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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annex II: The case studies 45 Case Study: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Introduction The purpose of the case study was: • to assess the potential use of a European classifi cation; • to fi nd out to what extent the dimensions and indicators are seen to be relevant and feasible; • to fi nd out to what extent the necessary data would be available or could be produced. General issues NTNU is a university with a broad academic scope that has its main focus on technology and the natural sciences. The university has about 20 000 students and 4800 staff. NTNU has been given the national responsibility for graduate engineering education in Norway and offers an extensive range of subjects in the natural sciences, technology, the humanities, aesthetic studies, health studies, the social sciences and fi nancial and economic disciplines. NTNU also offers education in the professions: technology, medicine, psychology, architecture, fi ne art, music, pictorial art, architecture and teacher education. The Classifi cation was judged by NTNU as highly relevant. It would help NTNU to better get to know itself, to better formulate its profi le and its mission, to further develop its identity and to create more visibility. Internationally it would allow NTNU to create visibility as a specifi c type of higher education institution. Additionally it would allow better and more focused benchmarking. Nationally it would mark the differences between existing types of institutions. Internally it would stimulate strategic discussions and (as mentioned) assist in creating the institutional identity. But the Classifi cation will also be a political tool, according to NTNU. Governmental and other actors will use it to target and differentiate their policies. NTNU accepts this. The relationships between the Classifi cation and Quality Assessments should be made more explicit. The dimensions and indicators may be descriptive but they also imply judgments in terms of quality. External actors will use the indicators to assess the ‘quality’ of an institution in the various dimensions. The public may judge the quality and relevance of an institution using the Classifi cation. Thresholds per indicator will be interpreted as minimum quality levels. The success of the classifi cation will to a large extend depend on the robustness of the indicators. Precise defi nitions and a strong and convincing standardisation are crucial. In addition, since the institutions will have to provide the data, the time and energy to be spent on data-gathering should be as little as possible. Special attention should be given to the validity and reliability of the data. Data should be available in public repositories. Special ‘data-audits’ (e.g., by national agencies, perhaps existing accreditation agencies or statistical offi ces) could be undertaken to assess the data-provision. Data-audits should be undertaken by ‘accredited auditors’. MAPPING DIVERSITY
A crucial issue which needs further analysis is the way interdisciplinarity (both in education and in 46 research) can be addressed. In education the ‘range of subjects’ may imply a disciplinary bias. In research, citation analysis and related approaches may show a similar bias. It is important to fi nd indicators that capture interdisciplinarity. Dimensions and Indicators During four different sessions the dimensions and indicators were discussed regarding: • education; • research; • international orientation; • institutional aspects. In the following texts the various remarks and conclusions are presented per indicator per dimension. Dimension 1: types of degrees offered Indicator 1.1.1.: highest degree offered • a good and important indicator; • data are easy to provide. Indicator 1.1.2.: number of qualifi cations granted • important to distinguish level and year; • data are easy to provide. Dimension 2: range of subjects offered Indicator 1.2.1.: number of subjects offered MAPPING DIVERSITY • subjects should be understood as ‘areas in which degree programmes are offered’; • in Norway the Bureau of Statistics makes a distinction between: o study areas (defi ned by government for all higher education institutions); o programmes (per study area; higher education institutions are free to design these); o courses (forming the programmes); o does ISCED provide an internationally shared list of study areas? Is this comparable with the Norwegian list? o in Norway in addition to the list of areas, a group of usually interdisciplinary programmes exists as well; these should also be captured in this indicator. • Indicator is important; • Indicator appears to be insuffi ciently clear; • Data can only be provided if a generally acceptable list of study areas exists. Dimension 3: orientation of degrees Dimension appears to create much confusion. It is nevertheless judged to be important to enable the Classifi cation to offer categories of institutions. Could it be related to Qualifi cation Frameworks (European and National)?
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 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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?