Bologna and the Institutionalisation of the European Higher

Transcription

Maria Amélia Pina Tomás Veiga
Bologna and the
Institutionalisation of the
European Higher Education Area
Volume I
Tese apresentada à Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências
da Educação da Universidade do Porto, para obtenção do
grau de Doutor em Ciências da Educação
Orientador: Prof. Doutor Alberto Amaral
Co-orientador: Prof. Doutor António Magalhães
Bologna and the Institutionalisation of the European Higher Education Area
2
RESUMO
Este estudo procura avaliar em que medida a implementação do processo de Bolonha está a
contribuir para a institucionalização de uma Área Europeia de Ensino Superior (AEES),
tomando como suporte as percepções das partes que constituem a Universidade: pessoal
docente, estudantes e o pessoal não-docente.
Ao analisar este processo político e na tentativa de apreender os contextos de
implementação, nos quais os indivíduos interpretam a política, este trabalho
metodologicamente seguiu a abordagem do 'ciclo das políticas'. Esta orientação justifica-se
pelo facto de permitir uma compreensão sobre as interacções desenvolvidas no seio das
instituições - europeias, nacionais e do campo organizacional - tal como é expresso pelas
opiniões das partes constituintes da Universidade em relação ao processo de Bolonha e ao
grau de institucionalização atingido no domínio da AEES.
Como instrumento de recolha das percepções utilizámos um questionário que foi dirigido a
sete instituições de ensino superior localizadas em quatro países – Alemanha, Itália,
Noruega e Portugal.
Os resultados da investigação apontam para uma ineficiência de Bolonha em
institucionalizar a AEES. O nível de conhecimento sobre os objectivos e prioridades
definidos pelo país político, ou seja, pelas instituições que operam no nível Europeu (e.g.
Comissão Europeia) e no nível nacional (e.g. governos), é baixo. Por outro lado, há um
número muito alargado de respondentes que decidiram não formular a sua opinião.
Reconhece-se pelos dados analisados que ocorreu uma interacção no âmbito das
instituições envolvidas no processo de Bolonha com efeitos diferenciados dependentes do
nível de análise. Esta interacção deu a conhecer o modo como as projecções emanadas, do
processo de Bolonha, prezaram ou menosprezaram diferentes níveis de análise.
Como estudo centrado na institucionalização da AEES, este estudo serviu para sublinhar a
importância das respostas do país real, difíceis e por vezes reticentes aos olhos daqueles
que operam nas esferas europeia e nacional.
3
4
ABSTRACT
This study assesses how the Bologna process institutionalises the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA). It does so by focusing on the perceptions academic staff, students
and administrative and management staff have on the purposes and priorities set out in the
Bologna process itself.
In analysing this policy and also to grasp the particular contexts in which individuals
interpret policy, the thesis employs the 'policy cycle' approach. This approach was justified
in the understanding it provided of the interactions within institutions at different levels of
analysis – European, national and organizational field – as expressed in the opinions held
by university consituencies in relation to the Bologna process and the degree of
institutionalisation it provided for the EHEA.
The main research instrument was a questionnaire, administered to seven higher education
institutions located in four countries - Germany, Italy, Norway and Portugal.
The main findings point to a lack of effectiveness by the Bologna process to institutionalise
the EHEA. The level of awareness about the purposes and priorities set by the pays
politique that is, by institutions operating at European (e.g. European Commission) and
national levels (e.g. governments) was low. Equally marked were the large numbers of
those polled who chose to suspend their opinion.
Amongst the significant implications this study presents for policy implementation is the
fact that the understanding of interaction within institutions at different levels tends at one
and the same time to obscure certain level of analysis whilst also revealing others, less
expected. This process allows learning how these levels operate to implement the Bologna
process.
As a study in institutionalising the EHEA, this inquiry serves to underscore the importance
of taking full account of the response by the pays réel, difficult and at times unforthcoming
though it may be, to planners who operate within European and national spheres.
5
6
RESUMÉ
Cette étude évalue la façon dont le processus de Bologne institutionnalise l’Espace
européen de l'enseignement supérieur (EEES). Il le fait en mettant l'accent sur les
perceptions du personnel académique, les étudiants et le personnel administratif et de
gestion en ce qui concerne les buts et les priorités définies dans le processus de Bologne
lui-même.
En analysant cette politique, et de façon à saisir le contexte particulier dans lequel les
individus interprètent la politique, la thèse emploie l’approche du ‘cycle politique’. Cette
approche se justifiait par la compréhension qu’elle a fourni des interactions au sein des
institutions à différents niveaux d'analyse – dans les domaines européen, national et
organisationnel – comme indiqué dans l'avis des circonscriptions universitaires en ce qui
concerne le processus de Bologne et le degré d'institutionnalisation apporté à l'EEES.
L'instrument de recherche principal fut un questionnaire, administré dans sept
établissements d'enseignement supérieur de quatre pays - l'Allemagne, l'Italie, la Norvège
et le Portugal.
Les conclusions principales indiquent un manque d'efficacité par le processus de Bologne à
institutionnaliser l'EEES. Le niveau de sensibilisation des objectifs et des priorités fixés par
le pays politique, c’est-à-dire par les établissements opérant au niveau européen (par
exemple, la Commission européenne) et national (par exemple, les gouvernements) a été
faible. Ont été également marquée le grand nombre de personnes interrogées qui ont choisi
de suspendre leur avis. L’interaction au sein des institutions a montré une tendance à avoir
un effet différentiel en fonction du niveau d'analyse. Ce processus permet d'apprendre
comment fonctionnent ces niveaux pour mettre en œuvre le processus de Bologne.
C’étant une étude dans l'institutionnalisation de l'EEES, cette enquête permet de souligner
l'importance de tenir pleinement compte de la réponse par le pays réel, difficile et parfois
réticent comme il peut l’être, pour les planificateurs qui opèrent dans les sphères nationales
et européennes.
7
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Looking back, I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to enjoy the unconditional
support of Prof. Dr. Alberto Amaral from the very beginning of my scholarly travel. It has
been a highly rewarding experience that I am glad I have not missed.
I am indebted to many people without whom this study would not have been possible. First
of all, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Alberto Amaral (supervisor) and Prof. Dr. António
Magalhães (co-supervisor) for the confidence and challenging guidance. Furthermore, I
would like to acknowledge the critical and constructive advice of Prof. Dr. Guy Neave as
well as to express my gratitude for helping me to improve the readability of this thesis.
I am thankful to Prof. Dr. José Novais Barbosa (former Rector of University of Porto) and
Prof. Dr. José Diogo Marques dos Santos (Rector of University of Porto) who gave me the
possibility to pursue this study granting me a special leave and full support. I am also
grateful to Cristina Ferreira and later to Prof. Dr. José Sarsfield Cabral for supporting the
absence at work.
I thank as well Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Appell, Prof. Dr. Ivar Bleiklie, Prof. Dr. Maria de
Lurdes Correia Fernandes, Prof. Dr. Peter Maassen, Prof. Dr. Irene Montenegro and Prof.
Dr. Roberto Moscati. It was only through their cooperation that it was possible this study. I
am particularly grateful to Prof. Dr. Roberto Moscati and Drs. Johanna Witte for their
review of the Italian and German versions of the questionnaires.
My thanks also go to the scholarly friends at CIPES with whom I was able to share some
thoughts. To Maria João Pires de Rosa and Margarida Cardoso, I am grateful for helping
me with the statistical part of this study. CIPES was the biggest institutional supporter of
this work by promoting the participation in research projects and the participation in
international and national conferences, and for that I express my gratitude to Prof. Dr.
Alberto Amaral and Prof. Dr. Pedro Teixeira.
9
A special word goes to my family for always supporting me, especially my parents and
youngest sister, which also provided a great help with graphs, tables and the formatting of
the thesis.
My husband Henrique was the one who most permanently shared both the good moods and
the critical moments of this thesis and I thank him for that. Henrique, my oldest son, is
always intellectually with me, like when at some point of my research he advised me to
break Bologna into pieces and being thoughtfulness when binding again those pieces!
Ricardo, my youngest son, who is always present. To them, the most special word of
gratitude.
10
ABBREVIATIONS INDEX
CEPES – Centre Européen pour l’Enseignement Supérieur
CHEPS – Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies
CRE – Association of European Universities
CRUE – Confederation of European Union Reitors’ Conferences
EC – European Commission
EC/EU – European Community / European Union
ECTS – European Credit Transfer System
EHEA - European Higher Education Area
EHEA/ERA – European Higher Education Area / European Research Area
ENQA – European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
EQAR – European Register for Quality Assurance Agencies
ERIC – Education Resources Information Centre
ESU - European Students’ Union (former ESIB)
EU - European Union
EUA - European Universities Association
EUA – European University Association
EURASSHE – European Association of Institutions in Higher Education
11
GATS – General Agreement on Trade in Services
ISI – Institute for Scientif Information
NAP – National Actions Plan
OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OMC - Open Method of Co-ordination
R&D – Research & Development
SPSS – Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
UNICE – Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe
12
INDEX
Graph index …………………………………………………………………………..
Diagram index ………………………………………………………………………..
Table index …………………………………………………………………………...
18
19
20
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………..
25
CHAPTER I - European Higher Education Area within European Education
Policies ……………………………………………………………..
35
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….. 35
1. European integration processes …………………………………………………… 40
1.1 European education policies …………………………………………………. 41
2. Policy texts and European initiatives ……………………………………………… 49
2.1 Bologna ………………………………………………………………………. 51
2.2 Lisbon strategy ………………………………………………………………. 53
3. Rescaling education policies ……………………………………………………… 57
4. Effects of rescaling education policies ……………………………………………. 60
5. Overarching issues ………………………………………………………………… 66
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 71
CHAPTER II - Analysing the Bologna process: the anatomy of scholarship …...
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..
1. Analysis of records, by type of work and year of publication ……………………..
2. Analysis of records, by topic of discussion within the Bologna process …………..
3. Analysis of records, by year and domain …………………………………………..
3.1 Analysis of records, by domain and Bologna topic assuming the total number
of publications in each domain ……………………………………………….
73
73
78
81
84
CHAPTER III - Conceptual framework ………………………………………….
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..
1. Key concepts ……………………………………………………………………….
1.1 The concept of higher education institution ……….…………………………
1.2 The concept of policy implementation in higher education studies ………….
1.3 The concept of institution …………………………………………………….
107
107
109
109
117
124
87
3.2 Relationships between the analytical perspectives and Bologna topics ……... 99
4. Analysis of records, by target audience …………………………………………… 102
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 105
13
1.4 The concept of institutionalisation …………………………………………… 128
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 134
CHAPTER IV - Theoretical-methodological accounts ….………………………..
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..
1. Imperatives ………………………………………………………………………...
2. Institutional pillars …………………………………………………………………
3. Institutional change ………………………………………………………………...
4. The ‘policy cycle’ approach ……………………………………………………….
5. Instrument of empirical examination ………………………………………………
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………
137
137
138
142
145
147
154
159
CHAPTER V - Bologna in the ‘policy cycle’: a perspective about pays politique
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..
1. Context of influence of the Bologna process ………………………………………
2. Context of text production of the Bologna process ………………………………..
3. Context of practice of the Bologna process ………………………………………..
4. Context of outcomes of the Bologna process ……………………………………...
5. Context of political strategy of the Bologna process ………………………………
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………
161
161
162
172
174
179
181
183
CHAPTER VI - Analysis of research findings …………………………………..
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..
1. Level of awareness about the Bologna process as a policy process ……………...
1.1 Motivations of the Bologna process ………………………………………….
1.2 Strategic goals of the Bologna reforms ………………………………………
1.3 The targets of Bologna reforms ……………………………………………..
1.4 The focuses of Bologna reforms ……………………………………………..
1.5 Changes as a result of implementing the Bologna process …………………...
2. Level of awareness about transformations, changes and impacts at the pays reel ...
2.1. Perceived impact of European and national initiatives and changes in the
individual university ………………………………………………………..
187
187
196
196
200
204
209
216
233
233
2.1.1 Impact of European initiatives on the implementation of Bologna ….. 233
2.1.2 Impact of national initiatives on the implementation of Bologna …… 239
2.1.3 European dimension of the Bologna process ………………………… 243
2.1.4 Changes in the university as a result of implementing Bologna ….…. 249
14
2.2. Embeddeness of Bologna dimensions ……………………………………….
2.2.1 Awareness about the implementation of the Bologna process ……….
2.2.2 Impact of implementation of the Bologna degree structure ………….
2.2.3 Impact of the implementation of the Diploma Supplement …………..
2.2.4 Impact of the implementation of the credit system …………………..
2.2.5. Objectives of quality assurance mechanisms ………………………..
2.2.6. Working procedures of internal quality systems …………………….
2.3. Weaknesses and success factors ……………………………………………..
2.3.1 Weaknesses of policy implementation …………………………………
2.3.2 Success factors of policy implementation ……………………………...
2.4. Changes implemented as a result of the Bologna process …………………...
2.4.1 Organisational structures ……………………………………………...
2.4.2. Changes in the participation of different interest in the decision of
implementating the Bologna process …………………………………
265
265
270
274
278
283
288
302
302
307
318
318
325
3. Level of awareness about transformations, changes and impact on teaching and
learning …………………………………………………………………………... 332
3. 1 Changes in the teaching and learning process ………………………………. 332
3.1.1Changes in the teaching/learning process as a consequence of
implementing the Bologna process …………………………………….. 332
3.1.2 Impacts of different elements associated to the definition of
competencies in the Bologna degree structure ………………………… 336
3.1.3 Bologna degree structure and curricular reform ……………………….. 340
3.2 Perceived importance of Bologna instruments ………………………………. 348
3.2.1 Worth of the Diploma Supplement …………………………………….. 348
3.2.2 Worth of the credit system based on the student workload ……………. 351
3.2.3 Calculation of credits …………………………………………………... 355
3.3 Institutional autonomy and academic freedom ………………………………. 359
3.3.1 Implementating Bologna vis-à-vis institutional autonomy …………….. 359
3.3.2 Implementating Bologna vis-à-vis academic freedom ………………… 362
3.4 Academic work ………………………………………………………………. 367
3.4.1 Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic role ……………………….. 367
3.4.2 Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic work ……………………… 371
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 375
15
CHAPTER VII - Discussion of research findings: a perspective from pays réel ..
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..
1. Context of influence ……………………………………………………………….
1.1 Scrutinising economic aspect ……………………………………...…………
1.1.1 Bologna reforms and the higher education market …………...………...
1.2 Interpreting the lack of awareness about establishing EHEA ………...……...
1.2.1 Interpreting the intended reform of pedagogy …………………...……..
1.2.2 Internationalisation interpreted as a multidimensional concept …..……
2. Context of text production …………………………………………………………
2.1 Achievements of European initiatives ………………………………………..
2.2 Fragile backing for the legal framework ……………………………………..
2.3 The ‘Loose’ European dimension in the Bologna reforms …………………...
2.4 The iterative process for promoting internationalisation and recognition
procedures of European and foreign degrees …………………………………
381
381
382
383
384
387
390
393
395
395
397
398
402
405
405
409
411
412
414
416
418
420
422
3. Context of practice …………………………………………………………………
3.1 Pedagogic reform and policy as discourse ……………………………………
3.2 Student workload at chalk face ……………………………………………….
3.3 Definitions of competence ……………………………………………………
3.4 Coping with institutionalised and innovative agendas ……………………….
3.4.1 The elusive relevance of the Diploma Supplement …………………….
3.4.2 Procedural aspects of the credit system ………………………………...
3.4.3 From quality assurance to accreditation ………………………………..
3.4.4 Unconvincing procedures of internal quality systems ………………….
3.5 Context of outcomes ………………………………………………………….
3.5.1 Three weaknesses: lack of participation of policy consistency and
adaptation of disciplinary fields ……………………………………... 422
3.5.2 Institutional leadership, support structures as factors of success ……… 425
3.5.3. Administrative and management staff and interest groups outside the
university ……………………………………………………………. 427
3.5.4 New patterns of institutional autonomy and academic freedom:
positional autonomy …………………………………………………. 428
3.5.5 Increasing intervention of governance structures ……………………… 430
3.5.6 Academic status and academic work: Undermining the development of
actions taken to the objectives of Bologna …………………………….. 431
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 433
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………..……………….
411
16
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………...
463
ANNEX – Vol. II
Annex I – Questionnaire ……………………………………………………………... 7
Annex II – Distribution of rated answers ……………………………………………. 75
Annex III – Guidelines for semi-structure interviews with key policy actors and
experts on higher education policies …………………………………………………. 193
17
GRAPH INDEX
Graph II.1:
Graph II. 2:
Graph II.3:
Graph II.4:
Graph II.5:
Graph II.6:
Graph VI.7:
Graph VI.8:
Graph VI.9:
Graph VI.10:
Graph VI.11:
Graph VI.12:
Graph VI.13:
Graph VI.14:
Graph VI.15:
Graph VI.16:
Graph VI.17:
Graph VI.18:
Number of publications (1999-2007), per type of publication ……...
Number of publications, by topic within the Bologna process ……...
Number of publications, by domain ………………………………...
Scholarly target audience ……………………………………………
Relationships between target audiences and the writings in policy
analysis ………………………………………………………………
79
82
85
102
103
Relationships between target audience and linkages to a professional
association …………………………………………………………... 104
Awareness about Bologna as a policy process ……………………... 225
The focuses of Bologna reforms: Distribution of rated answers by
“the three Estates” …………………………………………………... 229
Changes as a result of implementing the Bologna process: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates”………………………… 231
Opinion suspended about the impact of European and national
initiatives, European dimension and changes in the universities
surveyed …………………………………………………………….. 257
European dimension of the Bologna process: Distribution of rated
answers by “the three Estates” ……………………………………… 261
Changes in the university as a result of implementing Bologna:
Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates” ……………….. 263
Opinion suspended about embeddeness of Bologna instruments …... 295
Perceived impact of the implementation of the credit system: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates” ………….………….. 299
Opinion suspended about weaknesses and success factors of policy
implementation ……………………………………………………... 313
Weaknesses of policy implementation: Distribution of rated answers
by “the three Estates” ……………………………………………….. 315
Success factors: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates” 319
Opinion suspended about changes in teaching and learning ……….. 345
18
DIAGRAM INDEX
Diagram IV.1:
Diagram IV.2:
Diagram IV.3:
First step towards the theoretical-methodological framework …..
Second step towards the theoretical-methodological framework .
Final step towards the theoretical-methodological framework ….
138
146
153
19
TABLE INDEX
Table II.1:
Domains and approaches to higher education ………………………
74
Table II.2:
Criteria used to classify the publications retrieved from the
international indexes ………………………………………………... 78
Table II.3:
Number of publications, per year of publication ……………………
79
Table II.4:
Number of publications, per year of publication and domain ………
86
Table III.5 :
Institutional perspectives and structural changes ……………………
115
Table III.6:
Conception of institutional pillars …………………………………...
126
Table V.7:
Bologna in the ‘policy cycle’ ………………………………………..
183
Table VI.8:
Response rate, per higher education institution ……………………..
