European Higher Education at the Crossroads

Adrian Curaj Peter Scott Lazr Vlasceanu Lesley WilsonEditors

European Higher Education at the Crossroads

Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms

Part 1

EditorsAdrian CurajPOLITEHNICA University of BucharestBucharestRomania

Lazr VlasceanuDepartment of SociologyUniversity of BucharestBucharest Romania

Peter ScottInstitute of Education (IOE)University of LondonUnited Kingdom

Lesley WilsonEuropean University AssociationBrusselsBelgium

Printed in 2 PartsISBN 978-94-007-3936-9 e-ISBN 978-94-007-3937-6DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012933439

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publishers location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

v Romania is the host country for the 2012 Bologna/European Higher Education Area Ministerial Conference and the Third Bologna Policy Forum. In preparation of these ministerial meetings the Future of Higher Education Bologna Process Researchers Conference (FOHE-BPRC) was organized in Bucharest on 1719 October 2011 by the Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding (UEFISCDI) 1 with the support of European University Association and the Romanian National Committee for UNESCO. The event aimed at bringing the researchers voice into higher education international level policy making. The conference results of the FOHE-BPRC are presented further in this book, which will be distributed to the participants attending the 2012 ministerial events.

The innovative character of the Bologna Process Researchers Conference was given by an unprecedented opportunity for researchers dealing with higher education matters to interact and contribute to the political process shaping the European Higher Education Area, as well as national policy agendas.

With the Bologna Process reaching a new level of maturity, refl ections on higher education policy themes are being done in a more broader and systemic way. In this context, the authors aim to reach a better empirical and conceptual understanding of the Bologna action lines and their implementation. The following pages aim to bring an added value with the fresh and constructively critical analysis of different features of the Bologna Process, as well as national higher education reforms in general.

As stated in the introduction, Going beyond Bologna is about moving ahead by recognizing and realizing the creative potential of the Bologna Process. The next Chapters make headways on issues presented and discussed in the eight thematic tracks of the conference regarding: European Higher Education Area (EHEA) principles, learning and teaching, quality assurance, governance, funding, differen-tiation, mobility and foresight/futures of higher education, all under the motto

Preface

1 The event was organised in the frame of the six higher education strategic projects carried out by UEFISCDI and funded through the European Social Fund, the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development.

vi Preface

launched at the start of the event: Be(e) a visionary!. The visionary bee is also the logo of ForWiki portal ( www.forwiki.eu ), as the on-line host of the Bucharest Dialogues on Higher Education.

The European Higher Education at the crossroads: between the Bologna Process and national reforms calls for an innovative, systemic and visionary approach to higher education. As the Bologna Process is in a phase of consolidation, the focus on the role of new research and on enhancing further dialogue on the nature and future of European Higher Education was timely. The book intends to respond to these challenges and offer the reader a stimulating and enriching experience.

We wish that you enjoy the reading and join in the future debates!

Head of the BFUG Secretariat (20102012) Ligia Deca Member of the FOHE-BPRC Editorial Board

vii

1 Going Beyond Bologna: Issues and Themes ......................................... 1Peter Scott

Part I European Higher Education Area Principles

2 Reconsidering the EHEA Principles: Is There a Bologna Philosophy? ........................................................ 17Pavel Zgaga

3 Principles, Problems, Politics What Does the Historical Record of EU Cooperation in Higher Education Tell the EHEA Generation? ................................................................... 39Anne Corbett

4 Institutional Autonomy and the Attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area Facts or Tokenistic Discourse? ................... 59Terhi Nokkala

5 Tensions in the Policy Objectives of the European Higher Education Area? Public Good and Public Responsibility Versus Service Liberalisation: Equality Versus Institutional Diversity ....................... 83Elsa Hackl

6 Implications of the Bologna Process for Equity in Higher Education ................................................................................ 101Marina Elias Andreu and John Brennan

7 Academic Values Against the Commodifi cation of Higher Education: An Episode in Constructing the Discursive Meaning of Higher Education in the Bologna Process ........................ 119Klemen Miklavi

Contents of Part 1: Bologna Process Principles, Teaching and Learning, Quality Assurance, Mobility

viii Contents of Part 1

Part II Teaching and Learning

8 Education as Transformation Transforming European Higher Education .................................................................. 141Hanne Smidt

9 Time for Student-Centred Learning? ................................................... 153Koen Geven and Angele Attard

10 Widening Access to Higher Education What Can EUROSTUDENT Say About the New Challenges Emerging for Teaching and Learning? ................................................................... 173Dominic Orr

11 The Embedding of the European Higher Education Reformat the Institutional Level: Development of Outcome-Basedand Flexible Curricula? .......................................................................... 191sa Lindberg-Sand

12 Mobility, ECTS and Grades: Problems with the Comparability of Grades ......................................................... 209Michael Huber

13 On the Tracks of Students and Graduates: Methods and Uses of Tracking Procedures in the European Higher Education Area ........................................................................... 223Kai Muehleck

Part III Quality Assurance

14 Quality Assurance and the European Transformational Agenda ...................................................................... 247Andre Sursock

15 External Quality Assurance Between European Consensus and National Agendas .......................................................... 267Achim Hopbach

16 Many Voices, One Song: The Role of Discipline-Based Europe-Wide Evaluation Tools in Emphasising Enhancement and Promoting the Modernisation Agenda of the EHEA ................... 287Jeremy Cox

17 A Snapshot on the Internal Quality Assurance in EHEA ................... 303Tia Loukkola

ixContents of Part 1

18 Internalizing Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Challenges of Transition in Enhancing the Institutional Responsibility for Quality ...................................................................... 317Mihai Punescu, Bogdan Florian, and Gabriel-Marian Hncean

19 European Transparency Instruments: Driving the Modernisation of European Higher Education ............... 339Ellen Hazelkorn

20 Consequences of the Student Participation in Quality Assurance: Why should there be students involved in QA? ................................... 361Fernando Miguel Galn Palomares

Part IV Mobility

21 Mobility Key to the EHEA and ERA .................................................... 377Peter van der Hijden

22 Student Mobility in Europe: Recent Trends and Implications of Data Collection ...................................................... 387Bernd Wchter and Irina Ferencz

23 The Offspring of a Mobile Generation: Students with an Immigrant Background in Higher Education ................................. 413Chripa Schneller

24 Student Mobility Between Europe and the Rest of the World: Trends, Issues and Challenges........................................ 431Hans De Wit

25 Student Mobility in the EU Recent Case Law, Refl ections and Recommendations ........................................................ 441Sacha Garben

26 The PhD in Europe: Developing a System of Doctoral Training That Will Increase the Internationalisation of Universities ................................................. 461Conor OCarroll, Lewis Purser, Magdalena Wislocka, Sinead Lucey, and Nina McGuinness

27 Student Mobility in Europe: The Informational Value of Offi cial Statistics and Graduate Surveys ............................... 485Ulrich Teichler

28 Internationalisation and Competitiveness of Universities Through Different Types of Researchers Mobility Facing the Future ................................................................. 511Sneana Krsti

xi

Part V Higher Education Governance in the European Higher Education Area

29 Governance Within the EHEA: Dynamic Trends, Common Challenges, and National Particularities .............................. 527Robin Middlehurst and Pedro Nuno Teixeira

30 A Cross-National Comparison of Higher Education Markets in Western Europe ................................................................... 553Harry de Boer and Ben Jongbloed

31 Tools and Implementation for a New Governance of Universities: Understanding Variability Between and Within Countries ................ 573Catherine Paradeise

32 University Governance in Changing European Systems of Higher Education ................................................................. 599Roberto Moscati

33 The Decline of an Academic Oligarchy. The Bologna Process and Humboldts Last Warriors ...................... 613Hans Pechar

34 The Changing Conceptions of Student Participation in HE Governance in the EHEA ............................................................ 631Manja Klemeni

