Faculty of Education - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/161

Filters

2005 - 2008 3
2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Start date: 2005 × End date: 2009 × Type: Book Chapter × Author: Goedegebuure, Leo ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The devil’s in the detail; Guy Neave and comparative higher education
    Meek, V. Lynn ; GOEDEGEBUURE, LEO (Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, 2007)
    Professor Guy Neave held the Chair of Comparative Higher Education Policy Studies at the University of Twente and his most substantial contributions to the study of higher education arise from his comparative perspective. However, his approach to the comparative study of higher education is not one that unduly bothers with the niceties of methodological rigour. Rather, he is primarily concerned with the realities and importance of time and place. Context - historical, geo-political and cultural - makes all the difference.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Introduction
    Meek, V. Lynn ; GOEDEGEBUURE, LEO (UNESCO, 2008)
    “In December 2007, the Asia-Pacific Programme of Educational Innovation for Development (APEID), UNESCO Bangkok, convened the 11th UNESCO-APEID Conference entitled “Reinventing Higher Education: Toward Participatory and Sustainable Development.” This volume contains selected papers from that conference, which was held in Bangkok from 12 to 14 December 2007.”
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    A tale of three cities: highlights and problems of Centralia, Octavia and Vitis Vinifera
    Westerheijden, Don F. ; GOEDEGEBUURE, LEO ; Huisman, Jeroen ; Jongbloed, Ben (Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), 2005)
    In this brief chapter, some of the most salient characteristics of each of the three scenarios are highlighted using four main themes: system diversity, governance, funding and quality. These were not necessarily the dimensions across which the scenarios were first designed. On the contrary, we aimed at a critical reflection on what came out of the scenario design exercise from independent points of view. We especially draw attention, therefore, to some inherent tensions and contradictions in each of the scenarios, as a counterbalance to the positive tone of the previous chapters in which the scenarios were presented. Let us remind the reader that the Centralia scenario largely evolved (though systematised and ‘enlarged’) from the majority opinions of our respondents to the Delphi study, whilst the two other scenarios contrasted with this by making use of patterns of opinions (in a few cases majorities) in the Delphi-study response. There was quite a bit of ‘science fiction’ in those chapters and some intentional polishing to make each scenario appear attractive in as many respects as possible. Therefore before turning to external comments, we wish to qualify that rosy picture.