Diversity Of Higher Education Systems Research Articles

UNESCO'S MISSION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

The article is devoted to the characterization of the constitutive influence of UNESCO on the transnational higher education formation at the end of the XX - the beginning of the XXI century, in particu-lar, to substantiate strategies for its development and quality assurance at the global and regional levels. Based on the study of a wide source base, UNESCO's role in the development of transnational higher educa-tion is uncovered though it has been firmly included in the structure of the international relations system in the field of internationalization of higher education as the institution of global educational policy of global scale. It is revealed that the main directions of the international organization’s activity in the development of transnational higher education are: statistical data collection and classification; harmonization of the termi-nology apparatus; deepening knowledge of transnational higher education issues; development of recom-mendations for the transnational higher education management, ensuring its quality; creation of infor-mation exchange centers; forecasting and developing strategies for its development. It was established that on the international level, on the basis of the method of open coordination, the leading institutions of global regulation of education development have agreed and adopted normative documents on the quality assur-ance of transnational higher education, the unifying characteristics of which are: the basic principle of mu-tual trust between countries and respect for the diversity of higher education systems; quality management of transnational educational services; ensuring the detection of dishonest providers; recommendation focus on the activities of stakeholders: government, higher education institutions, educational services providers, student organizations, quality assurance and accreditation institutions, institutions for recognition of quali-fications and diplomas, professional associations of teachers, researchers, etc.

What do positioning paths of universities tell about the diversity of higher education systems? An exploratory study

ABSTRACT Diversity in Higher Education system has been a central topic for both scholars and policy-makers for decades. Several studies have investigated how to measure diversity and the nature of its determinants so far; however, contradictory empirical evidence has emerged. This paper contributes to this literature by adopting a methodological approach that starts from the analysis of positioning paths of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in order to explore the diversity of HE systems. A comprehensive quantitative analysis performed across two HE systems over time shows how detecting the positioning of HEIs can provide information that an analysis of diversity at the level of the entire system might hide, in particular (I) if and how compliant and distinctiveness are concurrently displayed (II) in which dimensions positioning shifts are more likely to occur and (III) which groups of HEIs influence more the level of diversity in a HE system.

How Different Are Higher Education Institutions in the UK, US and Australia? The Significance of Government Involvement

Governments in the UK and many other countries have long sought to promote the diversity of their higher education institutions. However, diversity is hard to define, harder to measure and even more difficult to compare between countries. Most empirical analyses of the diversity of higher education systems use categorical variables, which shape the extent of diversity found. This study examines continuous variables of institutions' enrolment size and proportions of postgraduate, fulltime and international students to find the extent of variation amongst doctoral granting and all higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia. The study finds that there is less variety amongst all higher education institutions in the United Kingdom than in Australia, which in turn has much less variety than the United States. The paper argues that the extent of government involvement in higher education is not so important for institutional variety as the form that it takes. More tentatively, the paper suggests that the more limited the range of institutions for which government funding is available the stronger government involvement is needed to have variety among the limited range of institutions for which government financial support is available.

Can we support diversity by performance measurement of European higher education institutions?