35 Higher Education Reforms in Europe: A Comparative Perspective of New Legal Frameworks in Europe ............................... 655Alberto Amaral, Orlanda Tavares, and Cristina Santos

Contents of Part 2: Governance, Financing, Mission Diversifi cation and Futuresof Higher Education

xii

Part VI Funding of Higher Education

36 A Policy Gap: Financing in the European Higher Education Area ........................................................................... 677Liviu Matei

37 Accountability and the Public Funding of Higher Education:A Comparison of Stakeholder Views and Institutional Responses in the US and Europe .............................................................................. 691Kata Orosz

38 European Universities Diversifying Income Streams .......................... 709Enora Bennetot Pruvot and Thomas Estermann

39 Who Is to Pay for Mobile Students? ...................................................... 727Marcel Grard

40 Entrepreneurialism and Financing for Improved Academic Enterprise in Higher Education: Coaching for Leadership and Innovation Refl ecting True Demand ................... 749James A. Powell and Beliz Ozorhon

41 Relating Quality and Funding: The Romanian Case .......................... 791Adrian Miroiu and Lazr Vlasceanu

Part VII Diversifi cation of Higher Education Institutions Missions as a Response to Global Competition

42 Refocusing the Debate on Diversity in Higher Education ................... 811Sybille Reichert

43 Everyone Wants to Be Like Harvard Or Do They? Cherishing All Missions Equally ........................................................... 837Ellen Hazelkorn

44 Institutional Diversifi cation and Homogeneity in Romanian Higher Education: The Larger Picture .......................... 863Liviu Andreescu, Radu Gheorghiu, Viorel Proteasa, and Adrian Curaj

45 U-Map, University Activity Profi les in Practice ................................... 887Frans Kaiser, Marike Faber, and Ben Jongbloed

46 How to Measure Institutional Profi les in the Norwegian HE Landscape: The Norwegian Institutional Profi le Project .......... 905Ole-Jacob Skodvin

47 Diversity of Higher Education in Europe and the Findings of a Comparative Study of the Academic Profession ........................... 935Ulrich Teichler

Contents of Part 2

xiii

Part VIII Higher Education Futures and Foresight

48 Transmodern Journeys: Futures Studies and Higher Education ....... 963Ziauddin Sardar

49 Multiple Futures for Higher Education in a Multi-level Structure ....................................................................... 969Attila Havas

50 Systemic Foresight for Romanian Higher Education .......................... 995Liviu Andreescu, Radu Gheorghiu, Marian Zulean, and Adrian Curaj

51 Re-imagining the Role and Function of Higher Education for Alternative Futures Through Embracing Global Knowledge Futures ..................................................................... 1019Jennifer M. Gidley

52 The Politics and Consequences of Eurocentrism in University Disciplines ......................................................................... 1039Vinay Lal

53 Is Bologna Sustainable in the Future? Future Testing the Bologna Principles ............................................................................ 1057Eddie Blass

About the Editors ............................................................................................ 1073

About the Authors ........................................................................................... 1075

Index ................................................................................................................. 1089

Contents of Part 2

1A. Curaj et al. (eds.), European Higher Education at the Crossroads:Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms,DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_1, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

1.1 Introduction

Bologna is a dynamic process. Few who attended the original signing of the Bologna Declaration in that city in 1999 could have imagined the momentum that would build behind efforts to establish a European Higher Education Area (EHEA), or that the policy process they were initiating that day would become one of the most signifi cant aspects of the wider European project. Although education had initially been a minor focus of efforts to promote European integration (and, indeed, had only been smug-gled in by the back door because of the relevance of educational policies and structures to professional formation and, consequently, the free movement of labour), future historians may well judge that the Bologna process was among the most important elements in building the movement to build a common European home in the last decade of the twentieth and the fi rst decades of the twenty-fi rst century. In the scope of history, the Bologna process is likely to rank alongside the establishment of the Euro and higher perhaps than efforts to establish more integrated foreign and defence policies. It has become one of the most powerful symbols of European-ness.

There are a number of reasons for this transformation of a rather narrow and tentative policy process, focused very much on administrative and structural reforms, into a wider process of modernisation of European higher education and, wider still, of scientifi c and cultural renewal:

1. One reason is that Bologna has always gone wider than the territory of the European Union (EU). Initially this may have been regarded as a constraint, because of the need for nation states to agree to concrete policies and action-lines outside the administrative framework provided by the European Commission (EC)

P. Scott (*) Centre for Higher Education Studies, Institute of Education (IOE) , 20 Bedford Way , WC1H 0AL London , UK e-mail: [email protected]

Chapter 1 Going Beyond Bologna: Issues and Themes

Peter Scott

2 P. Scott

in Brussels. In practice, it has been an advantage because the EC has still been able to play a key, if unoffi cial, enabling role (the fact that some of the key Bologna players were also members of the EU has given the Bologna process a coherence, and robustness, which otherwise might have been absent); but also because its geographical reach, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean and from the Azores to Vladivostok, has meant that Bologna is close to being an open process in contrast to the closure of the EU itself in the wake of economic diffi -culties (and also perhaps the growing backlash to multiculturalism);

2. A second reason is that European universities already shared both a centuries-old tradition but also a series of contemporary policy preoccupations. Eleven years before the signing of the Bologna Declaration a meeting of university leaders in the same city had endorsed a Magna Charta setting out core principles of insti-tutional autonomy and academic freedom. The European University Association (EUA), the product of a merger of two earlier Europe-wide associations of Rectors and of Rectors Conferences, had also established a powerful identity. So Bologna, although initiated by Ministers (and prefi gured by the Sorbonne Declaration signed a year before by the Ministers of Education of France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom), was not simply a top-down process imposed on the universities; it was also to a signifi cant degree a bottom-up process building on the common values and traditions and the shared reform agendas of the universities themselves;

3. A third reason is that the Bologna framework has proved to be highly adaptable. Not only has the process itself evolved as connections have become established between its initial, apparently limited, objectives and wider goals (and also as confi dence in the effectiveness of the process has grown both among politicians and civil servants and university leaders); but Bologna has also become one element within a basket of initiatives. For example, the EHEA has been followed by the establishment of the European Research Area (ERA), and the links between the restructuring of higher education (in the form of academic programmes) and the evolution of European research agendas have been made explicit. At the same time, the external projection of Bologna, as a model of higher education reform and as a symbol of the wider European project, has become increasingly signifi cant. For all these reasons Bologna has always been a dynamic process with the capacity

to transcend its original objectives. That capacity continues, as the title of this introduction Going Beyond Bologna suggests. In practice, as the conference of Bologna researchers held in Bucharest in October 2011 demonstrated, it is diffi cult to distinguish between research on Bologna topics and research on European higher education more broadly. Everything, potentially, is connected with everything else. The principal reason is the dynamism, and openness, of the Bologna process itself.

This introduction is divided into three sections:

Bologna in context: a discussion of the contexts in which the process has developed (with particular emphasis on prospects for Bologna following the successive crises in fi nancial and then wider economic systems after 2008);

31 Going Beyond Bologna: Issues and Themes

The evolution of Bologna: a discussion of the successive extensions of the process for the reasons which have already been briefl y outlined, and the implications of these extensions for wider European agendas; Bologna themes: a summary of the major themes explored during the Bologna researchers conference (and an identifi cation of possible gaps, in terms both of policy and of research).

1.2 Bologna in Context

1.2.1 Before Bologna

The Bologna process has had a long and rich prehistory, as has already been suggested. This prehistory extended far beyond its immediate prequel, the meeting of four Ministers in the previous year and their endorsement of the Sorbonne Declaration or even the complex policy environment that provided the short-term motives for greater integration of European higher education (such as the desire to promote the mobility of professional workers by increasing the compatibility, and transparency, of academic awards; or to support national reform agendas). The pre-history of Bologna reached further back into the values and traditions of European universities, but also their administrative practices and regimes.

