Opening Academic Year speech by Frans van Vught

University profiles International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

Frans van Vught

Opening academic year 2012/13 Maastricht University, 3 September 2012

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

1. National innovation policies Over the last two and a half decades the higher education systems of the developed countries have undergone unprecedented transformation. Much of this change has been motivated by an increased appreciation of the influential role that human capital now plays in the new global economy. As the sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (1979) perceptively observed, higher education has become the primary determinant of an individual’s ‘life chances,’ and as a consequence all developed countries have adopted a higher education policy of ‘massification’ (Trow, 2000), rapidly expanding first and second level degree enrolments of their higher education systems. National debates about higher education reform, therefore, have first of all been dominated by concerns with the educational function of higher education institutions and have focused attention on the issues of university access, the efficient financing of university education, and quality assurance.

Over the same period there has also been a growing appreciation among policymakers of the way

in which international forces have altered the basis of economic development (Soete, 2006). In the global market, natural resources are no longer a key factor in economic growth. There is an observable trend in many countries towards de-industrialisation, increased international outsourcing of traditional industries as well as routine service functions, and a corresponding government concern about how to promote innovation and technological change as a principal means of sustaining international competitiveness. In many countries, national innovation policies have begun to shape and supersede traditional higher education and research policies (Balzat, 2006; Nelson, 1993; OECD, 2005).

Over the last 25 years we have realised that international forces are changing the basis

of economic development. Markets are becoming increasingly interconnected. Goods, services, capital, labour, and knowledge move around the world with increasing speed in order to find the best conditions.

Natural resources are no longer the dominant factor in economic growth. We live in a globalised world.

Generally speaking, it appears that globalisation leads to increasing national specialisation. his process of specialisation, which is amplified by scale and learning effects, creates a reallocation

of production processes between countries and forces nations to look for their international comparative advantages. Given this situation, national governments try to identify and develop their specific strengths. They try to increase their location attractiveness for business firms; they try to attract mobile production factors; they develop their sociocultural profiles; and they try to increase their innovation capacity.

Many nations now seek to promote innovation as a key driver of economic growth. In particular

Western industrialised nations try to find their comparative advantages in the production of knowledgeintensive goods and services. To better compete in a globalised economy they increasingly focus on knowledge, creativity, and innovation. In this context higher education and research organisations have become important targets for national policy-makers as they are major contributors to the knowledge economy environment.

2

3

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

In order to redesign their systems of higher education and research and to adapt them to the new demands of globalisation and competitiveness, national innovation policies appear to take various

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

2. Effects on universities

forms. In a comprehensive international comparative study, my colleague David Dill and I identified two

Globalisation and the increased focus of national governments on innovation policies have had signifi-

broad categories of national innovation policy strategy (Dill & Van Vught, 2010). The first and largest

cant impact on the international higher education landscape. Let me explore three major strands of this

category comprises what could be called prioritisation strategies. These policies are characterised

impact, all of which constitute major challenges to universities and other higher education institutions

by features such as foresight analyses in the science and technology sectors, priority allocation

and, as I will argue, create an urgent need for them to strategically develop their ‘institutional profiles.’

and concentration of resources, and quality assessments of research outputs. They reflect the notion of national planning, including the well-known drawbacks of central steering.

Mission overload

We can cite many examples of prioritisation strategies; let me mention just a few. In Australia

Universities are increasingly facing rising expectations and an expanding set of challenges. They are

both the Commonwealth and state governments have engaged in research priority setting, emphasizing

expected to address the world’s major problems – eg those related to our natural environment; the settle­

areas of science that will enhance economic competitiveness. In Finland the funding agency for tech-

ment and movement of people; pandemics; poverty; terrorism etc. The European Union, for example,

nology and innovation, TEKES, explicitly funds university research programs in selected technology

has formulated a number of ‘grand challenges’ that will be the leading topics in their new research

fields seen as priorities in terms of Finnish industrial development. Even in the US, the National Science

funding program, Horizon 2020. Worldwide there is widespread expectation that universities should be

and Technology Council recently defined a number of interagency research programs in areas deemed

able to research an increasingly broad range of problems in an ever-growing holistic fashion and at an

of strategic importance to the national economy.

accelerated pace. As our societies become more knowledgeable, universities come under increasing pressure

to expand, transfer and apply new knowledge in order to solve the problems confronting the world.

The other category of innovation policies places an emphasis on market forces and competition. The

policy characteristics of these competition strategies include an emphasis on competitive allocation

of resources, encouraging entrepreneurial university behaviour, deregulating the higher education

produce the knowledge and human capital required to meet the needs of the modern knowledge society,

sector, and encouraging multiple sources of funding. The pre-eminent example of this strategy is the

playing a central role in innovation processes, contributing to regional development, increasing social

US federal science policy with its emphasis on a national marketplace of competing private and state

inclusion and participating in to the resolution of global problems. Governments tend to translate

universities, limited federal control, and the competitive allocation of funding by research funding

these multiple expectations into roles and responsibilities, often backed by earmarked funding or with

agencies. But aspects of this type of competition strategy can also be found – to a greater or lesser

conditions attached to general budgets. Universities themselves tend to take on a wider set of activities,

degree – in a number of other countries. Canada, Germany and Japan, for example, have all adopted a

partly through political and social pressure and partly in response to market opportunities.

competitive approach to strengthening research training, through either competitive national fellow-

ships to support PhD students or competitive grants for the development of selected research schools.

strategic vision and risks becoming a serious distraction from core business. Precisely because of these

The United Kingdom has diversified the funding base of their universities by offering competitive ‘third

increasing expectations and challenges, universities need to reassess and clarify their missions, goals

sector’ funding to promote greater knowledge transfer between universities and industry.

and priorities, carefully defining their institutional profiles.