Apart from the production of knowledge by research activities the shaping of higher education systems and their institutions is associated with the socio-political task of guaranteeing the transfer of knowledge by academic teaching. Some recent and expected developments lead to the discussion of a more thoughtful handling of diverse (potential) student population: The anticipated shortage of skilled labour intensifies the discussion about teaching in the areas of science politics and university research. Although - for the time being - the total numbers of new students are increasing for various reasons, this has not been true for all regions of Germany (cf. Dohmen, 2010). Particularly, internationalisation and the process of admitting various target groups to university studies are suggested as possible solutions for cushioning the negative consequences of the demographic change.1 Both factors suggest that - to an ever more increasing degree - students with varying concepts and individual objectives, with different qualifications and capabilities will enter higher education institutions (HEIs). So, any discussion about the differentiation of the higher education system will imply at least two questions: Do we, firstly, expect any HEI to meet the specific needs of each and every student, or do we expect that starting from the differentiation between universities and universities of applied sciences there will be further types of HEIs, developing specific offers for specific target groups? And secondly, how will it be possible for us to take into consideration the consequences resulting from the choice of an institutional design, as to the successful graduation of the students of specific HEIs?In this essay2, we present two possible and already applied ways of recording the diversity of higher education systems at institution level and of taking such diversity into consideration, in terms of a performance rating. In the first section, we explain the underlying diversity concept. At the same time, we illustrate the connection between the differentiation of various types of HEIs, in particular between universities and universities of applied sciences, and the diversity of students using the German higher education system as an example. In the second section, we present a first option of recording institutional diversity developed in the European context: the so called U-Map classification3 of European HEIs, an example of the classification approach, in which HEIs are classified in different classes and/or types, following certain criteria. The third section introduces the Australian model which has been in use for more than a decade in Australia but has rarely been adopted in Europe. It provides a second and well-proven option of recording differences between HEIs. This option uses a performance-indicator based statistical balancing method which takes the composition of the student body into consideration. Based on the results, the HEIs are to be supported (financially) in order to be able to react adequately to the specific needs of their students, so that the latters' success in studying is made possible regardless of their individual qualifications (DETYA 1998). Weighting the pros and cons of the two presented approaches, we will discuss in section four if it might be worthwhile adapting the Australian approach to the German system.1. Diversity in the German higher education systemThe alternative approaches of describing the variety of HEIs and the subsequent fund distribution procedures, which are discussed in this article, are both based on the assumption that modern higher education systems need to fulfil a multitude of tasks for different target groups. For that reason, different types of institutions have been developed in higher education systems. Higher education systems are characterised by a more or less extensive institutional diversity.Institutional and/or external diversity in a higher education system is defined to be the degree of variance among the HEIs at a specific point in time, as opposed to internal diversity (van Vught 1996, p. …

Is There a Future for Higher Education Institutions in the Knowledge Society?

The paper considers the growing diversity of higher education systems and institutions by exploring three main trends of expansion, differentiation and globalisation together with linked features concerning new forms of governance and more responsive relationships with other social institutions. At the heart of this expansion and differentiation are a number of tensions concerning the role of modern higher education systems: to do with balancing autonomy and responsiveness, reproductive and transformative functions, public and private benefits, economic and broader socio-political agendas. The paper goes on to ask whether future knowledge societies will continue to need separate institutions of ‘higher’ education and, if the answer is yes, what form these will take.

Universities and the emerging new players: building futures for higher education

Universities are long-established organisations, and although they have reinvented themselves several times, major reforms are needed again, underpinned by systematic prospective analyses. A novel method is needed to take into account the wide-ranging and complex factors, shaping the future of the higher education system. ‘Futures’ should be devised in a multi-level structure as the bulk of trends and driving forces are international in their nature and universities are embedded in broader socio-economic systems. This new approach is demonstrated here by devising ‘cascading’ futures for the European Union (EU), the European Research and Innovation Area (ERIA) and universities. Several advantages can be expected from this type of prospective analysis: (i) the potential changes of these broader settings, in which universities operate, as well as their impacts on higher education can be explored; (ii) the huge diversity of higher education systems and individual universities can be reflected; and (iii) the likely impacts of different policy options can also be explored. It is also proposed to select foresight programmes from the ‘prospective toolkit’, given their specific features and benefits compared to other prospective methods.

Mission Diversity and Reputation in Higher Education

In this contribution both the literature and the present-day policies regarding diversity in higher education systems will be discussed. The first part presents an overview of the theoretical and empirical studies on differentiation and diversity. Based on this, a conceptual framework is presented, which intends to explain the processes of differentiation and dedifferentiation in higher education systems. Two crucial variables are identified, and both have a crucial impact on the behaviour of higher education institutions: the level of uniformity in the environment of higher education institutions and the level of influence of academic norms and values in these institutions. The second part of this contribution focuses on current higher education policies. Hoping to create better and stronger contributions by higher education institutions to the ‘knowledge society’, many governments nowadays develop policies of less state control and more autonomy. It will be argued that these policies do not automatically lead to more diversity in higher education systems. The reason for this is simply that markets work imperfectly in higher education systems and that the behaviour of higher education institutions is triggered by competition for reputation, a process producing several unintended consequences. In this latter context the recent rankings and typologies in higher education are also discussed.