Three aspects in particular deserve to be emphasised:

1. The fi rst is the powerful commonalities that European universities already shared. The importance of these commonalities should not be underestimated simply because they are often described in idealistic language. They included most prominently what might be described as Enlightenment values in other words, a shared commitment to scientifi c and critical enquiry and to a scholarly and intellectual culture. Also common across Europe, despite signifi cant differences in administrative regimes in higher education, was a commitment to academic freedom and (subject to these differences) institutional autonomy. Of course, the extent to which these shared values were respected varied across Europe (especially before the collapse of Communist regimes in central and Eastern Europe). But they provided the common foundational principles articulated in the earlier Magna Charta declaration in Bologna. A third key shared commitment across Europe was to the social mission of the university, even if many universities continued to recruit many of their students from socially privileged backgrounds (leaving it to non-university higher education institutions to enrol students from more diverse social backgrounds). So, before Bologna, European universities shared common normative structures;

2. The second aspect is the important differences that existed between European higher education systems in the pre-Bologna period. These differences have taken three main forms. First, they have been legal and administrative.

4 P. Scott

For example, in some European countries for example, the United Kingdom and Ireland universities have always been autonomous institutions with their own legal personalities. In many other countries, although equally autonomous in terms of academic freedom, they have been administratively subordinate to state administrations. These differences have been refl ected in important diffe-rences in the appointment and status of university employees, including profes-sors. Secondly, they have been structural for example, in some countries distinctions between universities and other higher education institutions (such as fachhochschulen in Germany and HB schools in The Netherlands) have been maintained, while in others (of which the UK system is the best example) unifi ed systems have been established. Finally, important differences in terms of intel-lectual traditions and cultural mentalities have been maintained. One example is that in France history is generally regarded as a social science but in England it is regarded as a humanities subject. The impact of Bologna, and of related reform movements, has been to reduce some of these differences. For example, there has been a broad trend across Europe to increase the administrative, as well as the academic, autonomy of universities (although not necessarily of other higher education institutions). Also the adoption of a standard two-cycle pattern of courses has tended to reduce the distance between university and non-university sectors even when binary systems have been maintained. But other differences, in terms of intellectual traditions and cultural mentalities, have persisted or, when convergence has taken place, it has owed almost nothing to the Bologna process;

3. The third aspect is that the action-lines that have emerged from Bologna have always had to be negotiated within terms of a delicate balance between Europe-wide initiatives and the prerogatives of nation states. As a result, the identifi cation of issues that can be regarded as subject, directly or indirectly, to the Bologna process, has always had to be done within the context of this dynamic between European institutions and nation states. This dynamic has determined which topics are to be included and which are to be reserved for national determination (and the overlay between Bologna action-lines and national reform movements has added an additional layer of complexity and ambiguity?). It has always largely determined the rate of implementation even when Bologna action-lines have been formally agreed. In some respects the confusion between the compe-tencies of the EC, as the executive arm of the EU, and the responsibilities of the ad-hoc organisations established by the wider group of member-states to imple-ment the Bologna process has led to further complications. But there have been occasions when the misalignment between the EU and Bologna has created spaces in which actions can be taken which might be more diffi cult to take within a less complicated (and less confusing) environment. These contrasting legacies of fundamental commonalities in terms of academic

norms, of signifi cant legal, administrative and cultural differences, and of the tensions (but also synergies) between European institutions (whether formal EC and EU structures or ad-hoc institutions established to support the Bologna process) and nation states have shaped the context in which Bologna has developed. Although present in the pre-history of Bologna, they have an enduring signifi cance even today.


1.2.2 The High Tide of the Bologna Process

It is important to remember the climate of political and public opinion in Europe when the Bologna process was being gestated. These were years of hope. If the aspirations for greater European integration represented by the Maastricht treaty had not been fully realised, substantial progress was still being made. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe was still a comparatively recent memory. The establishment of a common currency in the form of the Euro was proceeding. With hindsight the late 1990s are likely to be seen as a particular moment in the history of Europe, a moment of optimism, hope and progress.

The early years of the Bologna process also coincided with a period of conside-rable economic prosperity. The liberalisation of fi nancial, labour and other markets, which a few years earlier had provoked substantial resistance, was now more gene-rally accepted mainly because the economic growth associated (perhaps wrongly) with this liberalisation also enabled states to increase social expenditure at an unprecedented rate. It seemed that welfare states could comfortably coexist with dynamic market economies to a degree that had not seemed possible in the 1980s when social expenditure and economic growth were regarded as a zero-sum game, or would be possible after the onset of the banking and then wider economic crisis after 2008.

European higher education benefi ted from this benign political, and economic, environment. Universities received increasing levels of public investment, partly to enable them more effectively to fulfi l their social mission but mainly to enable them to contribute more powerfully to the development of a dynamic knowledge-based economy. The Lisbon Declaration of 2000 (reconfi rmed in 2005), which set the ambitious goal that Europe should become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, made this link between invest-ment in higher education and science and the development of such an economy explicit. But, at the same time, the modernisation of European higher education systems was being actively promoted. This took several forms, including the granting of enhanced administrative economy to universities but also the development of funding mechanisms that mimicked the actions of the market (for example, state-university contracts) and even the moves towards outright privatisation.

This was the background against which the Bologna process was developed and its initial action-lines implemented. Indeed Bologna itself was widely regarded as an important element within the modernisation agendas being pursued by nation states. However, despite the opposition of some student organisations and trade unions to Bologna on the grounds that it was promoting the marketisation of public higher education systems, it is important to recognise the post-Communist pre-crisis optimism, and hope for social renewal, that was also a feature of the late 1990s and early 2000s. The ambiguity of the Bologna process refl ected these two strands in the zeitgeist , as well as being interpreted in different ways across the newly established EHEA.

6 P. Scott

1.2.3 Bologna and the Crisis

The economic diffi culties that began with the banking crisis in 2008 and culminated in the crisis in the Euro-zone in 20102011 have created an entirely new context for Bologna:

1. Social expenditure has come under sustained pressure as state defi cits have increased although it is signifi cant that many European countries have attempted to sustain levels of public investment in higher education and science. As a result the tensions between the public and private sectors, welfare states and market economies, which had appeared to have been resolved through benign compro-mise (in the UK the Government headed by Tony Blair between 1997 and 2007 emphasised what it called the Third Way), have re-emerged;

2. Increasing levels of unemployment, even among higher education graduates, have complicated earlier (and simplistic) accounts of the links between invest-ment in education and economic growth. Although the Lisbon agenda, and the emphasis on the crucial importance of the global knowledge-based economy, was not seriously weakened, it was acquired a defensive and even pessimistic tinge in stark contrast to the perhaps nave hopes of the early 2000s;

3. There continues to be deep uncertainty about the eventual resolution of the economic crisis. At a macro-level is there likely to be a decisive move away from the economic liberalisation of the late twentieth century, and the neo-liberal political order that sustained and was sustained by it? At an intermediate level is the crisis in Euro-zone likely to lead to more rapid fi scal integration, giving renewed emphasis to European unity (at least in its core), or to a disintegration of the European project begun a quarter of a century ago by Jacques Delors? It is in this new context that the Bologna process must now be carried forward.

Paradoxically the pressure on social expenditure has placed greater emphasis on market solutions in higher education at a time when market solutions in the wider economy have been called into question by the catastrophic events since 2008. Equally paradoxically nation states, despite concerns about sovereign debt crises, have emerged more strongly as funders of last resort and as guarantors of economic stability. This new state activism may have implications for how Governments view their relationships with universities, especially at a time when economic stability may breed social instability. As a result, the social mission of higher education could be re-emphasised, if only as an antidote to unemployment among young people.

