%increase the level of tertiary education, reduce the risk of people falling into poverty and cut carbon emissions to 80%of 1990 levels.
%increase the level of tertiary education, reduce the risk of people falling into poverty and cut carbon emissions to 80%of 1990 levels (http://ec. europa. eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets).
p. 6 Boosting e-skills in European higher education requires political will at national level...p. 7 EU attempts to bridge e-skills gap between north and south...
Continued on Page 7 Euractiv ESKILLS FOR GROWTH SPECIAL REPORT 5-9 may 2014 7 Boosting e-skills in European higher education requires political will at national level With 25%of adults in the European union
Age disparities were detected also with high school pupils having sometimes better skills than higher education graduates. From the lack of access to digital equipment in schools and higher education institutions to the lack of access to open education resources and effective e-skills, the European commission has identified a number of priorities for the coming years through its‘Opening up Education'strategy.
E-skills in higher education will have to become a priority if Europe is to fight against unemployment and remain competitive at a global level,
the Commission who is tabling on a significant rise of studnets in higher education in the next decade,
Higher education is a super-competitive area worldwide it's about attracting the best students, the best teachers,
Commenting on the fact that the Commission will not be able to do much more on advancing the state of digitalisation of higher education than this, let alone any kind of harmonisation,
Regarding higher education, he stressed, students will benefit from the creation of e-courses and e-textbooks in an effort to make them familiar with new tech trends.
and hierarchical scalability formed by elements of local communication, masters and slaves, similar to DNS (Domain name System).
where the application entity with title Master-USP-1 sends its needs to the Service Layer.
Whoever among firms, higher education institutes, public research centres, members of the civil society, or any other local actor is suited best to facilitate the‘discovery'of the most promising activities
The‘social filter'index is calculated as the first principal component of (1) the employed population with tertiary education in region i,(2) long-term unemployment as a percentage of total unemployment,
0517 0. 0523) Social Filter Indexa 0. 125***0. 0221) Employed people with tertiary education 0. 117***0. 136***0. 0402)( 0
Employed people with tertiary education, Unemployment rate, Employment in high tech industry, Agricultural Employment. 14 Table 2 Robust fixed Effects estimation-Innovation and Qog components, 1995
and maintaining a close relationship with universities in the EU. Universities, represented by the European University Association (EUA), play a pivotal role as a bridge between the EC and the European academic community.
and institutions of higher education in the process of furthering Smart Specialisation and building the two-way bridges of which I have spoken above. 9 REPORT ON JOINT EUA-REGIO/JRC SMART SPECIALISATION PLATFORM EXPERT WORKSHOP:
and universities/HEIS in the region was crucial in reaching both a common language and understanding of mutual interests.
THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN SMART SPECIALISATION STRATEGIES Higher education policies are defined usually without regional/local concerns (i e. at national level.
Scotland (UK) using Structural Funds to support networks of higher education organisations, joint action plans and curricula development;
and within the regional higher education landscape there will be different types of institutions to provide different services.
THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN SMART SPECIALISATION STRATEGIES Jurgita Petrauskiene Lithuania National government Director, Research and Higher education Monitoring and Analysis Centre Sue Brownlow England (UK
and Innovation Unit Alexandre Almeida Portugal Norte Head Adviser, Regional Development Unit Borut Roncevic Slovenia National government Director-General for Higher education and Science
In the period 2007-2013 a total of €458. 6 million has been allocated for higher education and science.
for Estonian Master and Phd students etc..24 REPORT ON JOINT EUA-REGIO/JRC SMART SPECIALISATION PLATFORM EXPERT WORKSHOP:
of expertise in research which bring together the expertise of the university's various academic departments, as well as enhancement of VERA Centre's international and national networks, visibility and reputation.
and incubation centres and technology transfer teams (all Irish universities have incubation centres on campus). The research capacity funding has been administered by the Higher education Authority as a competitive process,
and in influencing EU policies on higher education, research and innovation. Thanks to its interaction with a range of other European and international organisations EUA ensures that the independent voice of European universities is heard wherever decisions are being taken that will impact on their activities.