In addition, these expectations are becoming increasingly diversified. Universities are expected to

The result is an accumulation of mission elements, often leading to mission overload, which blurs

The Netherlands offers a clear example of the prioritisation strategy of innovation. A few years ago the

Dutch national Innovation Platform identified a set of ‘national key areas’ where both fundamental

Global research competition

research and knowledge transfer should be increased. Meanwhile our national innovation

On a worldwide scale, company labs are increasingly putting an end to their basic research activities.

policy has developed into a strategy of coordinated ‘top sectors’ with ‘innovation contracts’, ‘human

The pressure in a number of industries to quickly secure major revenue streams has led to the scaling

capital agendas’ and ‘general framework agreements’ with both the university and the HBO sectors.

back or closure of industrial research laboratories with the capacity for long-term research. Instead,

The national Review Committee for Higher Education and Research, which I have the honour to chair,

companies are concentrating their research efforts on short-term results, while adopting a strategic

recently analysed the submissions of all the universities and HBO institutions against their future

global approach to more basic research which is increasingly reliant on offshore partnerships, academic

profiles, including the extent to which these submissions reflected the identified national innovation

collaboration and outsourcing to established networks of scientific expertise.

priorities. Also in the Netherlands, current higher education and research policies are to a large extent influenced by our national innovation agenda.

4

5

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

National innovation policies, with their emphasis on the application of new knowledge, serve to

institutional profile – appears to be a key knock-on effect of national innovation strategies in many

encourage universities to participate in these new global research networks. In effect there appears to

higher education systems.

be increasing competition between nations to make themselves attractive to footloose corporate R&D

investments. In their innovation policies nations aim to prioritise and concentrate their own research

diversity: governmental regulation and market competition. Governmental regulation (for instance a

expenditures to achieve competitive scale and quality. In addition, nations increasingly show a willing-

binary system regulation) is thought to limit the scope for higher education institutions to develop

ness to coordinate their own research investments with large international research budgets, like those

their own profiles and so can be expected to limit diversity. Market competition is thought to offer

of the European Union.

leeway for institutional profiling and therefore is assumed to lead to higher levels of diversity. However,

As a result universities are confronted with the challenge of selecting and investing in those

empirical research has shown these to be false assumptions. On the one hand considerable market

research fields in which they can compete on a global scale. This often requires risky investments in

competition, in particular in the US higher education system, does not necessarily lead to more diversity

major facilities, equipment and research teams for the longer term, more often than not expanding

(Birnbaum, 1983), while on the other hand regulated binary systems often show more diversity than less

the normal 3- to 5-year terms of conventional research funding schemes. In the present global world of

regulated non-binary systems (Huisman et al., 2007). It has been suggested that the strategic positioning

research it is the ability to marshal resources, including intellectual capability, that allows a univer-

of individual higher education institutions, and particularly their ability to occupy favourable niche

sity to achieve a significant advantage ahead of the competition. Strategic research management has

positions, may play an important role in terms of the overall level of diversity among higher education

become one of the most important aspects of modern university leadership.

systems. Not only do higher education institutions react to the constraints and opportunities in their

Very few universities have sufficient capacity to compete alone in the contemporary context in

environment (including governmental regulation and funding), they also initiate behaviour that allows

any research field. The most successful universities worldwide collaborate with others, including their

them to carve out sustainable positions from which to project their specific profiles, competing only

competitors, at different points along the supply chain. They work together when they do not have

with a specific group of often international institutions with similar profiles (Van Vught, 2008; Fumasoli

specific distinctive competitive advantages, when they can share common costs or when they see

& Huisman, 2013).

opportunities to expand the scale of their activities or their joint reputation. Partner selection in priority

research fields therefore becomes extremely important and involves consideration of multiple factors,

‘institutional profiling’.Governments intending to increase this diversity increasingly focus on the strategic

including complementary capabilities, reputation for reliability, and academic prestige. Modern university

profiles created by higher education institutions. Making these profiles transparent and agreeing

research management implies a clear view of an institution’s research strengths and weaknesses in a

on how they fit in the overall higher education system is an effective way to diversify higher education

competitive global research market and the courage to select and develop a set of research field priorities

systems. There is incentive for universities and other higher education institutions to sharpen their

as a major defining part of the university profile.

profiles and to develop them as key strategic tools in positioning their institution in both a national system

The higher education literature suggests two key factors assumed to have an impact on the level of

The question of increasing institutional diversity in higher education systems thus brings us again to

and international context. Institutional profiles are an effective instrument for enhancing visibility and Higher education system diversity

reputation, and providing justification for their very existence.

In addition to the creation and application of new knowledge, the other crucial dimension of any national innovation policy is human capital formation (Ritzen, 2012). Higher education organisations are urged to increase participation rates and particularly the supply of well-trained ‘knowledge workers’ in the prioritised sectors in order to allow the successful implementation of the national innovation policy.

Expanding higher education participation requires an increase in the diversity of educational

provision in terms of curriculum content and orientation, quality and price. The ‘massification’ of higher education implies the need not only to expand higher education systems but especially to diversify the supply forms of higher education in order to reflect the needs of a greater diversity of potential learners.

This is why globalisation and the focus on innovation in many countries appear to trigger diversification policies in higher education. The urge to diversify – both in terms of programs offered and in terms of

6

7

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

3. University rankings

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

justified by scientific theories, logically coherent sets of statements which, moreover, can be tested to see whether they are consistent with the facts.

