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

30
5.1.2 Stakeholder Group
The participants in the Stakeholder Group meetings suggested that the legitimacy of the classifi cation
depends particularly on its acceptance among higher education institutions. They highlighted that
the classifi cation is a prerequisite for better rankings. Many participants supported the project in its
attempts to link the classifi cation to the creation of a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and
the aim of the Bologna process to create and enhance the transparency of the European higher
education system. Moreover, they underlined its clear link to the external dimension of the EHEA
and expressed their support for exploring further cooperation with the Carnegie Foundation.
5.1.3 Conference participants
The participants in the various conferences advised the project team to further specify and underline
the benefi ts for stakeholders of the development of a European classifi cation. The higher education
institutions were perceived as the most important stakeholders, not least because they provide the
data. Many institutions participating in the survey confi rmed their interest in the classifi cation. They
identifi ed the following four advantages for higher education institutions and pointed to the need to
communicate these as crucial opportunities for the institutions.
−
−
−
−
to mirror and verify institutional ambitions and perceptions;
to identify relevant partners for benchmarking on the European level;
to design institutional development strategies;
to make their specifi c institutional profi les explicit on the European level.
Although students will be able to make better informed choices about enrolment, it was generally
felt that the classifi cation is not primarily designed from their perspective. Students seem to be more
interested in information at the programme level. The ranking of the Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung
(CHE) was mentioned as a good tool and some participants advised linking CHE data to the
classifi cation (see above).
The participants confi rmed that governments could develop better policies if they took into account
the differences between higher education institutions. Participants also stated that a classifi cation
would need the support of European governments if it were to be a success.
MAPPING DIVERSITY
The institutionalisation and application of the classifi cation was seen to be clearly linked to its
usefulness. The need to engage the relevant stakeholders was generally underlined, particularly
when it comes to the linking of the classifi cation to the Bologna Process. In this respect, the
proposal to only classify institutions that are accredited by agencies registered in the European
Quality Assurance Register in Higher Education (EQAR) received much support. However, the
participants perceived a stakeholder based organisation as unsuitable for the institutionalisation of
the European classifi cation given the complexity of fi nding common ground and the complex issue
of the representation of institutions at the European level.
5.1.4 Bologna Follow-Up Group
The project team emphasised on several occasions the project’s goal to create more transparency
within the European higher education system. Given the clear reference to such an undertaking in the
Bologna Declaration, the project team argued for embedding the classifi cation within the Bolognaprocess
beyond 2010 during the BFUG-seminar ‘Unlocking Europe’s potential – Contributing to a