The Association provides a unique expertise in higher education and research as well as a forum for exchange of ideas and good practice among universities.
The goal is now to convince politicians to develop co-creation approach in all the high schools.
Examples include the creation of welfare states after the Second world war, the spread of comprehensive early years'education programmes in Europe, dramatic expansions of higher education,
It has a wide-ranging portfolio, covering regulation, enterprise and business support, higher education, innovation, and science.
such as those for higher education, elder care and environmental investment. 380) Charitable status extended to allow tax allowances on investment funds,
This is the West Philly Hybrid X Team, a group of students from West Philadelphia High school's Academy of Automotive and Mechanical engineering with their entry, the EVX.
including transformations of whole sectors for social ends. 419) Strategic investments to transform sectoral provision, for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's investment in small high schools across America;
higher education and training institutions to develop educational material, the European Institute of technology, which supports the full integration of the Knowledge Triangle (education,
o Creation of a university in a region without higher education capacity, as a means of raising the technological level of existing clusters or as a source of new ones.
Consortium for Higher education and Research Performance Assessment CHERPA-Network June 2011 2 CONTRACT-2009-1225/001-001 This report was commissioned by the Directorate General for Education
23 1. 1 Introduction 23 1. 2 User-driven rankings as an epistemic necessity 23 1. 3 Transparency, quality and accountability in higher education 24
While drawing on the experience of existing university rankings and of EU-funded projects on transparency in higher education, the new ranking system should be:
In a second phase ending in June 2011 the consortium would test the feasibility of the multidimensional ranking system on a sample of no less than 150 higher education and research institutions.
ranking and transparency instruments in higher education and research. The international panel was consulted at key decision making moments in the project.
The consortium members benefitted from a strong network of national higher education experts in over 50 countries who were invaluable in suggesting a diverse group of institutions from their countries to be invited to participate in the pilot study.
Summary The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency
tool in higher education and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency
tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and r The need for a new transparency tool in higher education and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education
and rthe need for a new transparency tool in higher education and r esearch esearch esearch esearch esearch esearch esearch The project encompassed the design and testing of a new transparency tool for higher education and research.
More specifically, the focus was on a transparency tool that will enhance our understanding of the multiple performances of different higher education
and research institutions across the diverse range of activities they are involved in: higher education and research institutions are multipurpose organisations
and different institutions focus on different blends of purposes and associated activities. Transparency is of major importance for higher education and research worldwide
which is expected increasingly to make a crucial contribution to the innovation and growth strategies of nations around the globe.
Obtaining valid information on higher education within and across national borders is critical in this regard, yet higher education and research systems are becoming more complex and at first sight less intelligible for many stakeholders.
The more complex higher education systems become, the more sophisticated our transparency tools need to be.
Sophisticated tools can be designed in such a way that they are user-friendly and can cater to the different needs of a wide variety of stakeholders.
An enhanced understanding of the diversity in the profiles and performances of higher education and research institutions at a national, European and global level requires a new ranking tool.
Existing international transparency instruments do not reflect this diversity adequately and tend to focus on a single dimension of university performance research.
The new tool will promote the development of diverse institutional profiles. It will also address most of the major shortcomings of existing ranking instruments, such as language and field biases, the exaggeration of small differences in performance and the arbitrary effects of indicator weightings on ranking outcomes.
We have called this new tool U multirank as this stresses three fundamental points of departure: it is multidimensional,
recognising that higher education institutions serve multiple purposes and perform a range of different activities; it is a ranking of university performances
(although not in the sense of an aggregated league table like other global rankings); and it is driven user (as a stakeholder with particular interests,
you are enabled to rank institutions with comparable profiles according to the criteria important to you). 18 The design and keythe design and keythe design and keythe design and keythe design and keythe design and keythe design and keythe design
and key The design and keythe design and keythe design and keythe design and key The design
and key characteristics of Ucharacteristics of Ucharacteristics of Ucharacteristics of U characteristics of Ucharacteristics of U characteristics of U characteristics of Ucharacteristics of Ucharacteristics of U characteristics of U characteristics of U multirank Multirank
Multirank Multirankmultirank On the basis of a carefully selected set of design principles we have developed a new international ranking instrument that is user-driven,
multidimensional and methodologically robust. This new on-line instrument enables its users first to identify institutions that are sufficiently comparable to be ranked and, second,
to design a personalised ranking by selecting the indicators of particular relevance to them. U multirank enables such comparisons to be made both at the level of institutions as a whole and in the broad disciplinary fields in
which they are active. The integration of the already designed and tested U-Map classification tool into U multirank enables the creation of the user-selected groups of sufficiently comparable institutions.
