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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Valid cases The fourth indication of the feasibility of data collection is not derived from a question in the ‘assessment’ part of the questionnaire. This indication, the percentage of valid responses, builds on ‘the proof of the pudding is in its eating!’ If many responding higher education institutions have been able to provide valid responses for an indicator, we assume that this is an indication that collecting the data on that indicator is highly feasible. A low valid response points at low feasibility. For a number of indicators it proved impossible to distinguish invalid responses from a ‘0’-response. 85 Table 10: Percentage of valid responses, by indicator 50%-75% Less than 50% 4a 7e 6d 10a 10c 10b The remaining indicators had a score higher than 75%. Figure 9: Number of valid responses, by indicator 14d 14c 14b 14a 13b 13a 12a 11b 11a 10c 10b 10a 9b 9a 8a 7d 7e 7c 7b 7a 6d 6c 6b 6a 5a 4a 3b 3a 2a 1b 1a 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MAPPING DIVERSITY
86 Overview Calculating an overall rank score 8 is a tricky exercise. There is no clear conceptual basis for weighting the rank scores on the individual feasibility scores. Yet there is an argument to make for weighting the fi rst two indicators stronger than the latter two. The fi rst two are self reported by the respondents, whereas at least the last indicator is indirectly derived from the sample. Based on the weighted rank scores 9 we may distinguish three broad categories: indicators with no or only minor feasibility problems, indicators with some feasibility problems, and indicators with signifi cant feasibility problems. To determine which indicators go into which category, we may either use the list of indicators (sorted by rank score) and make three equally sized groups, or we may look in this list for relatively large differences in the scores of consecutive indicators. The result of these groupings of overall feasibility scores is presented in the table below. Table 11: Grouping of indicators by feasibility score method feasibility Indicator equal size high 2a, 9a, 1a, 12a, 1b, 11b, 7e, 9b, 6b, 6a, 5 medium 10b, 13b, 13a, 10a, 14a, 7a, 6c, 3b, 10c, 11a low 14d, 14c, 3a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 8a, 6d, 14b, 4a Differences between consecutive scores high 2a, 9a, 1a, 12a, 1b, 11b, 7e, 9b, 6b medium 6a, 5, 10b, 13b, 13a, 10a,14a, 7a, 6c, 3b, 10c, 11a, 14d, 14c, 3a low 7b, 7c, 7d, 8a, 6d, 14b, 4a MAPPING DIVERSITY 8 Components are: % time: average of time needed to collect information on the indicator as a % of time needed to collect information on all indicators % disagree: % of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with statement ‘easy to collect data’ not existing source: percentage of respondents that used new/ not readily available sources of information invalid cases: the number of respondents who did not report valid information for the indicators 9 weighted rank score: sum of rank scores (rankscores % time and % disagree counted double) divided by four
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 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 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?