189
Table VI.9:
Response rate, per higher education institution and “disciplinary
field”………………………………………………………………..... 191
Table VI.10:
Response rate, per higher education institution and “the three
Estates” ……………………………………………………………… 193
Table VI.11:
Motivations of the Bologna process: Number and percentages of
answers ……………………………………………………………… 197
Table VI.12:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about motivations of
the Bologna process …………………………………………………. 199
Table VI.13:
Strategic goals of the Bologna reforms: Number and percentage of
answers ……………………………………………………………… 200
Table VI.14:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the strategic
goals of Bologna reforms …………………………………………… 204
Table VI.15:
The target of Bologna reforms: Number and percentages of answers.
205
Table VI.16:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended ………………………..
208
Table VI.17:
The focus of Bologna reforms: Number and percentages of answers.. 210
Table VI.18:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the focus of
Bologna reforms …………………………………………………….. 214
Table VI.19:
Changes as a result of implementing the Bologna process: Number
and percentages of answers …………………………………………. 216
Table VI.20:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about changes as a
result of implementing the Bologna process ………………………... 220
Table VI.21:
Awareness about Bologna as a policy process ………………………
222
20
Table VI.22:
Impact of European initiatives on the implementation of Bologna:
Number and percentages of answers ………………………………... 234
Table VI.23:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the impact of
European initiatives on the implementation of Bologna ……………. 238
Table VI.24:
Impact of national initiatives on the implementation of Bologna:
Table VI.25:
national initiatives on the implementation of Bologna ……………... 243
Table VI.26:
European dimension of Bologna process: Number and percentages
of answers …………………………………………………………… 244
Table VI.27:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the European
dimension of Bologna process ……………………………………… 248
Table VI.28:
Changes in the university as a result of implementing Bologna:
Table VI.29:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about change in the
university as a result of implementing Bologna …………………….. 253
Perceived impact of European and national initiatives and changes
in the universities surveyed …………………………………………. 255
Table VI.30:
Table VI.31:
Awareness about the implementation of the Bologna process:
Table VI.32:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the awareness of
the implementation of Bologna ……………………………………... 269
Table VI.33:
Perceived impact of implementation of Bologna degree structure:
Table VI.34:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the perceived
impact of implementation of Bologna degree structure …………….. 273
Table VI.35:
Perceived impact of the implementation of Diploma Supplement:
Number and percentage of answers ………………………………… 274
Table VI.36:
impact of the implementation of Diploma Supplement …………….. 277
Table VI.37:
Perceived impact of the implementation of the credit system:
Table VI.38:
impact of the credit system ………………………………………….. 282
Table VI.39:
Objectives of quality assurance mechanisms: Number and
percentages of answers ……………………………………………… 284
21
Table VI.40:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the objectives of
quality assurance mechanisms ……………………………………… 287
Table VI.41:
Working procedures of internal quality systems: Number and
Table VI.42:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about working
procedures of internal quality systems ……………………………… 291
Table VI.43:
Embeddeness of Bologna instruments ………………………………
Table VI.44:
Weaknesses of policy implementation: Number and percentages of
answers ……………………………………………………………… 302
Table VI.45:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about weaknesses of
policy implementation ………………………………………………. 306
Table VI.46:
Success factors of policy implementation: Number and percentages
of answers …………………………………………………………… 307
Table VI.47:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about success factors of
policy implementation ………………………………………………. 311
Table VI.48:
Level of awareness about weakness and success factors ……………
Table VI.49:
Perceived changes on organizational structures: Number and
Table VI.50:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about perceived
changes on organisational structures ………………………………... 324
Table VI.51:
Perceived changes in the participation of different interest in the
decision of implementing the Bologna process: Number and 325
percentages of answers ………………………………………………
Table VI.52:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about perceived
changes in the participation of different interest in the decision of
implementing the Bologna process …………………………………. 329
Table VI.53:
Changes implemented as a result of the Bologna process …………..
Table VI.54:
Perceived changes by academic staff in the teaching/learning 333
process ……………………………………………………………….
Table VI.55:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about changes in 336
teaching/learning …………………………………………………….
Table VI.56:
Perceived impact of different elements associated to the definition of
competencies in the Bologna degree structure: Number and
Table VI.57:
different elements associated to the definition of competencies in the
Bologna degree structure: Number and percentages of answers ……. 340
292
312
330
22
Table VI.58:
Perceived impact of Bologna degree structure and curricular reform:
Number and percentages of answers Number and percentages of
answers ……………………………………………………………… 341
Table VI.59:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about impacts of
Bologna degree structure and curricular reform ……………………. 343
Table VI.60:
Changes in teaching and learning processes as a consequence of
implementing Bologna ……………………………………………… 344
Table VI.61:
Perceived importance of Diploma Supplement by academic staff:
Number and percentage of answers ………………………………… 348
Table VI.62:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the importance of
Diploma Supplement ………………………………………………... 351
Table VI.63:
Perceived importance of credit system: Number and percentages of
answers ……………………………………………………………… 352
Table VI.64:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the importance of
credit system ………………………………………………………… 354
Table VI.65:
Participation of different interests in the calculation of credits:
Table VI.66:
Relevance of Diploma Supplement and credit system ……………… 358
Table VI.67:
Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis institutional autonomy: Number
and percentage of answers …………………………………………... 360
Table VI.68:
Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic freedom: Number and
Table VI.69:
Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about implementing
Bologna vis-à-vis academic freedom ……………………………….. 365
Table VI.70:
Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis institutional autonomy and
academic freedom …………………………………………………... 366
Table VI.71:
Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic role: Number and
Table VI.72:
Bologna vis-à-vis academic work …………………………………... 370
Table VI.73:
Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic work: Number and
Table VI.74:
Bologna vis-à-vis academic work …………………………………... 373
Table VI.75:
Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic work ……………………
374
23
24
Introduction
“Bologna as a Declaration, let alone as a Process, has yet to be seen by
the Three Estates as having the slightest relevance to their daily lot”
(Neave, 2009: 51).
INTRODUCTION
Subject
This thesis examines the institutionalisation of the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA) as a consequence of implementing the Bologna process.
Formally and officially, signing the Bologna Declaration set the Bologna Process in train.
A significant number of European states (29 countries pledged the Bologna Declaration)
agreed to construct the EHEA by around 6 objectives: the creation of readable and
comparable degrees; a configuration based on two main cycles; establishment of a credit
unit system; the promotion of mobility; the advancement of European cooperation in
quality assurance; and, finally a European dimension of higher education, steered by
increasing mobility, employability, competitiveness and attractiveness.
The Bologna Declaration was a political commitment to creating the EHEA.
Its key
features correspond less to the harmonisation of national policies than to their
convergence. In official statements, Ministers were careful to avoid the word
‘harmonisation’ to prevent the establishment of EHEA being cast in a negative light.
25
Following the Bologna meeting, Ministers engaged in biennial summits, both to refine
priorities and to take the stock of progress made by the reforms envisaged. (Prague
Communiqué, 2001; Berlin, Communiqué 2003; Bergen Communiqué, 2005; London
Communiqué, 2007; Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, 2009). In the interim
between ministerial summits, following the Prague meeting, national organizations (e.g.
national governments) and supranational institutions (e.g. European Universities
Association, European Students Unions Association, etc.) held thematic seminars 1 to
explore further recommendations. Such activities appear to favour a “bottom-up” approach
in as much as the issues discussed are broached prior to their emergence at the European
level. However, if the conclusions and recommendations reached at this ‘grassroots’ level
is reflected in the public statement and stance taken, then these arguments deserve close
scrutiny. This latter aspect is by no means clear.
1
These seminars discussed the following topics: Accreditation and Quality Assurance (2002), Recognition
Issues and the use of Credits (2002), ECTS – The Challenge for Institutions (2002), Development of joint
Degrees (2002), Joint degrees (aspect of curriculum development) (2003), Degrees and Qualification
Structures (2003), Qualification Structures in Higher Education in Europe (2003), Social Dimension of the
Bologna Process (with special Attention to Obstacles of Mobility) and Student Involvement (2003), Student
Participation in Governance in Higher Education (2003), Lifelong learning (2003), Improving the
Recognition System of Degrees and Periods of Studies (2004), Bachelor’s Degree: What is it (2004), New
Generations of Policy Documents and Laws for Higher Education: Their Thrust in the Context of the
Bologna Process (2004), The employability and its links to the objectives of the Bologna Process (2004),
Designing policies for mobile students (2004), Public Responsibility for Higher Education and Research
(2004), Using Learning Outcomes (2004, Bologna and the challenges of e-learning and distance education
(2004), Joint degrees – Further development (2004), Cooperation between accreditation committees/agencies
(2005), Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society (2005), The social dimension of the
European higher education area and world-wide competition (2005), The Framework for Qualifications of
the European Higher Education Area (2005), The Cultural Heritage and Academic Values of the European
University and the Attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area (2006), Putting European Higher
Education Area on the map: developing strategies for attractiveness (2006), Enhancing European
Employability (2006), Joint Degrees - A Hallmark of the European Higher Education Area (2006), Looking
out: Bologna in a global setting (2006), Doctoral Programmes in Europe (2006), New Challenges in
Recognition (2007), Making Bologna a Reality: Mobility of Staff and Students (2007), Forum on
Qualifications Frameworks (2007), Assessment of Prior Learning; Quality assurance and implementation of
procedures (2008), Quality Assurance in Transnational Education - from words to action (2008),
Qualifications Frameworks (2008). Equality in a knowledge based society: How to widen opportunities?
(2008), Employability (2008), Europe, an Area of Student Mobility (2008), ESU Mobility Conference
(2008), Third Cycle Degrees (2008), Quality Assurance in Higher Education (2008), Development of a
common understanding of Learning Outcomes and ECTS (2008), Staff Mobility and Pension Arrangements
(2008), Fostering student mobility: next steps? Involving stakeholders for an improved mobility inside the
EHEA (2008), Seminar on Bologna Beyond 2010 (2008), ECTS based on learning outcomes and student
workload (2008), Universities and Lifelong Learning (2008), Learning outcomes based higher education: the
Scottish experience Edinburgh (2008), Joint programmes and student mobility (2009).
26
Introduction
A second development in institutionalising the Bologna Process is to be seen in the
Bologna Follow-Up Group, the structure of which has taken on increasing formality from
2000 onwards. The Group reports to the Ministers of Education. It is responsible for
monitoring the implementation of reforms by means of stocktaking reports. The process of
formalisation has given rise to working groups (e.g. qualifications framework, social
dimension, etc.) created according to the priorities defined at intergovernmental level.
This modus operandi has been brought to bear on the principles set out in the Bologna
Declaration. It has imparted a dynamic both to implementation processes and to the context
in which problems are defined.
Arguably, neither Bologna nor the EHEA started in a vacuum (Corbett, 2005; Neave,
2009). It was unique, however, in that its influence extended to 47 European states - the
European Union (EU) included – and that it laid out similar objectives for all, together with
a deadline of 10 years to achieve them.
With the exception of a comparable degree structure, the EU education and training
policies covered all other dimensions (e.g. establishment of a system of credits; promotion
of mobility; promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance; promotion of a
European dimension of higher education). Indeed, the development and funding by the
European Commission of specific projects within Lifelong Learning Programme 2 ,
involved those activities, directly.
Therefore, distinguishing the strategic objectives in establishing the EHEA apart from
earlier education policies of the European Commission is no easy matter. Indeed, an
intergovernmental decision (e.g. signing the Bologna Declaration) is interconnected with
EU objectives (e.g. enhancement of mobility for European students, establishment of a
credit system, cooperation in quality assurance, and improvement of European dimension
in higher education). There is even so a major challenge, namely to see how Bologna is
perceived and what it means to the various constituencies of higher education institutions,
2
Lifelong Learning Programmes is a umbrella programme integrating various educational and training
initiatives. It is divided in four sectorial sub-programmes (Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci and
Grudting) focusing on different stages of education.
27
rather than what Bologna ought to be seen from the perspective of the pays politique
(Neave, 2002) 3 .
In the pays politique, since 1999, all subsequent developments at European level were alert
and responsive to the decision of Education Ministers. This gave rise to areas of
convergence between at the European and the National level. The process of
implementation of the Bologna process sets in a larger process of coordination of policies.
Dale (2007) argued that integration anticipates rescaling education policies. Therefore,
three levels of analysis (e.g. European, national and organisational field) were employed.
In this study, the latter level focuses particularly on the individual higher education
institution.
Institutions, whether at the European, national or organisational level share officially the
normative goal of establishing the EHEA. However, particular or private interests within
those higher education institutions may differ. For instance, in the case of the EU,
integration or coordinating activities in the field of education were constantly dealt within
the area vocational training, largely because education remains an area of national
sensitivity (Neave 1984). The European Commission’s interest resided in reasserting the
primacy of the vocational interpretation.
The European Commission took over the Bologna process from 2000 onwards, following
agreement in the Lisbon agenda. Some policy areas related to higher education were to be
advanced by the use of soft law instruments embedded in the Open Method of Coordination 4 (OMC) (de la Porte, 2002; Dehousse, 2002; Borrás and Jacobsson, 2004; de la
Porte and Nanz, 2004; Goetschy, 2004; Gornitzka, 2007).
3
The distinction between pays politique and pays réel was first applied to higher education by Neave (2002)
to distinguish between two different arenas of political action. The pays politique is dominated by the official
field and political discourse (e.g. European Comission and national governments) and the pays réel is
dominated by the pedagogic field and institutional realities at the organisational field (e.g. higher educations
institutions).
4
The OMC is an instrument of the Lisbon strategy and takes place in areas of member states’ competence
(e.g. employment, social protection, social inclusion, education, youth and training). The OMC involves soft
law measures based on voluntary binding arrangements since measures never take the form of regulations,
directives or decisions (e.g. hard law). The Council defines objectives, establishes instruments to measure
performance based on indicators, statistics and guidelines and promotes benchmarking activities monitored
by the European Commission.
28
Introduction
As Gornitzka (2007) has argued, the Lisbon agenda set the pace for the unfolding of the
EHEA. In 2004, the modernization programme for European education (European
Commission, 2003; European Commission, 2005a) operating through the OMC approach,
shaped both higher education and vocational training (Gornitzka, 2007). In the educational
sector European treaties set aside for the competence of national institutions5, the EU has
recourse to a soft law approach (the OMC).
The processes of European integration appear to be embedding the Lisbon agenda into the
Bologna process. By doing so, it poses a challenge to the educational sector at various
levels whilst at the same time combining different modes of policy – “top-down”, “bottomup” amongst others which make understanding Bologna a more complex issue.
The ‘problem statement’ of this study was further consolidated by means of 6 interviews
made in 2004 and 2005 which involved policy makers directly involved in launching the
Bologna Declaration – Marçal Grilo – former Minister of Education, Pedro Lourtie –
former secretary of the state, Guy Haug - officer of the European Commission and Eric
Forment – president of European Universities Association.
Also included were two
sholars in higher education studies - Guy Neave and Ulrich Teichler6.
5
The interference of European Commission on 2003, took in hand for the first time the role of universities in
the Europe of knowledge. This initiative finds some echo in other communication from the European
Commission, which addressed the modernisation agenda for universities: education, research and innovation.
This document recognises that universities are key players in Europe’s future but need in-depth restructuring
and modernisation. The Commission suggests that at national level member states include in the national
reform programmes the necessary measures and at local level universities should accomplish internal
reforms, extend the funding base, develop their competitive position and structure partnerships with business
and other partners.
6
The guidelines of these interviews are in Annex III.
29
Purpose
The EHEA is both important and central. It embodies an opportunity for a higher degree
of integration to education policies. In addition, adjusting the agenda of institutions sited
and operating at various levels – at the European, at the national and at the organisational
level - raises both the complexity and the scope of the reforms entailed. Whilst the Bologna
process stands at the core of policy integration or coordination – and that at various levels
of analysis, it remains by a large true that the reception accorded it in the pays réel, is
unknown.
Two levels dominate in the pays politique, the European level and the national level. At
European level, the main interlocutors the pays politique has with the pays réel are the
administrative and management leadership, student leaders and academic leadership. At
national level, the main line of communication between pays politique and pays réel were
those members of academic staff 7 included on the Bologna Follow-up Group, though only
after 2005. Up to then, academic staff was officially absent. Academic staff were thus
grudgingly and belatedly acknowledged as interlocutor by the pays politique at European
level.
In the pays réel, it may be said that higher education institutions dominates. Academic
staff and administrative and management staff act as privileged interlocutors, though
students also serve as partial interlocutors.
Within the Bologna process articulation between the pays politique and the pays réel draws
on academic leadership and on administrative cum management estate as privilege
interlocutors.
The European level agenda lays out the lines of coordination for education and training
policies. At national level, interpreting and establishing the EHEA requires a degree of
compatibility - not adaptation - of national priorities within the overall construction of a
7
It should be noted that the relationship between Government and the three Estates differ across countries.
This will not be dealt in this study as it goes beyond its scope.
30
Introduction
European cultural identity. At the organisational level, that is within the individual
university deciphering the EHEA raises its complexity still further since it is at this point
that institutional priorities interlock with both academic cultures and with professional
responsibilities.
Policy goals hold external pressures and individual preferences in balance at different
levels of analysis. The New Institutionalist perspective (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983; Hall &
Taylor, 1996; March & Olsen, 1989, 2006; Nee, 1998; Peters, 1999; Powell, 2007; Scott,
2003) attributes primacy to the role of institutions in the sense that they shape appropriate
behaviour by bringing about appropriate practice. They do not, however, clarify how
policy implementation is to be translated into necessary action so as to take a specific
objective into consideration. Bearing this in mind, the present inquiry is based on the
‘policy cycle’ approach (Ball, 2004; Bowe, Ball, & Gold, 1992). It provides a theoretical
and methodological tool the aim of which is to ascertain how interaction within institutions
came to be perceived by the pays réel within the general process of policy implementation.
By such a technique may highlight the level of awareness the implementation of policy has
upon those to whom it is directed.
The EHEA is a policy and a goal defined by the pays politique (Bologna Declaration,
1999). It came as a response to external pressure as interpreted, however, by those affected
by the Bologna agenda who dwell in the pays réel and was interpreted according to
collective and individual choices. For governments, the decision-making process is driven
by the prospect of the next election. For the constituencies of higher education institutions
– academic staff, student and administrative – it is their professional role and the strength
of disciplinary cultures (Becher, 1992) that frame action.
Current research tends to focus on the European and the national levels (Alesi, Burger,
Kehm, & Teichler, 2005; Corbett, 2005; Tomusk, 2006a; Witte, 2006; Maassen & Olsen,
2007; Välimaa &Ylijoki, 2008; Amaral, Neave, Musselin, & Maassen, 2009; Kehm,
Huisman, & Stensaker, 2009). Even so, the ultimate goal of institutionalising the EHEA
may, it could be argued, only be met if the Bologna process engages the acceptance and
31
endorsement in the pays réel. Yet, all too few studies focus in depth and on the level of
higher education institutions 8 .
