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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3: Opinions regarding the statement ‘this indicator is a valid indicator’ 14d 14c 14b 14a 13b 13a 12a 11b 11a 10c 10b 10a 9b 9a 8a 7e 7d 7c 7b 7a 6d 6c 6b 6a 5b 5a 4a 3b 3a 2a 1b 1a 77 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree MAPPING DIVERSITY
78 Reliability The indicators selected differ in status. Some indicators are already used in different contexts and build on standard data, whereas others are ‘experimental’ and use information that is not in the set of commonly reported data. This has consequences for the perceived validity of the indicators (see above) but it may also have consequences for the perceived reliability of the information reported. In most higher education systems the defi nitions and data collection procedures for standard data, like the number of students enrolled or the number of staff, are harmonized. Because of this, it is more than likely that the data reported are not infl uenced by the person or department that provides the data. As long as the procedures and defi nitions are followed, the data will be trustworthy. For the ‘experimental’ indicators, defi nitions and procedures are not (yet) harmonized. For these indicators it might be that the data reported depend on the person or department that reports the data. To fi nd out whether this reliability problem is perceived to exist by the responding higher education institutions, they were asked to respond to the statement: ‘the information is reliable’. The responses are very positive about the reliability of the information provided. For 25 indicators at least fi ve out of six responding higher education institutions reported that they (strongly) agreed with the statement ‘information is reliable’. The indicators on which slightly more responding higher education institutions had some doubts regarding the reliability are 3a and 3b (orientation of degrees), 6d (revenues from private contracts) and 14b and 14c (regional engagement). This very positive result may be biased because the person giving the opinion has most likely put in a lot of effort to collect the information. Avoiding cognitive dissonance may lead the respondent to an ‘over-positive’ assessment. MAPPING DIVERSITY
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 46 and 47: Annex II: The case studies 45 Case
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 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 106 and 107: Indicator 13b: Exhibitions 105 The
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?