Finally the uncertain future of the wider European project has important implica-tions for the Bologna process. Could Bologna survive the collapse of the Euro and would this lead to a collapse of confi dence in all forms of European integration? How would it be affected by a much more explicit division between a rapidly integrating core and a heterogeneous periphery? It is possible that such an outcome could make the Bologna process even more permeable, if the implicit links with the larger project of European integration was weakened; but it could also sap the confi dence necessary for its continuing development. There are many questions


about the future of Bologna that cannot be answered. But it is clear that those qualities of incrementalism and optimism that have characterised the process in its decade may be eroded by current events, and that new strategies whether more decisive or more diffuse may need to be adopted.

1.3 Evolution of the Bologna Process

The strength of the Bologna process has been (and perhaps still is) in its ambiguity and permeability. It means different things to different audiences and the boundaries between what is inside Bologna and what is outside have always been porous.

This ambiguity takes several forms. As has already been pointed out, more radical student groups and trade unions have sometimes criticised Bologna as a mechanism both for introducing market values into higher education at the expense of public values and also for encouraging managerial, if not corporate, modes of organisation to replace collegial modes of organisation in universities. Yet, viewed from outside Europe, the Bologna process has often been seen as representing and strengthening the social dimension of European higher education (in other words, emphasising the social purpose of higher education at the expense perhaps of realising its entre-preneurial potential). Both these readings of Bologna are equally valid. Another example of the ambiguity of multiple meanings of Bologna is the contrast between the various instruments, or processes, used to implement successive action-lines agreed at bi-annual ministerial meetings and the overall framework of objectives, even ideals, of the Bologna process. A third, and linked, example is the contrast between Bologna experts, whether researchers or offi cials, who naturally pay attention to the details of implementation and a wider group of individuals who stress the importance of Bologna as a contributor to a wider cultural or ideological project (and who, equally naturally, are less concerned with these details).

The permeability of Bologna is also striking. One aspect arises simply from the progressive enlargement of the EHEA and the increasing number of European states that have signed up to the Bologna process. Not only has this meant that the geographical scope of Bologna stretches well beyond the member states of the EU, but also that even non-European states have been encouraged to align their higher education systems with the Bologna model. A second aspect is the progressive extension of the scope of Bologna for example, to embrace the third cycle (or doc-toral phase) of higher education, which has made explicit links with research that previously were implicit, or the attention paid to the external projection of Bologna as a potentially global model for the organisation of higher education. After each ministerial meeting new action-lines have been added. The dynamism of the Bologna processes consists to a signifi cant degree in its ambiguity and permeability.

One way to represent these qualities is to describe the evolution of the Bologna process in terms of three phases that are both broadly chronological but also conceptual. Convenient labels for these three phases are Bologna, Bologna + and Bologna.

8 P. Scott

1.3.1 Bologna

In the fi rst phase, attention was concentrated on a number of concrete objectives: 1. The fi rst was the development of a common two-cycle, or Bachelors and Masters,

pattern of courses. Later this was extended to include doctoral programmes as a third cycle. Some countries, of course, already had such a pattern notably the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands and most of Scandinavia. In other countries the introduction of a two-cycle pattern presented little diffi culty. But in others again it ran into signifi cant opposition (as often outside higher education, among employers and professions, as inside universities);

2. A second objective was the development of the diploma supplement, as an additional to formal academic awards, with the intention of further easing credit transfer and promoting the employability of graduates by providing employers with more acces-sible and relevant information. This provoked little opposition in principle, although the impact of the formal introduction of the diploma supplement on credit transfer and employability has not perhaps been as decisive as had originally been hoped;

3. A third objective was the development of compatible quality assurance systems. The intentions were to ensure the consistency of academic standards across the EHEA and also when responsibilities had been devolved to institutions within national systems. Progress towards achieving this third objective has been more limited, being limited essentially to the development of Europe-wide framework within which national accreditation and quality agencies could operate.

4. The fi nal objective was to promote greater mobility among staff and students, building on pre-existing European mobility programmes. Although Bologna simply provided an over-arching context in which these programmes continued to operate, the fact that student and staff mobility were now linked to the wider harmonisation and integration of European higher education systems created positive effects. The gradual adoption of a common two-cycle pattern also removed some of the obstacles to mobility.

During this fi rst phase the emphasis was largely instrumental literally so, in terms of the necessary development of transparency instruments; but also conceptually, in the sense that attention remained focused very much on issues of detailed imple-mentation. It took some time for the broader signifi cance of the Bologna process to become established.

1.3.2 Bologna +

In the second phase, new agendas emerged which came to emphasise this broader sig-nifi cance. First, as has already been mentioned, the extension of the Bologna frame-work to include doctoral programmes made the links between higher education and research, and between the EHEA and the ERA, more explicit. This remedied a major weakness in the original Bologna design, the dislocation between teaching and research that had sharply reduced its relevance in the eyes of the more research-intensive


(and highly ranked) European universities. It also tended to give coherence to the various European-level initiatives in the fi eld of higher education not only the Bologna process itself and the (non-coterminous) EHEA and ERA but also research funded under successive EC Framework programmes and also projects funded by EC struc-tural funds. Although the integration of these various initiatives is far from complete (and, indeed, may not be desirable or possible), it has made it easier to grasp the totality (and so reinforce the identity) of European higher education. Close linked, of course, was a second agenda set out in the Lisbon Declaration. In some respects, it became more realis-tic to talk of a shared Bologna-Lisbon process.

A third agenda in this second phase was the external projection of Bologna. Although originally been designed as a largely internal process to promote har-monisation and modernisation measures across and within Europe, its potentially wider application was present from the start. Not only was there considerable interest in Bologna outside Europe, but it was also important to articulate the relationship between the emerging Bologna system in Europe and other systems, or blocs, in other regions of the world. This objective was added as an explicit action line following the London ministerial meeting both to promote European higher education but also to open up a policy dialogue between Europe and other world regions. A fourth agenda, present from the start, received additional emphasis during this second phase. This was the need to strengthen Europes universities so that they could compete more effectively. The EUAs strap-line summed (sums) it up stronger universities for a stronger Europe. One strand was the continuing drive towards modernisation of national systems, which was seen as being indirectly supported by the Bologna process. Another was the increasing impact of global league tables that continued to be dominated by universities in the United States. This challenge to Europe to have more world-class universities provided a signifi cant stimulus. As a result Bologna came to be seen as a mechanism to promote the competitiveness of Europes universities both in terms of marketing (Bologna, perhaps unexpectedly, had become a succs destime ), but also in terms of positive measures to strengthen them (the links between Bologna in this second phase and proposals to develop separate strata of research universities, or to segment national systems, remain suggestive).

1.3.3 Bologna

In the fi nal, and contemporary, phase of the evolution of the Bologna process, it is possible to argue that Bologna has become a powerful brand (hence Bologna). It is also possible to argue that other, more mainstream organisational and academic, agendas have become attached however informally and tangentially to the Bologna process. These potentially include:

1. Reforming university governance: the implementation of national higher educa-tion reform programmes, which have often included signifi cant delegation of administrative responsibilities to individual institutions, and also of Bologna action-lines (and wider challenges presented by Europeanisation and globali-sation) have made it imperative to reform how universities are governed;

10 P. Scott

2. Strengthening university management: the same challenges also make it equally imperative to enhance the management capacity of universities, by adopting what have sometimes been seen (and criticised) quasi-corporate practices. The fact that many Bologna action-lines, for example on compatible quality systems, place the responsibility fi rmly on institutions rather than state bureaucracies has reinforced this need;

3. Promoting inter-disciplinarity: several Bologna action-lines, such as the move to a two-cycle pattern of courses, and the emphasis on institutional quality systems as the primary guarantors of academic standards, and the emphasis on skills and employability in the Lisbon Declaration and linked agendas have encouraged a shift towards greater inter- and trans-disciplinarity. Although there have been other, more powerful, infl uences on the transformation of the pattern and content of higher education in Europe, the infl uence of Bologna has not been negligible;

4. Stimulating entrepreneurship: similar forces have also encouraged a shift to what has been termed the entrepreneurial university. These forces have been expressed not simply in terms of inter-disciplinary courses but also of more applied, embedded and distributed modes of research. To some extent these changes also refl ect the instrumental/neo-liberal pressures on all higher education systems, outside as well as inside Europe;

5. Emphasising engagement: in European terminology the social dimension has been interpreted by some as code for a backwards-looking defence of the public university and resistance to marketisation. But new forms of social and cultural engagement, which refl ect both the growth of mass university systems and also the globalisation of higher education, can also be subsumed under this label.