This study sets out to contribute further knowledge in the domain of implementation
studies in higher education. The theoretical-methodological approach it is based on ought
to expand our knowledge about policy implementation and particularly where what is
involved requires overcoming difficulties that follow from adopting a restricted perspective
grounded on either a “top-down” or a “bottom-up” activity. Building out from existing
research into policy implementation (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984; Cerych & Sabatier,
1986; Gornitzka, Kogan, & Amaral, 2005) the ‘policy cycle’ perspective, by focusing on
interpretation and on the effects policy produces ought to explain how interaction between
the two emerged. The constituencies within higher education institutions have varying and
different significance both as interlocutors between the pays politique and the pays réel,
just as they do within the pays réel itself. Their engagement and commitment to take the
indispensable action for realising the Bologna objectives places particular weight on the
individual component of policy-making that “comes into play as the members of
institutions interpret what rules and values of their institutions are” (Peters, 1999: 150).
The ‘policy cycle’ approach by using as analytical perspectives such as different policy
contexts (‘context of influence’, ‘context of text production’, ‘context of practice’ and
‘context of outcomes’) may reveal different forms and modes of articulation between
policy and the constituencies in higher education institutions.
The prime concern of this inquiry focuses on the perceptions generated within and by, the
constituencies of higher education institutions 9 vis-à-vis specific dimensions of Bologna,
for example, Bologna as a policy process, Bologna as policy implementation and its
collateral effects on teaching and learning.
The higher education institutions which figure in this study were surveyed by questionnaire
and the resultant data subject to statistical analysis using SPSS version 17. The present
8
Being possible exceptions two Trends reports by the European Universities Association. The nature of these
works, anyhow, does not command the criteria of credibility necessary for scholarly academic standards.
9
The constituencies of higher education institutions represent “the Estates” whose condition of service are
guaranteed by law (Neave, 1995)
32
Introduction
study is quantitative; qualitative analysis complements the research. The questionnaire
built out from a field study, undertaken in conjunction with a previous research project
funded by the Italian government. Likewise, it drew on a number of interviews of key
policy-makers involved in drawing up and negotiating the Bologna Declaration and on
interviews with two researchers who helped clarify the problem statement to which this
study is addressed.
Structure and Organization
Part one of the thesis, sets out how the research questions emerged. It starts by exploring
the build-up of the EHEA within European education policies. Its purpose is to locate the
EHEA project against a broader backdrop. The multiple interpretations, to which the
Bologna process is subject, follow. The Bologna process as subject of scholarship is recent.
Furthermore, higher education studies as scientific area and scholarly field are shaped of a
wide range of analytical and disciplinary perspectives - political science, history,
sociology, organization theories, policy analysis, etc. (Becher, 1992) It is particularly
challenging to see exactly how each disciplinary perspective brings to eliciting a different
series of implications for understanding Bologna, for evaluating it with more sensitivity
the better to weigh the implications Bologna has for the EHEA. The analysis also shows
what are the main topics under scrutiny. It also set out to identify the target audience for
which these articles are addressed whether in terms of academic staff, students and
administrative and management staff.
Defining the theoretical and conceptual framework is the burden of the chapter following.
It places special emphasis on the ‘policy cycle’ approach with the purpose of explaining
the process of policy implementation through focusing on the institutional framework.
Here, the process of institutionalisation had recourse to the lens of New Institutionalism as
a theoretical instrument. However, analysing Bologna as a policy process draws on the
‘policy cycle’ (Ball, 2004; Bowe, et. al., 1998) approach so as to underscore the
significance of the three constituencies of higher education institutions – academic,
administrative and student constituencies - as policy actors.
33
Both perspectives are deemed to be complementary to one another. On its own,
institutional theory fails to explain how collective norms and values change by the action
of individuals. As Peters pointed out, “there is substantially greater leverage to be gained
through understanding the institutional framework within which they [individual] operate”
(Peters, 1999: 150). The ‘policy cycle’ approach it is to be hoped, will bring to the fore
features of both the pays politique and the pays réel as they emerge under various policy
contexts.
Finally, the Bologna process will be presented in the course of the ‘policy cycle’ as linking
together the European and the national level in the specific settings of policy
implementation. This will be followed by an interpretation of the empirical data from the
survey and its results discussed. By focusing on the issues at stake in each policy context,
the objective is to clarify the significance of Bologna as perceived by the three
constituencies in higher education.
Concluding remarks will examine how far the research questions were answered and the
implications that arise, the new views this study has given us of both Bologna and the
EHEA, and what the implications may be for policy makers whose deadline for Bologna’s
completion falls in the course of 2010. Further avenues of research that the present study
opens up and suggests will be explored.
34
CHAPTER I - European Higher Education Area within European education policies
CHAPTER I
European Higher Education Area within European Education
Policies
Introduction
Locating the EHEA and the Bologna process within European education policies is
keeping with a broad range of integration policies, which are involved in rescaling
education policies. The scope of control of European governance is increasing interchanges
between different levels of analysis. The process of rescaling European policies may be
associated with the construct of multi-level governance.
Within these discussions one takes the view that European integration of education policies
articulates at different scales or levels (European, national and organisational field 10 )
processes of policy-making and, especially the implementation of European policies. This
view assumes that policy implementation is best seen as part of a larger process that is
occurring at different scales.
Dale’s (2003) concept of pluri-scalar governance recognized that the role of institutions at
various levels of analysis combines in a multitude of ways, generated complexity about
10
The idea of pluri-scalar governance as introduced by Dale includes the sub-national level, the national
level and the supra-national level. Analytically these levels better describe a process of European integration.
Analytically one is using European, national and organisational field (e.g. education systems) levels.
35
“the nature and effects through which education systems and practices take place at, are
decided at, affect, are integrated into cohere with, different scales, are related” (Dale, 2003:
8).
Rescaling emphasises the dynamics of institutions at different levels or scales of analysis
to explain the institutional formation of European policy making and policy
implementation. Marks (Marks, 1993: 207) saw multi-level governance as:
a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers –
supranational, national, regional, and local – as the result of a broad process of institutional
creation and decisional reallocation that has pulled some previously decentralized functions of
the state up to the supranational level and some down to the local/regional level (Marks, 1993:
392).
The emergence of multi-level governance follows the implementation of structural and
cohesion policies that gave the European Commission the role of mediating and enforcing
its implementation, as “the European Council, the organ of the member states, has neither
the coherence nor the organisational capability to press member state concerns directly into
institutional practice” (Marks, 1993: 407). But institutions at national – and also at local
levels – remain the most important components of the European construction. National
governments “remain decisive in determining how authority is organized in Europe”
(Hooghe & Marks, 2001: 77). Against this backdrop, multi-level governance is close to
pluri-scalar governance. It highlights the idea of governance as the coordination of
coordination 11 . Dale argued “governance is best seen as the coordination of coordination,
that is, involves coordinating the relationships between the activities and agents of rule”
(Dale, 2003: 15). This depiction is particularly relevant in the discussions of policy
implementation that derive from different perspectives (e.g. “top-down” and “bottom-up”
initiatives, network development, etc.). In the perspective of rescaling policies there is a
fragmentation of governance activities across different levels.
Although the sovereignty of states has not been directly challenged, expanding the
activities of European institutions (Amaral & Neave, 2009) may have impact on the
11
This is inspired by the concept of metagovernance (Jessop, 2003 as cited by Dale, 2003).
36
development of steering mechanisms. One of the most important steps in the development
of EU governance institutions “was the comitological system of expert committees
established in earlier decades to advise and supervise the Commission’s rulemaking”.
(Sabel & Zeitlin, 2006: 1). Some of these committees “are only advisory; others can
prevent the Commission from carrying out a certain action by qualified majority vote; a
third category must approve the Commission actions by qualified majority. In each case
the Commission presides” (Hooghe & Marks, 2001: 24). However, the design of
comitology – the practice of having a committee of national representatives supporting the
Commission in its executive work – created unintended consequences. Sabel and Zeitlin
recognised for “those committees composed of national representatives, which assist or
control the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers (in the narrow
definition of comitological committees)”:
Originally established by the member states to ensure that the Commission’s elaboration of
rules respected political compromises, comitological committees in short order moved from
policing the outcome of rulemaking to technical collaboration with the rule-makers. Soon they
became as much the artificers of Commission proposals as arbiters of their acceptability.
(Sabel & Zeitlin, 2006: 12).
Comitological systems of experts, together with Commission officials, play a key role in
implementation. Such interference at policy implementation stage, which Hooghe and
Marks considered as a new element has lead to unexpected consequences to “deepening
sub-national and group participation in the European Union” (Hooghe & Marks, 2001: 25).
It was frequent that representatives of regions (local level) negotiate directly with the
Commission, bypassing nation states or even for the Commission to deal directly with the
local level, by implementing programmes that bear on institutional strategies. At national
level, dynamics were dictated by pressures of market integration. They have shifted
authority to regulate the market from national to European level. Though, governments are
the only representatives in the process of decision-making at European level, those feeling
threatened “establish their own offices directly in Brussels; intensify their contacts with
each other by creating trans-regional associations; require information from the central
government about upcoming EU initiatives; demand formal channels to influence the
37
ministerial representation in the EU (…)” (Hooghe & Marks, 2001: 78). Such energy gives
these lobbies direct access to the Commission.
Education co-operation in the European Union raises important points in policy integration
since the European stratus tends to scale issues upwards by expanding its agenda. In the
case of higher education policies the European Commission, through its programmes,
establishes direct connections with higher education institutions encouraging changes at
organisational level that would guarantee the eligibility conditions to participate in those
programmes and that do not necessarily interfere with member states’ concerns. One says
encouraging not imposing, as the Commission provides incentives for change sometimes
even irresistible financial incentives but cannot force higher education institutions to
participate in programmes.
In other circumstances, the connection between the European level and the organisational
field creates pressure on the national government to pass appropriate legislation (e.g.
establishment of joint degrees 12 ) and change the legal framework. In Portugal the lack of
pressure or incentives from national governments on higher education institutions to
internationalise prevented Portuguese higher education institutions from developing
systematic internationalise activities (Veiga, Rosa, & Amaral, 2005). Portuguese higher
education institutions were reactive towards internationalisation. They used EU mobility
programmes, and movement towards a situation where internationalisation is both a
systematic and central institutional activity will only be possible at national level if the
factors impeding the internationalisation of the Portuguese higher education are removed
(Veiga, Rosa, & Amaral, 2006). The Portuguese government had not a clear strategy for
internationalising its higher education system. Within the EU setting the government
assumed an attitude towards higher education more reactive than pro-active. The main
lever for internationalisation of higher education were EU funded programmes that directly
address the universities (Veiga, et al., 2006). Although a strong supporter of EU, and
capable sometimes of taking initiatives in appropriate social and economic areas, the
12
Degrees awarded to a student by two or more higher education institution.
38
Portuguese government is in general slow to integrate the European dimension into
national policies (Veiga, et al., 2006).
Here is an example of multi-level governance since higher education institutions were able
to some extent to circumvent some the government’s shortcomings by relying directly on
the EU:
…with its dispersed competencies, contending but interlocked institutions, and shifting agendas,
multi-level governance opens multiple points of access for interests. In this process of
mobilisation and counter-mobilisation, national governments no longer serve as the exclusive
nexus between domestic politics and international relations. Direct connections are being
forged among political actors in diverse political agendas (Hooghe & Marks, 2001: 28).
The basic assumptions of multi-level approach give primacy to normative goals and to
personal preferences rather than to the institutional setting in defining the preferences of
political actors (Hooghe & Marks, 2001). This premise suggests that the action of political
actors may weaken the institutions in which they are located since the correlation between
personal preferences could not match the institution. However, as institutions shape the
structure of decision-making “the institutional set-up may prompt a smooth, effective
policy process or it may lead to endless haggling and deadlock” (Blom-Hansen, 1999: 35).
These different perspectives pose the old question about the role of institutions. Utility and
probability are basic dimensions in the classical decision-making process. But, other
factors emerge and policy-makers tend to “to separate their decision-making problems into
small segments that enable them to make incremental or marginal rather than far-reaching,
profound, or irreversible choices” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001: 562).
The roots of the multi-level approach will be explored in this chapter. The aim is to
understand the advancement of the multi-level governance approach through the changes
of the nation-States’ political power and supra-national organisations. Secondly, we will
use higher education policies as a more concrete case and thus better explain the
requirements of European cooperation processes that may differ from economic integration
practices. The latter has been subject to extensive studies (Olsen & Maassen, 2007) to
grasp the meaning of the establishment of the EHEA.
39
1. European integration processes
The perspective of rescaling education policies has its origins in the limitations of
functionalism 13 and neofunctionalism 14 in explaining European integration. Functionalists
focus on common interests and needs that should be tackled by cooperative action across
state borders. These issues “could be best addressed by highly trained specialists, rather
than by politicians who, by their professional backgrounds, generally lacked technical
skills” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001: 512). Focus on cooperation between states leads to
setting up supranational governance models and institutions. They undermine the
importance of the nation-state. Functional spill-over or ramification of a cooperative
process intended to tackle a functional task would “in itself contribute, or ramify, to a
change in attitudes in favour of even greater cooperation over a widening spectrum of
issues” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001: 512).
Neofunctionalists put major emphasis on the “role of political parties and interest groups
and the extent to which political elites in the units to be integrated support or oppose to
integration” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001: 215). The ultimate goal of an integration
process is political union. This perspective assumes a progressive transfer of power to
supranational institutions bypassing national governments. However, the conception of
decision-making processes across time has been demonstrating that “the EU represents a
pooling or sharing of sovereignty, in which the national governments retain dominant
decision-making role” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001: 523).
Consensus generated in the 80s and 90s to enable evolution of the European Economic
Community from the Single European Act (1986) to the Treaty of European Union (1991)
and to the Treaty of Amsterdam (1998) rested on intergovernmental cooperation between
Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The interests of these governments focused on
expanding the EU membership and the agreement over contributions by the United
13
Functionalists writings build on the work of Mitrany A Working Peace System (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff,
2001).
14
Neofunctionalists writings build on the work of Ernst Haas, Philippe Schmitter, Leon Lindeberg, Joseph
Nye (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001).
40
Kingdom to the EU budget, and growing economic pressures on Western Europe from the
world economy, the impetus towards deregulation, increased access to internal European
markets, and political trends that influenced the dominating ideologies in favour of a
market economy (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001).
1.1 European education policies
In the perspective of rescaling education policies, European integration displayed a stopand-go pattern in contrast with the view that integration was irreversible in a world of
increasing economic interdependence. The establishment of the economic and monetary
union had severe implications at national level since convergence criteria brought with it
rigorous economic programmes. Countries deciding to join were forced by the EU to draw
up a stability pact to prevent exceeding the budget limits. Those hostile to the Monetary
Union argued that the pact would “tie the hands of national governments in future
economic downturns, thereby compounding the crisis” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001:
525).
On 1st January 1999 the Euro was launched as a strong currency 15 . Additionally, those
member states (United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden) that decided to stay out of the
single currency saw it as an irreversible step towards a federal political union that was
linked to the idea of enlargement. As voiced by the British, the EU integration should
“widen before deepening” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001: 525). Hence, the EU has been
evolving in a setting “in which a majority seeking increases in integration has confronted a
laggard state threatening to leave [France, United Kingdom and Denmark] if its demands
were not met. To the extent that such a state poses its exit threat under conditions of
uncertainty, based on imperfect information, the integrationist majority cannot be certain
about the laggard’s actual intentions” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001: 526).
15
At this time a scandal was shaking up the European Commission. The Commission resigned after a
publication of a report stating that the Commission bears responsibility of fraud, irregularities or
mismanagement in their services contributing to raise the awareness of its functioning by member states and
the European Parliament (Cram, 2001).
41
Limitations confronting these perspectives are important. They hold up explanations for
the inefficiency of European institutions to advance European integration. The jointdecision trap, in principle common in federal systems, is also conceivable in unitary
systems as the French experience shows: “Without the consent of the notables [the French
political elite], public policy is difficult to carry through and, if enacted, difficult to
implement” (Blom-Hansen, 1999: 40). In unitary systems the joint decision trap operates
informally. As in Germany [a federal system], “French sub-national governments possess
effective veto rights when issues sensitive to local institutional interests are up for
discussion” (Blom-Hansen, 1999: 42). This situation creates inefficiency in policy-making,
generates costly programmes and causes difficulties in policy change.
Fritz Scharpf (1988) puts emphasis on political influences and pressures that impact and
shape the integrative process. His contribution focused on the importance of analysing.
relations between levels of government, rather than focusing only on the central level to
understand the bargaining process within European institutions. Decision-making
processes within the EU rely on two dimensions, supra-nationalism and intergovernmentalism. In the latter, the power is wielded by member states. Decisions are often
but not always made by unanimity. EU institutions appear to serve the purposes of the
member states. Although the “EU shapes intergovernmental policies, states remain the
principal actors of the international system” (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001: 545)
convergent national interests stand at the core of interstate bargains. Governments are
powerfully engaged in the management of supranational institutions and decisions are
unanimous. In the area of vocational training, the Lisbon Treaty allows the Council to
adopt recommendations, which are not binding for member states.
The decision taken to build the EHEA was an intergovernmental decision that represents a
shift in rescaling education policies at European level “from highlighting educational
diversity to embracing joint education interests” (Neave & Maassen, 2007: 141).
42
At the supranational level member-states and other supranational institutions (e.g. the
Commission, the European Court of Justice and the Central European Bank) share power.
Decisions are taken by majority. It is possible for one member-state to be obliged by others
to implement a decision. According to the Lisbon Treaty, social policies are an area of
shared competence, which means the EU has the duty to take measures to ensure
coordination of employment policies and social policies of the member states. These
measures include the possibility for the Commission to establish guidelines and indicators,
the organisation of best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic
monitoring and evaluation (European Union Committee, 2008).
The Lisbon strategy and modernisation agenda for European universities fits supranational
decision-making processes “The OMC in education has implied strengthening of the
European dimension in national Ministries of Education through their participation in
working groups and national reporting” (Gornitzka, 2007: 176).
These dimensions make the core of European integration dependent on both the power of
supranational institutions and the relevance of domestic political and economic issues as
their driving forces. In fact, “there is little consensus on the goals of integration” (Hooghe
& Marks, 2001: 28). For Maarks (1993) “these accounts has been pursued by examining
the relative influence of European Commission institutions vis-à-vis member state
executives and by asking how supranational the European Commission institutions really
are” (Marks, 1993: 392).
Sharpf (2001) adjusted the two dimensional perspective of decision-making processes by
putting together distinct modes of multi-level interaction. These modes do not simply take
into consideration the approaches that use single level concepts. The modes of multilevel governance as introduced by Sharpf include mutual adjustment 16 , intergovernmental
16
In the mutual adjustment mode national governments adopt their own policies in response or anticipation
of policies of other governments.
43
negotiations 17 , joint-decision 18 making and hierarchical direction 19 .
Intergovernmentalism is apparently losing ground and the “formal agreement of
governments in the Council no longer have much legitimating force” (Sharpf, 2001: 13).