Devising futures for universities in a multi-level structure: A methodological experiment

Universities have traditionally been key players in producing and validating new scientific knowledge, but other actors have also become major research performers. Meanwhile, the notion of research has been extended considerably, and the environment of universities is also undergoing fundamental changes. Thus, it is timely to consider alternative futures for them, to be better prepared for their new roles. A review of recent works on the future of higher education shows that the starting point in these exercises is either an existing or an abstract university. This approach has three major shortcomings: (i) the broader socio-economic systems, in which universities operate, are not addressed in these analyses, and thus neither the potential changes in these broader settings, nor their impacts on higher education can be explored; (ii) the huge diversity of higher education systems and individual universities cannot be reflected; (iii) the role of other research actors, and more importantly, the links among universities and those other research players are often disregarded. This article offers an alternative approach, using the case of EU universities as an example, to rectify these shortcomings. A set of ‘cascading’ visions are devised to demonstrate the close links between three levels. First, alternative futures are developed for the EU by considering (i) the overall rationale of EU policies; and (ii) the standing of the EU vis-à-vis the Triad. Second, the different directions are identified, in which the European Research and Innovation Area can evolve. Third, skipping the national level, futures are built for the universities themselves, focussing on their research activities. The modest intention of the futures presented in this paper is to demonstrate how to use the proposed new approach, and initiate meaningful and lively dialogues among stakeholders. Their diverse accumulated knowledge and experience, as well as distinct viewpoints are indispensable for building policy-relevant visions. The proposed three-level structure of futures – or ‘cascading’ visions – offers several advantages for policy-makers at various levels, the stakeholders of universities, as well as academics interested in prospective analysis of innovation systems.

Does competitive research funding encourage diversity in higher education?

Based on the evolution of higher education systems in the last 50 years? this paper discusses the use of research funding mechanisms as privileged instruments to maintain and foster diversity in higher education systems. We suggest that competitive research funding supported by non-standardised evaluative processes may enable differentiation among institutions according to their resources and capabilities to develop research, while also recognising the limit to the use of such policy instruments.

Massification and Diversity of Higher Education Systems: Interplay of Complex Dimensions

This paper provides a synthetic overview of the complex dimensions that shape the interrelations between the massification of higher education systems and their structure and composition. Many higher education systems worldwide expanded extensively in the last decades, and have undergone wide and deep structural changes. Most notably, the diversity of many higher education systems has increased dramatically, both horizontally and vertically. We address in this paper the following issues: external and internal boundaries of higher education systems; top-down and bottom-up forces; globalization and supra-national trends; flexibility; and public and private sectors. These themes highlight most crucial issues to which higher education policy makers are advised to pay attention to when deliberating what are the best ways to implement the expansion of their higher education systems, and what should be the desirable diversity in their national contexts.

Institutional Diversity in Higher Education: a Cross‐National and Longitudinal Analysis

AbstractThis paper contributes to the debate on institutional diversity in higher education systems by looking at the phenomenon from a comparative (cross‐national) and longitudinal perspective. Despite the attention to diversity in policy debates, surprisingly, only a limited amount of studies address methodological issues. In addition, the number of empirical studies on institutional diversity is low as well. Data on various Western higher education systems are used to illustrate developments in systems' diversity. Furthermore, these data are put in the context of current national (and supranational) policy debates, particularly the role of governments and markets, on maintaining or increasing diversity.

