Frans A. van Vught

Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education

In this article a number of elements of a general model of quality assessment in higher education are presented. On the one hand these elements are put in a historical context of quality assessment in Medieval universities and, on the other hand, deduced from the recent experiences with quality assessment in both North-American and Western European countries. With respect to the historical context a distinction is made between the intrinsic and the extrinsic values of higher education. Two types of quality assessment related to these values are also distinguished. Concerning the recent experiences with quality assessment systems, the practices in the U.S.A., Canada, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are explored. In the final section the general mode of quality assessment is discussed in the context of the distinction between the intrinsic and the extrinsic values of higher education.

Globalisation and Internationalisation: Policy Agendas Compared

In recent decades, the international dimension has gained importance in higher education policy. First of all, higher education trends have been increasingly analysed at the international level, with an important role played by international and intergovernmental organisations such as the OECD and UNESCO. On the academic side, these analyses have been supported by international comparative higher education research, carried out by research centres such as the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) in the Netherlands. Second, it has been acknowledged that government policies need to address the internationalisation of higher education directly, and should aim to move beyond existing schemes for academic mobility towards policies which encourage higher education institutions to internationalise their core functions. And third, the awareness has grown that policy initiatives are also needed at an international level.

An Evaluation and Critique of Current Rankings

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

Negative Incentive Steering in a Policy Network.

In this article the process of developing a policy for the recent comprehensive retrenchment operation in the Dutch university system is analysed from a theoretical point of view on decisionmaking. The article especially addresses the question whether some empirical evidence can be found for the rationalist view of collective decision-making, which states that a process of social communication should eventually lead to a unanimous and rational consensus concerning the selection of the optimal policy.The actual analysis concerns the way a retrenchment policy has been developed in a process of social communication between the most important actors: the Minister of Education and Science and the thirteen Dutch universities. It is assumed that the various communicative linkages between these actors can be interpreted as a policy network in which both governmental and non-governmental actors operate.The article concludes that in the Dutch university policy-network a complicated balance of interdependencies exists and that several sub-networks can be distinguished. It is also concluded that the Minister, while recognizing the interdependencies in the network, was able to use a special kind of (negative) incentive, inducing the universities to act as he wished.This negative incentive steering, however, also persuaded the universities to go to the utmost in their consultation efforts, thus trying to reach the rationalist ideal of collective decision-making. The final conclusion therefore is that the rationalist view of collective decision-making does not appear to be unrealistic. The article ends with a warning against a common mistake made regarding the normative appearance of the rationalist perspective.

Introduction: towards a new ranking approach in higher education and research

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

Classifications and rankings

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

Transparency, Quality and Accountability

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

Impact of rankings

This chapter discusses the influence league table performance can have on an institution, affecting its student recruitment, its funding and even its leadership. It goes on to discuss the impact on the sector as a whole in encouraging a frantic reputation race and leading institutions to concentrate their efforts and resources on a single area of activity, research, with detrimental effects on individual institutions and the sector. The chapter also looks at the potential positive impact that a well-designed ranking system could deliver and outlines the basic principles and ‘lessons learned’ that would shape the design of such a system.

An Interactive Multidimensional Ranking Web Tool

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

Background and design

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