Search

In this chapter, we argue from a theoretical perspective that globalisation has impacted differentiation within higher education systems. The three propositions about mechanisms affecting diversity distinguished by van Vught (environmental conditions, competition for resources and academic norms) remain the same, but the initial conditions have changed. Governmental policy, in particular, affects the degree of openness of higher education systems (positively or negatively), either through (de-)regulation or by affecting higher education institutions’ strategies for internationalisation. Thus, we add as a fourth proposition that increasing institutional autonomy increases system diversity in the context of globalisation.

Appropriate governance is seen as a precondition for achieving the goals of maintaining or creating effective, competitive and attractive higher education systems (De Boer et al., 2012; van Vught, 1989a). In response to the challenges stemming from developments such as the emergence of mass higher education, globalization, privatization and fiscal crises, and inspired by neoliberal ideologies (such as New Public Management), contemporary governments continuously are in pursuit of approaches to governance that ‘fit’ (see also Clark, 1983b). The topic of governance finds itself in the centre of higher education politics and policies.

U-Map and U-Multirank are web-based transparency instruments, showing institutional diversity in higher education. Both tools are multidimensional, web-based and user-driven, and make use of indicators relating to individual higher education institutions (HEIs). U-Map shows what a HEI is doing and how that compares to other institutions worldwide. U-Multirank visualises how well HEIs are performing relative to others. The advantages of both instruments over other classifications and rankings include the multi-dimensional approach and their user-driven character. We will discuss the distinctive features of both instruments, the choice of indicators employed and address some of the criticism.

Im Zuge der wachsenden Bedeutung weltweiter Hochschulrankings werden zunehmend deren problematische Aspekte thematisiert – etwa ein sich ausweitendes „reputation race“. Ausgehend von der Überzeugung, dass die über Rankings herzustellende Transparenz von grundlegender Bedeutung für verschiedenste Akteure im Hochschulbereich ist, widmen sich die Autoren den Projekten „U-Map“ und „U-Multirank“. Dabei zeichnen sie nach, welche notwendigen Gestaltungsprinzipien sich aus der Betrachtung des theoretischen Hintergrunds von Klassifikationen und Rankings sowie aus den Erfahrungen mit mehreren Rankings ergeben. Hiernach stellen sie dar, wie jene beiden „multi-dimensional“ und „user-driven“ Ansätze sich an den erarbeiteten Anforderungen orientieren, zentrale negative Effekte zu vermeiden versuchen, in komplementären Funktionen zusammenspielen und so einen Beitrag zur adäquaten Schaffung von Transparenz leisten können. Erste praktische Erfahrungen mit den beiden Ansätzen werden aufgegriffen.

In this book we have addressed the general topic of rankings in higher education and research as well as the development of a new multidimensional ranking tool. We looked at the various issues surrounding the ranking debates, and analyzed current practices and their impact. We have been critical of some of the current ranking practices and methodologies and have developed our own approach. In Part I of this volume we discussed the current practices in general and drew a number of conclusions with respect to a new and better methodology. In Part II we expanded on this new approach, which we call U-Multirank. U-Multirank is intended to address the weaknesses in the existing approaches and to offer a multidimensional and user-driven perspective to ranking. We present U-Multirank as a new ranking tool, completely different from existing global ranking instruments.

With the increasing globalisation of the higher education sector and growing competition for talent and resources, higher education institutions are under greater pressure to perform well in a worldwide ‘reputation race’. There is particular emphasis on their placement in global university league tables, all of which reflect an implicit assumption that there is only one acceptable model of excellence – the large, research-intensive university. There are concerns that league tables (or the desire to certain league table positions) influence policy and funding decisions that result in increased stratification and the neglect of key, non-research, areas of activity such as teaching. This chapter examines the current transparency tools and the literature on classification and rankings to work out the implications for the design of the transparency tool presented in Part II.

This chapter presents the history and development of the U-Multirank project, the system’s design principles, conceptual framework and methodological approach.

This chapter presents examples of U-Multirank results, demonstrating the user-driven approach and showing that U-Multirank introduces a second level of interactive ranking beyond the selection of indicators: the selection of a sample of institutions to be compared in focused rankings. U-Multirank has a much broader scope than existing rankings and intends to include a wider variety of institutional profiles. The authors argue that it does not make much sense to compare institutions across diverse institutional profiles and that U-Multirank offers a tool to identify and select institutions that are truly comparable in terms of their institutional profiles.