Public and Private Higher Education in Portugal: unintended effects of deregulation

In a recent paper (Teixeira & Amaral, 2001), we presented a preliminary analysis of the effects of privatisation on the diversity of higher education systems. The conditions for promoting diversity are complex and difficult to pinpoint. With the advent of the 'market rhetoric', it is often considered that diversity in higher education is better ensured under stronger market regulation. Since privatisation is one of the main strategies for introducing market mechanisms in higher education, we analyse the consequences of the emergence of a private sector in Portugal, with special emphasis on its effects on its diversity. In the times of financial stringency which followed the 1974 Revolution, the development of the private sector was seen as positive, allowing for additional enrolments with no costs to the public purse. At the same time, advocates of private initiative claimed that private higher education institutions would be far more responsive than their public counterparts to demands of society and the labour market, due to their greater flexibility, entrepreneurial management and the need to ensure their clients' satisfaction. The private sector was thus supposed to provide more diversity, both at regional and disciplinary levels, while creating innovative solutions in its quest for protected market niches. In this article, we analyse how far these objectives have materialised, or if, on the contrary, they have remained in the domain of political wishful thinking.

Academic Differentiation in National Systems of Higher Education

Previous articleNext article No AccessAcademic Differentiation in National Systems of Higher EducationBurton R. ClarkBurton R. Clark Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Comparative Education Review Volume 22, Number 2Jun., 1978 Sponsored by the Comparative and International Education Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/445980 Views: 41Total views on this site Citations: 36Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1978 The Comparative and International Education SocietyPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Kerri-Lee Krause Higher education sector institutional diversity: an Australian case study, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 44, no.44 (Mar 2022): 393–410.https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2022.2051221Ingvild Reymert, Jens Jungblut, Siri B. Borlaug Are evaluative cultures national or global? A cross-national study on evaluative cultures in academic recruitment processes in Europe, Higher Education 82, no.55 (Nov 2020): 823–843.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00659-3Vincent Carpentier Three stories of institutional differentiation: resource, mission and social inequalities in higher education, Policy Reviews in Higher Education 5, no.22 (Mar 2021): 197–241.https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2021.1896376Simon Schwartzman, Roberto Lobo Silva Filho, Rooney R. A. Coelho Por uma tipologia do ensino superior brasileiro: teste de conceito, Estudos Avançados 35, no.101101 (Apr 2021): 153–186.https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-4014.2021.35101.011Stephanie Aguilar-Smith, Leslie D. Gonzales A Study of Community College Faculty Work Expectations: Generous Educators and Their Managed Generosity, Community College Journal of Research and Practice 45, no.33 (Sep 2019): 184–204.https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1666062Ingvild Reymert Bibliometrics in Academic Recruitment: A Screening Tool Rather than a Game Changer, Minerva 59, no.11 (Sep 2020): 53–78.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09419-0Guohong Sun Research on the cooperative development of university and industry economy based on Internet of Things technology, Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies 31, no.1212 (Mar 2020).https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.3917Elizabeth Balbachevsky, Vuokko Kohtamäki University, science and the new (and old) academic roles: inner sources of institutional resilience, Sociologias 22, no.5454 (Aug 2020): 64–86.https://doi.org/10.1590/15174522-99512Francisco O. Ramirez The Socially Embedded American University: Intensification and Globalization, (May 2020): 131–161.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41834-2_9Edna Martinez “The Rules Change”: Exploring Faculty Experiences and Work Expectations Within a Drifting Community College Context, Community College Review 47, no.22 (Mar 2019): 111–135.https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119835022Tom Christensen, Åse Gornitzka, Francisco O. Ramirez Reputation Management, Social Embeddedness, and Rationalization of Universities, (Aug 2018): 3–39.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92713-8_1Lijun Yang Higher education expansion and post-college unemployment: Understanding the roles of fields of study in China, International Journal of Educational Development 62 (Sep 2018): 62–74.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.02.009Artur Santoalha, Ricardo Biscaia, Pedro Teixeira Higher education and its contribution to a diverse regional supply of human capital: does the binary/unitary divide matters?, Higher Education 75, no.22 (Mar 2017): 209–230.