The extent to which all, or any, of these agendas can be attributed, even tangen-tially, to the Bologna process is open to debate. However, in two respects such an attribution can be defended. First, there is suffi cient evidence that Bologna has either directly contributed to these agendas or at any rate opened up a (policy and intellectual) space in which they can at least be discussed across Europe to form the basis of a plausible argument. Secondly, the links between these agendas and the Bologna process are refl exive rather than linear or causal. The overall effect is that Bologna has become a much more interesting cultural and intellectual project, and also a more creative policy arena, that could have been imagined when the original declaration was signed.

1.4 Bologna Themes

The Bucharest conference attempted to mobilise the results of Bologna-related research under eight themes:

EHEA principles Learning and teaching


Quality assurance Governance Funding Differentiation Mobility Foresight

The papers given at the conferences on these themes are included as chapters in this book. What follows is simply some key messages that arose during the discussion of these papers in Bucharest:

1.4.1 EHEA Principles

One of the key messages is the difference between formal objectives and tacit principles. This is manifest in a number of ways. First, the aim should not be to produce a fi nal list of EHEA principles but to maintain an open and productive debate about European higher education. Secondly, implicit if not explicit in the Bologna process are rules of behaviour and shared values. Bologna is much more than a set of programmatic ideas and initiatives; it provides the space in which the common parameters of European higher education can be discussed, negotiated and coordinated. Finally, the distinctiveness of European higher education needs to be confronted in two dimensions. First, it shares many common characteristics with advanced systems in other world regions. Secondly, the rest of the world has come to Europe, leading to increasingly heterogeneous student populations and raising key issues relating to multiculturalism.

1.4.2 Learning and Teaching

This second theme is at the core of the Bologna process. The revision of course structures, i.e. the move towards a two-cycle pattern, has important implications for the academic objectives of higher education, which in turn infl uences notions of employability and career outcomes. As has already been argued, this transition from course structures to academic cultures is one of the most potent elements within the Bologna process but among the least explored (in terms both of research and of policy formation). A key strand is the potential tension between emphasis on skills and employability, as a response to the challenges facing Europe within the global knowledge economy, and social equity, an equally signifi cant aspect of the construction of more cohesive Europe-wide society.

12 P. Scott

1.4.3 Quality Assurance

Quality assurance is important in two ways. First, it can act as an essential catalyst for the debate about the purposes of higher education as a whole in advanced econo-mies and societies (and within the particular context of Europe) and also the aims of specifi c academic and professional programmes. In this sense it fulfi ls a similar role to reforms in learning and teaching. Secondly, quality assurance is a key instrument in the modernisation of European higher education systems although this raises the question of whether the aim purposes of QA systems to provide top-down surveillance of academic standards or to promote institutional self-responsibility; and to police these standards (in the interests of users, whether Governments, employers or students) or to drive quality enhancement.

1.4.4 Governance

The Bologna process has not been a major driver of governance reform in European higher education, although it has been used to legitimate national reform move-ments that have promoted important changes in how universities are governed. However, much of the emphasis in these reform movements has been on procedural rather than substantive autonomy, and has often been accompanied by strong emphasis on performance management and other instruments of so-called audit culture. The Bologna process itself provides a weak layer of Europe-wide governance in the sense that its action-lines have mandated national and, therefore, institutional policies. But the full implications of Europe-wide governance or coordinating structures have generally been avoided.

1.4.5 Funding

Like governance, the funding of institutions and students has remained fi rmly a national responsibility. As a result, the Bologna process has had very limited impact although other European initiatives such as mobility programmes and framework funding have had signifi cant impacts. At fi rst sight, it appears that funding policies are diverging across the EHEA, with some countries moving rapidly to increase the direct contribution made by students in the form of fees and others maintaining the principle of free higher education. But, the longer-term trend appears to be towards higher fees (as national budgets come under increasing pressure). However, it is important that funding should be embraced within the new space for dialogue that has been opened up by the Bologna process.


1.4.6 Differentiation

European higher education systems exhibit a variety of structures from traditional binary systems divided between universities and other higher education institu-tions to unifi ed systems in which all institutions are embraced within common legal, funding and administrative structures. However, there is growing awareness of the importance of global rankings of universities and also increasing pressure to differentiate institutional missions. Europe is now expected to rise to the world-class challenge and increasing differentiation is widely seen as the most effective strategy. At the same time, national Governments across Europe have embarked on higher education reform programmes that often involve, directly or indirectly, restructuring. However, it is important to develop more balanced indicators of differentiation than those used in global rankings, and also to recognise that differen-tiation within institutions has at least as important a part to play as differentiation between institutions.

1.4.7 Mobility

Promoting mobility among students and staff was among the earliest European initiatives in higher education and is still among the most visible. By establishing more compatible course patterns and encouraging greater transparency the Bologna process has played a key role in promoting mobility. Although still unbalanced student mobility has steadily increased. Levels of mobility among staff have been less impressive (perhaps because other countries outside Europe, especially the United States, have been more attractive and, in the case of early-career researchers, the need to establish themselves at home has taken precedence). The tensions or synergies between the wider internationalisation strategies of European universities and their commitment to mobility and exchanges within Europe have not been suffi ciently explored.

1.4.8 Foresight

The development of the Bologna process has to take into account structural changes in the global economy and also the evolution of new world cultures. The context in which any strengthening of the EHEA will have to proceed is very different from the environment that prevailed at the time of the original Bologna Declaration was signed. Of particular importance is the changing dynamic between Europe and the world which has both positive features (the increasing importance of world-wide social movements and the growing acceptance of economic interdependencies and the need for decisive political action) but also negative features (the growth of

14 P. Scott

popular opposition to inward migration and the cultural perils of Eurocentrism). One possible outcome could be that the whole basis on which the Bologna process has been constructed, and the fundamental idea of higher education as a public good, might be invalidated.

1.5 Conclusion

The 2008 banking crisis, and the economic diffi culties that have ensued, have created a new context for the continuation of the Bologna process. But there are other more subtle changes, including new life-styles, new technologies and new communicative codes and cultures, which may be equally signifi cant. One of the most important changes, of course, is the success of the Bologna process that has transformed the landscape of European higher education.

For more than a decade Bologna has been the policy theme around which efforts to introduce a greater degree of coherence into European higher education systems and to reform and modernise these systems have been organised. Bologna has proved to be a creative and dynamic process, with multiple effects (indirect as well as direct). Its success has greatly exceeded the intentions and aspirations of those who signed the original declaration.

However, Bologna must now confront change economic and political change but also social, cultural and scientifi c change. The way forward is for the Bologna process to go beyond Bologna not so much in terms of adding new action-lines that would inevitably encounter political diffi culties, but in terms of recognising and realising its creative potential (which this introductory chapter has attempted to sketch in outline). There is a need for Bologna to become a more systematic and more open process more systematic, because the synergies that already exist and the potential for new connections need to be better recognised; and more open, because Bologna (as a policy theme and a symbol or brand) offers European higher education a vital space for dialogue.

Part I European Higher Education

Area Principles

17A. Curaj et al. (eds.), European Higher Education at the Crossroads:Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms,DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_2, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

2.1 Introduction

At fi rst sight, it seems that compiling a list of the EHEA principles should not be a major problem: one would expect to be easily culled from offi cial documents of the Bologna decade 19992010. Yet, the task proves quite diffi cult. The development of the fundamental items on which the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) should be based has had a long and occasionally winding history (see Chap. 3 by A. Corbett), leaving footprints in the documents. The term has never been used in a really coherent way: the Bologna/EHEA principles, objectives, standards, rules, regulations and even action lines often overlap the various Bologna dialects. As a matter of fact, what do we consider when we talk about the EHEA principles?

