Vilnius pres jon file


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Vilnius pres jon file

  1. 1. Mapping and Ranking
  2. 2. Diversity in Higher Education Systems• offers better access for a wider variety of students• provides more social mobility through multiple modes of entry and forms of transfer• better meets the diverse needs of the labour market• is a condition for regional specialisation• increases the effectiveness of higher education institutions (institutional specialisation)
  3. 3. Context• European (supranational) policies regarding higher education and research - European Research Area (ERA) - Bologna Process - European Higher Education Area (EHEA)• ‘diversity’ as a major strength• wish to increase ‘transparency of diversity’ - French presidency conference, Paris, November 2008 - Bologna conference, Leuven, April 2009 - UNESCO World conference, Paris, July 2009 - Upcoming Belgian presidency, July 2010
  4. 4. Classifications in Higher Education• instruments to group higher education institutions• and to characterize similarities and differences• based on the actual activities of institutions
  5. 5. Functions of Classifications• transparency tool (various stakeholders)• instrument for institutional strategies (mission, profile)• better inform governmental policies• tool for research• (and an instrument for better ranking)
  6. 6. US Carnegie Classification• initial objective (1973): improve higher education research• over time several adaptations: 1976, 1994, 2000, 2006• labels and categories• impacts on higher education system dynamics• multi-dimensional approach (2006)
  7. 7. European Classification• Recently finished; three reports (2005, 2008, 2010); book (2009)• interactive design process (stakeholders approach)• basic design principles• tests on validity, reliability, feasibility• see:
  8. 8. Design PrinciplesU-Map is:• based on a multi-actor and multi-dimensional perspective• non-hierarchical• relevant for all higher education institutions in Europe• descriptive, not prescriptive• based on reliable and verifiable data• parsimonious regarding extra data collection
  9. 9. U-Map dimensions1. Teaching and learning profile2. Student profile3. Research involvement4. Knowledge exchange5. International orientation6. Regional engagement
  10. 10. Institutional Profiles
  11. 11. Institutional Profiles• sets of ‘scores’ on the dimensions and indicators• actual institutional activities, not performance• information for external stakeholders• instrument for strategic institutional management• base for benchmarking, for inter-institutional cooperation, for effective communication and profiling
  12. 12. The rise of global rankings• Academic Ranking of World Class Universities (ARWU) Shanghai Jiaotong University, since 2003• Times Higher Education Supplement World Rankings (THE) Times Higher Education, since 2004• Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan Ranking (HEEACT), since 2007• The Leiden Ranking (LR) Leiden University, since 2008
  13. 13. Critique of existing rankings• focus on ‘whole institutions’ (ignoring internal variance)• concentrate on ‘traditional’ research productivity and impact• aggregate performance into composite overall indicators• use constructed ‘league table’• involve cultural and language biases• involve bias against disciplines with different publication patterns
  14. 14. Designing an alternative:the EC Call for Tender• development of concept and feasibility study• global ranking (not only European)• multi-dimensional - teaching and learning (incl. employability) - research - knowledge exchange - internationalisation (incl. mobility) - regional engagement• institutional and field-based (disciplines)• all types of higher education and research institutions• multiple stakeholders
  15. 15. Conceptual approach• one common ranking of all higher education and research institutions worldwide does not make sense for any group of stakeholders• identify institutions that are comparable• use the U-Map classification tool to find comparable ‘institutional profiles’• apply ranking instrument to sets of comparable institutions and fields
  16. 16. • U-Multirank is an international project to design and test the feasibility of a multi-dimensional global university ranking.• It was inspired by a concern that existing university rankings may have a negative effect on diversity within the higher education sector by encouraging universities to engage in a costly race for short-term prestige and to aspire to a single model of a successful university irrespective of their mission and profile.• The U-Multirank project aims to develop a ranking that respects the multi-dimensional and heterogeneous nature of the world’s universities.
  17. 17. U-Multirank Logic of institutional rankings descriptive institutional profiles on six dimensions performance profiles of each dimension, no aggregated institutional rankings to be called: Focused Institutional Rankings
  18. 18. International orientation
  19. 19. Pilots focused institutional rankings (150 HEIs)U-Map Subset of comparable Subset of comparableProfile institutions (A, B, C, D) institutions (E, F, G, C)FinderTarget Main target group: Main target group:groups National policy makers HEIs/HEI managers Teaching & learning A B C D E F G C Research A B C D E F G CDimen- Knowledge exchange A B C D E F G C sions Internationalisation A B D E F G Regional engagement A B D E F G
  20. 20. U-Multirank Logic of field-based rankings descriptive institutional profiles on six dimensions performance profiles of specific field in institutions with comparable profiles to be called: Field-based Rankings
  21. 21. Pilots field-based rankingsFields business engineeringU-Map subset of comparable HEIs subset of comparable HEIsProfile (example: many MA, internatio- (example: regionally oriented, nally oriented, research intense) innovation-oriented, many BA)FinderTarget HEIs/HEI managers MA/PhD studentsgroups Teaching & learning A B C D E F G C Research A B C D E F G CDimen- Knowledge exchange A B C D E F G C sions Internationalisation A B D E F G Regional engagement A B D E F G
  22. 22. U-Multirank‘multiple excellences’• multidimensional perspective of ‘institutional profiles’• no overall ‘league tables’• no composite institutional indicators• two-level analysis (institutional and ‘field’)• stakeholders driven approach
  23. 23. Thank you for your attention!