For this reason “there is no European Social model on which harmonisation could
converge” (Sharpf, 2001: 16). However, the goals of the EU including the European social
model and the European knowledge economy together with soft law mechanisms
encourage the convergence of national systems. These goals uphold the Lisbon strategy
(see page 51).
In the field of education, the European policy never assumed a supranational character
(Corbett, 2005). Only the vocational training policy, seen an element of mobility of labour
within Europe, was subject to a Council decision in 1963. The aim was the setting up of a
common policy for vocational training (Neave, 1984). Prior to this decision was the idea
for a European University that survived into the Treaty of Rome but was never
implemented in part due to the lack of support of national rectors (Corbett, 2005).
By 1970 the Commission was ready to prepare directives for the recognition of
professional qualifications based on the length of studies (Corbett, 2005). Within the
Bologna process in Portugal, for instance, the exceptions to the Bologna degree structure
(e.g. integrated master) are the professions regulated by this directive (e.g. medical doctors,
architects).
In the education policy area, the Janne report, dated of 1974, was the initial move towards
the establishment of a Community Action Programme (Neave, 1984) based on the
conception that “Vocational training and retraining were seen crucial elements in the
development of an overall strategy for economic recovery” (Neave, 1984: 62-63) since
17
In the intergovernmental negotiation process, national policies are made to converge by agreements at the
European level. In issues where sovereignty is relevant, solutions will be blocked by major conflicts of
interest.
18
In the joint decision mode there are intergovernmental and supranational aspects. The European
Commission plays a key role as the European legislation depends on its initiatives.
19
The hierarchical direction stems from supranationalism and power centralizes at European level. The
institutions having these competencies are the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice and the
European Commission acting as guardians of the Treaty.
44
vocational training was a measure to combat youth unemployment. Janne, Belgian
Minister of Education suggested that Community action would not interfere with national
structures and education traditions and Community action would benefit first the member
states. Harmonisation of European higher education systems was neither realistic nor
necessary (Corbett, 2005) 20 .
In 1974 a Resolution of the Council of Ministers provided the basis for Community action
in the area of cooperation in higher education. The priority areas included the promotion of
cooperation between higher education institutions; the improvement of possibilities for
academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study; and the promotion of the freedom
of movement of teachers, students and researchers (Neave, 1984). This initiative puts
education in the process of development towards the European Union (Corbett, 2005).
Additionally, some policy areas, e.g. admissions policy and academic recognition of
diplomas were sensitive to further developments in the field. However, Denmark raised
objections for Community action in developing admissions policies precluding the
possibility of reaching an agreement. Regarding the topic of academic recognition of
diplomas a mainstream in the Bologna process, we noted that since 1953 the Council of
Europe promoted a number of intergovernmental conventions to enforce the recognition of
diplomas by higher education institutions. However, these intergovernmental agreements
were only implemented in practice 21 through academic arrangements developed between
higher education institutions under the framework of Joint Study Programmes. Those
initiatives correspond to the establishment of dual degree programmes awarded by more
than one higher education institution. Other actions involve the award of the qualification
together with an additional certificate conferred by all the participating institutions; and the
award of a diploma that corresponds to a joint degree programme recognized by the
institutions involved. The last pattern identified by Neave (1984) corresponds to the
schemes of academic mobility that were presented as less innovative based on the
experience of Modern Languages degrees and involves periods of stays. The latter activity
20
The Bologna Declaration replaced the term harmonisation with the convergence to avoid negative reaction
from the countries involved.
21
Within the Bologna process’ stocktaking exercise there is an item related to the Lisbon Convention
(Council of Europe/UNESCO) that monitored its implementation according to its ratification at national
level.
45
became increasingly relevant and today the Socrates/Erasmus programme develops and
funds those initiatives. And the former correspond to the joint degrees promoted under the
framework of Erasmus Mundus programme following, however, a rather different logic as
far as its purpose is to attract non-European students. As highlighted by Neave (1984)
Community action in the field of higher education policy started in its interstitial parts by
focusing on the academic recognition of diplomas.
In 1976 Ministers of Education agreed a new definition of the European dimension (Neave,
1984) that included activities related to teaching about Europe, to develop mobility
schemes for students and professors and to raise the awareness about language teaching.
In 1981 the reorganisation of the Commission’s services included Education under the
same Directorate of vocational training and youth 22 . By the same token Ministers
recognized the principle of inter-ministerial cooperation and the development of
“concerted approach to continuing education and training and a Community level” (Neave,
1984: 71). Anyhow, as noted by Neave the success of the initiative taken at the
Community level relied on the ability of local institutions to enter into a process of
transformation. The advancement of the Bologna process depends on the same
circumstances.
Preceding this reorganisation, in 1974-1976 the topic of harmonisation dominated
discussions and the awareness about the Community competence in the field of education
was showing that once granted the competence “becomes part of the acquis
communautaire and can never be rolled back” (Corbett, 2005: 106). The Danes, the British
and the French were the member state governments more concerned with the role of the
Commission in inappropriately using treaty procedures in education policy areas.
Early in the eighties the Council of Ministers recognized that mobility of students was the
most important objective of European Commission educational cooperation (Corbett,
2005) and the vision that “education would be more solidly anchored within the
22
In 1971 the fragmentation of education activities at European level included 8 Directorates undertaking
education related activities (Corbett, 2005).
46
Community if it could be viewed as at service of the Community’s strategic aims. That,
too, was easier if the directorate could develop policy proposals” (Corbett, 2005: 116).
These were the drivers for the decision concerning the establishment of the Erasmus
programme in 1985.
The Gravier (1985), Balizot (1989) and Borra (1988) 23 judgements contributed to raise the
awareness about the admission conditions to vocational training falling under jurisdiction
of European treaties and to regard university studies as a form of vocational training. This
interpretation broadened formally and legally the authority of the European Commission in
the field of education (de Wit & Verhoeven, 2001). The effects of this far-reaching
interpretation of vocational training made less subject to challenges measures taken under
the framework of Erasmus action programme.
This took place when the European integration was trying to find new ways to proceed
towards the internal market due in 1993. With the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) the
European Commission get across the principles of diversity and subsidiarity.
Education is a sensitive national area and thus covered by the concept of subsidiarity. This
concept, however, falls under the category of a:
«weasel word» which are often adopted by member governments eager to paper over
substantive differences among themselves, and which leave substantial differences among
themselves, and which leave substantial room for later and creative interpretation by the
various actors – both supranational and governmental – in the EU policy process (Pollack,
2000: 526).
Subsidiarity is a means of respecting national identities. Different institutions struggle to
ascribe meaning to it as far as at the European level institutions claim that a goal
achievable better at European level gives the Community the right to act, while goals
achievable better at national level do not need the interference of the Community to reach
them (de Wit & Verhoeven, 2001).
23
These cases concern migrants who sought access to education systems in foreign member states.
47
The activities at European level focused mainly on promotion of mobility activities and
networking. The activities related to recognition of studies remained at national level.
Following de Wit and Verhoeven (2001) the key role of education and training at European
level gained a new impetus with the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and
Employment based on human capital development and with the Treaty of Maastricht the
Commission “envelop all levels of education and form a comprehensive unity” (de Wit &
Verhoeven, 2001: 208) establishing a single framework for education – the Socrates
programme. Training and youth were the other two fields of action.
Arguments put forward in favour or against the end of the creeping competence of the EU
dominated the process of rescaling the education policies. That is, the spread of EU
competences in education policy. Amaral and Neave (2009) argue that attempts were made
to control the progressive expansion of the intervention power of the EU Commission, that
is ending creeping competence. Majone (2002), however, supported the view that the
creeping competence associated to the furtive but continuous growth in the powers of the
EU Commission was by itself a myth. He suggested that harmonisation among member
states tends to be steered by new modes of governance that derive from optional and
minimum harmonisation.
In higher education, one questioned the factors that brought about the interference of
European institutions in higher education policy.
The EHEA was first broached at the European Ministers Conference at Warsaw in 1997 as
a means to enhance European co-operation in education and training in anticipating the ten
new Member States joining the EU (Marçal Grilo, 2003). Therefore, the idea of
establishing the EHEA was deriving from intergovernmental discussions focusing on how
European dimension interlocks national higher education systems preceding clearly the
signature of Bologna Declaration. This means that the establishment of the EHEA was a
strategic goal of the EU established before the Bologna Declaration. For that reason, the
setting up of the EHEA is an Europeanisation process operating aligned with the
Memorandum on Higher education in the European Community published in 1992
“concentrated on preparing member state education systems for the forthcoming
48
unification on the one hand, and on the issues posed by the wish of several countries to join
the ECT on the other” (de Wit & Verhoeven, 2001: 197)
However, different perspectives may arise looking at the Bologna process whereas its
instrumentality tends to focus it on a lever of domestic reforms. Musselin (2009) observed
that “in the case of France, it may be more difficult than in other countries to argue that the
Bologna is a Europeanisation process because the idea of the two-cycle structure has been
developed by the French” (Musselin, 2009: 183). Similarly, Neave observed that Bologna
was a package deal “reflecting issues – employability, transparency and readability, etc. –
already present in the agendas of most of the long-term Member States of the EU” (Neave,
2009: 49).
At European level, Bologna provided a kind of focus to demonstrate how the accession
countries were willing to begin adjustments to their higher education systems in
anticipation of their joining the European Union. The Sorbonne and the Bologna
Declarations were the instruments used to increase the level of concern about European
higher education.
At national level, these statements expressed at European level gave an additional input to
conduct national reforms.
Therefore, the emphasis of the establishment of the EHEA is on the European level and the
and the emphasis of the Bologna process is on the national level, which increases the
difficulty of analyzing both interlocking initiatives.
2. Policy texts and European initiatives
The cost of significant progress in advancing the EU as a political project lies in the
difficulty of generating political consensus among member states over the extent to which
complying with Europe develops distinct structures of European governance falling from
multi-level dynamics.
49
The view of rescaling European policies focused on debates of European governance that
sought bringing the Union closer to its citizens and to its institutions located on various
levels and sublevels. The strategy that predominates in policy texts rests on principles
including democracy, proportionality, legislation simplification, subsidiarity and
transparency.
Decreasing the level of abstraction recognizes policy texts embracing Bologna,
Conclusions of the Lisbon Council (European Council, 2000), the Treaty of Nice (2001)
and the White Paper on Governance (European Commission, 2001b).
In the late 60s and early 70s the “EU had begun to adopt legislation in an increasing
number of issue-areas, and by 1993 the EU had established presence in almost every
conceivable issue-area” (Pollack, 2000: 521). This reinforced the principle of subsidiarity
that the Maastricht treaty (1992) introduced, apparently as a counter to increasing powers
of the EU Commission.
At the EU level, the principal issue has been the impact of the efforts by the EU
Commission to centralise its competences and to manage structural and competition
policies. The White Paper on European Governance expressed these efforts.
The quest of renewal of the European political process dominated the rescaling of
European policies (European Council, 2000). Sweet Stone, Fligstein and Sandholtz (2000)
argued that there were a number of challenges that shaped the policy process in the EU.
These included reconfiguring EU institutions to cope with the overloading of the Council,
the Commission and the Court, which followed the enlargement of the EU in 2007; a
looming crisis from difficulties in coordination monetary policies at national level might
increase the importance of the Central Bank in decision-making. A further potential danger
lay in the voters in one of the major states, becoming disillusioned at having giving so
much decision-making power to Brussels. Changes that will impact on the relationships
between the disillusioned member state and the EU; to this were added the calculus of
political and economic gains from institutionalising the EU which could oblige institutions,
50
organisations and actors to adapt and modify EU institutions to meet their demands (Sweet
Stone, et al., 2000).
These items may present opportunities to reframe future action within the EU context.
The most appealing character of these driving measures is that they enter the realm of
political integration, which did not happen with education, a more modest achievement
compared to economic integration.
2.1 Bologna
The Sorbonne Declaration (1998), signed by the Ministers of Education of France, Italy,
Germany and the United Kingdom can be seen as the final step that preceded the Bologna
process. The Ministers declared their commitment to the progressive convergence of the
overall framework of degrees and cycles towards a common frame of reference, aimed at
improving external recognition, facilitating student mobility well as employability. The
novelty was that the initiative was explicitly taken without the involvement of European
institutions (e.g. European Commission) avoiding the intervention of the European Court
of Justice, while other countries were invited to join the initiative.
Other countries saw the Sorbonne Declaration as raising the danger of a Europe at two
speeds. Therefore, the Ministers of Education decided to subscribe the Bologna
Declaration in the wake of the project report prepared by the Confederation of European
Union Rectors’ Conferences (CRUE) and the Conference of European Reitors’ (CRE) 24 .
These institutions were representatives of the leaders of European universities.
The text of the Declaration drafted under the responsibility of the Italian government.
According to Marçal Grilo e Pedro Lourtie the text was carefully analysed and changed to
eliminate the fears of possible homogenisation of the European systems, the term
24
In 2001 the CRUE and the CRE merged originating the EUA (European University Association).
51
‘harmonisation’ being replaced with ‘convergence’ thus gaining the support of an enlarged
group of governments that decided to subscribe the Bologna Declaration afterwards.
The Declaration represented the official position of European Ministers of Education. It
aimed at creating the EHEA but without defining its implementation process.
In Marçal Grilo’s view the Bologna Declaration was a statement of exclusively political
nature and its words were analysed in great detail to avoid excessive embarrassment to any
country, its objective being to build a European space of higher education where all those
characteristics of comparability and increased mobility would be present.
The targeting objectives stated in the Bologna Declaration were: adoption of a system of
readable and comparable degrees; adoption of a system based on two main cycles;
establishment of a system of credits; promotion of mobility; promotion of European
cooperation in quality assurance; promotion of a European dimension of higher education.
In Prague (2001) the Ministers emphasised lifelong learning, participation of the students
and promotion of attractiveness.
The Berlin Communiqué (2003) defined the priority areas of Bologna in terms of a two-tier
degree structure and the doctoral level as the third cycle; recognition procedures based on
ECTS and the Diploma Supplement with quality assurance based on the emerging
accreditation systems, already implemented in countries such as Austria, Germany,
Norway, and The Netherlands.
In Bergen (2005) new objectives were added: the implementation of national qualifications
frameworks, implementation of joint degrees up to doctorate level and recognition of prior
learning. In the London Communiqué (2007) new areas of action were included such as the
improvement of data collection and a stocktaking exercise focusing on the development of
national qualifications framework, learning outcomes and credits, lifelong learning,
recognition of prior learning, and other areas were reinforced (e.g. mobility, social
dimension, employability). In Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve (2009) for the first time,
Ministers declared a priority the student-centered learning and the teaching mission of
52
universities 25 , funding, education, research and innovation. The objectives of Bologna
multiplied in quantity and refinement. Some even say that this sustains the impression of
progress, of successful implementation.
2.2 Lisbon strategy
In its Conclusions the Lisbon Council set “a new strategic goal for the Union in order to
strengthen employment, economic reform and social cohesion as part of a knowledgebased economy” (European Council, 2000). The Lisbon strategy builds on the 1997
Stability and Growth Pact and on the need to co-ordinate the Cologne process (macroeconomic policies), the Cardiff process (structural reforms) and the Luxembourg process
(employment policies). The application of the Amsterdam treaty in 1999 acknowledged
employment as a matter of common concern for European member states and one of the
Union’s goals. The Lisbon strategy included European employment policy. It brought
together measures for building further knowledge infrastructures, enhancing innovation
and economic reform, and modernising social welfare and education systems (European
Council, 2000).
The European Union set the purpose of the Lisbon strategy as making the EU the world’s
most dynamic and competitive economy.
The Amsterdam treaty of 1999 recognized employment as a common concern and one of
the Union’s goals. The Lisbon strategy tackled European employment policy by merging
diverse processes related to employment, economic reform and research policies. The
Stockholm European Summit in 2001 and the Barcelona European Summit in 2002
reiterated both the full employment and the objectives of the Lisbon strategy.
To this end the Council established the OMC and took on the guiding strategy and
coordinating of policies to “ensure more coherent strategic direction and effective
monitoring of progress” (European Council, 2000). By using benchmarking national
25
Instruments like the credit system, learning outcomes and qualifications frameworks were mentioned but
the student-centered approach was explicitly referred as a priority.
53
initiatives and by involving the OMC the European Council called the Commission to
draw up a comprehensive action plan to be submitted to it. In some areas, the Commission
already defined objectives. They have been taken for granted. The European Area of
Research and Innovation was set out in the Commission’s communication "Towards a
European Research Area". The European Council expected that other institutional and
political arrangements could be devised including “voluntary arrangements, must be fully
exploited to achieve this objective in a flexible, decentralised and non bureaucratic
manner” (European Council, 2000), it noted sententiously.
In the Conclusions of the European Council, the OMC provided “the means of spreading
best practices and achieving greater convergence towards the main EU goals” (European
Council, 2000). It establishes guidelines for the Union, defines indicators and benchmarks,
translates European guidelines into national and regional policies and sees monitoring,
evaluation and peer review as mutual learning. This method rests on the principle of
subsidiarity. The European Commission concentrates its efforts on benchmarking
undertaken together “with different providers and users, namely the social partners,
companies and NGOs” (European Council, 2000).
The Treaty of Nice managed to overcome the barriers to the enlargement. Council
decisions at the European level no longer required unanimity. Agreements at the Nice
meeting put decisions on the majority basis, thereby removing the veto that single member
states could employ to reject policy contrary to the interests of one member. The Nice
treaty rescaled the European level by simplifying decision-making.
The Lisbon Council and the Treaty of Nice tackled European integration differently. While
the Lisbon strategy introduced reforms that could not be implemented through the
legislative instruments under the classic Community method 26 , the Treaty of Nice revised
the decision-making so enlargement would not undermine the integration. The Treaty of
Lisbon (signed on the 13th of December 2007) extended qualified majority voting in the
26
For the European Commission “the aim of future reforms is to renew the ‘Community Method’. Reflecting
a Union of States and of peoples, this method provides a framework which is both supranational and yet
mindful of the States which make up the Union. It combines negotiation between States, expression of the
will of the people, and the operation of strong and lasting institutions” (European Commission, 2001a).
54
Council to new policy areas. As from 2014 on, calculating the qualified majority will draw
on a double majority of Member States and of people, a species of dual legitimacy for the
Union. Double majority holds when 55% of the member states representing at least 65% of
the Union’s population vote.
With this framework in place the European Commission plays a crucial role. As a way of
reframing future action within the EU, the OMC puts the Commission high on the
programme. It makes proposals on European guidelines, on indicators, organises the
exchange of best practice, and supports monitoring and peer review.
More importantly, this stage coincides with the introduction of the concept of
governance 27 . According to Rhodes governance is about managing networks which “are
made up of organisations which need to exchange resources (for example, money,
information, expertise) to achieve their objectives, to maximize their influence over
outcomes, and to avoid becoming dependent on other players in the game” (Rhodes, 1996:
658).
