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

The shapes of the profi les differ substantially. This is caused partly by the differences in outspokenness
60
of the respondents: case 1 scores very often ‘neutral’, whereas 5 and 6 have ‘agree’ as their standard
score. Despite this effect, cases do differ in their opinions in what is essential for the institutional
profi le. Case 8 is much more ‘research oriented’ than case 10.
5.4.1 Indicators
The focus of the pilot survey was to fi nd out whether the higher education institutions could provide
data (in terms of feasibility and reliability), whether the presentation and formulations used were
adequate, and whether the respondents considered the indicators selected as valid indicators for
the dimension.
Dimension 1: highest degree offered
For this dimension two indicators were selected: the highest degree programme offered and the
number of degrees granted by type of degree. The validity of these indicators was not challenged.
There were some comments on the feasibility. These comments referred to the predefi ned categories
of types of degrees (doctorate, master and bachelor) that did not fi t all higher education systems
and programmes. Especially the pre-Bologna programmes caused diffi culties. It proved that the
second indicator could be misunderstood: number of degree programmes were reported instead
of number of qualifi cations awarded (number of graduates).
Dimension 2: Range of subjects offered
For this a list of nine subject areas was used, based on the ISCED classifi cation of subjects 7 . The
use of the ISCED list raised some questions since institutions use national classifi cations in reporting
to their national agencies, not the international ISCED classifi cation. The validity of the indicator as
well as its feasibility and reliability were not challenged.
Dimension 3: Professional orientation of programmes
In the process of drafting the questionnaire it proved to be diffi cult to fi nd adequate indicators for
this dimension. Two indicators were chosen: the number of programmes leading to a certifi ed or
regulated profession and the number of programmes that respond to a specifi c demand. For the
fi rst indicator a link to a EU list of regulated professions was provided 8 , but respondents appeared to
be confused about the concepts of this list. The validity of the fi rst indicator was challenged by only
one respondent, but the validity of the second indicator was questioned by almost all respondents.
Feasibility and reliability did not score high either.
MAPPING DIVERSITY
Dimension 4: Involvement in LLL
Life long learning is an issue that has been high on many political agendas for a number of years.
In the higher education sector, LLL is discussed quite often, but what higher education institutions
actually do in this area is not very well documented. Finding an adequate indicator was therefore
a tricky operation, in which the project team apparently did not fully succeed. The percentage of
mature students (30+) enrolled was challenged as a valid indicator for the involvement in LLL. For
some the cut-off point (30 years) was too high, while others questioned the relation between age
9 In ISCED-97 (the International Standard Classifi cation of Educational programmes) programmes are classifi ed into
fi elds of education according to a 2-digit classifi cation. The classifi cation is consistent with the fi elds defi ned in the manual
‘Fields of Education and Training’ (Eurostat, 1999). For further information see OECD (2004). Handbook for Internationally
Comparative Education Statistics. Paris.
10 The EU has developed guidelines for the recognition of professional qualifi cations.
A list of European regulation and national lists of regulated professions can be found on the website: http://ec.europe.eu/
internal_market/qualifi cations/regprof/index.cfm