Since we have been talking about institutional profiles now for awhile already, let us briefly discuss

what they are. I see institutional profiles as the descriptions of what higher education institutions are

accepted as the bodies authorised to set rules. The conceptual frameworks behind sports league tables

and/or want to be. Institutional profiles display what institutions do, how good they are at it, and how

are well-established: the rules of the game define the winners and leagues tables are created from the

they compare to other institutions. Institutional profiles can be divided into activity profiles and perfor-

results. Yet those rules have been designed by humans and may be subject to change: in the 1980s-90s

mance profiles. Activity profiles describe the actual activities of an institution in terms of focus, volume,

football associations went from awarding two points for winning a match to three points, changing

priorities, etc. Activity profiles are descriptive – they map the set of activities that defines the various

not only tactics in the game (more attacks late in a drawn match), but to some extent the league table

tasks that an institution sets for itself. Performance profiles, on the other hand, show how well an insti-

outcomes as well.

tution performs these tasks. Performance profiles are evaluative and imply a judgement in terms of the

output and impact of an institution’s activities.

rankings. All rankings are made up of selected indicators that imply the conceptual framework through

Generally speaking, an institution’s profile reflects the dimensions of its mission. These can be the well-

which reality is addressed. There is a body in charge of choosing those indicators. In sports, such bodies

known basic dimensions of teaching & learning, research and knowledge exchange. But an institution

are recognised organisations and it is accepted that they design and redefine the rules of the game,

may wish to emphasise other dimensions as equally important aspects of its mission, such as interna-

including the indicators. It is equally understood that rules and indicators are not derived scientifically

tional orientation or regional engagement.

but are artificial and vary by sport: rugby and football are different and it is impossible to say whether

By providing information about the activities and/or performance of a higher education institution in

the number one rugby team is a better sports team than the number one football team. Because there

terms of the dimensions of its mission, institutional profiles serve as transparency instruments allowing

is no such thing as a theory of sports per se. There are theories about sport psychology, sports training

both internal and external actors (including students, funders, governments) to get to know the institution

or sports fans’ behaviour, but not a scientific theory of the ‘best’ sport.

and to assess it as a potential fit with their needs and priorities.

The rules of the university rankings game are equally arbitrary, because there is no scientific theory of

As transparency tools, institutional profiles are related to rankings and league tables. But in what way

‘the best university’ nor even of quality of higher education. But unlike sports, there are no official bodies

are they related? Let us explore for a moment the miraculous world of academic rankings and university

accepted as having the authority to define the rules of the game, nor is there an explicit understanding

league tables.

that different conceptual ranking frameworks (using different indicators) define distinctly different

Failing scientific theories, sports have been organised with (democratic) forums that have been

This disquisition into sports illustrates the lighter side of the epistemological point about university

competitions and produce different and incomparable rankings. There is no understanding, in other

Nowadays league tables are all around us. In sports, for instance, there are seasonal league tables for

words, that the Shanghai ranking, for example, is a ‘game’ that is as different from the Times Higher

baseball and football and lists ranking the number of times cyclists have won the Tour de France. Since

ranking game as rugby is from football. Equally, there is no understanding that the organisation making

the early part of the 20 century we also have league tables in higher education and research, global

up a set of rules and indicators has no more authority to do so than any other organisation.

university rankings usually showing Harvard as the best university in the world, followed by the names

of a number of other globally renowned universities. But while sporting league tables are well-accepted,

indicators reflects the definitive quality of an institution; they have the pretension, in that sense, of being

university rankings remain hotly debated – and rightly so. Aside from the well-known methodological

guided by what is in reality a non-existent theory of higher education quality.

criticism, there is an important epistemological argument why university rankings should be

approached with extreme caution. Let me briefly outline this argument.

they do so, generally speaking, on the basis of a weak methodology, leading to substantial validity

Each and every observation of reality is theory-driven: every observation of a slice of reality is driven

problems (Van Vught & Ziegele, 2012). In addition, a large majority of the universities included in these

by the conceptual framework being used. In the scientific debate, this statement has been accepted

rankings are judged on the basis of a profile that can hardly be interpreted as appropriate. Current

at least since Popper’s work (Popper, 1980): he showed abundantly that theories are ‘searchlights’ that

global rankings create comparisons based on the apparent assumption that all universities should be

cannot encompass all of reality, but necessarily highlight only certain aspects of it. He also showed that

assessed as comprehensive research-intensive universities with a substantial research volume in the

scientific knowledge is ‘common sense writ large’, meaning that the demarcation between common

sciences and medicine.

th

The issue with the usual university rankings is that they tend to be presented as if their collection of

The current global university rankings produce comparisons of university performance profiles. But

sense and scientific knowledge is that the latter has to be justified rationally. Scientific knowledge is 8

9

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

Nevertheless, as we all know, these rankings are now reality, and they are here to stay. Let us see what the

THE RANKING 2007 - 2011

most prominent global rankings have to say about the performance of Dutch universities in recent years.

According to the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the ’Shanghai

Ranking‘, the best university in the Netherlands is Utrecht, which according to the Shanghai Ranking scored a position of around 50th out of the 500 best universities in the world. Leiden University comes second (around 70th). Another four Dutch universities are in the top 150 (University of Amsterdam, the Free University Amsterdam, University of Groningen and Radboud University Nijmegen). Maastricht University climbed to within the top 300 universities worldwide in 2011.

SHANGHAI RANKING 2007 – 2011

Figure 2: Ranking positions of Dutch universities in the Times Higher Education Ranking (THE), 2007 – 2011

The third global university ranking is the QS Top Universities Ranking, named after Quacquarelli Symond Ltd, a company that used to produce the rankings for the Times Higher Education (until 2010) but also offers its own league tables. According to the QS Ranking, the best university of the Netherlands is still the University of Amsterdam, while Leiden and Utrecht appear to be fighting for 2nd and 3rd place.

Maastricht is ranked around 100th out of the world’s best 300 universities.

Figure 1: Positions of Dutch universities in the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), 2007 – 2011

The second ranking is the Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. According to this, the University of Amsterdam was the best Dutch university from 2007 to 2009 (ranking around 50th among the top 200 worldwide), but after 2010 (when the THE ranking changed its methodology) first Eindhoven University of Technology and then later (in 2011) Utrecht University became the Dutch ‘number 1’. Maastricht University is now 197th in the THE’s ranking of the top 200 universities ( just before the University of Twente in 200th position). However, as I am sure Maastricht was happy to report, also according to the THE Ranking, they were in the top 20 of the young universities worldwide.