This notion pervades the White Paper on Governance. In it the European Commission
represented the European Union as
based on multi-level governance in which each actor contributes in line with his or her capabilities
or knowledge to the success of the overall exercise. In a multi-level system the real challenge is
establishing clear rules for how competence is shared – not separated; only that non-exclusive
vision can secure the best interests of all the Member States and all the Union's citizens (European
Commission, 2001b:34).
The White paper’s proposals focused, first, on renewing Community procedures by
following a less “top-down” approach and fleshing out its policy tools with non-legislative
27
It may refer to the minimal State, the corporate governance, the new public management, the ‘good
governance’, the social-cybernetic systems and self-organised networks.
55
instruments, and second, on the effective enforcement of Community law 28 . These spheres
of action went hand in hand with refocusing European institutions. The Commission
announced its intention to “reinforce attempts to ensure policy coherence and identify
long-term objectives” and will “bring forward to the next Inter-Governmental Conference
proposals to refocus the Commission’s executive responsibility” (European Commission,
2001b: 6).
While the Lisbon agenda corresponds to a strategic objective of the Union, reform of
European governance retained reform of European governance as envisaged by the
Commission as a strategic objective of institutional overhaul supposedly to allow better
networks steering.
In the perspective of rescaling the European policies along lines of the White paper
underpinned on principles as: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and
coherence all intended to reinforce subsidiarity. In short, “before launching an initiative, it
is essential to check systematically (a) if public action is really necessary, (b) if the
European level is the most appropriate one, and (c) if the measures chosen are
proportionate to those objectives” (European Commission, 2001b:11). The Commission
laid out action lines for a more systematic dialogue with European and national
associations of regional and local government early on policy shaping, to launch pilot
target-based contract as a more flexible means to ensure implementation of EU policies
(European Commission, 2001b).
This section has concentrated on the role of European institutions, which are set on
embedding the concept of governance. The analysis of three initiatives at different
European levels (e.g. European Council, European Union and European Commission) and
the movement from governance to practice will be examined further.
28
European law belongs to the acquis communautaire - a principle that “others should ‘respect’, ‘adapt to’,
‘comply with’, ‘take on board’, or bring law ‘into harmony with’ (…). It refers to the sum of total obligations
that have been accumulated and embedded in treaties and protocols (JØrgensen, 1999: 2).
56
With the increase in the supranational dimension in education policy the claim of the
European Commission rested on the supplement or added-value of its action for defining
and implementing a vocational training policy that equated university education with
vocational training and adopting a very broad definition of what a university was.
The analysis focusing on how European institutions constructed the policy texts bears in
mind that at national level the Bologna process dominated the agenda. The interference of
the European Commission is evident in using the OMC procedures that have been
generating outputs within the Lisbon strategy and the Bologna process. The evaluation of
practice within the Bologna process derived from those procedures (Veiga & Amaral,
2006, 2009a). These are intended to bear on defining the legal framework since the
Bologna guidelines incorporate laws and rules passed at national level. Within higher
education institutions, it remains to be seen to what extent the influence of official sources,
documents and statements of European ministers are tenuous.
3. Rescaling education policies
The concept of European governance dominates rescaling education policies in practice.
Policy action is steered by the OMC. It throws up interesting features in the reframing and
redesigning of policy action.
Following up the Lisbon strategy the Kok report admitted that “the progress of the Lisbon
strategy has suffered from incoherence and inconsistency, both between participants and
between policies.” (Kok, 2004: 39) The Report’s recommendations and the European
Commission’s proposals (European Commission, 2005a) persuaded the Brussels European
Council (European Council, 2005) to re-launch the Lisbon strategy but focusing on growth
and employment.
This initiative, supported by the European Council, approved integrated guidelines for
growth and employment (2005–2008) to incorporate by each member state into the
National Reform Programmes. The guidelines allow for the diversity of situations and
57
development of policy priorities at national level. National Reform Programmes, National
Action Plans for Recognition and National Reports, became vehicles to draw the lessons
from implementing of both the Lisbon strategy and the Bologna process 29 . As a form of
policy, as text production flows into the practice, these programmes, plans and reports
present favourable or, even virtual, pictures about the reality in each member state (Veiga
& Amaral, 2009a). Their influence over real and concrete political action is reduced. Yet
as both the policy text and the practice unleashed awareness about the costs significant
progress entailed it is difficult to offset the lack of effectiveness of procedures despite
originating in the OMC.
The European Commission believed that supporting policy developments in each member
state, while allowing flexibility to choose among local options that best addressed the local
circumstances, improved acceptability amongst member states.
New governance instruments that accompany soft law mechanisms in addition to the
traditional Community method (e.g. directives, regulations, recommendations) are used for
rescaling European policies.
Soft law instruments are crucial to understanding governance as these are extra jure and not
legally enforced. OMC assures that coordination does not entail transference of legal
competencies and budgetary resources to the European level (Gornitzka, 2007). Soft law
mechanisms include agreements, incentives, information, communication and best practice
(Lascoumes & Galès, 2007). These instruments according to these authors influence policy
implementation as far as in education policy it created a political space of ideational
convergence, whereas it set the agenda and developed indicators that compare performance
(Gornitzka, 2007).
The side-effects these instruments have for policy-making and policy implementation have
been critically examined in the context of the implementation of Bologna (Amaral, Veiga,
29
National Action Plans (NAPs) are the basis of the OMC learning process allowing for the identifications of
best practices and innovative techniques (De la Porte, Pochet & Room, 2001; Jensen & Pocket, 2002). NAPs
are drafted following a set of common guidelines to facilitate comparison, monitoring and benchmarking
between participating countries.
58
& Rosa, 2007; Veiga & Amaral, 2009b). At the European level policies and strategies
dealing with Bologna rest on indicators, benchmarks and scorecards produced by
stocktaking reports (Bologna Follow-up Group, 2005, 2007, 2009). In all probability they
repose more on homogenisation of information (Nóvoa & deJong-Lambert, 2003) than on
accurate assumptions. As Lascoumes and Galès noted “The common language and
representations that drive statistics create the effects of truth and an interpretation of the
world” (Lascoumes & Galès, 2007: 3). These instruments create specific representations of
the issue and lead to an explanatory framework, which in practice does not necessarily
match the pays réel.
At the core of European politics, relationships and tensions flourish between the national
and the European levels. Explanations rely not on a causal relationship between enhancing
the European layer over the national level because the loss of legitimacy by the latter is not
fully compensated by the development of effective capabilities at European level (Scharpf,
1999). Rather, relationships depend on the mediation of the national level, which may
operate through the evolution of both new tools of governance and diffusion mechanisms
embedded in the learning process.
At the European level policy entrepreneurship favoured institutionalisation of education
policy (Corbett, 2005); similarly policy entrepreneurship translates the OMC template and
defines “crises and breakdowns and use them as opportunities to promote the template in
the established order” (Gornitzka, 2007: 159). Diffusion of organisational templates occurs
in these circumstances.
This preliminary analysis sees policy implementation as learning and adaptation that takes
means (e.g. the Bologna process) and ends (e.g. the establishment of the EHEA) in closer
alignment “by making each partially dependent on the other” (Pressman & Wildavsky,
1984: 143), in contrast to the formal interpretation of implementation independent of
policy design.
In practice rescaling educational policy showed that the link between European integration
and education policies was stemming from economic considerations, study recognition
59
aimed at promoting free movement and the human economic capital to reach
competitiveness in the global economy.
The authority established at national level is relevant for the European level, the
achievement of which is highly dependent on the national level, thus Bologna serves at
European level as a lever to further European integration and is used in the same way at
national level to justify national reforms. Within higher education institutions, (divergent)
interpretations accompany policy implementation. The interaction within institutions
placed at different levels contributes to understand how different levels interconnect or
interchange.
4. Effects of rescaling education policies
The analysis of outcomes focuses on impacts of policies. Higher education policy and the
assessment of implementation of Bologna served as an example. The Lisbon strategy
expected to create a stronger economy to drive job creation together with social and
environmental policies to sustain development and social inclusion. This programme
interfering with and undermining the sovereignty endorses EU nation states to promote the
European dimension in education and training policies.
The Lisbon strategy is a landmark in the intervention of European institutions in policy
areas so far reserved for political action of member states. As Zgaga (Bologna Follow-up
Group, 2003) suggested the status of the Bologna Declaration as an intergovernmental
process has been changing following decisions of the European Councils in 2000, 2001
and 2002 focusing on education issues. However, it is uncertain these changes impact
Bologna in a supranational perspective. Thus, Bologna Follow-up group statements follow
policy entrepreneurship that recovers recurrent issues to keep going with Bologna.
The connection of the Bologna process to the Lisbon strategy has consequences
worthwhile to explore, particularly implications that flow from analysing policy
implementation (Veiga & Amaral, 2006, 2009a). The policy instruments used to
60
implement Bologna are soft law mechanisms that foster reforms at national level, although
they also create weaknesses of coordination that are difficult to overcome (Veiga &
Amaral, 2006, 2009a). Soft law mechanisms include the benchmarking of performance and
progress in member states. Their objective in “the field of education and training is to
identify countries which perform well, so that expertise and good practice can be shared
with others” (European Commission, 2006: 11).
Rescaling the European policies in practice focused extensively on the new instrumentality
developed by the Lisbon strategy and that have injected into the Bologna process as seen in
stocktaking reports, for instance. However, in the European Union or in the Bologna
process, the emphasis on political or productive time (Neave, 2005b), produces an account
that reflects the vision of ministers or civil servants closely involved.
At national level, the assessment of outcomes of policies failed. The Italian national report,
for example, to the Berlin Conference of European Education Ministers on implementing
Bologna – dated July 2003 – was a success story, no reference made to any implementation
difficulties. The report noted the adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable
degrees; the creation of a new qualification structure essentially based on two main cycles;
the establishment of a system of credits; the promotion of mobility; the promotion of
European co-operation in quality assurance; the promotion of the European dimension in
higher education; lifelong learning; and international links between higher education
institutions and students, designed to enhance the European perspective. The situation,
however, at institutional level differed from the optimistic national report (Fulton, Amaral,
& Veiga, 2004).
The 2009 stocktaking exercise claimed the use of more strict criteria, which resulted in
performance marks lower than in the previous years (Bologna Follow-up Group, 2009) and
recognised that previous country reports on reform implementation were too optimistic.
Therefore, the Bologna scorecard picture has become less favourable than in the past. For
61
the first time the Bologna Follow-up Group acknowledged, “that not all the goals of the
Bologna Process will be achieved by 2010” (Bologna Follow-up Group, 2009: 12).
This course of action affects both politics and institutionalizing of meanings in the EHEA.
The indicators most often used by the European level to assess progress are related to the
legal frameworks passed following agreements at European level. However, national
reports are supposed to describe progress grounded on the actual implementation, being
weak analytically because the perspectives are either prospective or retrospective. Thus,
they ignore adaptation, an evolutionary characteristic of implementation which “occurs
when a policy or program evolves in response to its environment as each alters the other”
(Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984: 208).
At the organisational level, higher education institutions obeying to national legislation,
adapted to Bologna-type degree structures. It is not clear that the Bologna concepts shape
the reform. Hence one may question the reform in substance (Veiga, Amaral, & Mendes,
2008). Empirical evidence is necessary about policy development and organisational
adaptations. Where one observed concrete changes the outcomes and the political strategy
might create feedback loops to influence implementation, giving rise to interactions that
will originate peaks of political salience to other issues.
The gradual decline of public interest about the European dimension may occur as framing
effects (Knill & Lehmkhul, 1999) will persist. The impact of Bologna follows the type of
framing integration since the mechanism of Europeanisation establishes a new explanatory
framework that arises from using policy instruments linked to new governance
mechanisms that include the stocktaking process.
That a deadline to establish the EHEA has been set (2010) reinforces the need to
imperceptibly phase out one issue and replace it by another. Furthermore, there are telling
arguments in favour of relaunching the Bologna process after 2010 as acknowledge by
ESIB (Carapinha, 2008). In the Budapest/Vienna meeting “The Bologna Anniversary
62
Conference” established the goal for 2020 to reach the percentage of 20% of those
graduating in the EHEA should be mobile.
A new (or warmed-over) issue may attract attention as it is possible to see in it the attempt
to ally Bologna to the urgent need to modernise systems of education and training.
The strategic goal established for the Union aims at modernising the education systems.
The initiative departs from the assumption that rescaling European policies affects
integration in such way that the intensity of public interest wanes. In the proposals
advanced by the European layer modernising of the European social model is presented as
an investment in people and the setting up of an active welfare state (European Council,
2000).
The European Commission now turns its particular attention to investment in research, to
lifelong learning and to the European Employment Strategy:
It starts by exploring the relevance and contribution of education to core elements of the Lisbon
strategy, such as sustainable growth, competitiveness, R&D and innovation, the creation of
more and better jobs, social inclusion and active citizenship and regional policies (European
Commission, 2002a: 2).
In February 2002 Education ministers adopted the Detailed work programme on the
follow-up objectives of education and training system (2002b), submitted by the European
Commission to support explicitly the Lisbon strategy.
Since 2002/2003 the number of reports issued by European institutions intensified the
European awareness about lifelong learning and vocational training, efficiency and
modernisation of education systems, research and innovation, quality and so forth. In
Marçal Grilo’s view, the future links between higher education and research tend to
intensify. This might be a challenge to the assumption of European institutions (e.g.
European Court of Justice) that higher education is equated with vocational training.
63
Modernising European higher education by focusing on the relationships between state and
higher education institutions has been a “constant item on the political agenda of most
European countries for the last 20 to 25 years” (Maassen, 2006: 5). Modernising European
universities follows a trend of “less influence of academics and growing influence of the
government and institutional management” (Maassen, 2006: 8). This trend engages new
dimensions of the interventionary state 30 as Neave and Van Vught (1991: xii) pointed out.
It expanded to dimensions such as the nature of student output efficiency of higher
education institutions and the relationship between higher education and industry. These
new aspects follow rescaling European policies. In Europe balancing the increase of
institutional autonomy with organisational issues is focused on students’ selection,
management and administrative staff, financial administration and the growing control
over institutions’ output, especially the number and qualification of graduates and research
output. But as pointed by Maassen:
Fifteen years later (…) it is argued that the modernisation of the governance and organisation
of European universities has not lead to expected result. With few exceptions, continental
European universities are apparently no longer able to compete with US universities for
students, research funding, lucrative partnerships with industry, and specially for status”
(Maassen, 2006: 9).
At national level, the agenda for modernising universities seeks to reduce direct
government
intervention
in
higher
education,
extend
institutional
autonomy,
professionalise institutional leadership and management, develop further quality
mechanisms and adapt the funding of higher education institutions (Maassen, 2006: 10).
At the organisational level, within higher education institutions the agenda emerges in
reinforcing cooperation between universities and industry, strengthening the international
competitiveness of universities, differentiation in higher education, including concentrating
of human and other resources in few institutions to increase the attractiveness of the
university as a place to work.
30
This concept facilitatory state in which government underwrites “higher education as an opportunity for
those duly qualified to have access to higher learning (Neave, 1990)” (Neave & Van Vught, 1991: xi).
64
Ball (1998) argued that education policy in the last years has been colonised by economic
imperatives, thereby unbalancing the social, cultural and the economic functions of the
university, in favour of the latter. Amaral and Magalhães (2002) observed that “traditional
university governance became the target of fierce criticism, being diversely, or
simultaneously, branded as inefficient, corporative, non-responsive to society’s needs and
unable to address declining quality standards of teaching and research. The invasion of
university governance by new managerial concepts and attitudes is taking place in many
countries and is associated with the neo-liberal credo” (Amaral & Magalhães, 2002: 7).
Efforts are made to increase efficiency, ensure accountability, improve responsiveness and
raise the effectiveness of higher education institutions. More difficult to grasp is why
modernisation of governance and organisation in European universities did not evolve as
expected (Maassen, 2006: 9).
It seems reasonable to accept that the agenda for modernising higher education operating at
European level involves or will involve the Bologna process in such way that Bologna’s
flagged reforms form part of the policy aimed at reforming higher education in Europe.
Bologna unfolds policy implementation turning around deregulation 31 , institutional
autonomy and quality assurance.
At different levels of analysis, the perception about effects of rescaling education policies
varies. These perceptions fall in with the configuration of stocktaking reports at European
level. National measures embedded national priorities focused on governance and quality
and accreditation mechanisms. At the organisation field, rescaling European policies
upholds the relationship between higher education, innovation and research.
The perspective of rescaling education policies deals with implementing Bologna used as a
lever at different levels of analysis to establish EHEA, while fragmenting governance
activities across different levels.
31
Deregulation does not mean fewer-regulations. Within the implementation framework of the Bologna
process, the policy reform seemingly implies different forms of regulation, such as: (1) operationalising the
Bologna principles (e.g. transparency, legibility and comparability), (2) influence of supranational guidelines
on drafting national legislation (e.g. ECTS, Diploma Supplement) and (3) passing laws to create conditions
for increasing competition.
65
5. Overarching issues
Overarching issues examine aspects that have figured in building scenarios that dealt with
the future of higher education. The multiple transfers of competencies from national level
to European level lend weight to an analysis of prospects European higher education faces.
This exploration draws on the approaches developed by CHEPS (Enders, Huisman, &
Westerheijden, 2005) and OECD (2006) to lay out a number of scenarios.
The key question in setting out proposals presented by CHEPS and OECD is to learn, on
the one hand, how far the emergence of a European layer is shared amongst all scenarios,
and, on the other, to see whether a potential extension to the European level involves
transferring regulatory power to European institutions.
CHEPS constructed three scenarios, Centralia, the City of the Sun; Octavia, the SpiderWeb City and Vitis Vinifera, the City of Traders and Micro-Climates. The first scenario
reinforces the role of the European Commission based on development of study
programmes, organised around Bachelor, Master and Doctorate levels:
The Commission of the European Union as the ultimate authority standardised this structure,
but in a brilliant dialectic move (or was it a political compromise?) made the whole x+y+z
discussion obsolete at the same time: it is the graduate’s competence as shown in the European
Graduate Competence Test of the appropriate level (EGCT-B, -M, -D) that determines whether
students get the right to be awarded an officially recognise degree. European-wide acceptance
by all ministries of education of the EGCT was the main achievement of the Bologna-II process
2010-2015, which was led by the staff o the European Union Commissioner of Knowledge &
Innovation Society (…). The DG-KIS is an outstanding example of the new type of government
organisation that has emerged: a clear and strong role for government and its programming
and planning instruments along with the associated budget mechanisms, regulation and
coordination among the many levels of government from the EU down to countries,
regions/states and municipalities (Westerheijden, Beverwijk, de Boer, & Kaulisch, 2005: 64).
Here, the EU’s influence over the regulative framework is expected to increase: “in 2020
this has risen to more than 75%” (Westerheijden, et al., 2005: 70).
66
In the second scenario networking becomes the main mode of coordination:
Political responsibility for higher education and research is integrated into the overall policy
networks for socio-economic development and innovation, and spread over a multi-layered web
of local, (inter-) regional and (multi-)national institutions. This integrated approach to open
coordination helped enormously in overcoming traditional sectoral departmentalism and the
fragmentation of education research, science and technology policies (Enders, Kaiser,
Theisens, & Vossensteyen, 2005: 76).