U multirank includes a range of indicators that will enable users to compare the performance of institutions across five dimensions of higher education and research activities:
It is driven a user higher education mapping tool that allows users to select comparable institutions on the basis of‘activity profiles'generated by the U-Map tool.
These activity profiles reflect the diverse activities of different higher education and research organisations using a set of dimensions similar to those developed in U multirank.
and 22 operational feasibility we have developed a U multirank‘Version 1. 0'that is ready to be implemented in European higher education
Given the need for more transparent information in the emerging European higher education area all European higher education
and comparing European higher education and research institutions and programmes globally. Targeted recruitment of relevant peer institutions from outside Europe should be continued in the next phase of the development of U multirank.
This organisation would be independent both from higher education institutions (and their associations) and from higher education governance and funding bodies.
classifications, and rankings-from the point of view of the information they could deliver to assist different stakeholders in their different decisions regarding higher education and research institutions.
Our alternative to assuming an unwarranted position of authority is to reflect critically on the different roles that higher education
In this sense, we want to democratise rankings in higher education and research. Based on the epistemological position that any choice of sets of indicators is driven by their makers'conceptual frameworks,
quality and accountability in higher education It is recognized widely that although the current transparency tools especially university league tables are controversial,
Under vertical stratification we understand distinguishing higher education and research institutions as‘better'or‘worse'in prestige or performance;
it denotes all manners of providing insight into the diversity of higher education. Transparency tools are instruments that aim to provide information to stakeholders about the efforts and performance of higher education and research institutions.
A classification is a systematic, nominal distribution among a number of classes or characteristics without any (intended) order of preference.
Classifications give descriptive categorizations of characteristics intending to focus on the efforts and activities of higher education and research institutions, according to the criterion of similarity.
Rankings are intended hierarchical categorizations to render the outputs of the higher education and research institutions according to the criterion of best performance.
Most existing rankings in higher education take the form of a league table A league table is a single-dimensional,
of which information they could deliver to assist users in their different decisions regarding higher education and research institutions.
) Academic ranking of world universities (ARWU) Times Higher education (Supplement)( THE) QS (Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd) Top Universities Leiden Ranking National League tables and Rankings US News & World Report (USN≀
while most rankings give only a single ranking The problem of ignoring diversity within higher education and research institutions:
ignoring education and other functions of higher education and research institutions (practice-oriented research, innovation,‘third mission')The problem of composite overall indicators:
thus strengthening the potential information base for other dimensions than fundamental research Comparative assessment of higher education student's learning outcomes (AHELO):
the evidence that strong institutions inspire better performance across whole higher education systems is so far mainly found in the area of research rather than that of teaching (Sadlak & Liu,
National databases on higher education and research institutions cover different information based on national, different definitions of items and are
Self-reported data collected by higher education and research institutions participating in a ranking. This source is used regularly though not in all global rankings, due to the lack of externally available and verified statistics (Thibaud, 2009.
The drawback is high expense for the ranking organisation and for the participating higher education and research institutions.
encouraging higher education and research institutions to improve their performance. Impacts may affect amongst other things:
The majority of higher education leaders report that they use potential improvement in rank to justify claims on resources (Espeland & Saunder, 2007;
if redirecting funds to a small set of higher education and research institutions to make them‘world class'benefits the whole higher education system;
research on this question is lacking until now. 34 The higher education‘reputation race'.'The reputation race (van Vught, 2008) implies the existence of an ever-increasing search by higher education and research institutions and their funders for higher positions in the league tables.
