Mapping the Higher Education Landscape

Abstract

1 Diversity and differentiation in higher education. Frans van Vught. 1.1 Introduction. 1.2 Classical studies. 1.3 Recent perspectives. 1.4 Arguments in favour of diversity. 1.5 Studies on differentiation and diversity in higher education. 1.6 A theoretical framework for explaining differentiation and diversity in higher education systems. 1.7 Higher education research outcomes. 1.8 Conclusion. 2 Diversity in European higher education:historical trends and current policies. Jeroen Huisman & Frans van Vught. 2.1 Introduction. 2.2 A history of diversity in European higher education. 2.3 Emerging European policy contexts. 2.4 Diversity in the Bologna Process. 2.5 Diversity effects of EU policies. 2.6 Diversity in national higher education systems. 2.6.1 France. 2.6.2 Germany. 2.6.3 The Netherlands. 2.6.4 Norway. 2.6.5 United Kingdom. 2.7 Conclusion. 3 The search for transparency:convergence and diversity in the Bologna Process. Dirk Van Damme. 3.1 Introduction. 3.2 Convergence in the Bologna Process. 3.3 Convergence as similarity. 3.4 The risks of convergence. 3.5 The need for transparency. 3.6 Conclusion. 4 The European higher education classification:objectives and concepts. Jeroen Bartelse & Frans van Vught. 4.1 Introduction. 4.2 Objectives. 4.3 Classifications and typologies. 4.4 The Carnegie classification of higher education institutions. 4.5 Design principles. 4.6 The components of the European classification. 4.7 Conclusion: institutional profiles. 5 Rankings and classifications:the need for a multidimensional approach. Marijk van der Wende & Don Westerheijden. 5.1 Introduction. 5.2 Global competition, rankings and diversity. 5.3 A closer look at university rankings. 5.4 Limitations and methodological issues. 5.5 The impact of rankings on institutional and governmental policies. 5.6 Alternative approaches to ranking: best practice from Europe. 5.7 The Dutch-Flemish pilot with the CHE ranking. 5.8 Rankings, stratification and diversity. 5.9 Conclusion. 6 The European higher education classification: the design process. Frans Kaiser & Frans van Vught. 6.1 Introduction. 6.2 How to design a classification. 6.3 Designing the European classification of higher education institutions. 6.3.1 Phase 1: breaking the ground. 6.3.2 Phase 2: testing the ideas. 6.3.2.1 Exploring existing sources. 6.3.2.2 Case studies and pilot survey. 6.3.2.3 The classification survey. 6.3.2.4 Survey outcomes. 6.3.2.5 Using the survey data. 6.3.2.6 Interim conclusions. 6.3.3 Phase 3: crafting the tools. 6.4 Conclusion. 7 Using the classification in the European Higher Education Area. Sybille Reichert. 7.1 Introduction. 7.2 Institutional diversity: a challenge for the intertwined European higher education landscape. 7.3 The European Higher Education Area. 7.4 Potential use of the European higher education classification. 7.5 Conclusion. 8 Using the classification in the European Research Area. Christiane Gaehtgens & Rolf Peter. 8.1 Introduction. 8.2 Institutional diversity: feature of the integrating European research landscape. 8.3 The European Research Area. 8.4 Potential impact of the European higher education classification. 8.5 Conclusion. 9 Using the classification for institutional profiling:the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Astrid Laegreid & Julie Feilberg. 9.1 Introduction. 9.2 NTNU - A complex institution. 9.3 NTNU's ambitions and strategy. 9.3.1 Why a new strategy? 9.3.2 NTNU's strategy to 2020. 9.4 Profiling NTNU as a new type of university. 9.5 The problem of rankings. 9.6 The European higher education classification and NTNU's strategic work. 9.7 NTNU's engagement in the classification project. 9.8 Conclusion. 10 Using the classification for institutional profiling: the University of Strathclyde. Peter West & Saskia Hansen. 10.1 Introduction. 10.2 Why