In this scenario the merging of higher education institutions centres on a new institutional
form differentiates and reinforces a stratified European university. Leadership of higher
education institutions, imbued with “new public management” rhetoric is termed
“leadership for change”. Funding policies remain at nation-state level:
… public money now derives from heterogeneous sources for equally heterogeneous purposes.
Regional, national and European governmental entities and their arm’s length agencies
provide some direct subsidies, in many cases designed as matching funds based on contractual
relationships. The bulk of public money enters higher education via a European voucher system
that covers the right of all citizens to a four- to five-year study period (Enders, et al., 2005: 81).
In the area of research, national research councils are expected to play a central role
together with the European Research Council. It is accepted that cooperation is the
“prerequisite for competition with other consortia on a global level” (Enders, et al., 2005:
83).
In the third scenario the prospects of “national governments and the European Commission
became more realistic and more selective about what could be achieved in a highly diverse
and complex field of social life where governments have limited steering capacity and a
restricted set of steering instruments at their disposal” (File, Beerkens, Leišytė, & Salerno,
2005: 87). Setting up a Higher Education and Training Authority is anticipated. It provides
a database for market placement for graduates, but does not act as an accreditation or
quality assurance agency. Still, “a minority of member states have national accreditation
procedures for public higher education programmes but the dominant model is one of
multiple accreditation possibilities that are chosen strategically by higher education
67
providers – often on the advice of highly paid marketing professionals” (File, et al., 2005:
89). It is expected higher education will become the most important commodity in trading.
National higher education systems have abandoned institutional differentiation. In this
scenario diversity is focused on programme offerings.
In the OECD study the scenarios combined international/national dimensions and
administrative/market factors. It singled out 4 outcomes: open networking, serving local
communities, New Public Management and Higher Education Inc.
The ‘open networking’ scenario brings together administrative steering mechanisms with
the international dimension. Networking is the main mode of coordination. Cooperation is
replaced by collaboration in the sense that “increased co-operation creates more trust and
understanding among higher education institutions over time, and leads to the easy
recognition of foreign educational offerings” (OECD, 2006: 3).
The second scenario ‘serving local communities’ combines administrative steering
mechanisms with national orientation. As today, “higher education is mainly publicly
funded and administered. Academics are treated as trusted professionals and have control
over the education and research processes. A small number of “elite” higher education
institutions and research departments are linked to international networks (although there
are now some barriers to internationalisation), and maintain their position in top national
ranks” (OECD, 2006: 4). Institutional differentiation persists and binary systems fulfil their
mission in response to their communities. In this scenario governments “place a strong
emphasis on the national missions of higher education” (OECD, 2006: 5).
In the third scenario, ‘New Public Management’, market steering mechanisms dominate
together with the national dimension. Public and private spheres blur “as most university
resources are private, coming from student tuition, and support from business and private
foundations. Students and their families pay a significant share of the cost of their studies,
with the possibility of financing some or all of their education through income contingent
loans” (OECD, 2006: 6). Research funds are allocated on an increasingly competitive basis
“the bulk of the allocation of public funds for academic research is generally from external
68
sources, financing specific research projects and awarded according to competitive peer
reviewed processes” (OECD, 2006: 6). Following successful implementation in other
countries, New Public Management “calls for institutions operating at arm’s length from
national government, with a mix of public and private resources” (OECD, 2006: 7).
The fourth scenario ‘Higher Education Inc.’ combines market steering with an
international dimension. Higher education institutions compete globally. Disconnecting
teaching and research each institution will concentrate on its core business “Research
universities thus hardly teach (if they teach at all), whereas most vocational and general
institutions concentrate almost exclusively on teaching” (OECD, 2006: 8). The
governments still play an important role encouraging basic research and teaching in areas
with little commercial interest but not distorting “trade in commercial research and
education” (OECD, 2006: 8). There is competition for students and for outstanding
academic researchers. higher education institutions are open new institutions or branch
campuses abroad, franchising educational programmes” (OECD, 2006: 8). This scenario
assumes that “an increasing number of governments have decided to liberalise the higher
education sector and even commit themselves through the GATS negotiations at the World
Trade Organisation or bilateral free trade agreements” (OECD, 2006: 9).
An analysis of scenario building, as it addresses the emergence of the European level
above nation-State, attributes an increasing role to the European layer. Enhancing the
European level over the national level assumes a positive stance over that relationship.
However, it is unclear whether increase occurs at the expense of decreasing the influence
of the nation-State.
In the Centralia city, the first CHEPS’ scenario, the administrative steering mechanisms are
strongly driven by European organisations, injecting an international dimension into higher
education systems. This scenario overlaps with dimensions in the OECD Open Networking
scenario. By contrast, in CHEPS second scenario, Octavia city, market steering
mechanisms dominate. The national dimension is reinforced as it is in the OECD’s New
Public Management scenario. CHEPS third scenario, Vitis Vinifera city market, steering
mechanisms dominate together with the orientation towards the international dimension.
69
Juxtaposing these two exercises one sees that the scenario “Serving the Local
Communities” proposed by the OECD does not match in a straightforward manner
CHEPS’ account for the three cities. How far have the underlying assumptions related to
administrative steering mechanisms and to the national dimension of higher education been
taken into consideration in the CHEPS’ study?
The OECD scenario of “Serving Local Communities” is driven by the national missions of
higher education. In this scenario the university, according to Olsen:
… is an instrument for national political agendas (…) Leaders are appointed, not elected. The
administration, with its hierarchies, rules and performance statistics, becomes the core of the
University. Autonomy is delegated and support and funding depend on how the University is
assessed on the basis of its effectiveness and efficiency »n achieving political purposes, relative
to other available instrument. Change in the University is closely linked to political decisions
and change (Olsen, 2007: 31).
For the OECD, this scenario is a response to globalisation and to a growing scepticism
among the general population vis-à-vis internationalisation.
As a result, higher education stresses its national mission to foster social cohesion. Social
cohesion appears to be a key driver since in a scenario integrating higher education policies
this is also a sensitive issue. A study which examined the political, economic and cultural
dimensions in the Bologna process, made clear that Bologna’s goal to meet social Europe
required revision by giving higher relevance to the cultural dimension against political and
economic factors (Veiga, 2003). Plainly, not only at national, but also at European level,
social cohesion involves the issue of citizenship. As Neave and Maassen argued:
Yet, if Europe is to generate any citizen cohesion – apart from that expressed in the
administrative, legislative and formalistic domains – it is important to ensure that interests
external to Europe do not confine the European identity to that construction from which we are
just emerging, namely a, ‘Common Market’, populated not by citizens but by consumers (Neave
& Maassen, 2007: 153).
70
Even so, with the Bologna process serving as an illustration, clearly national agendas
dictate the policy implementation (Gornitzka, 2006; Moscati, 2006; Schwarz-Hahn &
Rehburg, 2004; Witte, 2006) largely because of the lack of consistent priorities across all
countries participating in Bologna. In other words, the move towards a specific scenario
differs and has different speeds.
A single picture emerging from a specific scenario depends on the priorities enacted at
national level. In short, the move towards a scenario in which the European level
dominates takes place because at national level action or its lack permits it.
Focusing on the role of the national level makes us sensitive to the possibility that the
decrease or increase in the weight attached to national or sub-national levels over the
European level are the central issues at stake in any process of reconfiguration.
Conclusion
Stoer and Magalhães (2005) developed a metaphor of Europe as a bazaar. This makes us
singularly aware that the process of rescaling the European level ties in a plethora of other
dimensions:
In the same way that one finds a variety of intense smells, sounds and sights in the bazaar, one
also finds in Europe a vast variety of projects, both national and trans-national, trends, with
regard to institutional organisation and governance, and different ways of thinking with regard
to the very nature of the structure of the system of higher education. Higher education itself is
living an identity crisis (Magalhães, 2001) that is reflected in the manner in which the Bologna
process is being managed, a process that appears to be divided between an option for
postsecondary education and the ‘good old’ higher education dominant under the metaphor of
the flag (Stoer & Magalhães, 2005: 158).
These guiding thoughts will probably guide closer the European ambitions for integration.
So far, European policies have set out explicitly to influence relations between policies of
education, vocational training and lifelong learning, economic concerns, study recognition
and the relations between higher education, innovation and research. At organisational
71
field increasing levels of awareness of external constraints and opportunities will induce
higher education institutions to take initiatives along the lines envisaged at national level
and at European level.
The analysis contributed to configure Bologna as supporter of Europeanisation even
though it is doubtful that if Bologna did not target the establishment of the EHEA its
European facet would emerge.
The perspective of rescaling education policies also demonstrated that the Bologna process
as instrument managed at national level was more significant than the European objective
linked to the EHEA. However, at European level Bologna tends to incorporate the
European agenda for the modernisation of higher education under the scope of the Lisbon
strategy.
The multi-level analysis shows that Bologna moves from the national level to the European
level to fulfil the agenda of the European level. Bologna is mainly a national affair that
might be used as a lever to promote simultaneously domestic reforms within higher
education institutions and the activities of European institutions in the field of education.
To tackle this problematic the research question to address focuses on the role of Bologna
for the institutionalisation of the EHEA by grasping the character of institutions placed at
European, national and organisational levels in inducing a shift towards the logic of
appropriateness 32 when there are competing beliefs based, for instance, in more efficiency,
more openness and more attention to markets, and by seizing the awareness about Bologna
as a policy process.
32
The logic of appropriateness underlines that individuals act according to what is expected from them
(March & Olsen, 1989). Despite the logic of consequentiality appeared analytically separable, this study
takes the evidence that it is hard to separate the arguments sustaining both logics of action and takes the logic
of appropriateness broader emphasising that to behave appropriately means to behave according to the logic
of consequentiality (Christensen & Røvik, 1999) (see chapter III, p. 108).
72
CHAPTER II - Analysing the Bologna process: the anatomy of scholarship
CHAPTER II
Analysing the Bologna process: the anatomy of scholarship
Introduction
The anatomy of Bologna studies analyses the recent historical writing about Bologna with
the aim of extending the overview about what and who said and published about the
Bologna process. The findings of this chapter will contribute to outline the state-of-the-art
in terms of the contemporary significance of Bologna and will serve to identify the
strategic and crucial aspects to be dealt with in this study.
There are problematic basic issues involved in the anatomy of scholarship about the
Bologna process. First, there is the evolution of writings on the Bologna process in the last
nine years (1999-2007). Second, there are the most relevant topics of Bologna. Thirdly,
there are different interpretations about Bologna and its relationship with the issues
Bologna raised; and last but not the least, the linkages between the publications and their
targets in terms of audience and constituent interests as it provides evidence to whom the
writings take in hand.
The available indicator to examine the anatomy of Bologna is based on scientific output
using the number of publications included in three international academic reference
databases. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI Science Citation Index), the
73
SCOPUS and the ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre) are abstract and citation
databases.
To assemble academic publications across international academic journals, books and book
chapters, papers in conference proceedings and newspaper articles 33 to carrying out the
first task, these databases were used. The key search criteria were “Bologna” and
“European higher education area”, expressions used in my entire search query run, which
covered the period from October 2007 to December 2008. Results exported to a personal
database. All duplications were discarded as the same reference could have appeared in all
the databases. Agreed that this attempt does not capture ALL the publications about
“Bologna” and the “European Higher Education Area”, the range of publications covered
by these three international abstract and citation indexes provide a sample of academic
output on the Bologna process.
The second and third tasks drew upon disciplinary perspectives on higher education, which
can offer “selective ways of knowing, tunnels of vision that make analysts simultaneously
more knowledgeable and more ignorant. An illuminating perspective is like a spotlight in
the theatre, concentrating attention as it highlights certain actions at the front of the stage
while relegating other features to background and periphery” (Clark, 1982 as cited by
Becher, 1992: 1763).
Table II.1 - Domains and approaches to higher education
DOMAINS
TOPICS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
APPROACHES TO HIGHER
EDUCATION
Anthropology
Culture, values and beliefs
Disciplinary communities represent a
distinctive culture
Comparative education
Focus the similarities and differences
between one national system and
another.
Higher Education differs from country
to country; national specificities and
priorities
Economics
Economic problems of securing
resources (external orientation) and
allocating the resources (internal
orientation)
Economic rationality; Human capital
concept; Financing and internal
distribution of resources in higher
education systems; financing higher
education
33
The PhD theses were excluded because they have not been retrieved by our searches.
74
TOPICS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
Higher Education studies
Higher education as unique institution;
Boundary of pubic and private lives;
the relationship of internal structures
and contents of curricula to the
external world to which universities
look for support and employment of
their graduates
Differentiation of systems based on
the percentage of population which
they enrol; governance mechanisms;
characteristics of the students; the
curriculum and student-teacher
relations; institutional governance and
administration
History
Social, biographical, political,
economic functions of higher
education
The organisation of academic
professional life; national emphases in
the history of higher education; Desire
to explain the origins and sequence of
events and their meaning over time,
the inner logic of experience
Law
Academic freedom and its relation to
institutional autonomy and academic
self-government
Evaluation of scientific quality; the
right to higher education; careers in
higher education
Linguistics and rhetorical studies
Inter-relations between language and
thought
Offer insight into the constitution of
the disciplines, enabling fundamental
choices embedded in the discourse
system
Literature
Specific reference to the campus novel
Macro-sociology
The examination of cross-national
differences does not offer an adequate
basis for the explanation of certain key
phenomena, but that understanding has
to be sought in terms of world-system
characteristics.
Higher education as a systematic part
of education and society
Sociological theories on education and
educational systems; Towards a
sociology of higher education
Micro-sociology
Disciplines as the building blocks of
higher education
Organisational theory of higher
education; dimensions of academic
organisation (functions of academic
staff)
Organisation theory
Significant concepts of loose coupling
and institutional theory, institutional
cultures and academic traditions
Macro-level organisations theories contingency, resource dependence,
institutional theories and population
ecology theories
Philosophy
The concept of higher education;
higher education as liberal education;
the nature of knowledge; Ethics and
higher education
Research; academic freedom and
institutional autonomy; teaching and
learning
Policy analysis
Explores in a normative and
prescriptive mode the concepts of
policy formation; implementation and
evaluation across systems and
institutions
Policy formation; policy
implementation
Political Economy
Interplay between polity and economy
Market/State interventionist model;
public and private provision;
centralized and decentralized control
of universities
DOMAINS
75
TOPICS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
DOMAINS
EDUCATION
Political Science
Formal description of institutions and
the analysis of action. Embodies
concepts such as: authority, power and
influence; processes as conflict,
bargaining and negotiation and
structural factors as inputs, processes
and outcomes
Political science would want to
examine the extent of the
constituencies built up by higher
education; Governing the institution HEIs as major political systems;
normative political theory
Public administration
Oriented towards the decisions and
actions of government
Framework of decision-making
processes and the concept of
rationality; political system approach;
garbage can or organized anarchy;
coalition-building framework
Science studies
Internal dynamics of scientific
research; information and technology
Contributions of universities to
industrial and technological
development
Social psychology
Development of teaching methods and
techniques
Student learning; assessment
procedures and learning strategies
Women's studies
The role of women in higher education
tends to be seriously underestimate
Feminisation of higher education
Source: Adapted from (Becher, 1992)
Table II.1 shows the range of these domains (listed in alphabetical order) related to broad
fields of specialisation. They include social sciences, sociology, political science,
psychology and humanities. The latter include history and philosophy; and some other
domains include narrow subfields of specialisation such as: organisation theory, policy
analysis, public administration and political economy. Also there are domains that resist
the classification as disciplinary field, which include comparative education, higher
education studies, science studies and women’s studies.
All references were classified, except newspaper and magazine articles to the domain used
to study Bologna (e.g. comparative education, economics, higher education studies, etc.)
according to Becher’s model. Additionally, references were classified according to the
topics in the Bologna agenda (e.g. Bologna degree structure, credit system,
internationalisation, quality and accreditation, etc.) that are the focus of the analysis.
Besides the topics of the Bologna agenda other themes were included because they are
76
frequent in the scientific output, examples of the most relevant include: national
exceptionalism 34 and cultures of disciplines 35 . This classification stems from the analysis
of both the abstract and the full paper (when available) and it may happen that some
publications have been classified across more than one of the Bologna’s topics, which
means that the same reference can count for each of the Bologna topics.
The fourth task includes categorising according to the target audience of the publication.
Information was collected by retrieving in the journal or institution homepage the
information about scope and aim of the journal or book, or conference and event. This
information does not refer to the scope and aim of the journal at the time the publication
refers; it concerns the information available on the web at the time records were retrieved.
Due to time constraints, it was not possible to pick up this information about the year of
publication. The target audience comprises the academic, the administrative and the
student estates but also professional leadership. This latter situation applies to the
publication aiming at a specific profession (lawyer, engineer, professor, medical doctor,
etc.). The categorisation of each reference to the target audience is based only in the
indications made publicly available through the journal homepage in the web. The aim of
this task is to be acquainted with the target of the publication to capture links between the
main target of Bologna’s writings and its connection to private interests that use their
publications to raise the awareness about Bologna.
Table II.2 specified the full criteria used to carry out the anatomy of scholarship of the
Bologna process.
34
National exceptionalim relates to the idea that national higher education system differ from country to
country. (Trow, 1991) brought into play the issue of American exceptionalism in exploring “some of the
differences between American higher education and the form it takes in other modern societies” (Trow, 1991:
171)
35
The idea that the disciplines have their distinctive cultural characteristics builds on Becher and Trowler
who conceive “disciplines as having recognizable identities and particular cultural attributes” (Becher &
Trowler, 2001: 44).
77
Table II.2 – Criteria used to classify the publications retrieved from
the international indexes
Anthropology, Comparative education,
DOMAIN
History,
Law,
Organisation theory,
Linguistics,
Economics, Higher Education studies,
Literature,
Macro-sociology,
Philosophy, Policy analysis,
Micro-sociology,
Political economy,
Political
Science, Public administrator, Science studies, Social psychology, Women's studies.
Bologna degree structure – adaptations to the degree structure, quality,
qualifications framework – sets the levels against which qualifications can be
recognised, accreditation system - sets the conditions against which degrees are
recognized, credit system – based on student workload and learning outcomes,
lifelong learning, teaching and learning paradigms – the student is at the centre of
FOCUS OF ANALYSIS
WITHIN THE BOLOGNA
PROCESS
the learning process, external dimension of the Bologna process perceptions of
Bologna outside Europe, national exceptionalism - the idea that higher education in
a country differs from other national systems, cultures of disciplines - the idea that
the disciplines have their distinctive cultural characteristics; EHEA – establishment
of European Higher Education Area, student participation – participation of
students in the university organisation; funding, employment, current European
developments – the idea that Bologna stimulates a continuing reform in some
European countries, public good, curricular change, mobility, internationalisation, information systems and technologies
Academic estate, Student estate, Administrative estate
AUDIENCE
Professional leadership (applied when professional interests are at the centre of the
paper published)
PUBLISHER’S LINKS
TYPE OF PUBLICATION
Identify the organisation or association that supports the publication
Journal article or electronic paper, book section, conference proceedings, newspaper
article, magazine article, progress report, position paper
1. Analysis of records, by type of work and year of publication
The first input used to look at the number of publications about Bologna is based on its
development in the last eight years (1999-2007).
