Abstract
The aim of this paper is to try to describe and analyse how the Norwegian higher education authorities use public registers data to make institutional diversity transparent and to compare the different institutional profiles of the higher education system. With the so-called flower project, based on the EU-classification project – U-Map, the Ministry of Education and Research employs a new tool to describe the diversity in the Norwegian HE-sector. Norway is in a unique position through the National Database for Statistics on Higher Education (DBH). Statistical information on the institutional level is reported from all the HEIs to the DBH, and with some preparation, it provides almost all the indicators that are required in the classification system (U-Map). The Ministry is responsible for gathering data on the institutional profiles in our HEI system, while the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) in cooperation with the DBH is now developing profiles of different academic fields (Medicine, Political Science etc.) within the HEIs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Australia and UK abolished their binary systems in 1988 and 1992 respectively, and replaced it by a unitary one.
- 2.
Degradation is theoretically possible – but has not happened yet.
- 3.
NOKUT is the controlling authority for educational activity at all Norwegian universities, special field universities, university colleges and institutions with single accredited higher education programmes. Through an evaluation procedure, NOKUT decides on the recognition of the institutions’ internal quality assurance systems and carries out checks to see if their educational provision meets national quality standards.
Controls take account of the fact, as stated in law and Ministerial Regulations, the institutions themselves carry full responsibility for the quality of their educational provision. A Ministerial Regulation sets some national standards and criteria, which are further developed in NOKUT’s own Regulation. Together, these documents define the national standard that NOKUT’s control activities refer to.
With few exceptions, NOKUT’s control mechanisms involve the use of expert panels. The primary aim is to check that the quality of educational programmes is satisfactory. However, the mechanisms have a double function, as NOKUT also provides recommendations as to how the institution can enhance the quality of its educational provision and quality work.
- 4.
The Database for Statistics on Higher Education (DBH) is a data warehouse which holds data on a broad range of topics in the sector of higher education and research in Norway. This includes data about students and PhD candidates, educational institutions, researchers’ publication points, staff, finances, building area in square meters, and also the amount of stocks and shares held by higher educational institutions. The DBH is initiated by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research and assigned to the NSD (Norwegian Social Science Data Services) in Bergen. It functions as an important steering and decision-making tool by providing quantitative parameters for the use of both the Ministry, as well as the 63 educational institutions in the sector.
- 5.
NCR = the Research Council of Norway.
- 6.
In addition, we find eight specialised universities, five public and three private. All of them are small, and the common denominator is that they are specialised in one or a few academic fields (e.g. Music, Architecture, Veterinary Medicine, Business Administration, Religion). They are not included in this analysis.
- 7.
University of Nordland reached university status in 2011, and is not included in this analysis.
- 8.
In 2010 UiO had approximately 30,000 students and 6,000 staff.
References
Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining diversity in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Fulton, O. (1996). Differentiation and diversity in a newly unitary system: The case of UK. In G. Meek, O. Kivinen, & R. Rinne (Eds.), The mockers and mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education. Pergamon: IAU Press.
Huisman, J. (1995). Differentiation, diversity and dependency in higher education. Twente: University of Twente.
Huisman, J. (1997). Institutional and programmatic diversity. A comparative analysis of national higher education systems in nine Western European countries. CHEPS, University of Twente, Position 193.
Huisman, J. (1998). Diversity and differentiation in higher education systems. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XIII). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Huisman, J. (1999, July). Differentiation and diversity in higher education systems. Workshop on Questions of Institutional Landscape (pp. 75–110). Bohinj: CHEPS..
Kogan, M. (1997). Diversification in higher education: Differences and commonalities. Minerva, 35, 47–62, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kunnskapsdepartementet (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research). (2010). Tilstandsrapport for høyere utdanningsinstitusjoner i 2010. Oslo. http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/UH/Sektoranalyse/Tilstandsrapport_2010_versjon-1.0.pdf
Kyvik, S. (2007). Høyskolesektorens rolle i utdannings- og forskningssystemet i Vest-Europa (NIFU STEP rapport 37/2007). Oslo.
Meek, V. L. (1991). The transformation of Australian higher education from binary to unitary system. Higher Education, 21(4), 461–494.
Meek, V. L., & O’Neill, A. (1996). Diversity and differentiation in the Australian unified national system of higher education. In G. Meek, O. Kivinen, & R. Rinne (Eds.), The mockers and mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education. Pergamon: IAU Press.
Michelsen, S., & Aamodt, P. O. (2007). Evaluering av Kvalitetsreformen – Sluttrapport. Oslo: Norges forskningsråd (Norwegian Research Council).
Norges offentlige utredninger. (2008). Sett under ett: Ny struktur i høyere utdanning (NOU 2008:3). Oslo.
NSD (2011). http://dbh.nsd.uib.no/styringsdata/typologi_rapport.action?versjon=2011.
Olsen, J. P. (1988). Statsstyre og institusjonsutforming. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Oslo.
Reichert, S. (2009). Institutional diversity in European higher education. Tensions and challenges for policy makers and institutional leaders. Brussels: European University Association.
Scott, P. (2007). Back to the future? The evolution of higher education systems. In B. Kehm (Ed.), Looking back to looking forward. Analyses of higher education after the turn of the millenium (Werkstattberichte 67). Kassel: International Centre for Higher Education Research.
Skodvin, O.-J., & Nerdrum, L. (2000). Mangfold, spesialisering og differensiering i høyere utdanning: Internasjonale erfaringer (NIFU skriftserie 1/2000). Oslo.
Skodvin, O.-J., Wien Fjell, M., Andre Andreassen, G., & Moi, A. (2006, October 3–5). Assessing performance within higher education in Norway. Paper prepared for the joint OECD/ONS/Government of Norway workshop: ‘Measurement of non-market output in education and health’, Brunei Gallery, London.
Teichler, U. (1996). Diversity in higher education in Germany: The two type structure. In G. Meek, O. Kivinen, & R. Rinne (Eds.), The mockers and mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education. Pergamon: IAU Press.
van Vught, F. A., Kaiser, F., File, J. M., Gaethgens, C., Peter, R., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2010). U-Map: The European classification of higher education institutions. Enschede: CHEPS. www.u-map.eu.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Skodvin, OJ. (2012). How to Measure Institutional Profiles in the Norwegian HE Landscape. In: Curaj, A., Scott, P., Vlasceanu, L., Wilson, L. (eds) European Higher Education at the Crossroads. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_46
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_46
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-3936-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-3937-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)