The development of a typology of HEIs in Europe

Introduction

This ESIB statement is a reaction to the research project undertaken by the CHEPS
Institute of the University of Twente in the Netherlands, which is funded by the European
Commission and which will be finished by the end of 2005. The aim of this research
project is to explore the value of designing a typology of higher education institutions in
Europe. The model for this project is the so-called The Carnegie Classification which
classifies HEIs in the United States of America. (1)

The proclaimed project aims are to establish a typology of European HEIs as a “promising
transparency instrument to enhance the understanding of the diversity of HEIs in Europe
while respecting it” as well as to diversify higher education policy according to the type of
higher education institutions. The project will elaborate the rationale and objectives of a
typology and propose a methodology, principles and components of a European typology
of HEIs. (2)

ESIB was invited for a consultation in this project, to give the students’ view on the need
and function of such a classification instrument in Europe.

Potential benefits and costs of a typology of HEIs in Europe

The supposed aims of a typology are gathered under the ideas such as a “better
understanding of the various types of higher education institutions, their mission and
provisions, support to the European aim of increasing student mobility, inter-institutional
and university-industry cooperation, the recognition of degrees and hence the
international competitiveness of European higher education” (3). Consequently, the
exploration and development of a typology of higher education institutions in Europe tends
to be directly linked to the aims of the Bologna process, the European Research Area and
the Lisbon strategy. A typology is often valued as a transparency instrument for the needs
of different stakeholders such as businesses, industry and other organisations revealing
with which types of institutions they should cooperate and where to invest. Also it should
serve as a transparency tool for HEIs in order to facilitate consortia formation between
institutions and easy finding of partners as well as for students providing them with
information about the institutions at which they want to study. A typology should diversify
the higher education policy and the use of different policy instruments (different ways of
funding incentives for example).

Despite ambitious goals it is questionable whether a typology would have any added value
as a transparency instrument showing to potential partner HEIs or investors with which
institutions to cooperate and where to invest. Cooperation with other HEIs is usually done
on the departmental level, so that information on the possible types of institutions is
rather irrelevant. It is also important to stress again that cooperation was and should be
an issue of free choice and an expression of understanding and will of partners; oriented
and guided by common interest and/or mutual benefit. Any kind of instrument such as a
typology which will cluster the types of institutions indirectly by identifying their partners is
essentially contradicting and limiting the principles of good cooperation.

Especially dangerous can be the introduction of the different funding schemes for different
types of institutions, which can foster the discrimination of certain types of institutions and
their missions, undermining the missions of the HEIs, which are not fitting into the
mainstream interest.

A typology and its potential establishment has also significant financial implications, while
on the other hand, an increasing lack of financial resources and support (especially public
support) for higher education in Europe is a fact often stressed by governments, higher
education and students.

A typology of HEIs and potential risks for higher education
Having in mind the proclaimed aims of the typology instrument and experiences from the
US model of classification, ESIB wants to raise also the following concerns:

1. ESIB believes that any typology of HEIs, regardless of the description of the different categories and the way the HEIs are placed in these categories, will lead to ranking interpretations of different stakeholders, which can have extremely bad consequences for European higher education in general. (4)

2. Any kind of typology is based on a limited number of criteria which can lead to unjustified hierarchical interpretations which will give more value to a certain type of HEIs, (like on big research oriented universities in the United States) and undermine the quality of the other HEIs oriented towards other goals and qualities like regional development, teaching etc. ESIB believes that the diversity of missions and qualities of HEIs must be respected and further encouraged and not limited.

3. Although the initial idea of a typology is to be a descriptive tool based on objective criteria and data (size, numbers and type of degrees offered etc.), ESIB believes that such a tool would inevitably evolve into a prescriptive instrument, which will lead to uniformity and not towards respecting diversity, which is claimed to be one of the principles of the typology.

4. Ranking interpretations of the typology would potentially lead to the abolition of the principle and practice of cooperation in higher education, which is and should be one of the distinctive virtues of the EHEA. On the other hand, it might lead to constant competition between HEIs.

5. A typology of HEIs includes the strong risk of hindering free mobility of students on national as well as European level. If HEIs are classified by a typology and thus explicitly differentiated in value, some HIE may only grant access to students coming from the same type. Such an access policy would not be based on any reasonable argument and will create new obstacles to a higher degree of mobility.

A typology as a source of information for students

One of the stakeholder groups which are supposed to benefit most from a typology, are
students who would use the typology as an information and transparency instrument
which they would use when choosing the institution of programmes of their studies.

There is indeed a pressing need for comprehensive and relevant information for students
about the different study opportunities and conditions (with all possible information such
as study programmes offered, teaching and research facilities, accommodation and food
costs, social and cultural life etc.).

The typology of HEIs as proposed by the project is not even partially answering these
questions. Therefore, ESIB stresses the need for a precise information tool like a
comprehensive, detailed, regularly up-dated and checked register of recognised European
HEIs where students would have the possibility to select HEIs according to their own
criteria, which are manifold and diverse and can vary from the study system to the sports
facilities or the climate. Such a register should be developed, up-dated and monitored by
national authorities, HEIs and student unions.

Such a comprehensive information tool in the form of a constantly updated data base can
be of great importance and help for the majority of students especially for incoming
students from outside Europe.

A typology that is in principle based on neutral data and a limited set of criteria is
insufficient and an irrelevant source of information for students. ESIB believes that each
student is different and capable and free to choose HEIs where they will study on the
basis of their own individual criteria and values.

Conclusions

Having in mind all the supposed and evoked benefits and costs of a typology, ESIB
concludes that the potential, claimed benefits for higher education in Europe are
practically non-existent or very speculative. On the other hand, the costs and potential
risks for the quality and diversity of higher education are many and obviously very
dangerous.

Spending public money on projects such as the creation of a typology of higher education
institutions in Europe, with a questionable purpose, possible devastating effects and no
clear benefit for higher education in Europe, is a waste of money.

ESIB supports the efforts and changes in higher education which will lead to more
transparency in higher education and within HEIs and which give more information for the
different stakeholders in higher education and especially students. ESIB strongly believes
that the creation of a typology of HEIs in Europe cannot solve these problems and might
bring only insignificant benefits. ESIB stresses that such an instrument can only cause
more harm to HE in Europe and would provoke and stimulate various negative effects e.g.
ranking, unproductive competition, and ruining the diversity of higher education etc.

ESIB calls on national authorities and HEIs in Europe to refuse such a typology and to
continue their work on existing transparency instruments (ECTS, Diploma Supplement,
Qualification frameworks etc.) as well as to find other ways how to answer the need for
relevant, correct and comprehensive information about higher education and higher
education institutions in Europe.

Adopted at the 48th Board Meeting
Bergen, Norway, May 2005

1 Originally it was created as a tool for HE research (easier sample finding), through several development
stages evolved to be used for different policies and especially funding schemes for different categories of
HEIs. The result was mainly the creation of big enormously well funded research oriented universities and
hierarchical interpretations by different stakeholders and by the HEIs themselves.
See: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classification/future.htm
2 See details in the draft: Towards a typology of higher education institutions in Europe, Version 14th March 2005.
3 Idem.
4 This fact is even admitted in the draft of the typology paper.