While using this term, we need to differentiate between several aspects, horizons and rationales. What kind of principle is at stake here? Principles may be procedural but also substantive; they can either be deducted from the real world or agreed among people (nations); in the latter meaning, they can function as a fundamental truth and/or a motivating force. They can justify the ruling opinion or form a doctrine. When using the term EHEA principles, one should bear several of these aspects in mind. But these aspects are not always and not necessarily congruent. Therefore, it is important to differentiate among them and, then, to systematise them. On the other hand, references to this term are very frequent when discussing the Bologna. However, the term is often understood in a very general sense, which is not really informative.

Addressing these issues, examining the original Bologna documents and trying to systematise the EHEA principles and reconsider them in the beyond 2010 light is the main aim of this paper.

P. Zgaga (*) Faculty of Education , University of Ljubljana , Ljubljana , Slovenia e-mail: [email protected]

Chapter 2 Reconsidering the EHEA Principles: Is There a Bologna Philosophy?

Pavel Zgaga

18 P. Zgaga

2.2 Searching for the EHEA Principles

The term principle means, fi rst of all, a beginning or a foundation ; in this sense, ancient philosophers spoke of the fi rst or fundamental principles. Through the centuries, the term with Latin roots and a Greek conceptual background has been used in various ways and today we most often associate it either with a basic law which underlies any world phenomena (natural as well as social) and from which their particular details and functioning can be derived, with a personal or social conviction (assumptions, beliefs etc.) which governs our individual and social life through various challenges and dilemmas, or with a normative regulation , which is deduced, agreed and set up or enforced to be implemented in societal life. In all cases, it denotes a beginning , a foundation : a basic rationale of understanding, acting, governing etc. However, the term is not restricted to just philosophical and scientifi c use; in its broad use it has developed further meanings.

When discussing higher education in general, all three of the abovementioned aspects can be relevant. We have our own either personal or professional or social group opinion regarding e.g. tuition fees, quality teaching, recognition of diplomas etc. Research provides insight (among others) into higher education and discovers its basic laws; however, by the very nature of research, researchers cannot and should not be totally unanimous on the issue because the discovery of basic laws always rests on a dispute. Governments and taking the principles of subsidiarity and institutional autonomy into account other organisations provide the necessary regulation based on basic assumptions to harmonise subjective convictions with the discovered objective trends (or vice versa) in order to normalise the social reality. At least three aspects are crucial in any attempt to grasp higher education principles and to link them to higher education policy.

Higher education is, or should be, principled: based on propositions that provide primary ideal goals (Furedy 2000 , p. 44). In our case, i.e., referring to the Bologna Process, it has been assumed that there are certain fundamental principles of the EHEA . However, they should not be commingled with the principles of higher education in general. The EHEA principles are rooted in a particular European context. In a widely known but problematic as we will see way they have been recognised in the commonly agreed Bologna objectives, ten action lines: easily readable and comparable degrees; the two (three) cycle system; credits; the promotion of mobility; co-operation in quality assurance; European dimensions in higher education; lifelong learning; partnership (the role of institutions and students); attractiveness of the EHEA worldwide and, fi nally, linking the EHEA and the European Research Area (ERA). Yet, most but not all of them have been comprehensively elaborated as tools, e.g. in the Framework of Qualifi cations as well as in Standards and Guidelines for QA in the EHEA ( Bologna Process 2005c ) , not as principles. Conversely, some important principles are missing from this list.

It does not look as if this is all of the truth about the EHEA principles. Namely, a principle as a foundation is not related to developing an instrument ; it can be understood as a value foundation as well as a foundation of a responsibility that someone has towards a certain issue; in our case, towards (the European) Higher

192 Reconsidering the EHEA Principles: Is There a Bologna Philosophy?

Education (Area). In this sense, the EHEA principles should comprehend a rule of action; rules which make action possible and its outcomes feasible and sustainable. They also comprehend standards by which to judge and value the EHEA-ness , i.e. inherent qualities of the EHEA, like e.g. transparency, the social dimension, the European dimension, attractiveness etc. These are not Bologna tools (i.e., means); these issues target goals (i.e., ends): they address substantial principles . Can we expect something like a Bologna Philosophy to emerge on the horizon? This is a complex question and I will return to it at the end of this paper, after analysing the issue in its various aspects.

The fi rst question should be: How does the term the EHEA/Bologna principles appear in language today, more than a decade after it was fi rst drafted? Its use is quite frequent but often relatively vague, e.g. 1 : implementing the basic principles of the EHEA, the EHEA principles, tools and actions for curriculum develop-ment, the EHEA principle of encouraging the learning of students, programmes restructured to follow the Bologna principles, employers lack of information on the Bologna principles, an unbureaucratic EHEA based on principles, not regula-tions, subscribed to many of Bolognas principles etc. This list would be even more informative if we could add cases from various European languages.

Thus, a broad, popular use of this term usually connotes a principle in its general, abstract meaning: a shine of the overall Bologna spirit not distinguished or refl ected in any detail. It looks as if, sometimes, this kind of use of the term also fi ts with declaring political correctness (the EHEA principles have been fully imple-mented) as well as to expressing a critical distance (conforming to Bologna principles while not reducing the programme duration). Often, and this should not come as a surprise, the meaning of the term is narrowed, e.g. related only to higher education teaching and learning (e.g. the EHEA pedagogical principles).

We may also come across a more focused use of the term: one or a few principles or objectives may appear crucial, e.g. the development of mobility which is a key principle of the EHEA or the core principle of quality assurance in the EHEA. Yet, how many key principles can be there? There are quite different views on this question again. Thus, as we can learn from Google, the EHEA principles have been straightforwardly divided by different authors into, e.g.:

three principles underlying [the Sorbonne] declaration (i.e., mobility, recognition, lifelong learning); four principles which the Bologna Declaration lays down (i.e., quality, mobility, diversity and competitiveness); fi ve principles (i.e., mobility, autonomous universities, student participation, public responsibility for higher education, the social dimension); and six main principles of the Bologna Declaration (obviously, six Bologna action lines are mentioned; a strange mix of terms which we will address later) etc.

1 When analysing the various Bologna dialects, we lean on various records and notes available from the Internet; for this purpose, it is not important here who the authors are and where quotations can be found. Google may help and even provide further cases anyone with a greater interest in this issue.

20 P. Zgaga

As we see from the above paragraphs, the uses of the term can really differ signifi cantly. The weight of the term, as well as the interpretation of an inner com-position of principles, vary from case to case. It seems that, at least partly, it is also due to the modest language of the early Bologna documents (albeit in this regard only) which does not use this term at all. Only a few years later, when the Process was broadly recognised as a success story, the need appeared to refer to the principles , the foundations . In a certain sense, the EHEA principles have been constructed post festum . Yet, to date, there is no offi cial list; the term did not appear in the Bergen Bologna Glossary 2 ; it did not appear as a menu link on the Bologna website; in the EUA Bologna Handbook (Froment et al. 2008 ) there is no special chapter on this issue etc. But how has the term appeared in the Bologna documents?

The Sorbonne Declaration (Bologna Process 1998 ) does not use this term at all. The Bologna Declaration refers to the fundamental principles laid down in the Bologna Magna Charta Universitatum of 1988, but it does not establish its own ones at least not using this term. Namely, [w]hile affirming our support to the general principles laid down in the Sorbonne Declaration Ministers agreed on the well-known six objectives (action lines) the following objectives, which we consider to be of primary relevance in order to establish the European area of higher education ( Bologna Process 1999 ). Retrospectively, it looks as if the objectives to establish the EHEA could be understood as conceptual fundaments or principles. Yet, in a stricter sense, the EHEA principles still had to be articulated in a more precise way at that time.

