Developing a Typology of Higher Education Institutions in Europe

1. Developing a Typology of Higher Education Institutions in Europe Workshop «Ranking» Bern, Tuesday 28th November 2006 David Bohmert

2. Overview presentation • Carnegie Classification US and UK typologies • Rationale for a typology • Methodological issues • Socrates Project CEIHE I • Socrates Project CEIHE II • Cooperation Switzerland – CEIHE II © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

3. Carnegie Classification (US) 1973: Carnegie Classification developed as a sampling device in higher education research 1976: five categories (doctoral granting uni’s, comprehensive uni’s and colleges, liberal arts colleges, two-year colleges, professional schools and other specialised institutions) 1994: ten categories, based on four criteria (research and teaching objectives, degrees offered, size, comprehensiveness) 2006: new classification developed: multiple dimensions © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

4. UK typologies (Tight, 1988; Scott, 2001) • Six to seven categories: • Oxford and Cambridge • London • ‘old civics’ • ‘redbricks’ • ‘greenfields’ • technological universities • ‘new’ universities • Both stability and (some) dynamics during post-binary period © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

5. Typology in Europe The higher education institutions in Europe are diverse in their function and scope and our project team underlines the importance to objectively show they are not all equal and serve different societal needs. Classifying European Institutions of Higher Education (CEIHE) © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

6. Rationale for a typology • Tool for research • Transparency instrument (various stakeholders) • Base for governmental policy-making • Instrument for university profiling • Used for ranking, but not a instrument for ranking © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

7. Transparency on institutional level • Students will better be able to identify their preferred institutions and make better informed choices. • Business and industry will better be able to identify the institutions they intend to relate to. • Policy makers will better be able to target policies and programmes to categories of similar and related institutions. • Higher education institutions themselves will better be able to develop their missions, profiles and associations with partner-institutions. © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

8. Methodological issues • A priori or a posteriori classification? • Mono or multi dimensional? • Hierarchical or non hierarchical? • Reliability of data (subjective or objective)? • Eligibility of institutions (relationship with accreditation and quality assurance)? © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

9. CEIHE phase one (2004-2005) • A stakeholders approach • Exploration and iterative discussions • Result: a set of schemes as a basis for a classification in final report © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

10. Basic principles • Inclusive for all European higher education institutions • A tool for developing institutional profiles • Multi-dimensional and flexible • Not prescriptive or rigid • Ownership to rest with higher education institutions © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

11. Design principles • A posteriori • Multi dimensional • Non hierarchical • Objective and judgmental data • Related to European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

12. Schemes • Each scheme offers a description of certain characteristics • Each characteristic is described by one or more indicators • Each indicator consists of several categories © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

13. Schemes Education • Types of degrees offered • Range of subjects offered • Orientation of degrees • European educational profile © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

14. Schemes Research and Innovation • Research intensiveness • Innovation intensiveness • European research profile Student and Staff Profile • International orientation • Involvement in life long learning © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

15. Schemes Institutional Characteristics • Size • Mode of delivery • Community services • Public/private character • Legal status © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

16. CEIHE phase two (2006-2008) • Testing the schemes • Enhancing the legitimacy of a classification • Drafting a classification © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

17. CEIHE II activities • Analysing existing European data sources • Surveying one hundred European higher education institutions • In-depth-case studies • Stakeholders meetings • International consultations • Conferences • Drafting the classification © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

18. CEIHE II organisation • Project consortium under leadership of Prof.Dr. Frans Van Vught (University of Twente, University of Aveiro, University of Strathclyde and German Rectors' Conference HRK) • Stakeholders (e.g. DG EAC and EUA) • Advisory Board (IMHE OECD, ESMU, seven networks amongst which LEHRU, four rectors’ conferences) © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

19. Result An internationally applicable, multi-dimensional, inclusive, descriptive and reliable tool that: • makes the diversity of European higher education transparent • offers relevant information to stakeholders • allows for institutional profiling and strategy development • that can contribute to the international competitiveness of European higher education in knowledge production and knowledge utilisation © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

20. Cooperation Switzerland – CEIHE II • The CEIHE II Team would be delighted if the Rectors' Conference of the Swiss Universities (CRUS) would join our Advisory Board on behalf of Switzerland • We have planned three meetings with the Advisory Board: • 1st Meeting on 31st January 2007 • 2nd Meeting in June 2007 • 3rd Meeting in January 2008 • Members in of the Advisory Board will: • Play a role in the overall direction of the project • Selection of case-studies and conferences • Support us in distributing the survey © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004

21. Thank you very much for your attention David Bohmert Netherlands house for Education and Research Robert Schumanplein 6, Box 5 1040 BRUSSELS BELGIUM Phone: +32 2 511 50 40 Fax: +32 2 234 79 11 Mobile: +32 475 430 446 Email: bohmert@neth-er.eu © CHEPS | MJ, DW | 2004