10

11

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

QS RANKING 2007 - 2011

LEIDEN RANKING 2011/12 All countries

Europe

NL

University of Twente

64

11

1

Wageningen University

69

13

2

Erasmus University Rotterdam

74

17

3

Free University Amsterdam

75

18

4

Eindhoven University of Technology

84

24

5

Utrecht University

92

26

6

Leiden University

100

30

7

University of Amsterdam

104

31

8

Delft University of Technology

115

35

9

University of Groningen

148

56

10

Radboud University Nijmegen

183

76

11

Maastricht University

206

86

12

University of Tilburg

-

-

-

Open University

-

-

-

Table 1: Ranking positions of the Dutch universities in the Leiden ranking (CWTS), 2011/12

These different league tables demonstrate the substantial variety in the outcomes of international rankings, which can be attributed primarily to differences in methodologies and particularly in the Figure 3: Ranking positions of Dutch universities in the Quacquarelli Symonds Ranking (QS), 2007 – 2011

selection of indicators applied in these rankings. The Shanghai ranking consists of a combination of bibliometric indicators (largely research activity and little research impact), data on Nobel Prize and Field

Finally, let me show you a table of the Leiden ranking outcomes for 2011/12. The Leiden ranking is a bib-

Medal winners and a calculation of the productivity per staff member. Due to its selection of indicators, this

liometric impact ranking of approximately 1000 universities worldwide based on their research pub-

ranking has a strong bias towards research, particularly in the natural sciences (for instance, publications

lication and citation data. According to the Leiden ranking the University of Twente has the greatest

in Science and Nature are counted twice). The current Times Higher Education ranking combines a

research impact of all the Dutch universities, which places it at 64th worldwide. Maastricht University

number of bibliometric indicators with a worldwide reputation survey and has added some indicators

is ranked 206 worldwide.

on the learning environment, research volume, internationalisation and industry-related research. The

th

reputation survey (by which international academics are asked about the ‘quality’ or rather the reputation of universities around the world) and the bibliometric analysis each make up more than one third of the ranking score; the learning indicators count for only 15%, while the other elements are even (much) smaller. The THE ranking is still very much a ‘reputation ranking’ (although less so than before) and is largely focused on research. The QS ranking consists of a reputation survey among academics (making up 40% of the rankings), a reputation survey among employers (another 10%), a research impact analysis, a staff-to-student ratio (each 20%) and data about internationalisation of staff and students (each 5%).

The QS is first and foremost a reputation ranking reflecting the opinions and knowledge of academics (and to a lesser extent employers) about the assumed ‘quality’ of a university. Like the other two rankings it is mainly focussed on research. The Leiden ranking is entirely based on bibliometric indicators and aims to compare research organisations with impact measures taking into account the differences between

12

13

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

disciplines. This ranking concentrates on research impact and accordingly only judges universities’ research performance.

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

4. Mapping university profiles

All these rankings appear to be based on the assumption that research is the most important

There is another way to analyse university profiles. Rather than taking a specific ideal type as the base

dimension of a university’s profile and that university reputation is driven by research. In addition, several

for comparing a variety of profiles and concluding that those universities lacking the ideal type profile

rankings value research in the natural sciences and medicine more than research in other fields. The

should rank at the lower end of the league tables, it begins by making the range of profiles visible and

university profiles that are implicitly being assessed in these rankings are profiles with large research

transparent and only comparing universities with similar (or largely similar) profiles. Rather than com-

volumes especially in the sciences and with strong performance in these fields.The current global rankings

paring all types of fruit in one overall approach, this approach compares apples with apples and oranges

largely project a one-dimensional image of a ‘world-class university’, luring institutions that take these

with oranges. This is called ‘mapping’ and it aims to portray the specific activity profiles of individual

rankings seriously (and I am afraid that many do, although they may deny it) into imitative behaviour,

institutions in a number of profile dimensions. The European U-Map tool (Van Vught, 2009) has been

academic drift and even manipulation and obfuscation of their actual performance.

developed to allow the creation and analysis of these profiles, offering snapshots of an institution’s

activities on different dimensions. U-Map can be accessed online and offers two tools (the Profile Finder and the Profile Viewer) that allow stakeholders to analyse institutional profiles and carry out specific comparative studies (benchmarking). The six dimensions of U-Map are: • Teaching & learning • Student profile • Research involvement • Regional engagement • Involvement in knowledge exchange • International orientation

For each dimension, sets of indicators have been developed, with institutional profiles comprising the

scores on all or a certain number of the dimensions. A profile reflects those areas where an institution is active and indicates the intensity of activities per dimension. The U-Map profile of Maastricht University looks as follows: U-MAP UNIVERSITY MAASTRICHT

Figure 4: U-Map presentation of the University of Maastricht 14

15

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

This profile shows that Maastricht University has a strong profile in teaching & learning (dark blue)

A few European universities with profiles strongly resembling Maastricht’s are the Ecole Polytechique

as well as in research (red) and that it is extremely active in terms of international orientation (yel-

Fédérale de Lausanne (a well-known and highly reputable Swiss university), Telecom Bretagne (one of

low). The most recent data show that the percentage of international students at Maastricht University

France’s most prestigious Grandes Ecoles) and the University of Southern Denmark (a merged university

is 43%, well ahead of universities like Wageningen (23.5%), Twente (15.4%) and Delft (14.7%) (source:

in Odense). In the Dutch university system the Universities of Groningen and Nijmegen appear to have

1CijferHO-2011). Maastricht University rightfully presents itself as an international research-intensive

profiles rather similar to Maastricht’s, and to a lesser extent this goes for Erasmus University Rotterdam

university that is “leading in learning”.

and the University of Tilburg as well.

The U-Map database also allows us to find universities that are comparable to the Maastricht profile:

The point I’d like to stress is that comparing the performance of universities with similar profiles

is far more interesting and useful than ranking universities with a wide range of differing profiles. Of course it is up to the universities to choose their profiles but once this is done, it allows for effective and

U-MAPS OF COMPARABLE UNIVERSITIES

useful benchmarking processes. In addition, a university that knows its profile well and knows which counterpart institutions have similar profiles is able to identify to external stakeholders the role and position it occupies within its higher education system and how it wants to be held accountable. In this sense institutional profiles are also an important instrument for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of higher education system structures.