A particular note should be offered here. We do not argue that the term needs to be set up only in a ministerial declaration or a communiqu to be trustful, valid and effective. A political declaration can recognise principles, i.e. their legality , but principles should be developed fi rst against their legitimacy . In order to understand the Bologna ideas and key concepts, it is important to look into the kitchen where offi cial statements and documents were being prepared, i.e. to look behind the curtain. 3 Such an option did not really exist before the Prague conference; the Bologna-Berlin 20012003 website was the fi rst comprehensive one and it allowed conceptual, ideational and policy developments to be followed. Nevertheless, inte-resting documents are also available from this early period, e.g. the Trends 1 and 2 Reports (which were quite different in character compared to the later ones). It was Trends 1 where Guy Haug put down the following key attributes, which could also serve as guideline principles [our italics]:

quality : reforms concerning credit systems or degree structures cannot substitute efforts to improve and guarantee quality in curricula, teaching and learning;

2 The Norway Secretariat of the Bologna Process (20032005) made the fi rst attempt to overcome the present situation characterised by no authorised glossary for the Bologna Process. See http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/EN/Glossary/Glos1.HTM (accessed 30/08/2011). Also see Nyborg ( 2005 , p. 14). 3 Behind the curtain: a menu link to the Bologna-Bergen website ( http://www.bologna-

bergen2005.no/ ) which led to a password-protected treasure of working documents. The BFUG docu-ments are very important for exploring the Bologna history, but have not been used much so far.


mobility : the most powerful engine for change and improvement in higher educa-tion in Europe has come, and will come from growing awareness of alternative approaches and best practice in other countries; diversity : measures not respecting the fundamental cultural, linguistic and educa-tional diversity in Europe could jeopardise not only the progress already made, but the perspective of continuing convergence in the future; openness : European higher education can only fulfi l its missions within a world-wide perspective based on competition and cooperation with other regions in the world (Haug et al. 1999 , p. 24). Yet, this was neither an offi cial nor a fi nal list of the EHEA principles. The term

is not used in the Prague Communiqu (Bologna Process 2001 ) again, but the principles of the Bologna Declaration is also a relatively frequently used term in the Trends 2 Report prepared for the Prague conference (Haug and Tauch 2001 ) . Here, the term looks already familiar but it is still used mainly in a generic sense and does not indicate what these principles are or could be.

It was only in the Preamble to the Berlin Communiqu (Bologna Process 2003 ) that Ministers agreed on the following considerations, principles and priorities (our italics), most clearly in its fi rst paragraph where they highlighted the following issues 4 :

[1] the importance of the social dimension of the Bologna Process; [2] [t]he need to increase competitiveness must be balanced with the objective of [3]

improving the social characteristics of the EHEA, aiming at strengthening social cohesion and reducing social and gender inequalities both at national and at European level;

[4] higher education is a public good and a public responsibility; [5] in international academic co-operation and exchanges, academic values should prevail

( Bologna Process 2003 ) . Five more paragraphs in the Preamble are important for our investigation.

Ministers fi rst took into due consideration the conclusions of the European Councils in Lisbon (2000) and Barcelona (2002) and took note of the progress reports, but later some further considerations, principles and priorities can be recognised in the text (though they are, again, not directly referred to as principles), differing from more pragmatic issues in the Communiqu:

[6] to secure closer links overall between the higher education and research systems; [7] [t]he aim is to preserve Europes cultural richness and linguistic diversity, based on

its heritage of diversifi ed traditions, and [8] to foster its potential of innovation and social and economic development through enhanced co-operation among European HEIs;

[9] the fundamental role in the development of the EHEA played by HEIs and student organisations;

[10] the interest shown by other regions of the world in the development of the EHEA is welcome (ibid.).

4 Here, as well as later, fi gures in square brackets are inserted as they are used in the Annexes where these elements are listed and compared in two tables.

22 P. Zgaga

Later, in the fi rst content section (Quality Assurance), another key principle is mentioned in the text for the fi rst time, namely:

[11] the principle of institutional autonomy according to which the primary responsibility for [12] quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself and this provides the basis for real accountability of the academic system within the national quality framework (ibid.).

Finally, in the concluding part of the Berlin Communiqu, the principles and objectives are mentioned once again and related to new accessions to the Process: countries eligible for membership of the EHEA should provide information on how they will implement the principles and objectives of the declaration (ibid.).

Two years later, Ministers stress in the fi rst lines of the Bergen Communiqu that they all share the common understanding of the principles, objectives and commit-ments of the Process as expressed in the Bologna Declaration and in the subsequent communiqus (our italics). Later in the text, they commit to ensuring the full implementation of its principles, but they also welcome a new one: [1] the principle of a European register of quality assurance agencies based on national review (Bologna Process 2005a ) . They also commit to [2] the full implementation of its [i.e., Lisbon Recognition Convention 1997 ] principles and [3] the further devel-opment of the basic principles for doctoral programmes (i.e. Salzburg Principles; see Koch Christensen 2005 ) : two principles which were developed outside the trend under our investigation. Further on and connected to the attractiveness of the EHEA and cooperation with other parts of the world, the Communiqu also refers to a very general principle which transcends the area of higher education [4] the principle of sustainable development (Bologna Process 2005a ) .

In the concluding section on preparing for 2010, a comprehensive formulation of the Bologna goals can be found, which tries to recap its foundations:

Building on the achievements so far in the Bologna Process, we wish to esta-blish a EHEA based on the [5] principles of quality and transparency. We must cherish our [6] rich heritage and cultural diversity in contributing to a knowledge-based society. We commit ourselves to upholding the [7] principle of public respon-sibility for higher education in the context of complex modern societies. As higher education is situated at [8] the crossroads of research, education and innovation, it is also the key to Europes competitiveness. As we move closer to 2010, we under-take to ensure that higher education institutions enjoy [9] the necessary autonomy to implement the agreed reforms, and we recognise the need for sustainable funding of institutions. The EHEA is [10] structured around three cycles, where each level has the function of [11] preparing the student for the labour market, for further competence building and for active citizenship. The overarching [10] framework for qualifi cations, [5] the agreed set of European standards and guidelines for quality assurance and the [2] recognition of degrees and periods of study are also key characteristics of the structure of the EHEA (ibid.).

This section deserves full attention and a brief historical note. Before the summer break in 2004, at the end of an early phase of preparing for the Bergen conference, an interesting debate commenced within the BFUG Board. At fi rst, this discussion


was about the criteria for the admission of new members to the Process following the task set in Berlin. On this basis, the Norwegian Secretariat prepared a working document for the BFUG Board to meet this objective in a fair and transparent manner, as well as to consolidate both principles and action lines of the Bologna Process into a single document (Bologna Process 2004a ; our italics). In its fi rst section (Principles), the document states as follows:

While the 10 actions lines are the main focus of members, it is equally important to note the underlying principles of the Bologna Process. The realisation of the EHEA can only be achieved by incorporating their philosophy within the higher education system of each country. These principles, which all come from the Bologna Declaration and/or from the Prague and Berlin Communiqu, are elaborated below:

International mobility of students and staff; Autonomous universities 5 ; Student participation in the governance of higher education; Public responsibility for higher education; The social dimension of the Bologna Process (ibid., p. 1; our italics). In this wording we note an important terminological differentiation: action

lines underlying principles their philosophy ; we will return to this issue later. Further down in the document, these fi ve principles are illustrated with quota-tions from the Bologna Declaration and two subsequent communiqus. Then, the document elaborates on Objectives as being summarised in its 10 action lines introduced in Bologna (6 of them), Prague (3 of them) and Berlin (1 of them) and adding that [t]he social dimension of the Bologna Process might be seen as an over-arching or transversal action line (ibid., p. 3). Obviously, this document strongly illuminates the questions discussed here, yet it also raises further questions.