In Hazelkorn's survey of higher education institutions, 3%were ranked first in their country, but 19%wanted to get to that position (Hazelkorn, 2011).
The reputation race has costly implications. The problem of the reputation race is that the investments do not always lead to better education and research,
This standardization process is likely to reduce the horizontal diversity in higher education systems.‘‘Matthew effect'.
Most of the effects discussed above are rather negative to students, institutions and the higher education sector.
and to policy-makers to consider where in the higher education system investment should be directed for the system to fulfil its social functions optimally.
In rankings comparisons should be made between higher education and research institutions of similar characteristics, leading to the need for a pre-selection of a set of more or less homogeneous institutions.
Rankings that include very different profiles of higher education and research institutions are non-informative and misleading.
The various functions of higher education and research institutions for a heterogeneity of stakeholders and target groups can only be addressed adequately in a multidimensional approach.
Higher education and research institutions are predominantly multipurpose, multiple-mission organizations undertaking different mixes of activities (teaching and learning, research, knowledge transfer, regional engagement,
The fourth principle is that higher education rankings should reflect the multilevel nature of higher education. With very few exceptions, higher education institutions are combinations of faculties, departments and programs of varying strength.
We found a number of points of departure for a general framework for studying higher education and research institutions in the higher education literature.
First, a common point of departure is that processing knowledge is the general characteristic of higher education and research institutions (Clark 1983;
or its transfer to stakeholders outside the higher education and research institutions (knowledge transfer) or to various groups of‘learners'(education).
Of course, a focus on the overall objectives of higher education and research institutions in the three well-known primary processes
and knowledge transfer'is a simplification of the complex world of higher education and research institutions.
which higher education and research institutions are involved. The three functions are a useful way to describe conceptually the general purposes of these institutions
The second conceptual assumption is that the performance of higher education and research institutions may be directed at different‘audiences'.
'In the current higher education and research policy area, two main general audiences have been prioritised, the first through the international orientation of higher education and research institutions.
In reality these‘audiences'are combined of course often in the various activities of higher education and research institutions. 40 It is understood that the functions higher education
and research institutions fulfil for international and regional audiences are manifestations of their primary processes,
A major issue in higher education and research institutions, as in many social systems, has been that the transformation from inputs to performances is not self-evident.
different higher education and research institutions may reach quite different types and levels of performance. We make a general distinction between the‘enabling'stages of the overall creation stages on the one hand
Ranking information is produced to inform users about the value of higher education and research, which is necessary as it is not obvious that they are easily able to take effective decisions without such information.
Higher education is not an ordinary‘good'for which the users themselves may assess the value a priori (using, e g.,
Higher education is to be seen as an experience good (Nelson 1970: the users may assess the quality of the good only
while or after‘experiencing'it (i e. the higher education program), but such‘experience‘is ex post knowledge.
Some even say that higher education is a credence good (Dulleck and Kerschbamer 2006: the value of the good cannot be assessed
They need information on how the competences acquired during higher education will improve their position on the career or social ladder.
Some users are interested in the overall performance of higher education and research institutions (e g. policy-makers) and for them the internal processes contributing to performance are of less interest The institution may well remain a‘black box'for these users.
as they may consider this as an important aspect of their learning experience and their time in higher education (consumption motives).
Students might also be interested in the long-term impact of taking the program as they may see higher education as an investment
Users engage with higher education for a variety of reasons and therefore will be interested in different dimensions
Filtering higher education and research institutions into homogeneous groups requires contextual information rather than only the input
Contextual information for higher education and research institutions relates to their positioning in society and specific institutional appearances.
A substantial part of the relevant context is captured by applying another multidimensional transparency tool (U-Map) in preselecting higher education
This often leads to an emphasis on indicators of the enabling stages of the higher education production process, rather than on the area of performance, largely because governance of higher education and research institutions has concentrated traditionally on the bureaucratic (in Weber's neutral sense of the word) control
Then too, inputs and 43 processes can be influenced by managers of higher education and research institutions.
