Bartelse, J.A.

van Vught, Franciscus A.

English

NARCIS 

Institutional profiles: Towards a Typology of Higher Education Institutions in Europe

University of Twente Research Information

9IAU HorizonsVol. 13 n°2-3Institional Profiles: Towards a Typology of Higher Education Institutions in Europeby Jeroen BARTELSE * and Frans VAN VUGHT**T he European higher education landscapeis highly diverse. In terms of its size, theEuropean Higher Education Area1 is com-parable to that of the US higher education sys-tem. There are 3,300 higher education establish-ments in the European Union and approximately4,000 in Europe as a whole (EC, 2003). At thesame time, however, it is far more complex as itis primarily organised at national and regionallevels, each with their own legislative conditions,cultural and historical frames, and avast array of different languages inwhich the various forms, types andmissions of higher education institu-tions may be expressed. These institu-tions contribute to many differentneeds of the emerging knowledgesocieties. A team of researchers2 is cur-rently carrying out a research projectthat aims to explore the value of desi-gning a typology of higher educationinstitutions in Europe. The startingpoint of this research project is theassumption that the strength of theEuropean higher education system liesin the diversity of its higher educationinstitutions. This article reflects the results oftheir work up until now. In this article we argue that a better unders-tanding of the various types of institutions,their different missions, characteristics andprovisions, will support mobility, inter-institu-tional cooperation and the recognition ofdegrees - hence the international competiti-veness and attractiveness of European highereducation. The creation of a typology ofhigher education institutions would be a pro-mising instrument to enhance this understan-ding. It should reveal the institutional profilesof Europe’s rich higher education landscape,while respecting the diversities and characte-ristics of these institutions.Rationale for a typologyIt is often argued that diversity in higher edu-cation should be conserved and even increa-sed. The EC paper on the Role of Universitiesin the Europe of Knowledge (2003) statesthat: “European universities have for longmodelled themselves along the lines of somemajor models, particularly the ideal model ofthe university envisaged nearly two centuriesago by Alexander von Humboldt, in hisreform of the German university, which setsresearch at the heart of the university andindeed makes it the basis of teaching. Todaythe trend is away from thesemodels and towards greaterdifferentiation” (p. 5-6). In theEC Communication on HigherEducation (EC, 2005) the needfor greater differentiation isstressed even more strongly asinsufficient differentiation is abottleneck both for including awider range of learners and forachieving world class excellen-ce (p. 3-4). In terms of gover-nance arrangements and regu-latory frameworks, diversity isas important as autonomy in order to achievewider access and higher quality (p. 7).From various countries, which are known tohave a “unified” system (e.g. the UK andAustralia) it is indeed reported that a lack ofdifferentiation between institutions lead tonegative effects such as mission convergenceand institutional isomorphism (Van Vught,1996), which is often quoted as a justificationfor new reforms (Scott, 2004; Douglas, 2004;Moses, 2004). This is leading to a new searchfor effective forms of diversity, including arenewed focus on the teaching mission ofhigher education institutions, as is for instan-ce expressed in the UK White Paper on HigherEducation (DfES, 2004) and the HigherEducation Review Process in Australia (DEST,2004). And from the USA, known for a stronglydiversified system, a strong plea is heard fordiversity with respect to the various dimen-sions and missions of higher education institu-tions, research and other (Douglas, 2004). Thisdiversity should consequently be taken syste-matically into account by any comparison orclassification of institutions (Lombardi, 2000;Shedd & Wellman, 2001).The growing consensus with respect to theprinciple and value of diversity is a solid basisfor further policy development in theEuropean Higher Education and ResearchAreas. But in order to make diversity useful itneeds to be understood. Therefore, a logicalnext step for Europe with respect to transpa-rancy measures is the development of a typo-logy of higher education institutions. Such atypology will allow individual institutions tomore effectively design their own missionsand profiles, while at the same time offeringthe various stakeholders greater transparancy.A stakeholders perspectiveA better understanding of the various typesof higher education institutions, their missionand provisions, will support the European aimof increasing student mobility, inter-institutio-nal and university-industry cooperation, therecognition of degrees and hence the interna-tional competitiveness of European highereducation. Consequently, the development ofa typology of higher education institutions inEurope is directly linked to the aims of theBologna process and the Lisbon strategy. Weargue that a typology must contribute to theneeds of different stakeholders:• Transparency for studentsBasic information about the type of pro-grammes offered by an institution can bederived from its position in the typology.Students can identify categories of institu-tions and relate this information to their pre-ferences and abilities.