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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
26 Dimension Indicator new and suggested indicators 1d: graduate intensity: the number of graduate degrees awarded as a percentage of all degrees awarded MAPPING DIVERSITY 2: range of subjects offered 3: orientation of degrees 4: involvement in life long learning 5: research intensiveness 6: innovation intensiveness 7: international orientation: teaching and staff 2a: number of subject areas covered by an institution using UNESCO/ISCED subject areas 3a: the number of programmes leading to certifi ed/ regulated professions as a % of the total number of programmes 3b: the number of programmes offered that answer to a particular demand from the labour market or professions (as % of the total number of programmes) 4a: number of adult learners as a % of total number of students by type of degree 5a: number of peer reviewed publications per fte academic staff 5b: the ISI based citation indicator, also known as the 2b: number of degrees awarded by level of degree and by subject area 3c: the number of student placements in fi rms, hospitals etc. as a % of total enrolment 4a1: number of adult learners as a % of total number of students (all degree levels combined) 4b: number of part-time adult learners as a % of total number of part-time students 4c: number of students enrolled in specifi c LLL programmes 4d: number of extracurricular courses offered for regional labour market (see 14b) 5c: total research income as a percentage of total income ‘crown indicator’ 6a: the number of start-up) 6e: use of full academic costing (yes/ no) 6b: the number of patent applications fi led 6c: annual licensing income 6d: the revenues from privately funded research contracts as a % of total research revenues 7a: the number of degree seeking students with a foreign nationality, as % of total enrolment 7b: the number of incoming students in European exchange programmes, as % of total enrolment 7c: the number of students sent out in European exchange programmes 7d: international staff members as % of total number of staff members 7a1 the number of degree seeking students with a foreign qualitying diploma as % of total enrolment 7b1: the number of incoming students in international exchange programmes, as % of total enrolment 7c1: the number of students sent out in international exchange programmes
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 24 and 25: of information on non-degree offeri
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?