78
From the sources a simple series of yearly publication statistics is presented. Graph II.1
shows the number and type of publications collected that have been published during
1999-2007. The total number of records is 635.
Graph II.1 - Number of publications (1999-2007), per type of publication
Table II.3 – Number of publications, per year of publication
TYPE OF
PUBLICATION
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
TOTAL
Journal article
1
3
15
13
46
58
61
148
126
471
Newspaper article
3
1
6
1
6
7
10
15
13
62
2
2
24
1
21
11
61
1
8
2
11
4
29
2
1
3
3
9
99
75
198
157
632
Book section
Conference
proceedings
3
Magazine article
Total
4
4
24
16
55
In 1999, the year of publication of the Bologna Declaration, the number of publications
was of 4 records, but only one is a journal article. In 2000, 4 records emerged, which
include 3 journal articles and just 1 newspaper article. In 2001 the number of publications
increased to 24 including 15 journal articles, 6 newspaper articles and 3 papers published
in conference proceedings.
79
In 2002 the total number decreased as compared to the previous year, it reaches 16
references. The number of journal articles almost equals the number of journal articles
published in 2001. This year the book Fabricating Europe appeared. It focused the broad
theme of integration of European policies with two chapters devoted more specifically to
the establishment of the EHEA.
In 2003 the number of publication increased markedly, reaching 56 records. Types of
publications also increased. The number of newspaper articles rose compared to the
previous year reaching the same number (6) as in 2001, the year of the Prague Ministerial
meeting. Journal articles make the major share of scientific output of this year. A possible
explanation might relate to the Ministerial meeting in Berlin. This year European Ministers
issued the Berlin Communiqué. Bologna was drawing increasingly the attention of
scholars.
In 2004, the total number of publications reached 99. 7 were newspaper articles, while the
number of book sections increased sharply due to the publication of Accreditation and
Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area.
In 2005 the overall number of records dropped to 46. This year the Ministerial Conference
was held in Bergen and the number of newspaper articles increased to 10 records.
In 2006 the total number of publications reached the highest number so far, with 198
journals articles. The number of newspaper articles reached 15 and the number of book
sections shows a similar trend with the appearance of a book fully dedicated to the
Bologna process Creating the European Higher Education Area and there were two other
works relevant to the theme, with one or two sections devoted to the Bologna dynamics.
That was the Handbook on quality and standardisation in e-learning, the book about
Innovative Approaches for Learning and Knowledge Sharing and another one on
Information Technologies at School.
80
In 2007, the number of records falls to 157. This was the year of the London Ministerial
meeting, which yielded four progress reports to ministers. The number of newspaper
articles decreased in relation to the previous year, as did the number of book sections in
spite of the publication of the book University Dynamics and European Integration, which
dealt with the Bologna process and the establishment of the EHEA as an integration
process. There are also other 5 books that contribute with one chapter to the analysis of the
Bologna process.
The analyses by year are on the basis of overall number of records that gives an idea in the
academic arena about the awareness of the Bologna process, which reached its peak in
2006, decreasing in 2007. In terms of type of publication, the increase in newspaper
articles coincided until 2005 with ministerial meetings. The books referring directly to
Bologna or the EHEA appeared in 2002 with Fabricating Europe, followed in 2003 with
Implementing European Union Education and Training Policies that follows up the theme
dealing with integrating education policies. Subsequently, in 2004 another book focusing
the accreditation and evaluation systems in the EHEA appeared. In 2006 and 2007 two
other publications appeared. The former focused on ‘voices from the periphery of Europe’.
The latter aimed at sketching a research agenda for the future of higher education and
research studies within the framework of the European integration process.
2. Analysis of records, by topic of discussion within the Bologna process
The second strand in the anatomy of scholarship of the Bologna process presents the topics
of Bologna agenda in terms of the attention scientific output paid to each of them.
81
Graph II.2 - Number of publications, by topic within the Bologna process
82
The total number of records analysed by topic is 566. Newspaper and magazine articles
have not been included. Additionally, there are some records that have been double
counted because they touch more than one topic. Graph II.2 shows that cultures of
disciplines and national exceptionalism dominate scholarly scientific output on the
Bologna process.
Works focusing on cultures of disciplines are lead by engineering and medicine, in smaller
proportions it is also possible to find articles focusing on law, chemistry, veterinary
medicine, pharmacy, psychology and geography. The publications centred on national
exceptionalism are lead by Russia 36 and Germany. Other works focus on a wide range of
countries that include Spain, United Kingdom, Poland, Czech Republic, Greece, Italy,
Norway, Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Flandres,
France, Portugal, Denmark and Sweden.
The theme focusing on establishing the EHEA appears in third place and the discussions
about the Bologna degree structure follow. Interestingly, the Bologna process also appears
as a current European development (e.g. the idea that Bologna stimulates a continuing
reform in some European countries) assuming a subtle position, which contrasts with the
subsequent items in the list that only become visible in terms of number of publications
afterwards. Amongst the items there are issues that have been introduced in the official
documents. Hence, quality, accreditation, curricular changes, shifting paradigms from
teaching to learning, mobility, lifelong learning, employability, credit system, student
participation, diploma supplement attract low attention as compared to the other issues
identified as Bologna topics in our analysis.
36
Most of the items were published in the journal “Russia, Education & Society” indexed in the international
databases. Another explanation signs a way to introduce Bologna in the Russian political discourse by
reinforcing ideas related to integration, modernisation and readiness of Russian higher education system to
engage the Bologna process. Since the mid-1990s Russian higher education system flows in a context “of a
continuously dysfunctional economy where paid employment is hard to find, the young have few alternatives
(save the usual ones — military and prison) to gathering at the universities or provincial ‘institutes’ to spend
what has turned out as the meaningless years of youth” (Tomusk 2006b:236). Therefore as noted by Tomusk
“the only option to further the Process the group seems to have identified is selling it. Once again people who
apparently talk from the position of the intellectuals consciously engage in raising expectations that could not
be met (Tomusk, 2006b).
83
3. Analysis of records, by year and domain
The third strand in the scholarship around the Bologna process focuses on the most
prominent interpretations used to highlight Bologna issues. The total number of records
invoked under this head is 566. Magazine and newspaper articles are not included.
This categorisation puts emphasis on the interpretation provided by domains in higher
education. Becher’s model classifies the content of the scientific output not taking into
consideration the classification used by international databases. The latter differs
significantly from the classification used by the international academic reference
databases. That is, journal articles retrieved in my searches are indexed by the international
databases to different subject areas that range from Agricultural and Biological Sciences to
Social Sciences. More specifically these journals have been listed in Agricultural and
Biological Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Biochemistry Genetics and Molecular Biology,
Business Management and Accounting, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Computer
Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Economics Econometrics and Finance,
Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Health Professions, Immunology and Microbiology,
Materials Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Multidisciplinary, Nursing, Pharmacology
Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Physics and Astronomy, Psychology, Social Sciences,
Veterinary. Journals indexed in social sciences represent 40%; representing the other
subject areas, such as medicine, psychology, arts and humanities, engineering and business
management and accounting do not exceed the quota of 11% for each of them.
Graph II.3 shows the writings about the Bologna process by domain. The analysis uses the
model of by Tony Becher (1992) and detailed in table II.1 (see page 74-76).
84
Graph II.3 - Number of publications, by domain
As shown with the exception of anthropology, public administration, social psychology,
linguistics and rhetoric all the other analytical perspectives have been brought in the study
of the Bologna process.
Anthropology and social psychology will probably appear as the process of
implementation becomes embedded within higher education institutions. The former will
contribute to shed light on the dynamics shaping culture, values and beliefs. In 2008 the
book Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education (it is not retrieved by our searches on the
data bases as it goes beyond the time frame) was published. It includes some chapters
drawing on concepts from anthropology. Social psychology also tends to increase its
relevance as the Bologna implementation moves towards the logic of action focused on
pedagogical issues held to place the student at the centre of the learning process.
85
Public Administration writings were not found in the retrieved results probably because the
disciplinary approach overlaps with the scientific management approach in organisation
theory. It is likely some of the writings classified as organisation theory, as policy analysis
and comparative education address issues that concern public administration which “tries
to offer recommendations that may be judged useful to solve the problems of present-day
governance” (Van Vught, 1992: 1993). Later this observation will be taking by exploring
policy analysis in terms of the analysis of or for policy. Other analytical perspectives
diluted public administration writings.
Table II.4 - Number of publications, per year of publication and domain
DOMAIN
Policy analysis
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
TOTAL
1
1
8
3
13
52
17
52
55
202
1
4
2
8
16
15
25
36
107
2
1
2
7
6
18
9
45
1
8
4
7
12
9
41
3
2
3
4
17
7
37
1
4
3
4
12
7
31
1
2
3
7
8
21
1
2
1
2
10
3
20
1
5
2
5
2
15
1
1
1
6
3
13
3
1
5
2
12
Microsociology
Higher education
studies
Comparative education
Organisation theory
1
Macrosociology
Science studies
Political science
1
History
Philosophy
1
Economics
1
Woman’s studies
Law
1
Political economy
Total
1
2
1
3
18
15
50
90
7
7
3
1
6
1
3
6
65
180
141
563
Table II.4 presents the number of publications per year and by domain ordered by total
number of publications. In 1999 policy analysis made its first contribution and in 2000
micro-sociology and political science also appeared for the first time. In 2001 higher
education studies and philosophy emerged from the interpretations about Bologna. Macrosociology come into sight in 2002 and economics and science studies emerged in 2003.
86
From 2004 onwards all these analytical perspectives were in use, except women studies
that came for the first time in 2006.
Policy analysis dominates the views about Bologna, however, it is interesting to note that
the pattern of its contribution is not consistent as apparently other analytical perspectives
are. From 2002 to 2004 the number of policy analysis’ writings rose sharply from 15
publications (a slight fall over the previous years output) to 52 in 2004.
Nonetheless, works grounded in other analytical perspectives do not replicate this
tendency, probably because policy analysis is a more comprehensive category compared to
other analytical perspectives. Apparently, policy analysis accommodates a broad and
generic range of writing as it has been incorporating works that is more difficult to include
in other perspectives.
In 2005 the number of publications falls. In 2006 the publications output increased again in
for all sources of interpretation; only to fall again in 2007.
The procedure for examining the domains addresses in terms of descending hierarchy of
importance based on their input (e.g. policy analysis, micro-sociology, higher education
studies, comparative education, organisation theory, macro-sociology, science studies,
political science, history, philosophy, economics, linguistics and rhetorical studies,
women’s studies, political economy and law) to the Bologna process.
3.1 Analysis of records, by domain and Bologna topic assuming the total
number of publications in each domain
Policy Analysis
By far the most frequent interpretative perspective on Bologna has drawn on policy
analysis yielding 202 items (see table II.4, p. 86). The discipline aims at developing
theoretical and practical knowledge about tracking and improving public policies
(Premfors, 1992). Bologna related articles focus particularly on initiatives within the
87
Bologna process at different stages of the policy process. These stages include the public
perception about policy problems, the assessment of policy alternatives, the formulation of
policy recommendations, and the implementation and evaluation.
The writings on policy analysis conform to analysis of policy and analysis for policy. The
former perspective seeks to explain policy and its subsequent development; formulating
policies and proposals, thus arrangements for the near future. Policy analysts of the
Bologna process are constructing meanings to the new catchwords to follow the
introduction of political discourse (e.g. accreditation, e-learning, local priorities, role of
students, European higher education). Bologna thus becomes a discursive battleground in
which analysis of and for policy were contending discourses. By focusing on the specific
meanings within the Bologna process it is important to note the contexts within which
these meanings take root. For example, within the scientific output of the Bologna process
it becomes clear that accreditation replaced quality in higher education. Bologna’s political
agenda was approaching the theme by focusing on quality as accreditation within higher
education guarantees only minimal standards. Indeed, exogenous pressures related to
benchmarking, standards and performance indicators shift the focus of quality in higher
education towards accreditation. And lifelong learning appears connected to e-learning
models. External views about Bologna often use the expression “European higher
education” assigning a meaning to the establishment of the European Higher Education
Area (EHEA). On the contrary, national exceptionalism of European higher education
systems seems to be gathering weight.
The topics dealing with national exceptionalism, with the establishment of the EHEA
together with cultures of disciplines, the Bologna degree structure and quality and
accreditation all assume substantial importance. The main contribution policy analysis
makes to the Bologna process seems to be in clarifying the relationship between these
topics (especially those involving national and European policies based on assumptions
which in turn relate to the particularities and the establishment of the EHEA) mostly
referred by policy analysts as an item in the articulations of the Bologna process. The
external dimension of Bologna (e.g. perceptions of Bologna outside Europe) together with
88
the vision of the Bologna process as a current European development (e.g. the idea that
Bologna stimulates a continuing reform in some European countries) also attracted the
attention of policy analysts.
Micro-sociology
Micro-sociology is the second weightiest disciplinary perspective which Becher identified
as contributing to the study of higher education (Becher, 1992) and in all, it yielded, 89
publications (see table II.4, p. 86). Micro-sociology gives us a purchase on “the internal
dynamics of the higher education system” (Hammack & Heyns, 1992: 1871). The
discipline focused on the nature of everyday human social interactions. At the micro level,
status and social roles are the most important components of social structure. Within higher
education, the structural arrangements that shape the dimensions of academic organisations
are crucial. These arrangements include the mode of institutional or system level control
(e.g. collegial or guild; state bureaucratic and trustee forms), curricula, level (e.g. graduate
or post-graduate) and prestige. They shape the effects of higher education on individuals
and society (Hammack & Heyns, 1992).
The micro-sociological perspective addresses questions “about what consequences
differences in knowledge produce for faculty [academic staff] and for the shape of
academic life across disciplines” (Hammack & Heyns, 1992: 1881) explores an area of
growth in the future. Hence the relationship between this domain and the Bologna process
intersects with the challenge posed by the cultures of disciplines, which are a very central
topic within micro-sociology.
Studies focusing on cultures of disciplines are lead by medicine, and extend into
astronomy, chemistry, engineering, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, psychology,
translation and business. The core thrust of the micro-sociological perspective on higher
education makes very plain that the interpretation each field of specialisation (chemistry,
medicine, engineering, pharmacy, etc.) brings with it a very particular meaning to the
89
Bologna process, which follows from acting on their specific interpretations. It is the
diversity these interpretations provide that has more value.
Curricula and the level (graduate or post-graduate) have been analysed by focusing on the
Bologna degree structure and curricular change. Contrary to expectations, the innovative
curricula elements that stand at the centre of the Bologna process were less attractive for
micro-sociological analysis. The credit system and the qualification framework yielded
only 8 records even when taken discussions on the paradigm shift in teaching and learning.
Higher Education Studies
Higher education studies occupy the third position in terms of publications input, with 45
items (see table II.4, p.86). This relatively reduced number of publications compared to the
previous perspectives underscored the difficulty of seeing higher education as a field in its
own right (Fulton, 1992: 1810).
Higher education studies include the study of systems, institutions, and processes of higher
education. It helps to clarify, for example, the dynamics within internal structures and the
contents of curricula in response to the external world to which universities look for
support; it deals with institutional governance and administration; with curriculum and
student-teacher relationships. The items classified under this label include a diverse range
of Bologna topics and contribute to seeing higher education as distinctive case.
The papers falling under this rubric focus mainly on cultures of disciplines and national
exceptionalism. The Bologna process also appears as a current European development (e.g.
the idea that Bologna stimulates a continuing reform in some European countries) in a
considerable number of cases. The analysis of the paradigm shift from teaching to learning
also deserves attention compared to other items less numerous, which include student
participation, the Bologna degree structure or the establishment of the EHEA.
90
Comparative Education
The label of comparative education served to categorize all items that use comparative
analysis, mainly grounded on the assumption that higher education varies substantially
from country to country. Therefore, assuming that the establishment of the EHEA
stimulates comparison and benchmarking, the number of items using the comparative
method is surprisingly reduced (41 records) when set against other domains (see table II.4,
p. 86).
One explanation might conceivably be that national exceptionalism and cultures of
disciplines remain dominant even when the topics of Bologna are discussed within the
other domains. The number of items under the rubric of comparative education does not
provide a basis solid enough to draw on deep knowledge about comparable changes across
countries. Rather comparative education appears to emphasise differences of higher
education from country to country which may evolve towards “the more complex idea of
multicultural societies within one state or across the borders” (Mitter, 1992: 1789). The
demand for supranational reforms questions the value of “the melioristic approach (…)
aimed at the identification of trends or even laws comprising several nations or regions, or
aspiring to universal relevance” (Mitter, 1992: 1786) just as it overestimates the potential
for generalisation. The prudent use of the comparative education perspective within the
Bologna process serves to temper erroneous interpretations 37 .
As a topic, Bologna conceived as current European development (e.g. the idea that
Bologna stimulates continuing reform in some European countries) predominates in the
writings on comparative education. These items built out from a wide range of sub-topics
for example, private education, cross-border collaboration, and regional collaboration
between South Eastern European countries. Quality, the establishment of the EHEA and
patterns of national exceptionalism account for 6 records. Interestingly the design of the
Bologna degree structure, one of the core elements of the higher education system within
37
Progress reports (not included in our analysis) supposedly use comparative methodology. These reports
underpinned the political path of Bologna and will not provide any qualitative input for the analysis. They
would however expand the number of works using comparative approach.
91
the Bologna process did not attract as might be expected, the attention of comparative
educationalists.
Organisation theory
The publications drawing on organisation theory focus on the governance of higher
education organisations and systems. The aspects of organisation structures that include
curriculum changes or adaptations have been classified under micro-sociology. The
number of items corresponding to organisation theory is 37 (see table II.4, p. 86).
Organisation theory studying higher education with reference, for example, to such
concepts as loose coupling and institutional theory. More recently, organisation theory has
moved over open systems, political and symbolic aspects that shape organisations.
Apparently, the core of Bologna publications gives substance to the idea that “the most
developed of these areas [governance, division of labour, and bases of order] in terms of
research findings is governance, where common language of analysis and comparison has
been developed” (Rhodes, 1992: 1891). The studies presented tend to focus on the State or
on individual organisations.
Publications focusing on national exceptionalism (Croatia, Montenegro, Portugal, Russia,
Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands) yielded 9 items and those focusing
on the establishment of the EHEA and EHEA/ERA, 10. Organisation theory approaches
higher education by putting emphasis on governance mechanisms. And these numbers
possibly reflect the tension between national and supranational levels since the items
focusing on national exceptionalism take the national as the proper level of regulation,
while those dealing with the establishment of the EHEA and EHEA/ERA tend to focus on
supranational levels of regulation well beyond the State or the market.