• Transparency for business & industry and otherorganisationsFor business and industry, as well as for otherorganisations, a typology will reveal whichTypologies and Classification1 Here defined as including all the Bologna signatory countries (45) as of the Minister’s meeting in Bergen in May 2005. See: http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050520_Bergen_Communique.pdf and http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/EN/BASIC/Map.htm2 In the course of this project, the following persons participated in the research team: David Bohmert, Nadine Burquel, Leon Cremonini, Jindra Davis, Christiana Gaehtgens, JeroenHuisman, Frans Kaiser, Sybille Reichert, James Taylor, Marijk van der Wende, Peter West. The authors wish to thank the members of the project team, for this article is based on theirwork and contributions.  Such a typologywill allow individualinstitutions to moreeffectively designtheir own missionsand profiles, while at the same time offering the variousstakeholders greatertransparancy “”continued on page 1010 IAU Horizons May 2007 continued from page 9In focus: Rankings, Institutional types of institutions are of particular interestfor them. Mutual partnerships and strongerrelationships are created more easily.• Facilitate consortia formation between institu-tionsA typology facilitates the identification ofpotential partner institutions. Within a typo-logy segment, institutions can more easilyassociate and create consortia in which mobi-lity, benchmarking, joint degrees may thrive.• Enhance system transparencyThrough a typology, institutions of highereducation will be stimulated to clarify theirmissions and choose appropriate profiles. As aresult the overall higher education system willbecome transparent and policy instrumentscan be better targeted. For example, mobilityand granting programmes could be targetedto specific groups of institutions in the light oftheir comparative disadvantage or contribu-tion to Europe’s social or economic needs.• A basis for diversified policy approachesPolicy makers in governmental and othercontexts will benefit from a deeper insightinto institutional diversity. National, but evenmore so, European policies for higher educa-tion cannot be based on “a one type fits all”approach. Instead, policies need to be attu-ned to the existing diversity in such a way thatit can be made to work most effectively.• A methodological and analytical tool forresearchResearchers, analysts and other experts will befacilitated in their policy analysis, internatio-nal comparative studies, and also institutionalbenchmarking, by more insight into institutio-nal diversity in both a methodological andanalytical way.Methodological considerationsClassifying is an activity inextricably relatedthe human pursuit to create order out ofchaos, to increase transparency in complexsystems, to grasp the diversity within such sys-tems and – consequently – to improve ourunderstanding of phenomena and systemsand to support effective communication.Classifications have proven their usefulness inall areas of human life, even in those areaswhere the uniqueness of each individual orelement of the system is recognised. Perhapsthe classification of animals and plants is mostappealing to our imagination. The path-brea-king work of Linnaeus formed the basis for abetter understanding of the differences andsimilarities between species of animals andplants. Whereas Linnaeus’ work lacked a pre-cise theoretical understanding of the evolu-tionary mechanisms underpinning the diffe-rences and communalities, Mendel’s work onheredity added much to a better insight inevolutionary processes. Present-day technolo-gies (focusing on the precise analysis of gene-tic materials) allow us to fully understand themapping of animal (including humans!) andplant kingdoms.In the field of higher education, researchers aswell as other stakeholders are attempting tounderstand higher education systems by deve-loping typologies of institutions. From areview of the literature on higher educationtypologies, we derive five issues that need tobe clearly defined before a typology can bedesigned. These are:• What kind of typology? It is important to make a distinction betweena priori typologies and a posteriori typologies.There is a conceptual difference between thearrangements of governments to demarcatetypes of higher education institutions (poly-technics, hogescholen, Fachhochschulen,Ammattikorkeakoulo) and efforts of analyststo categorise different types of institutions onthe basis of similarities and differences. In theframework of this project, higher educationinstitutions will be classified on the basis ofobjective data about the ‘behaviour’ of insti-tutions. This implies that our classification isof a ‘posteriori’ type.• What type of charactistics are used to cate-gorise?It must be clear which characteristics aretaken into account to categorise institutions.As we employ a multi-actor perspective, diffe-rent characteristics are relevant for classifyinghigher education institutions in Europe.Hence, we pursue a ‘multiple’ classificationapproach, which allows institutions to becategorised on various dimensions.• Hierarchical or not?Typologies can be constructed hierarchicallyor not. The concept “hierarchy” has two mea-nings here. It either can be interpreted interms of the structure of the classification(tree-like, with general types at the top andbranches indicating subtypes; cf. the five king-doms in nature) or in terms of the outcomes(does the emergent classification imply a rankorder of institutions). In the typology that weare developing, there is no hierarchy betweendimensions, nor between the categorieswithin a dimension. It must however be notedthat any attempt to classify elements cannotprevent hierarchy-related interpretations.