Before the drafting process for the Bergen communiqu started (November 2004), another key issue was raised about realising the vision. 6 In October, the Secretariat prepared an internal document to be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the Communiqu Drafting Group (Bologna Process 2004b ) . Its fi rst part elaborates directly on basic principles: four of them are supposed to be inherent in the Bologna Process and are listed in the same order as in the previous document, except the last one the social dimension is now missing, perhaps because it is a transversal action line. They are further elaborated in a way which subsumes some other items as inherent elements of these basic principles. 7

5 It is worth noting here that in the second line academic freedom was not explicitly mentioned. A direct reference to academic freedom only appears in the London Communiqu. 6 Realising the Vision was the subtitle of the fi rst variant version of the Bergen Communiqu (autumn 2004); in its fi nal variant it was reformulated in Achieving the Goals (May 2005). 7 E.g.: Mobility is a basic idea in the Bologna Process; students and staff should move with ease and have faire recognition of their qualifi cations; The Prague Communiqu stated that higher education is a public good and a public responsibility. Public responsibility encompasses the structural elements of the Bologna Process such as: a national framework, degree structure, quality assurance and recognition (Bologna Process 2004b , p. 1).

24 P. Zgaga

The whole paragraph starts by stressing the co-operative character of the Bologna Process which builds on trust and has no central decision making power; this statement can also be understood as an inherent EHEA principle. However, the most interesting sentence of the whole paragraph comes at the end: These principles are written into the draft Communiqu for Ministers to confi rm. With the Ministers confi rmation, the principles will constitute an important element in the description of the EHEA (ibid., p. 1). This was a clear and obviously radical discussion proposal; as we know with hindsight, the proposal was abolished and, so far, Ministers have not confi rmed any such list. The Bologna Process remains a voluntary process and its principles seem to remain fl exible (interpretative?) guidelines.

After discussing the structures for the EHEA in the second part, the third part of the working document poses a provocative question: A common understanding or a legal instrument? (Bologna Process 2004b , p. 2). This part starts by emphasising the voluntary character of the Process and the co-operation and trust between the part-ners. It then raises a dilemma which was obviously strongly felt during that period: Ministers may consider whether commonly agreed principles, standards and proce-dures for the EHEA should be considered as guidelines for the independent national HE systems or be binding on the participating states. The concern can be understood in light of the possible enlargement of the Process but, at the same time, it opens a more general dilemma which is expressed more clearly a little later: If one of the Member States should unilaterally set aside agreed principles, standards or proce-dures, the Bologna partners may be free to reconsider the relations to such country. As an option, the document sketches a proposal for adopting a legal instrument, i.e. a convention, much the same way as it was done for the Lisbon Recognition Convention. This would imply that all participant states agree on the principles and mechanisms involved and that this is made binding by ratifi cation (ibid., p. 3).

We know today that further discussion 8 on this issue within the Bologna Process turned towards guidelines and away from a binding instrument: it followed a characteristic logic of the Europeanisation processes characteristic not only for higher education. This discussion also makes it easier to understand how the paragraph quoted above ( Preparing for 2010 ) entered the Bergen Communiqu. From our point of view, this was a very important decision made in the middle of the Process. It remained infl uential over the following few years.

The London Communiqu again contains quite a similar formulation but with some new variants:

Building on our rich and diverse European cultural heritage, we are developing an EHEA based on [1] institutional autonomy, academic freedom, [2] equal oppor-tunities and democratic principles that will [3] facilitate mobility, increase employ-ability and strengthen Europes attractiveness and competitiveness. As we look

8 It continued right up to the Bergen meeting. See the decision of the BFUG Board meeting of 26 April 2005: With some adjustments proposed at the Board meeting, the document will be sent to BFUG members for the possible use in a national preparation for the discussion at the Ministerial Conference concerning the EHEA beyond 2010 (Bologna Process 2005d ) . Also see a brief recap in Nyborg ( 2005 , p. 42).


ahead, we recognise that, in a changing world, there will be a continuing need to adapt our higher education systems, to ensure that [4] the EHEA remains competi-tive and can respond effectively to the challenges of globalisation. In the short term, we appreciate that implementing the Bologna reforms is a signifi cant task, and appreciate [5] the continuing support and commitment of all partners in the process. We welcome the contribution of the working groups and seminars in helping to drive forward progress. We agree to continue [5] to work together in partnership, assisting one another in our efforts and promoting the exchange of good practice (Bologna Process 2007a , p. 1.3). This formulation again talks about a growing need to consolidate principles in a single document as already initiated before the Bergen Conference, but the dilemma of whether the principles should be binding or only serve as guidelines was obviously abandoned. Let us also note that it is here for the fi rst time that the term academic freedom is used in a document like this one.

The next paragraph starts with a commitment to [6] increasing the compatibility and comparability of our higher education systems, whilst at the same time [2] respecting their diversity; then, the Ministers recognise [7] the important infl u-ence HEIs exert on developing our societies, based on their traditions as centres of learning, research, creativity and knowledge transfer as well as their key role in defi ning and transmitting the values on which our societies are built. At this point, we fi nd a new formulation which is conceptually closely associated with the issue of the higher education foundations and, therefore, crucial to our discussion: a full range of purposes (our italics) of higher education. Those purposes include: [8] preparing students for life as active citizens in a democratic society; [9] preparing students for their future careers and [10] enabling their personal development; [11] creating and maintaining a broad, advanced knowledge base; and stimulating research and innovation (ibid., p. 1.4). Here we can, once again, peek behind the curtain to prove that the full range of purposes had been developed well before 2007 but had not previously been politically recognised in a communiqu. 9

In addition, apart from the prevailing pragmatic wording in the Communiqu, there is one more element which is essential and can, therefore, be again treated as a principle: [12] Fair recognition of higher education qualifi cations, periods of study and prior learning, including the recognition of non-formal and informal learning, are essential components of the EHEA (ibid., p. 2.5). Similarly, the text points out student-centred higher education for the fi rst time.

9 We can trace it from the reports of early offi cial Bologna seminars or working groups, for exam-

ple, a seminar on recognition issues in the Bologna process (Lisbon, April 2002; a document in the authors archives), a seminar on employability (Bled, October 2004; a document in the authors archives) and a report from the Bologna Working Group on Qualifi cations Frameworks (December 2004; [Berg], 2005b , p. 23). Documents prove that stressing a full range of purposes in higher education was, in particular, pushed forward by the Council of Europes agenda (Bergan 2004 , p. 24; Weber and Bergan 2005 , pp. 27, 235; Kohler and Huber 2006 , pp. 13, 213) (Zgaga 2009 , p. 186). In ministerial documents we can identify such a statement for the fi rst time in the concluding part of the Bergen Communiqu (Preparing for 2010) mentioning the function of preparing the student for the labour market, for further competence building and for active citizenship. Also see the above section on the Bergen Communiqu [11].

26 P. Zgaga

In the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqu (Bologna Process 2009 ) , the direct use of the term principle is again quite rare and not really central to the text, but the core issue is elaborated in a similar way as in the previous two communiqus and in a special paragraph describing the EHEA essentials:

We pledge our full commitment to the goals of the EHEA, which is an area where [1] higher education is a public responsibility, and where [2] all higher education institutions are responsive to the wider needs of society through the diversity of their missions. The aim is to ensure that higher education institutions have [3] the necessary resources to continue to fulfi l their full range of purposes such as [4] preparing students for life as active citizens in a democratic society; [5] preparing students for their future careers and [6] enabling their personal development; [7] creating and maintaining a broad, advanced knowledge base and stimulating research and innovation. The necessary ongoing reform of higher education systems and policies will continue to be fi rmly embedded in the European values of [8] institutional autonomy, academic freedom and social equity and will require full [9] participation of students and staff (Bologna Process 2009 , p. 4). In addition, three more principles are addressed: [10] LLL is subject to the principle of public responsibility; [11] basic principles and procedures for recognition of prior learn-ing; [12] transparency tools need to relate

Date post:	19-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lesley
View:	246 times
Download:	7 times

European Higher Education at the Crossroads ||

Documents