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

4.3 Reduction of the number of dimensions
In the survey 14 dimensions were distinguished. This was seen as too many by quite a number
of respondents. When the higher education institutions are classifi ed on all 14 dimensions, the
use of the classifi cation becomes very tedious and (for many intended users) too time consuming
and confusing. It is also argued that when used as a ‘fi ltering device’ the selection of benchmark
institutions based on all dimensions will very rarely result in a reasonable number of “hits” (if any).
25
In contrast to this ‘push’ towards a reduction of the number of dimensions there were also some
comments to keep all dimensions, at least at this stage of the project. Reducing the number of
dimensions leads to a reduction of information, which should be avoided during the developmental
stage of the classifi cation. Diversity is best captured by as many (relevant) dimensions as possible. In
a later stage of the project, there will always be the option of reducing the number of dimensions.
The survey scores on the perceived relevance were not used to rearrange the dimensions or to
reduce the number of dimensions. ’Low’ scores on relevance are seen as an indication of diversity
among the responding higher education institutions: for many of the responding institutions a
particular dimension may be irrelevant, but for a (limited) number of institutions it is relevant and
distinguishes them from others.
There were some doubts regarding three dimensions. ‘Involvement in life long learning’ turned
out to be a ‘challenging’ dimension: the validity, reliability and feasibility of the indicator, were
considered to be problematic. The dimensions ‘Cultural engagement’ and ‘Regional engagement’
were challenged by a number of respondents. Instead of labelling these dimensions as ‘challenged’
and deleting them from the list of dimensions, the project team decided to label the dimensions as
‘challenging’. The relevance of these dimensions for particular groups of institutions is the main
reason for keeping the dimensions and investing in developing better indicators for these. That is
why the creation of ‘communities’ in the next phase of the project was suggested. Several groups of
institutions (arts and music schools, universities of applied sciences) have already expressed their
interest and willingness to form and join such communities. Depending on the outcomes of these
communities, all dimensions will be reviewed in the next phase of the project which may possibly
lead to a reduction of the number of dimensions.
4.4 The adapted classification
In table 3 an overview is presented of the classifi cation as it has been adapted as a result of the
outcomes of the survey and comments made on the results of the survey. The table shows the draft
classifi cation at the end of phase II of the project. In the fi nal phase III, further adaptations are to be
expected, resulting from new stakeholders’ inputs as well as further statistical analyses.
Table 3: Overview of dimensions and indicators in adapted classifi cation
Dimension Indicator new and suggested indicators
1: types of degrees
offered
1a: highest level of degree
programme offered
1b: number of qualifi cations
granted in each type of
degree programme
1c: dominant degree level: degree
level in which at least 50% of the
degrees were awarded. An alternative
defi nition is considered: degree level in
which at least 40% of the degrees were
awarded
MAPPING DIVERSITY