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0132-2Ralf St. Clair, Joanne Heslop, Nicole Greengoe When the Walls Come Tumbling Down: A Case Study of Community Colleges Within a Canadian High Mobility Postsecondary System, (Mar 2018): 757–774.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50911-2_37Ralf St. Clair, Joanne Heslop, Nicole Greengoe When the Walls Come Tumbling Down: A Case Study of Community Colleges Within a Canadian High Mobility Postsecondary System, (Aug 2017): 1–18.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38909-7_37-1Lisa Unangst , ( 2017): 13.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-083-7_2Markus Klein The association between graduates’ field of study and occupational attainment in West Germany, 1980–2008, Journal for Labour Market Research 49, no.11 (May 2016): 43–58.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12651-016-0201-5Leslie D. Gonzales, Aimee Lapointe Terosky From the Faculty Perspective: Defining, Earning, and Maintaining Legitimacy across Academia, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 118, no.77 (Jul 2016): 1–44.https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611800704Rómulo Pinheiro, Lars Geschwind, Francisco O. Ramirez, Karsten Vrangbæk The Value in Comparing Organizational Fields and Forms, (Jan 2016): 9–32.https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20150000045011Francisco O. Ramirez, Haldor Byrkjeflot, Rómulo Pinheiro Higher Education and Health Organizational Fields in the Age of “World Class” and “Best Practices”, (Jan 2016): 35–57.https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20150000045012Rómulo Pinheiro, Lars Geschwind, Timo Aarrevaara A World Full of Mergers: The Nordic Countries in a Global Context, (Jan 2016): 3–25.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21918-9_1Jeroen Huisman Institutional Diversity in Higher Education, Institutional Profiling, (Dec 2016): 1–8.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_32-1Ann-Marie Bathmaker, Jessie Abrahams, Richard Waller, Nicola Ingram, Anthony Hoare, Harriet Bradley Two Universities, One City, (Jul 2016): 33–52.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53481-1_3Leslie D. Gonzales Faculty agency in striving university contexts: mundane yet powerful acts of agency, British Educational Research Journal 41, no.22 (Jun 2014): 303–323.https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3140Isak Froumin, Yaroslav Kouzminov, Dmitry Semyonov Institutional diversity in Russian higher education: revolutions and evolution, European Journal of Higher Education 4, no.33 (Jun 2014): 209–234.https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2014.916532Leslie D. Gonzales Framing Faculty Agency inside Striving Universities: An Application of Bourdieu's Theory of Practice, The Journal of Higher Education 85, no.22 (Oct 2016): 193–218.https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777324Simon Schwartzman Academic Drift in Brazilian Education, (Nov 2013): 61–72.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7085-0_4Tatiana Fumasoli, Jeroen Huisman Strategic Agency and System Diversity: Conceptualizing Institutional Positioning in Higher Education, Minerva 51, no.22 (Mar 2013): 155–169.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9225-yLeslie D. Gonzales Responding to mission creep: faculty members as cosmopolitan agents, Higher Education 64, no.33 (Jan 2012): 337–353.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9497-9Ellen Hazelkorn “Everyone Wants to Be Like Harvard” – Or Do They? Cherishing All Missions Equally, (Mar 2012): 837–862.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_43Qiang Zha China’s move to mass higher education in a comparative perspective, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 41, no.66 (Dec 2011): 751–768.https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2011.590316Kathrin Leuze How structure signals status: institutional stratification and the transition from higher education to work in Germany and Britain, Journal of Education and Work 24, no.55 (Nov 2011): 449–475.https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2011.596524Sheena Choi, Minho Yeom Higher Education Reform in South Korea: Perspectives on the New University for Regional Innovation Program, International Journal of Educational Reform 19, no.33 (Jan 2019): 205–221.https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791001900304David Reimer, Clemens Noelke, Aleksander Kucel Labor Market Effects of Field of Study in Comparative Perspective, International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49, no.4-54-5 (Aug 2008): 233–256.https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715208093076Sakari Ahola From ‘Different but Equal’ to ‘Equal but Different’: Finnish AMKs in the Bologna Process, Higher Education Policy 19, no.22 (Jun 2006): 173–186.https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300118Jeroen Huisman Differentiation and Diversity in Higher Education Systems, (Jan 1998): 75–110.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3971-7_3