Similarly, higher education and research institution managers may make facilities and resources available for research, but they cannot guarantee that scientific breakthroughs are created'.
'Inputs and processes are the parts of a higher education and research institution's system that are documented best.
and thus needs to imply indicators that relate to the performances of higher education and research institutions. 2. 4 Methodological aspects There are a number of methodological aspects that have a clear impact on the way a new,
National higher education systems are based on national legislation setting specific legal frameworks, including legal definitions (e g
2. choose whether to focus the ranking on higher education and research institutions as a whole (focused institutional rankings) or on fields within these institutions (field-based rankings;
U multirank focuses on the performance aspects of higher education and research institutions. U multirank shows how well the higher education institutions are performing in the context of their institutional profile.
These indicators are assumed to enable us to measure the performances of higher education and research institutions both at the institutional and at the field level,
we invited feedback from international experts in higher education and research and from the Advisory board of the U multirank project.
the indicator focuses on the performance of (programs in) higher education and research institutions and is defined in such a way that it measures‘relative'characteristics (e g. controlling for size of the institution).
The required data to construct the indicator is either available in existing databases and/or in higher education and research institutions,
Teaching and learning 3. 3. 1education is the core activity in most higher education and research institutions.
Moreover, the pace of change of higher education and research institutions means that long-term performance is of low predictive value for judgments on the future of those institutions.
All we could aspire to in a ranking is to assess‘early warning indicators'of higher education's contribution,
even if they have become almost ubiquitous in this world's higher education, are too diverse to lead to comparable indicators (see chapter 1:
Data availability poses problem. 55 5 Time to degree Average time to degree as a percentage of the official length of the program (bachelor and master) Reflects effectiveness of teaching process.
and recommends that graduates of programs accredited by any of the signatory bodies be recognized by the other bodies as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering'(www. washingtonaccord. org).
Research 3. 3. 2selecting indicators for capturing the research performance of a higher education and research institution or a disciplinary unit (e g. department,
Knowledge transfer 3. 3. 3knowledge transfer has become increasingly relevant for higher education and research institutions as many nations and regions strive to make more science output readily available for economic, social and cultural development.
The process by which the knowledge, expertise and intellectually linked assets of Higher education institutions are applied constructively beyond Higher education for the wider benefit of the economy and society, through two-way engagement with business, the public sector, cultural and community partners.
the knowledge exchange) process in higher education and research institutions and ultimately on users, i e. business and the economy, has now become a preoccupation of many governing and funding bodies, as well as policy-makers.
Traditionally TT is concerned primarily with the management of intellectual property (IP) produced by universities and other higher education and research institutions.
Higher education and research institutions often have technology transfer offices (TTOS)( Debackere & Veugelers, 2005), which are units that liaise with industry and assist higher education and research institutions'personnel in the commercialisation of research results.
TTOS provide services in terms of assessing inventions, patenting, licensing IP, developing and funding spin-offs and other start-ups and approaching firms for contract based arrangements.
A typical classification of mechanisms and channels for knowledge transfer between higher education and research institutions and other actors would include four main interaction channels for communication between higher education and research institutions and their environment:
such as the Higher education-Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) Survey in the UK. 14 This UK survey began in 2001
2008) 14 http://ec. europa. eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download en/knowledge transfer web. pdf. The HE-BCI survey is managed by the Higher education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
Less relevant for HEIS oriented to humanities, social sciences. ISI databases available. Used in CWTS University-Industry Research Cooperation Scoreboard. 16 See also the brief section on the EUMIDA project,
Depends on disciplinary mix of HEI. Data are available from secondary (identical) data sources. 5 Size of Technology Transfer Office Number of employees (FTE) at Technology Transfer Office related to the number of FTE
KT function may be dispersed across the HEI. Not regarded as core indicator by EGKTM. 6 CPD courses offered Number of CPD courses offered per academic staff (fte) Captures outreach to professions Relatively new indicator.
as a proportion of all patents Reflects extent to which HEI shares its IP with external partners.
Depends on disciplinary mix of HEI. Data available from secondary sources (Patstat. 8 Number of Spin-offs The number of spin-offs created over the last three years per academic staff (fte) EGKTM regards Spin-offs as core indicator.