This chapter raises the question of whether university league tables deliver relevant information to one of their key target groups – students. It examines the inherent biases and weaknesses in the methodologies of the major rankings and argues that the concentration on a single indicator of excellence (research) and single function of an institution ignores the diverse needs and motivations of prospective students in choosing a university. It also raises the issue of rankings that proclaim the ‘excellence’ of an entire institution, which may not be an accurate reflection of the performance of individual departments. The authors then present some principles and examples of good practice in ranking and discuss alternative classification systems.

This chapter examines higher education classifications and introduces the European U-Map classification tool and discusses a number of the most influential global league tables, their methodological underpinnings, scope, target groups and data sources.

This chapter introduces the subject of league tables and rankings and questions the conceptual framework underpinning what are seen as the most credible and prestigious ranking systems in higher education. The authors present their arguments for defining and ranking excellence in higher education institutions using indicators based on user needs, stakeholder input and a wide variety of functions and activities overlooked by the current rankings systems. The result would be to challenge the unidimensional (research-driven) rankings, which focus almost exclusively on a single aspect of an institution’s performance, and instead to deliver tailored rankings relevant to user requirements and stakeholder

The rationale for developing a classification of higher education institutions lies in our pursuit to better understand and use diversity in the European higher education landscape. In the previous chapters, it was pointed out that the principle of diversity is an important basis for the further development of the European higher education and research systems. In this chapter we argue why and how a European classification of higher education institutions will contribute to understanding the various types of institutions, their different missions, characteristics and provisions. In Section 4.2, we explain the objectives of the classification from the point of view of different stakeholders. Section 4.3 delves into the nature of classifying phenomena. Section 4.4 provides an introduction to the most well-known example of a higher education classification, the Carnegie Classification. In Section 4.5, we point out the design principles underlying our classification of higher education institutions. In Section 4.6, we introduce the main concepts and components of a first version of such a classification and discuss its data needs. In the final section we address the relevant use of the classification as an instrument for “institutional profiling”.

Europe and its universities have a strong and long-standing relationship. Over the centuries European universities have contributed significantly to the social, economic and cultural development of Europe. The very existence of the European universities reflects one of the most central dimensions of the “idea of Europe”. Particularly from the age of the Enlightenment on, European universities became the institutional home of modernity and rationality. When, as Kant said, Europe broke out of its “self-imposed tutelage” during the Enlightenment, modernity became a fundamental European invention and modern science lay at the heart of that modernisation process. Rationality and the corresponding attitude to science and technology became essential and decisive elements of European identity. “Since Europe became Europe in its own eyes, science has been held up as its image and it emblem” (Daston 2005, p. 30). Over time, European universities have changed considerably. Yet they also remained the central European institutions of reason, knowledge, criticism and learning. Plato′s Academy was a centre of dialogue and critical enquiry. The medieval universities were open, self-governing communities of scholars. The “liberal university” of Cardinal John Newman was an institution for independent intellectual self-empowerment. And Wilhelm von Humboldt′s proposals for the establishment of the University of Berlin were first of all aimed at preventing the search for knowledge being corrupted by social forces (Barnett 1990; De Ridder-Symoens 1992, 1996; Nybom 2003).

This chapter addresses the concepts of diversity and differentiation in higher education. It explores the literature regarding these concepts and offers a conceptual framework which seeks to explain why processes of differentiation and dedif-ferentiation take place in higher education systems. When discussing external diversity and processes of system differentiation, we will discuss the behaviour of the various “actors” in the system. These actors to a large extent are the higher education organisations that are part of a higher education system. We will interpret these organisations as “corporate actors” (Coleman 1990, p. 531), and will assume that the explanation of social phenomena like differentiation and diversity is possible by means of analysing the behaviour and/or opinions of these corporate actors who need not necessarily be natural persons (although the activities of corporate actors are of course carried out by people).

In this chapter we focus on the process that has led to the first version of the European classification of higher education institutions. We first describe in general terms the steps and considerations that are the crucial elements of the underlying design process. In the second part we describe the actual process of building the first version of the European classification of higher education institutions and the various research activities performed during that process.

Onlangs is de nieuwe Times Higher Education – QS World Universities Ranking gepubliceerd. Nederlandse universiteiten doen het goed en dat is groot nieuws. Of we het nu leuk vinden of niet, of we de methodologie toejuichen of verafschuwen, eigenlijk weten we allemaal wel dat de internationale rankings van hogeronderwijsinstellingen niet meer zijn weg te denken uit de internationale hogeronderwijswereld. Rankings zijn er, zullen er blijven en gaan meer aan belang winnen. Daarom moeten we ervoor zorgen dat rankings – en classificaties – ons brengen wat ervan verwacht wordt: een faire vergelijking van hogeronderwijsinstellingen op grond van hun prestaties