Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions

Living Edition
| Editors: Pedro Teixeira (Editor-in-Chief), Jung Cheol Shin (Editor-in-Chief)

Higher Education Institutions, Types and Classifications of

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_22-1

Synonyms

Definition

Typologies and classifications distill a complex reality such as a heterogeneous population of higher education institutions into something simpler – something that is more manageable from both cognitive and analytic perspectives. Such groupings assemble entities into categories or classes that share common features and meaningfully differentiate them from those in other categories. The resulting categories can serve many purposes. For example, in the case of higher education they can
  • Serve as shorthand for quickly characterizing an institution, especially if the groupings are widely understood and consensually accepted

  • Be incorporated or enshrined in policy for purposes of resource allocation and system differentiation

  • Help prospective students or staff members identify the pool of institutions they might wish to join

  • Be used in research for sampling, data analysis, or both

For the purposes of this entry, we consider the terms...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Alekseev, O. 2014. First steps of Russian universities to top-100 global university rankings. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond 1 (1): 6–8. https://herb.hse.ru/data/2014/05/30/1325398755/1HERB_01_Spring.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2017.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, K.D. 1994. Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brint, S., M. Riddle, and R.A. Hanneman. 2006. Reference sets, identities, and aspirations in a complex organizational field: The case of American four-year colleges and universities. Sociology of Education 79: 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1971. New students and new places: Policies for the future growth and development of American higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1973. A classification of institutions of higher education. Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.Google Scholar
  6. Graham, H.D. and N. Diamond. 1997. The rise of American research universities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hazelkorn, E. 2015. Rankings and the reshaping of higher education. The battle for world-class excellence. 2nd Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  8. Lixu, L. 2004. China’s higher education reform 1998–2003: A summary. Asia Pacific Education Review 5 (1): 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McCormick, A. C. 2007. “Hidden in plain view.” Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/05/10/mccormick. Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  10. McCormick, A.C. 2013. Classifying higher education institutions: Lessons from the Carnegie Classification. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educational Latinoamericana 50 (1): 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCormick, A.C. and C. Zhao. 2005. Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie Classification. Change 37: 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCormick, A.C., G.R. Pike, G.D. Kuh, and P.D. Chen. 2009. Comparing the utility of the 2000 and 2005 Carnegie Classification systems in research on students’ college experiences and outcomes. Research in Higher Education 50: 144–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruef, M. and M. Nag. 2015. The classification of organizational forms: Theory and application to the field of higher education. In Remaking college: The changing ecology of higher education, M. Stevens and M. Kirst. (Eds.) 84–109. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sandmann, L. R., C. H. Thornton, and A. J. Jaeger. (Eds.) 2009. Institutionalizing community engagement in higher education: The first wave of Carnegie classified institutions. New Directions for Higher Education, issue 147. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. van Vught, F.A., F. Kaiser, J.M. File, C. Gaethgens, R. Peter, and D.F. Westerheijden. 2010. U-Map: The European classification of higher education institutions. Enschede: CHEPS. http://about.u-map.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/U-MAP_final_report.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  16. Wiarda, J. 2008. “Klammerfrei.” Zeit Online. http://www.zeit.de/2008/12/C-Seitenhieb-12. Accessed 30 Jan 2017.
  17. Zemsky, R., S. Shaman, and M. Iannozzi. 1997. In search of strategic perspective: A tool for mapping the market in postsecondary education. Change 29: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zha, Q. and R. Hayhoe. 2014. The “Beijing Consensus” and the Chinese model of university autonomy. Frontiers of Education in China 9 (1): 42–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander C. McCormick
    • 1
  • Victor M. H. Borden
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Postsecondary ResearchIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA