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

Dimension 9: Size
62
The two indicators in this dimension (students enrolled and staff volume) are more or less standard
data that are readily available for all institutions. The validity of these indicators for this dimension
is also not questioned. One institution raised the issue of academic year versus calendar year: the
former would make life much easier.
Dimension 10: Mode of delivery
Two indicators were identifi ed: the number of distance programmes offered as a percentage of
the total number of programmes offered and the number of part-time programmes offered as a
percentage of the total number of programmes offered.
Some cases did not provide distance programmes; others had diffi culty providing data on them.
It was also not clear to what extent blended learning had to be included. The percentage of parttime
programmes is seen as a valid indicator in this dimension, although in some systems part-time
programmes do not exist (or were allowed only recently). Information on part-time programmes
proved to be easier to collect and proved to be slightly more reliable than information on distance
learning programmes.
Dimension 11: Public private character
The income from competitive and non-competitive government funding, as a percentage of total
revenues was the main indicator in this eleventh dimension. The comments made clear that the
distinction between competitive and non-competitive funds caused some confusion. In two cases
the funding from national research councils was excluded because the defi nition was not clear
(enough). Two other cases also commented on the vague defi nitions. The validity of this indicator
was however unchallenged.
The second indicator in this dimension is on tuition fees: the annual tuition fees by category of
student and level of degree. The validity of this indicator was challenged. This has mainly to do with
the lack of information on the total volume of tuition related income.
Dimension 12: Legal status
Two cases reported some diffi culty in understanding what information was asked for. The omission
of an info-screen may have contributed to this. The information proved easy to collect.
MAPPING DIVERSITY
Dimension 13: Cultural engagement
The respondents in the pilot survey were not very enthusiastic about the two indicators in this
dimension (the number of concerts and the number of exhibitions). The validity is challenged and
data are diffi cult to collect.
Dimension 14: Regional engagement
Regional engagement is one of the more experimental dimensions. Literature does not give any
clear-cut indicators for this dimension. The project team produced three indicators: the annual
turnover in EU structural funds, the number of graduates staying in the region, and the number of
extracurricular courses offered for the regional labour market.
The latter two indicators suffered from the lack of a clear defi nition of the region. The validity of
the ‘structural funds’ indicator was severely challenged as well as the validity of the indicator on
graduates in the region. The reliability of the data was low for all indicators in this dimension and it
proved diffi cult to collect information on these indicators.