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

etter world’ from 19 th to 20 th May in Ghent (Belgium). There, the importance of the institutional
diversity of the European higher education area and the value of the classifi cation as an instrument
were clearly recognised. Several participants underlined the need for an independent body
to operate the classifi cation rather than a model of ownership by the stakeholders. Whether the
classifi cation will be included in the next phase of the Bologna process beyond 2010 will be on the
agenda of the following ministerial meeting in April 2009 in Leuven (Belgium).
31
5.1.5 Presidency of the Council of the European Union
The French presidency of the Council of the European Union has launched a discussion on
benchmarks and indicators for better rankings in higher education and research. Through several
contacts it has become clear that the French presidency is interested in a classifi cation project and
it has invited the CEIHE project team to speak at the presidency conference in November 2008 in
Nice (France).
5.1.6 European Commission
The European Commission provided the funding for both the fi rst and second phase of this
classifi cation project and has thus participated in the development of the classifi cation from the
very beginning. The project team however has always emphasised its (scientifi c) independence
and recognises that fi nancial support from the Directorate-General Education, Youth and Culture
(EAC) for the project does not imply unconditional support of the EC for the classifi cation. The
project team interprets the EC’s position as support for the underlying notions in the project of the
importance of the institutional diversity of higher education institutions in Europe and the need for
more transparency.
Many participants in the various meetings and conferences have underlined the importance of the
continuation of the close cooperation with the EC in general and with EAC in particular when further
developing and implementing the classifi cation. The project team agrees with this view and has
expressed this intention on various occasions. Cooperation is also necessary with regard to the
intention of the EC to explore additional data-collection on higher education and research institutions
in Europe by the Statistical Offi ce of the European Communities (EUROSTAT).
5.1.7 Carnegie Foundation
The Carnegie classifi cation in the US higher education system is entirely run and funded by the
Carnegie Foundation. The success of the Carnegie classifi cation is due to the fact that the Carnegie
Foundation has the generally accepted authority as the implementing organisation of the US
classifi cation. The Carnegie Foundation is not responsible for the data collection; the data are freely
available at the federal level in the US. Carnegie also does not undertake any auditing of the quality
of the data that higher education institutions provide to the relevant federal bodies.
The project team has established a fruitful working relationship with experts and managers of the
Carnegie Foundation. The Carnegie colleagues appreciate the collaboration with the project team,
particularly from a scholarly perspective. Relevant issues for further collaboration include: the
comparability of the two classifi cations, the classifi cation dimensions and the relationships between
classifi cations and rankings. The current management also indicated that the Carnegie Foundation
is interested in exploring further collaboration concerning the implementation of a European
classifi cation.
MAPPING DIVERSITY