Figure 5: U-Map presentations of a selected number of universities with fairly similar profiles

16

17

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

5. Higher education system structures

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

(U21, 2012). However, if you take a closer look at this study, it appears that the Dutch universities do not reach this position because their international enrolment or resource levels are so high but because of the large volume of academic output and particularly because our regulatory environment is seen as attractive. Compared to other systems, the Dutch higher education system is seen as having a favourable

The Dutch university system may be judged as one of the best in the world. All Dutch universities (with

policy context, in particular because of the significant institutional autonomy.

the exception of the Open University which has a special position in the system) are to be found among

the world’s top 500 universities. If we accept for the moment the choices of indicators and methods used

performance and quality, and perhaps climb the ladder even further, or whether we should expect that our

by the Shanghai and THE rankings, we can, based on their data, make a ranking of the ‘best’ university

position will weaken over the years to come. The most recent (2012) Shanghai ranking seems to suggest

systems in the world. In the following table this ranking is produced by calculating the ratio of the

that we are loosing some ground to the international competition. We should keep in mind that

number of universities in a country in the rankings divided by the total number of universities in the

this competition is strong and that many governments worldwide are trying to make sure that their

country (see table 2).

universities will operate at the cutting edge of intellectual and scientific development and are among

A crucial question of course is whether our university system can remain at this level of international

the selected group of ‘world-class universities’ (Salmi, 2009). Let us have a general look at what is going THE ‘BEST’ UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS

on in a number of countries with respect to the international competition for knowledge and talent.

Shanghai 2010

THE 2010 1 (.77)

It is often argued that the international forces of globalisation and the increasing importance of

The Netherlands

1 (.92)

Israel

2 (.88)

Sweden

3 (.69)

4 (.38)

New Zealand

4 (.63)

12 (.13)

over decades to come. Higher education system structures may very well change significantly, involving

Switzerland

5 (.58)

2 (.50)

both a diversification in institutional providers and novel combinations of different institutional profiles.

Norway

5 (.58)

11 (.14)

Denmark

7 (.50)

4 (.38)

During a recent discussion with some 100 university presidents from around the world a future

Hong Kong

7 (.50)

3 (.40)

Belgium

9 (.47)

12 (.13)

Australia

10 (.44)

9 (.18)

Ireland

11 (.43)

7 (.29)

Germany

12 (.38)

6 (.36)

Finland

12 (.38)

16 (.07)

UK

14 (.33)

8 (.25)

Canada

15 (.32)

12 (.13)

-

Table 2: Ranking of higher education systems based on Shanghai 2010 and THE 2010.

the modern knowledge economies combined with a massive future growth in learner demand around the world will give rise to a radically different paradigm in the supply structures of higher education

scenario for the overall global higher education provision structure was developed. This scenario shows the following types of institutions (Gallagher, 2012): • a top echelon (perhaps around 50) mainly stand-alone highly prestigious, highly resourced comprehensive universities • international consortia of a next group of (perhaps 100–200) universities, sharing resources and offering joint and mutually accredited programs • a range of niche institutions with specialisations in a few fields of research and education, both corporate and as public-private partnerships, some of them linking with professional occupational practice • a great diversity of primarily local and regional teaching institutions, both public and private, as well as in public-private partnerships

The ratio is: nr of universities in ranking / nr of universities in system (Goedegebuure, 2011).

• a set of high-tech, primarily virtual global teaching providers.

This table underlines that the Dutch universities are of a high academic standard and operate internationally at the higher levels of intellectual and scientific development. The Dutch university system

Whether such a scenario will appear to be realistic or not, is not so much the point. It underlines that

indeed is an academic mountain plateau with some smaller peaks that, however, do not reach the

in any national higher education system the continued international competition for knowledge and

heights of the giant summits of some universities in the US and UK.

talent leads to some crucial challenges for higher education and research policies.

A recent international report by Universitas 21 on the performance of higher education systems

First, it should be clear that a major implication of the current international developments in higher

worldwide places the Dutch system at a very respectable 9th position in a ranking of 48 higher education

education and research is that it is no longer enough for higher education policy to be nationally ref-

systems. Better systems are found only in the US and Canada, Scandinavia, Switzerland and Australia

erenced. In the context of the increasing international competition for talent and the need for varying

18

19

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

degrees of scale in contemporary research, many countries are intensifying investment in their lead-

the quality and international appeal of both German research and postgraduate training. The German

ing universities. A country that wants to stay involved in the global competitive knowledge creation

Wissenschaftsrat recently suggested that the German higher education system as a whole should

processes cannot afford to ignore the international position and reputation of its universities and

now be further diversified in order to improve its performance. The council wants to put an end to the

research institutions.

“delegitimisation of a large part of the quality spectrum” by only emphasising research excellence, and

suggests new types of institutional profiles which do not fall in the binary typology of universities and

A second implication is that a narrow focus on strengthening only the top universities will not be

sufficient to meet the wider national and regional innovation needs. The problem is that elite institu-

Fachhochschulen (Wissenschaftsrat, 2010).

tions tend to collaborate only with each another, both nationally and internationally, in matters such as

research, student exchange and recognition of qualifications. But national policies also need to address

de Recherche et d’Enseignement Supérieur’ (PRES) of which the explicit purpose is to establish a number

the profiles and positions of those higher education institutions that are not in the international elite

of world-class universities. The intention is to have universities, grandes écoles and research institutions

club. For governments the policy challenge is not only whether to create or sustain elite university

align their objectives and efforts and to benefit from a shared utilisation of their infrastructures.

strength (although this is certainly an issue) but also how to balance that aim against other aspects

Twenty-one PRES comprising 60 universities and many other institutions were in place by early 2011.