Field-based Ranking Definition Comments 9 Academic staff with work experience outside higher education Percentage of academic staff with work experience outside higher education within the last 10
years Signals that HEI's staff is placed well to bring work experience into their academic work.
HEIS not doing research in natural sciences/engineering/medical sciences hardly covered. 11 Co-patents Percentage of university patents for
HEIS not doing research in natural sciences/engineering/medical sciences hardly covered. Number of licences more robust than licensing income. 14 Patents awarded The number of patents awarded to the university related to number of academic staff Widely used KT indicator.
International orientation 3. 3. 4internationalization is discussed a widely and complex phenomenon in higher education. The rise of globalization and Europeanization have put growing pressure on higher education
and research institutions to respond to these trends and develop an international orientation in their activities.
The increasing internationalization of curricula The wish to increase the international position and reputation of higher education and research institutions (Enquist, 2005).
Data available but sensitive to location (distance to border) of HEI. Stakeholders consider the indicator important. 13 Student satisfaction:
'While this indicates the commitment of the higher education and research institution to internationalization, and data is available,
‘International partnerships',that is the number of international academic networks a higher education and research institution participates in,
) Higher education and research institutions can play an important role in the process of creating the conditions for a region to prosper.
How well a higher education and research institution is engaged in the region is considered increasingly to be an important part of the mission of higher education institutions.
funding) and how much does the region draw on the resources provided by the higher education and research institution (graduates and facilities)?
In our feasibility study, we have allowed higher education and research institutions to specify their own delimitation of region
Sensitive to way public funding for HEI is organized (national versus regional/federal systems. Availability of data problematic. 3 Regional joint research publications Number of research publications that list one or more author-affiliate addresses in the same NUTS2 or NUTS3 region,
and/or credits) Internships open up communication channels between HEI and regional/local enterprises. Stakeholders see this as important indicator.
as a percentage of all graduates employed See above institutional ranking. 8 Regional participation in continuing education Number of regional participants (coming from NUTS3 region where HEI is located) as percentage of total number
of population in NUTS3 region aged 25+Indicates how much the HEI draws on the region and vice versa.
Assessing what the higher education and research institution‘delivers'to the region (in economic terms) is seen as most relevant
A high percentage of new entrants from the region may be seen as the result of the high visibility of regionally active higher education and research institutions.
To further assess the availability of data covering individual higher education and research institutions, the results of the EUMIDA project were taken also into account. 21 The EUMIDA project (see:
which can serve as a source of information on the research output of a higher education and research institution (or one of its departments).
The production of publications by a higher education and research institute not only reflects research activities in the sense of original scientific research,
but usually also the presence of underlying capacity and capabilities for engaging in sustainable levels of scientific research. 22 The research profile of a higher education
and operated by the CWTS (being one of the CHERPA Network partners) under a full license from Thomson Reuters. This dedicated version includes the‘standardized institutional names'of higher education
which a particular higher education and research institution acts as an applicant and (as part of that) the number of co-patents applied for by the institution together with a private organization.
Data availability according to EUMIDA 4. 2. 4like the U multirank project, the EUMIDA project (see http://www. eumida. org) collects data on individual higher education and research institutions.
The overlap lies mainly in the area of data related to the inputs (or activities) of higher education and research institutions.
There are confidentiality issues (e g. national statistical offices may not be prepared to make data public without consulting individual HEIS)( p) indicates:
Data are only partially available (e g. only for public HEIS, or only for (some) research universities) The list of EUMIDA countries with abbreviations:
collected directly from the higher education and research institutions. The main instruments to collect data from the institutions were four online questionnaires:
Based on approved instruments from other fields (e g. surveys on health services) we have used‘anchoring vignettes'to test sociocultural differences in assessing specific constellations of services/conditions in higher education with respect to teaching and learning.
and include employers and other clients of higher education and research institutions, but that would make the task even bigger.
However, as a result of differences in national higher education systems, different accounting systems, as well as different national customs and definitions of indicators, there are limits to the comparability of data.
