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

Table 2: Age strata
IAU based strata
Survey based strata
Older than 190 14.1% Older than 95 28.2%
91-190 15.3% 41-95 23.5%
35-90 31.8% 20-40 23.5%
Younger than 35 38.8% Younger than 20 24.7%
71
Size
Based on the IAU based size strata we may conclude that the sample is skewed towards the larger
higher education institutions. Apparently, larger higher education institutions have more resources,
commitment or opportunities to participate in the survey. Whether this conclusion will hold also with
a larger sample remains to be seen.
Table 3: Size strata
IAU based strata
Survey based strata
Less than 1,573 9.0% Less than 7,500 23,9%
1,573-6,400 10.4% 7,500-15,000 20,9%
6,401-15,539 25.4% 15,000-30,000 31,3%
More than 15,540 55.2% More than 30,000 23,9%
Region
In the IAU database the Western Europe category is relatively big and the Southern category
relatively small. The responding higher education institutions are very evenly distributed across the
UN regions. This discrepancy is to a large extent caused by the Turkish institutions in the sample
(that are not in the IAU database).
Table 4: Higher education institutions by region (in IAU database and CEIHE II survey)
IAU
survey
non univ univ total total
East 374 42% 319 21% 693 28% 16 19%
North 240 27% 304 20% 544 22% 20 23%
South 114 13% 252 16% 366 15% 23 27%
West 172 19% 659 43% 831 34% 26 31%
The dimensions; scores on relevance
The question ‘this dimension is essential for the profi le of our institution’ is a central question in the
project. It probes the opinion of one of the key stakeholders in the debate on classifi cation of higher
education institutions regarding the issues that are essential for profi ling their higher education
institution.
The results of this question can be used in two ways. First of all they can be used to produce an
overview of the opinions regarding the relevance of the fourteen dimensions described.
The scores on relevance can also be used to cluster the dimensions. For a classifi cation tool,
fourteen dimensions might be judged to be too many. This calls for a reduction of dimensions. One
way to do this is by analysing the correlations between the scores on relevance of the fourteen
dimensions and seeing whether clusters of dimensions emerge.
MAPPING DIVERSITY