of the national interest. Governments find it difficult to treat institutions differently and to formally

mark institutional differences. On their side higher education institutions find it difficult to select and

universities are higher education institutions accredited to award degrees and having enrolments of

define profiles that differ from the idealised profile of the research university. Yet in any national higher

at least 1000 students. There is a low degree of formal structural diversity but the informal diversity

education system there should be status attached to teaching well, developing graduates for profes-

has increased as result of stronger competition and greater influence of student demand. According to

sional practice, translating research into applications to solve business and community problems and

the UK’s Department for Business Innovation & Skills the size and shape of UK higher education “will

contributing to regional development. Higher education and research policies are more effective if they

emerge from decisions taken in response to user demand and the changing environment of the 21st

permit some institutions to do a few things very well, rather than having them all doing a lot of things

century” (www.bis.gov.uk/he). However, in Wales a complete sector restructuring is envisaged in order

only reasonably well.

to create more diversity and to position the higher education system to be “the best it can be for the

The conclusion is that there is an increasing need for public policy to comprehend the totality of the

funds available” (HEFCW, 2011). Similarly in Ireland a national Strategy for Higher Education has been

higher education and research system. Only such a system-wide policy will allow a government to offer

published arguing a basic need for structural change in order to meet the diverse learning require-

development opportunities to all institutions (by contributing to a diverse set of institutional profiles),

ments, develop critical mass, create sustainability and ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency at the

provide access for students (through pathways enabling mobility within the system) and create the

system level (HEA, 2012).

best conditions for the country to engage in high-level global research (through directed and targeted

In Denmark and Finland the governments initiated a number of institutional mergers with the aim of

research investment).

strengthening the research function of their systems. In Denmark reform began in 2007, and there were

In France the government announced in 2008 the implementation of the plan now labelled as ‘Poles

England has had a unified system since the abolition of the binary divide. In the English system

Until the first half of the 20 century relative little policy attention was given to matters of the formal

a number of mergers of universities and research institutes, leading to a reduction from 12 universities

structure of higher education and research systems. The policy focus was largely on issues of accessibility,

to 8 and the integration of research institutes. In Finland at the beginning of 2010 three new universities

quality, funding and student retention. But in an increasing number of countries over the last 10 years

were established as a result of mergers of existing institutions while two universities were given special

or so there has been a noticeable shift of policy attention to the structures of higher education systems

status as foundations under private law.

and the profiles of the institutions that make up these systems. Let me mention a few examples.

The German Excellence Initiative, which started in 2006, has been set up to create more world-class

a number of key elements of the diversity of the Australian system. This categorisation consists of 5 higher

excellence in the German higher education system, particularly in research and research training. In the

education provider types that are all allowed to use the label ‘university’ but that are clearly different

two rounds that have taken place 37 ‘excellence clusters’ have been selected and have received an average

in profile (Australian Government, 2011). In addition Australia has launched a model of compacts, which

budget of €32m each. These excellence clusters aim to establish internationally visible and competitive

so far is no more than a performance-based reporting contract model but with the further option to

‘research beacon’ universities, able to collaborate with non-university research organisations (such as

develop into a funding model of institutional profiles. In several US states (Maryland, Michigan, North

the Max-Planck institutions), Fachhochschulen and the private sector. The second round enables the

Dakota) these ‘profile funding models’ are already in place, often with the intention of applying perfor-

th

In Australia a categorisation of‘Higher Education Providers’was introduced in 2011, in order to formalise

institutions that have already won cluster funding to apply for extra funding in order to further stimulate 20

21

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

mance-based funding in order to create outcomes that are aligned with state strategic goals and the

38 HIGH PERFORMING UNIVERSITIES COMPARED

objective of creating a high level of institutional diversity (Sparks & Waits, 2011).

The new perspective in higher education policy worldwide is clearly one of structure. The configuration

of national higher education systems is increasingly being analysed in the context of the global competition

88 47 15% 1,36 38 950

169

28 64

102-150 15%

15% 1,4

1,39 17

23 880

370

125

32 44

86 15%

15% 1,41

1,41 19 800

600

43000

16000

Aarhus

Karolinska Institute

38

159 102-150 14% 1,43 490 18500 Radboud

26

92

135 43

102-150 15%

16% 1,43

1,43 19

23 1050

600

45000

32200

Copenhagen

Amsterdam

75

79 65

151-200 16%

16% 1,45

1,43 41

26 500

290

19

159 102-150

26 16%

17% 1,46

1,48 27 1500

430

55000

25000

Toronto

VU Amsterdam

17

157 151-200 18% 1,54 510 20500 Erasmus

25

68

36 53

48 16%

17% 1,57

1,56 25

29 840

750

29000

30500

Edinburgh

Utrecht

15

18 22

23 19%

19% 1,71

1,63 62

57 2400

900

4

6 5

10 19%

19% 1,76

1,71 57

46 102-150 20% 1,84 82

2

10 4

1 24%

23% 1,99

2

7 3

2 23%

26% 2,35

2,06

2,04 139

42

53 1000

ised citation score (MNCS), which is the average number of citations of the publications of a university,

1200

university. I compared these with their scores on ‘scientific impact’ as measured by the mean normal-

590

levels per student, assuming that this is a good indicator for the academic investment capacity of a

3850

universities I compared their total enrolment and total annual revenues, and calculated annual revenue

1500

To this sample I added all Dutch universities with the exception of the Open University. For these 38

208

Japan, Australia, China, Europe) making sure that the highest scoring universities were included.

111

international rankings I took a sample of 25 universities from various parts of the world (US, Canada,

2200

general analysis of some characteristics of a number of the world’s best universities. From the various

2100

academic research-intensive universities? To be able to answer this question I undertook a quick and

10600

Will a Dutch university or a consortium of universities be able to reach the top 25 or so of the world’s best

18900

tional perspective?

Mass. Inst. of Technology (MIT)

worldwide? And secondly, what is the future for the Dutch higher education system from an interna-

Stanford

consortium of universities) be able to reach the very top in terms of the best academic institutions

ARWU 2011 Score

better internationally? In the final section I will explore two issues: first, will a Dutch university (or a

Scientific excellence Score

now that other countries have intensified their national higher education policies in order to compete

Scientific impact score

score well in international academic performance rankings. But will we be able to hold onto our position

Annual revenues per student (x1000)

Dutch higher education institutions rightfully enjoy a large autonomy. And Dutch universities generally

Total annual revenues (mn)

The Dutch higher education and research system belongs among the better systems in the world.