(and cannot) claim that we have designed a sample that is representative of the full diversity of higher education in the world (particularly as there is no adequate description of this diversity)
19 institutions are in the top 200 of the Times Higher education ranking, 47 in the top 500 of the ARWU ranking and 47 in the top 500 of the QS ranking.
and master's students to take part in a survey. 106 departments agreed to do so. Some institutions decided to submit the information requested in the departmental questionnaire
and master/long national first degree programs Students who had spent little time on the questionnaire and had responded not adequately.
Although all the HEIS that participated in the U multirank pilot study produced at least one Wos-indexed research publication during the years 1980-2010
Depending on the severity of the problem within a HEI, we can then either: remove the institution from all indicators that involve bibliometric data;
The overview of higher education fields is based on educational programs, research fields and other academically-oriented criteria.
Due to the consequential large difference in notions that underlie‘higher education field'versus‘technology field, 'a concordance between both is meaningless.
the indicator focuses on the performance of (programs in) higher education and research institutions and is defined in such a way that it measures‘relative'characteristics (e g. controlling for size of the institution) o Face validity:
There are a number of studies on the regional economic impact of higher education and research institutions,
either for individual institutions and their regions or on higher education in general. Those studies do not offer comparable institutional indicators or indicators disaggregated by fields.
and the relevance of higher education and research to the regional economy and the regional society at large,
and in many non-metropolitan regions they play an important role in the recruitment of higher education graduates. 6. 3 Feasibility of data collection As explained in section 5. 3 data collection during the pilot
up to now they have not been used in comparative higher education research. Hence we had to develop our own approach to this research technique.
Higher education and research institutions in the USA showed very limited interest in the study, while in China formal conditions appeared to hamper the participation of institutions.
And we believe that there are opportunities for the targeted recruitment of groups of institutions from outside Europe of particular interest to European higher education.
and decreasing diversity in higher education systems (see chapter 1). Our pilot sample includes institutions with quite diverse missions, structures and institutional profiles.
An example is a detailed view on the results of a department (the following screenshot shows a sample business administration study program at bachelor and masters level.
size and field structure of the institution. 150 The (national) higher education system as a general context for institutions:
The structure of national higher education and research: the organization of research in different higher education systems is an example.
While in most countries research is integrated largely in universities, in some countries like France or Germany non-university research institutions undertake a major part of the national research effort.
A particular issue with regard to the context of higher education refers to the definition of the unit of analysis. The vast majority of rankings in higher education are comparing higher education institutions.
A few rankings explicitly compare higher education systems, either based on genuine data on higher education systems, e g. the University Systems Ranking published by the Lisbon Council31,
or by simply aggregating institutional data to the system level (e g. the QS National System Strength Ranking.
In this latter case global institutional rankings are used more or less implicitly to produce rankings of national higher education systems,
when their results are interpreted as a comparative assessment of the performance or quality of national higher education and research systems.
serving the information needs of different groups of users and taking into account their level of knowledge about higher education and higher education institutions.
'i e. users from within higher education will be able to use an English version of U multirank. In particular for‘lay users'(e g. prospective students) the existence of various language versions of U multirank would increase usability.
One of our basic suggestions regarding transparency in higher education and research is the integration of U-Map and U multirank.
in order to be able to address the diversity of European higher education. But U multirank should remain a global tool.
There is no definitive answer to the question of how many fields there are in international higher education. ISCED (1997) includes nine broad groups, such as humanities and arts, science, and agriculture.
Despite this clear need for cross-national/European/global data there will be a continued demand for information about national/regional higher education systems, in particular with regard to undergraduate higher education.
the majority of in particular undergraduate students will continue to start higher education in their home country. Hence field-based national rankings and cross-national regional rankings (such as the CHE ranking of German
The national rankings could refer to specific national higher education systems and at the same time provide a core set of joint indicators that can be used for European and global rankings.
