the dimension ‘mode of delivery’. It was furthermore suggested to include the number of partnerships with business and industry as an indicator in this dimension.
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 16 and 17: • Fontys Hogescholen, the Netherl
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 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:
Figure 37: Higher education institu
Page 106 and 107:
Indicator 13b: Exhibitions 105 The
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 44: Higher education institu
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?