# of students

University

education and research systems in terms of excellence and diversity.

THE 2011 Score

or talent and knowledge. National higher education policies cannot avoid trying to optimise their higher

22

38000

22000

25000

McGill

Uni Catholique de Louvain

Tech Uni München

19500

7000

Leiden

Wageningen

42000

14500

Michigan-Ann Arbor

ETH Zurich

19000

21000

Cambridge

7200 Ecole Polytechnique Fed.de Lausanne

Oxford

27600

of universities, ranked according to the criterion of scientific impact.

36000

good picture of the relative academic strength of a university. Table 3 presents an overview of the sample

Harvard

of the strong bibliometric indicators in the Leiden ranking. I have assumed that this indicator offers a

UC Berkely

normalised for field differences, publication year and document type. This scientific impact score is one

23

24 27700 46000 7500 9400 15000 17600 39500 20000 23500 10500 36000 10500 28800 13700

Groningen Melbourne Eindhoven Uni of Tech Twente Maastricht Delft Uni of Tech Uppsala Norwegian Uni of S&T Warwick Chinese Uni of HK Münster Chalmers Tokyo Tilburg

190

2050

300

490

300

540

550

630

510

330

310

310

1200

570

Total annual revenues (mn e )

Scientific impact score 1,36 1,36 1,35 1,35 1,33 1,29 1,26 1,25 1,23 1,17 1,17 1,16 1,13 1,13

Annual revenues per student (e x1000) 21 26 41 33 22 29 16 28 23 29 14 29 71 14

11%

11%

12%

12%

12%

13%

13%

13%

14%

15%

15%

15%

14%

15%

Scientific excellence Score

401-500

21

201-300

102-150

151-200

151-200

201-300

67

151-200

201-300

301-400

301-400

60

102-150

ARWU 2011 Score

-

30

-

-

151

157

-

87

104

197

200

115

37

134

THE 2011 Score

Data are derived from U-Map, with the exception of universities from the Netherlands, the US and the University of Tokyo

401-450

25

202

280

37

50

266

83

104

109

226

146

31

115

QS 2011 Score

7. Revenues of University of Tokyo refer to year 2011 and have been converted to Euro at the 2011 exchange rate (approx. EUR 1 = JPY 115)

6. Revenues have been converted to Euro at the 2010 exchange rate (approx. EUR 1 = USD 1.32)

5. The revenues of US institutions are the ‘core revenues 2010’ as listed in The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2012.

4. Research excellence is measured by the Proportion of Top 10% Publications; source CWTS/leiden Ranking 2011/2012/data provided by R.Tijssen

3. Scientific impact is measured by the Mean Normalized Citation Score; source CWTS, Leiden Ranking 2011/2012/data provided by R.Tijssen

2. Data of Dutch universities are derived from «1 cijfer HO» (1cHO), 2011

1.

Remarks:

Table 3: Comparison of a selected number of high performing universities worldwide (13 Dutch and 25 non-Dutch universities)

# of students

University

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

The table clearly shows that there are large differences between universities in terms of both volume

(size of the student body) and income (annual revenues) and that the larger or richer universities do not

necessarily have the highest scientific impact scores. However, there is a relationship between annual

revenue level per student and impact score: the universities that have a high level of annual revenues

per student generally speaking score higher on scientific impact. Larger annual budgets for universities

(however they are created, whether through more public funding, higher tuition fees, mergers, or otherwise) combined with modest student enrolment levels appear to relate to higher scientific impact scores.

Figure 6 presents this relationship.

SCIENTIFIC IMPACT AND ANNUAL REVENUES

Figure 6: Institutional scientific impact versus annual revenues per student: a comparison of 13 Dutch and 25 non-Dutch universities

Figure 6: Institutional scientific impact versus annual revenues per student: a comparison of 13 Dutch and 15 non-Dutch

universities

25

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

This allows us to explore the potential of specific universities to climb the ladder of scientific impact

universities and HBO institutions will become more clearly defined in years to come. However, what is

and academic strength. Let us look at some examples.

still lacking in our higher education system is any discussion about its overall structure. We appear to be

In the UK in 2004 the Victoria University of Manchester and the Manchester University of Science

satisfied with our binary system and we appear unwilling to address the issues of differences between

and Technology merged to become the University of Manchester with a stated ambition to be among

institutions in terms of mission, performance, reputation and quality. In the Netherlands the notion

the top 25 world-class universities by 2015. In order to reach this goal an extra £80 million was invested

of system structure is still barely addressed. System level analyses seem to be taboo in Dutch higher

in the new university. The University of Manchester now finds itself in 38 position in the Shanghai

education and are quickly associated with unnecessary ‘grand visions’ and too much government regu-

ranking (2011), up from 53rd in 2005. Two more examples are taken from the Danish university system

lation. But our country cannot avoid reassessing the effectiveness and efficiency of its higher education

where recent mergers led to some larger universities as well. I calculated the annual revenue levels per

system as a whole. While other countries move forward in their strategies with respect to their higher

student for both the University of Copenhagen and Aarhus University in 2006 (before the mergers) and

education and research systems, the Netherlands cannot simply wait and see and assume that we will

in 2011. Copenhagen went from a score of 16.6 to a score of 23 on annual revenue level per student, and

automatically end up among the top five of the world’s knowledge economies.

from a Shanghai ranking position of 56th in 2006 to 43rd in 2011. Aarhus went from an annual revenue

level per student of 16.7 to 19, and moved in the Shanghai ranking from a position somewhere between

in their higher education systems in order to create the best possible output in terms of knowledge

102 and 150 to 86 . Both cases appear to show that a clever merger strategy may create an academically

and human capital. In several countries steps are taken to create one or a limited number of research-

stronger institution. In Denmark the crucial element in the merger strategy appears to have been the

focused universities of high international standing, while at the same time stimulating other institu-

fact that independent research institutes also got involved in the mergers and helped to create larger

tions to provide quality education for regional and national development purposes. In these countries

research volumes in the new universities without necessarily increasing student enrolment numbers.