A link to the development of a European higher education data system (EUMIDA) should be explored; coordination of all relevant EC projects should be part of the next Phase in addition,
requiring the involvement of many key players 160 (governments, European commission, higher education associations, employer organizations, student organizations).
and knowledge about higher education of specific user groups (for instance secondary school leavers versus higher education decision-makers). A user-friendly tool needs various levels of information provision, understandable language, clarity of symbols and explanations, assisted navigation through the web tool and feedback loops providing information
The ranking tool must be administered independent of the interests of higher education institutions or representative organizations in the higher education and research sector.
The implementation has to separate ranking from higher education policy issues such as higher education funding or accreditation.
e g. media companies (interested in publishing rankings), consulting companies in the higher education context and data providers (such as the producers of bibliometric databases).
In this model, governments would use their authority over higher education to organize the rankings of higher education institutions.
because if HEI experience high workloads with data collection they expect free products in return and are not willing to pay for basic data analysis.
Doubts about commitment to social values of European higher education area (e g. no free access for student users?.
Nonprofit organization can be linked with commitment to social values of European higher education area. The idea of international alliances ensures international orientation.
It is independent both from higher education institutions (and their associations) and from higher education funding bodies/politics.
and funding instruments in higher education. It can offer a noncommercial character to the instrument, and it can guarantee external supervision of the implementation and broad and open access to the results.
and performance in European higher education by establishing a transparency tool could be a long-term task of the EC.
Charges to the users of the U multirank web tool would seriously undermine the aim of creating more transparency in European higher education by excluding students for example;
Process and structure in higher education. London, Heinemann. Brandenburg, U & Federkeil, G. 2007) How to measure internationality and internationalisation of higher education institutions!
The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher education, 58 (1), 81-95.
Bucciarelli, L. L. 1994), Designing Engineers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press CHERPA-Network. 2010). ) Interim progress report:
The higher education system: academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, University of California Press. Cremonini, L.,Benneworth, P,
The impact of world class universities policies on national higher education systems. Paper presented at the CHER 23rd annual conference.
Higher education, 55,373-385. Debackere, K, . & Veugelers, R. 2005), The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry-science links, Research Policy 34 (2005), pp. 321-342.
Academic quality, League tables, and Public Policy: A Cross-National Analysis of University ranking Systems. Higher education, 49,495-533.178 Dulleck, U. and R. Kerschbamer (2006."
"On Doctors, Mechanics, and Computer Specialists: The Economics of Credence Goods"Journal of Economic Literature 44 (1): 5-42.
Enquist, G. 2005) The internationalisation of higher education in Sweden, the National Agency for Higher education, Högskoleverkets rapportserie 2005: 27 R, Stockholm Espeland, W. N,
and The New Landscape of Higher education (pp. 19-34). Rotterdam; Taipeh: Sense Publishers. Furco, A. & Miller, W. 2009), Issues in Benchmarking
and Assessing Institutional Engagement, New Directions for Higher education, No. 147, Fall 2009, p. 47-54.
Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Global Survey Report, Internationalization of Higher education: New Directions, New Challenges, Paris: IAU. International Ranking Expert Group.
Insude Higher education. Retrieved from http://www. insidehighered. com/news/2007/03/19/usnews King, Gary et al (2004:
Research in Higher education, 39 (5), 513-537. Meyer, M.,Sinilainen, T. and Utecht, J. T. 2003),‘Toward hybrid triple helix indicators:
Beyond Teaching and Research, Higher education in Europe, Vol. 33, Nr. 2, pp. 259-271. Nelson, P. 1970."
Determinants of Student Loyalty in Higher education: A Tested Relationship Approach in Latin america. Latin american Business Review, 10 (1), 21-39.
Teichler, U. 2004), The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education, Higher education 48 (1), 5-26.
Higher education in Europe, 30 (2), 103-125. Van Raan, Anthony (2003: Challenges in the Ranking of Universities.
Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher education Policy 21 (2), 151-174. van Vught, F. A.,Kaiser, F.,File, J. M.,Gaethgens, C.,Peter, R,
. & Westerheijden, D. F. 2010). U-Map: The European Classification of Higher education institutions. Enschede: CHEPS. Waltman, L.,R. J. W. Tijssen,
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011