• Reliability of the dataIt is important to decide which types of dataare relevant for a classification. Classificationscan be based on subjective judgements (ofpeers, students, etc.) or on more or less objec-tive data. It is important to define the criteriaupon which institutions are classified clearlyand to be be keen on the reliability of thedata. • Who is eligible to be incorporated?Only accredited and/or nationally recognisedinstitutions of higher education are eligible tobe incorporated in the classification. Every eli-gible institution may be assigned to a catego-ry within a dimension, each institution canonly occupy a single category within eachdimension.The components of a typologyThe heart of the typology of higher educationinstitutions will the various characteristicsupon which differences and similarities of ins-titutions are mapped. Each characteristichighlights a different aspect of the profile ofthe institutions included. In this way, the typo-logy will in fact be made up of a number ofparallel ‘schemes’, each based on a differentcharacteristic. This multi-scheme typology ack-nowledges that institutions can be groupedand compared in a variety of ways.The typology of higher education institutionsmust be based on the principle that the diver-sity of higher education institutions be reflec-ted on relevant characteristics, while at thesame time respecting parsimony. The relevan-ce of characteristics is in the eye of the behol-11IAU-HorizonsVol. 13 n°2-3der, it depends on the subjective interests ofhigher education institutions and stakehol-ders. Hence, our approach to selectingschemes is heuristic. Through an iterative pro-cess long-lists of dimensions were discussedwith experts, stakeholders and higher educa-tion researchers. At this stage, we have gene-rated a number of schemes that provide, onthe one hand, ample opportunities for institu-tions to profile theselves in very diverse waysand, on the other hand, provide different sta-keholders relevant information on highereducation institutions in Europe.At this point in the research project, we areproposing four groups of schemes: on educa-tion (1), on research and innovation (2) on stu-dent en staff profiles (3) and on institutions(4). In the tables below these schemes arebriefly described. Typologies and ClassificationTypes of degrees offered. This scheme provides information on the degrees offered at institutions. Range of subjects offered. In this scheme institutions are listed on the basis of the range of subjects offered. Orientation of degrees. This scheme reflects the academic or professional orientation of the institution.European educational profile. This scheme reflects an institution’s engagement in European higher education programmes.Table 1: Schemes on educationSize. This scheme categorises institutions according to theiroverall size in terms of student enrolment and staff numbers.Mode of delivery. This scheme lists institutions on the basis of the modeof delivery of educational programmes.Community services. This scheme reflects an institution’s commitment to not-for-profit activities in the community or society.Public/private character. This scheme groups institutions on the basis of their public/private funding base.Legal status. This scheme reflects the legal status of a higher education institutions.Table 4: Institutional schemesResearch intensiveness. This scheme reveals an institution’s commitment to scientific research. Innovation driven research. The extent to which an institution is engaged in socio-economic exploitation of its researchEuropan research profile. This scheme reflects an institution’s engagement in Europan research programmes.Table 2: Schemes on research and innovationInternational orientation. This scheme provides information on an institution’s commitment attracting international students and employing international staff.Involvement in life long learning. This scheme reflects institution’s commitements to the learning of all age groupsTable 3: Schemes on student and staff profile:Way forwardWe believe that the viability of this typologywill strongly depend on the involvement ofhigher education institutions and stakehol-ders. In close collaboration with these actors,we will further explore the relevance of theproposed schemes. In the the years to come,a selected number of schemes will be opera-tionalised by developing criteria for eachscheme upon which institutions can be diffe-rentiated. Furthermore the availability ofreliably data sets will be explored and theschemse will be tested extensively. A largenumber of (associations of) higher educationinstitutions, stakeholders and interest groupsare involved in these steps.If the design of a higher education institu-tion tyoplogy proves viable, it will be impor-tant to carefully organise the ownership andcoordination of the typology. At this stage,we suggest that an independent organisa-tion be founded or designated that will beresponsible for the implemenation inEurope. This organisation must operate in atrustworthy manner by being transparant inits structure and procedures.* Researcher, Center for Higher Education PolicyStudies (CHEPS), University of Twente, TheNetherlands** EUA Board member, Former President andRector Emeritus, University of Twente, TheNetherlands(bohmert@neth-er.eu)This project has been funded with support fromthe European Commission. The content of this article does not necessarilyreflect the views of organizations to which theauthors are affiliated to, nor can these organiza-tions and the Commission be held responsible forany use which may be made of the informationcontained herein.

Institutional profiles: Towards a Typology of Higher Education Institutions in Europe

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

University of Twente Research Information