current higher education policies are first of all policies about system structures and about the diversity of

missions and roles of the various institutions that collectively make up these higher education systems.

th

th

The analysis and the examples show that higher scientific impact scores and higher ranking positions

As I have indicated, several countries have embarked upon policies to create further differentiation

appear to be produced not so much by creating larger student bodies only. Building a top-level academic

If we want to keep up with international competition we too need to have a fresh, objective look at

university seems to be done by creating large budgets in combination with limited numbers of students.

the Dutch system of higher education and research as a whole. Do we have the best set of institutional

The Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne is a clear example of a relatively small university in terms of student

profiles in the context of the global competition for talent and knowledge? Do we have the best range

numbers but with a relatively large budget. And it is a university with a very high scientific impact score.

of profiles in order to further develop our knowledge economy? Do we have the best possible spread

In our country there is some discussion about a closer and deeper collaboration between the two

and critical mass of research units and infrastructures? Do we want to create one or two universities of

universities in Amsterdam as well as between the universities of Leiden, Delft and Rotterdam (Erasmus

high international standing while stimulating the remaining universities to develop other profiles? Are

University). According to the analysis presented here it should not be expected that collaborations like

we spending our resources as well as we can? Do we provide sufficiently diverse teaching programs to

these will automatically produce institutions capable of dramatically increasing their scientific impact

train a growing diversity of learners? Do we attract the appropriate level and volume of international

scores. Both initiatives will lead to very large institutions with still relatively modest budgets. Their

talent? Are our knowledge application processes sufficiently effective and efficient?

annual revenue per student levels will barely increase and therefore we cannot expect that they will

easily rise to join the top 25 universities worldwide. The only way for a Dutch university to break the US

but in terms of the overall higher education and research system as well. Now that in the Netherlands

and UK hegemony of academic reputation and to reach the top levels in the rankings is to increase its

we have taken the step of designing and discussing institutional profiles, we should be bold enough

investment level, particularly in research, while at the same time limiting student enrolment numbers.

to take the next step as well: to analyse our system as a whole. We still have an internationally lauded

From this point of view, as the Danish experience shows, mergers between universities and autonomous

higher education system. Let us try to keep it up to at least the current levels of performance and

non-university research institutions (like the Dutch NWO and KNAW institutions) may be far more

effectiveness.

These and similar questions need to be addressed not only at the level of higher education institutions,

effective than mergers between universities.

This brings us at the final question: what is the future of our higher education system in the inter-

national context? The Dutch higher education system is a binary system with research universities on one side of the divide and mainly teaching universities on the other. Institutional profiling has begun recently on both sides of the divide and we can expect that the various institutional profiles of our 26

27

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

Acknowledgement

References

Several friends and colleagues contributed to the realization of this paper: Sebastiaan den Bak, Rose-

Australian Government (2011), Higher Education Standards Framework, Canberra

Mary Barbeau, Leon Creminini, Charlotte Geerdink, Ben Jongbloed, Frans Kaiser, Kimberly Lans, Wim van

Balzat, M. (2006), An Economic Analysis of Innovation: Extending the Concept of National Innovation

Niekerk, Ingrid van der Schoor, Robert Tijssen, Don Westerheijden. I am grateful to them all.

Systems, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar

Birnbaum, B. (1983), Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Dahrendorf, R. (1979), Life Chances: Approaches to Social and Political Theory, Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press

Dill, D.D. and F.A. van Vught (eds) (2010), National Innovation and the Academic Research Enterprise: Public

Policy in Global Perspective, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Fumasoli, T. and J. Huisman (2013), Strategic Agency and System Diversity: Conceptualizing Institutional

Positioning in Higher Education, Minerva, forthcoming

Gallagher, M. (2012), Plot Loss in Australian Higher Education Policy?, Conference on Institutional Performance

in Higher Education, Melbourne, 16 May, 2012

Goedegebuure, L. (2011), Mergers and More: the Changing Tertiary Landscape in the 21th Century, working

Paper Series, HEIKwp 2012/01 Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo

Higher Education Authority of Ireland (HEA) (2012), Towards a Future Higher Education Landscape, Dublin Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) (2011), Future Structure of Universities of Wales,

advice to the Minister for Education and Skills, Cardiff

Huisman, J., V.L. Meek and F. Wood (2007), Institutional Diversity in Higher Education: a Cross-National

and Longitudinal Analysis, Higher Education Quarterly 61 (4): 563 – 577

Nelson, R. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005), Governance of Innovation Systems, Vol. 1, Synthesis Report, Paris Popper, K.R. (1980), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (rev. ed.), London: Hutchinson Ritzen, J. (2012), Can the University Safe Europe? Taken for a Ride or taking the Bull by the Horns, Inaugural

Lecture, Maastricht, June 8, 2012

Salmi, J. (2009), The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities, Washington: The World Bank Soete, L. (2006), Knowledge, Policy and Innovation, In: L. Earl and F. Gault (eds), National Innovation,

Indicators and Policy, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 198 – 218

Sparks, E. and M. Waits (2011), Degrees for What Jobs? Raising Expectations for Universities and Colleges in

a Global Economy, Washington DC: National Governors Association

Trow, M. (2000), From Mass Higher Education to Universal Access: the American Advantage, Minerva 37

(4): 303 – 328

Universitas 21 (2012), U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems 2012, Melbourne Institute of

28

Applied Economics and Social Research

29

UNIVERSITY PROFILES | International rankings, institutional maps and the need to discuss the structure of Dutch higher education

Van Vught, F.A. (2008), Mission Diversity and Reputation in Higher Education, Higher Education Policy,

21 (2): 151 – 174

Van Vught, F.A. (ed.) (2009), Mapping the Higher Education Landscape: Towards a European Classification

of Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer

Van Vught, F.A. and F. Ziegele (eds) (2012), Multidemensional Ranking: the Design and Development of

U-Multirank, Dordrecht: Springer

Wissenschaftsrat (2012), Recommendations on the Differentiation of Higher Education Institutions, KĂśln

30