92
On the other hand, organisation theorists claim that the development of shared belief
systems would provide a consistent basis to shape academic ideology, which has been
empirically found:
[on the matter of governance] valuation of professional autonomy which is increasingly
challenged and intruded by the bureaucratic state. On the matter of division of labour, there is
a valuation of differentiation, with stratification (prestige hierarchy)… on the matter of bases of
order there is the valuation of free market (Rhodes, 1992: 1893).
Even so, the total number of articles that subscribe a shared belief system within the
framework of organisation theory seems to be reduced. This evidence may challenge the
idea that Bologna is building an explanatory framework. The significance of the Bologna
reforms may embed these changes as the number of references that cast Bologna as a
current European development is 6, contributing to the evolution of academic ideology as
an integrative element around the concepts of contemporary university, neo-European
‘myths’ and the challenges to academic values. Activities related to quality, the Bologna
degree structure and to the cultures of discipline as drivers of change account 5 records
each.
Macro-sociology
31 items break out from macro-sociology (see table II.4, p. 86). Macro-sociology applies
sociology and the sociology of education to study higher education (Wolthuis, 1992). The
macro-sociological approach that emerges from the records sees higher education as a
system with internal and external relations in which change results from the interactions of
interested actors (Wolthuis, 1992).
This disciplinary perspective focuses on the societal environment as an important factor in
explaining differences in national higher education systems.
18 items concentrate on national higher education systems of Croatia, Estonia, Flandres,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, and Slovenia with almost half of them
93
dedicated to the higher education system of Kazakhstan 38 and Russia. Journal of Russian
Education & Society published the latter.
Also interesting from the view of societal environment is the focus on structural aspects
(e.g. new /expanded routes of access; broader teaching or learning strategies, provision of
student welfare services (health care, day care centres, counselling/guidance services).
They focus on the social dimension of the Bologna process, more particularly on the
enhancement of access to quality higher education. We also found a number of articles
focusing on higher education as a public good. Ministers in Prague (Prague Communiqué,
2001) introduced higher education as a public good and in Berlin reasserted the concern
(e.g. funding, access, and students support services).
The establishment of the EHEA is the second topic most often tackled within the
framework of macro-sociology and includes the theme of European integration policies
suggesting that both items are interconnected.
Science Studies
Science studies is a multidisciplinary field with emphasis “…on the evolution of new
forms of knowledge, the epistemological status of scientific propositions, and the problems
of funding, controlling, and evaluating research activity” (Elzinga & Jamison, 1992: 1944).
The items bearing on the Bologna framework reach 21 records (see table II.4, p. 86)
including entrepreneurial and innovative developments that reflect the internal dynamics of
scientific research and the thrust of information and communication technologies.
Writings within the framework of science studies conceive the Bologna process
predominantly as a current European development (e.g. the idea that Bologna stimulates a
continuing reform in some European countries), 6 discuss the nature of both the knowledge
society and the role of the university in reasserting universalism.
38
Kazakhstan joined the Bologna process in March 2010.
94
Research and innovation permeate the works that concentrate on the approaches to learning
and cross-national collaborative activities.
On the other hand, the theme of scientometrics introduced in science studies as a
consequence of developments in computer technology linked to the papers under the topic
of information systems. This topic ties in with the new functionalities of university
libraries, to accountability in academic productivity and discussions about the paradigm
shift from teaching to learning associated with developments in computer technology and
have been explored already.
Interestingly, possible developments that follow from the establishment of the European
Research Area are absent from the writings on science studies that were retrieved.
Political Science
Kogan (1992) has argued that it is not hard to justify the usefulness of political science in
the discussion of modes of governance and “the attempts of various groups in society to
gain control over its functioning” (Kogan, 1992: 1927). The description of institutions and
the analysis of action together “with shaping of issues on the political agenda and the ways
in which they arouse conflict and are presented, negotiated, and converted to policies”
(Kogan, 1992: 1926) are core aspects of political science.
Yet, the number of publications is no more than 20 (see table II.4, p. 86). Bologna
apparently did not attract the attention of political scientists and for that reason Bologna
might be losing the insight of political science.
All changes embodied in the expansion of authority and power of national and European
institutions affect the patterns of higher education. The scientific output predominantly
debates the establishment of the EHEA with 10 records emphasising the analysis of the
action of European institutions.
95
The items include 2 articles on policy instruments. But the scholarly output seems to
underestimate “the radically changed configurations of power and authority which lie
between government and institutions, institutional leaders and the professoriat, and
professionals and client groups” (Kogan, 1992: 1932). The exception could be 2 articles
that associate quality issues with the role of stakeholders of higher education and 1 paper
that discusses the empowerment or the disempowerment of the students in Serbia. The
latter item is associated to the social dimension of the Bologna process. Other domains that
include higher education studies and policy analysis also discussed the topic. By
suggestion of the students (ESIB) in the Prague Communiqué (2001) Ministers introduced
the social dimension. Subsequent communiqués reasserted the dimension advancing the
concept towards the equality of opportunities in higher education, in terms of access,
participation and successful completion of studies; studying and living conditions;
guidance and counselling; financial support, and student participation in higher education
governance.
Discussions of lifelong learning assume a new regime of learning within the knowledge
economy; and accreditation systems, which underline the requirements of competitiveness
and transparency of the European higher education system.
History
The perspective that emerges from the 17 (see table 4, p. 86) items retrieved focuses on a
subfield of history of higher education. As the studies tend to analyse government and
governmental policy, the term political history (Rothblatt, 1992) seems most appropriate.
As Rothblatt (1992) recognized there are a number of relationships that may be explored
within the history of higher education. The linkage between the history of higher education
and policy sciences would appear one of the most relevant to understanding the scholarly
examination of the Bologna process since “the fundamental task of historical writing is to
show exactly what has changed, how it has changed, why it has changed, and the meaning
and significance the change itself” (Rothblatt, 1992: 1825-26).
96
Bologna topics developed in an historical framework focus mainly on national
exceptionalism with 5 items. The Bologna degree structure together with the establishment
of the EHEA was also covered in 4 references and the former topic is set against the
Humboldtian model. The culture of disciplines attracted 3 items which explored the
introduction of the “Corso di Diploma Universitario” in engineering, the history of medical
informatics in Bosnia Herzegovina and the development of schools of veterinary medicine
in Croatia.
Philosophy
The perspective that emerges with 13 items (see table II.4, p. 86) retrieved is philosophy of
education, a sub-set of philosophy. Whilst the meaning of higher education is broached so
are discrete issues within higher education, as pointed out by Barnett (1992). Amongst
them the concept of generic competences and learning outcomes, the development of the
European Qualifications Framework that figure in the philosophical approach. Also
linkages between education and research and the conceptual relationship between teaching
and learning were evoked.
In writings within the philosophical framework on Bologna, the Bologna process is set in
the context of discussions, first, about the establishment of the EHEA second, as a dynamic
European development (e.g. that Bologna stimulates a continuing reform in some
European countries) and moves into the professional responsibility of students, academic
research and education as too changes in the meaning of higher education.
Economics
The economics of higher education is a subset of economics. It addresses the securing
resources and their allocation. Writings focusing on the Bologna process within the
economic framework are 12 (see table II: 4, p. 86). They deal with the general issue of
scarcity of goods, the concept of human capital and the relationships between higher
education and the need of highly qualified personnel.
97
The topic most mentioned is the Bologna degree structure. Half the economics writings
dwell upon the requirements posed by the European labour market to university education.
3 items address explicitly the topic of employability. The culture of disciplines brought
together 4 items using an economics’ approach to engineering and earth sciences.
The mobility of students is closely associated with funding higher education across
borders, which adds a further dimension to academic mobility within the Bologna process
which to attract students is presumed to be conditioned by the EHEA.
Women’s studies
Women’s studies strictly is a cross disciplinary domain. This perspective reviews research
and teaching about women and women in higher education (Stimpson, 1992). The
publications on Women’s studies within the Bologna process (see table II.4, p. 86) refer to
a single publication, which appeared in 2006. Its relevance seems to be extremely reduced
and published items (7) focus mainly on the Bologna degree structure, curricular changes
as related to issue of women and to gender studies within a specific discipline.
Political economy
Political economy focuses on the interplay between polity and economy, focusing
specifically on the market and state interventionist models (Halsey, 1992). The political
economy publications (6) (see table 4, p. 86) within the Bologna process centre on global
markets, commodification of education and internationalisation. Bologna is conceived as a
dynamic European development (e.g. that Bologna stimulates continuing reform in some
European
countries),
despite
references
to
the
establishment
of
the
EHEA,
internationalisation and the paradigm shift from teaching to learning. This perspective pays
close attention to the relationships between the development of higher education and
labour markets; however the works that touch this topic also touch other domains including
comparative education, macro-sociology and policy analysis.
98
Law
The legal basis of the Bologna process includes official texts. They did not, however,
attract the attention of commentators on higher education policy from the journals indexed
in the international databases. These law writings are few, only 5 items (see table 4, p. 86).
This might be seen as a significant gap as the most relevant journals within the domain of
law do not figure in international databases used to retrieve the scholarly writings on the
Bologna process.
Academic freedom is a multifaceted concept: freedom of opinion, political freedom,
religious freedom, individual freedom of teaching, academic freedom (Richter, 1992); and
in higher education systems (e.g. Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands) it is not related to
institutional autonomy and self-government. Anyhow, institutional autonomy appears in 1
of the law writings. And appeared roughly speaking in 5 records as a secondary topic in
policy analysis publications.
3.2 Relationships between the analytical perspectives and Bologna topics
The exploration of links between domains and the Bologna topics, a complementary series
of findings emerges. The analysis according to interpretation recalled the Bologna process
from very different perspectives. It unveiled different dimensions to the Bologna process
that merit further attention. For instance, the culture of disciplines, the national
exceptionalism, the establishment of the EHEA, the Bologna degree structure, quality,
accreditation, mobility are Bologna topics studied from a wide range of analytical
perspectives. On the contrary, information systems, differentiation and diversification in
higher education systems, education as a public good and the diploma supplement are
discussed from a particular perspective. Even so, the number of these latter items is very
small, not exceeding 4 papers in the case of the theme of information systems.
In a closer look at the inputs most intensively used to study in the Bologna process, microsociology, higher education studies and policy analysis dominate over the explanations
99
based on culture of disciplines. Yet, policy analysis and macro-sociology dealt with
national exceptionalism. Establishing the EHEA has been analysed from the framework of
policy analysis, political science and macro-sociology. Policy analysis and microsociology concentrated chiefly on drawing up the Bologna degree structure.
Comparing the analytical perspective used to study the culture of disciplines and national
exceptionalism it is interesting to note that policy analysis and macro-sociology occupy a
larger place in the former; on the contrary its micro-sociology component and policy
analysis increased in the topic of culture of disciplines.
This configuration emphasises the relevance of different levels of analysis (European,
national and organizational field) in understanding better the patterns of stability and
change in all higher education systems within the overall framework of the Bologna
process.
Neave (1995) suggested three areas of university policy were undergoing major change:
systems coordination, autonomy, change of concepts and procedures of systems. The shift
in systems coordination is far from being settled around a market-driven system in spite of
the “desirability of greater institutional latitude to link up with the market” (Neave, 1995:
62). Furthermore, other developments interpose a new layer of decision-making, which
reinforces bureaucratic coordination tied with positional autonomy (Neave, Forthcoming).
In the Bologna Declaration no priority was laid down in institutional autonomy. In Europe
the topic was unusual. Within the Bologna process it emerged in the Bergen Communiqué
“we undertake to ensure that higher education institutions enjoy the necessary autonomy to
implement the agreed reforms” (Bergen Communiqué, 2005) relying on the assumption
that “institutions will prove more efficient if they are endowed with a greater degree of
autonomy” (Neave, 1995: 65). In Germany, for instance, the Federal Government justifies
the Amendment of the Federal Higher Education framework in 1998 to prepare higher
education institutions for new demands and strengthen their institutional autonomy (Witte,
2006). And Trends IV report showed “that more effective implementation of reform is
100
being hindered by a lack of institutional autonomy to make decisions on the key elements
of the Bologna reforms” (Reichert & Tauch, 2005).
Changes on concepts and procedures of system aim at restore the equilibrium. Within the
Bologna process, not only the legislative enactment provided evidence for changes, the
wide range of interpretation about Bologna suggests that different disciplinary approaches
contribute to seize the reforms in higher education.
Also there are Bologna topics (e.g. culture of disciplines, institutional specificities,
curricular change), which whilst not overlooked by policy analysis have been touched
upon by micro-sociology.
Policy analysis applies to a wide range of Bologna topics. This suggests that Bologna can
be seen as a policy process, however not closely similar to the idea of a policy process
model that includes structuring of the policy problem, assessment of a set of policy
alternatives, formulation of policy recommendations, formal decision-taking, policy
implementation, policy evaluation and feedback (Premfors, 1992). Actually, from the
records it emerged the idea that there was no assessment of a set of policy alternatives as
there was no piloting projects or prior evaluation before the signature of the Bologna
Declaration. Therefore, Bologna as a policy process is not following the conventional
mode.
Turning to less used analytical perspectives, one sees, for example, that political science,
economics or science studies acquire interesting dimensions. The weight of political
science compared to the importance of macro-sociology is the same in explaining the
establishment of the EHEA, the third Bologna topic. Furthermore, economics is similar to
organisation theory in analysing the establishment of the Bologna degree structure.
Economics is comparable to micro-sociology in examining the credit system. It dominates
when studying employability, whilst science studies have been brought to bear an
101
understanding to the paradigm shift from teaching to learning to approximately the same
degree, as have comparative studies and policy analysis.
4. Analysis of records, by target audience
The fourth dimension in the analysis of scholarship on the Bologna process involves data
about the target audience for which they were destined. Graph II.4 shows the scholarly
target audience on the Bologna process.
Graph II.4 – Scholarly target audience
Because publications addressed more than one type of audience, data have been
aggregated. For that reason each publication may aim at different readerships. 63% of the
scholarly output addresses the academic estate, 16% target the administrative estate and
15% the professional leadership 39 . The student constituency accounts for 6% of the
publications.
39
Applied when professional interests are at the centre of the item published.
102
Examining the links between analytical perspective and target audience, may be of
particular importance the case of policy analysis. There are works for policy of interest to
the administrative estate and to professional leadership. There are works of policy that
concern chiefly the academic estate. As shown, in graph II.5 the works for policy analysis
may roughly correspond to 16% (administrative estate) plus 15% (professional leadership)
and the works of policy correspond to 52% (academic estate) and 13% (student estate).
Graph II.5 – Relationships between target audiences and the writings in policy analysis
This type of relationship does not appear to be present in other analytical perspectives
probably due to the fact that there are no major differences in terms of target audience
among other analytical perspectives; the academic estate dominates the target audience.
What seems worth to explore further is who is actively publishing on Bologna. In the
connection between the target audience and professional association 40 , it is important to
note that independent journals and publications carried the items on Bologna. The majority
has no link to a professional association as graph II.6 shows.
40
These associations involve for instance, the Association for Tertiary Education Management, Research
Bulletin of the National Centre for Science Information Systems, International Association of Universities,
Association for Studies in International Education, European Centre for Higher Education (CEPES),
UNESCO, The European Higher Education Society, European Society for Engineering Education, etc.
103
Graph II. 6 – Relationships between target audience and linkages to a professional
association
The findings about the items that take the academic estate, the professional leadership and
the student estate are clear: they confirm that professional associations are not in the
forefront of the scholarship production on Bologna.
However, writings directed towards the administrative estate as its target audience show
the links between professional associations to be stronger. These findings underscore the
relationship between the administrative estate and links with a professional association,
compared to other types of audience.
These findings back the idea that awareness of Bologna has not been raised steadily by
professional associations linked to the academic estate, while this is very certainly so in the
case of the administrative estate.
104
Conclusion
The anatomy of Bologna scholarship was important in the number of perspectives and
different approaches employed in developing the Bologna process as a continuous process
of learning. These findings will foster the awareness about key dimensions related to the
theoretical framework and methodology to develop in this thesis.
First of all, the scholarship on the Bologna process is evolving towards an unexpected
nexus of causality. In other words, national exceptionalism and culture of discipline are far
more important in the scholarship about Bologna than the topics that include the
establishment of the EHEA, the Bologna degree structure, quality and accreditation
systems, mobility, employability, credit systems, which lied at the centre of the Bologna
discourse held by Ministers of education at European level.
Within the Bologna process, culture of disciplines and national higher education systems
may be differentiating themselves from its strategic instruments, which upholds the idea
that “there will be always uncharterered territory in the implementation process”
(Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984: 219).
Emphasis on national exceptionalism and culture of disciplines may also relate to
methodological ism of the study of education policy as Dale (2008) argued. In other words,
methodological nationalism and statism – tendency to take the national as the appropriate
level of analysis and the state as the model for governing societies – plus methodological
educationism – that tendency to value the insider view thereby narrowing the perspective
of the university and its meaning – could confirm the emphasis of Bologna scolarly
writings of national exceptionalism and culture of disciplines. This configuration may
present an obstacle, by broadening the analysis to the larger context of action of the
Bologna process. To overcome this problem the research methodology should allow
controlling different contexts of policy action better to highlight the dynamics of policy
action.
105
National exceptionalism and culture of discipline also focused on the role of national and
organisational field levels in interacting with the European level.
Secondly, the writings on Bologna reflect policy implementation and interpretation are
crucial for establishing the EHEA since the diversity of interpretations brings into play a
large range of topics of Bologna in a differentiate way. Policy implementation is a multifaceted concept. It ranges from command and control (e.g. “top-down”) to alternative
frameworks that proceed from “bottom-up” approaches. Additionally, it pursues through
different stages, each entailing normative and interpretative assumptions. The former relate
to the role of institutions in shaping the environment embedding macro-concepts such as
institutions, society, roles and expectations; the latter include micro-concepts such as
negotiated meanings and individual views.
Bologna is probably better seen as a process of implementation viewed as mutual
adaptation “It is neither insistent on existing programs or on systemic change but on the
gradualism implied in the evolutionary metaphor” (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984: 230). It
challenges both “top-downers” and “bottom-uppers” since all readers of Bologna measure
the success and failure of the reforms according to their own standards and guidelines.
Therefore, to grasp the implementation of Bologna as an instrument fulfilling the
development of action taking the objectives of Bologna the question to address focuses on
the level of awareness about the transformations, changes and impacts of the reforms.
106
CHAPTER III - Conceptual framework
CHAPTER III
Conceptual framework
Introduction
The process of problematisation undertaken in the first part of this study was the starting
point for posing the problem of this study, which is formulated as follows.
What is the role of the Bologna process for the institutionalisation of the EHEA?
Two further issues were raised.
1. What are the perceptions of the actors involved in the implementation process
within higher education institutions?
1.1 What is the level of awareness about Bologna as a policy process?
1.2 What is the level of awareness about the transformations, changes and
impact of the reforms?
2. What is the role of policies and institutions placed at different levels of analysis
(European, national and organisational field) for policy implementation?
107
This study addresses a tension between the institutionalisation of the EHEA through the
implementation of Bologna and the idea that changes in higher education emerge from
activities at the base of the system grounded on teaching and research.
Credibility of the EHEA depends on the capacity of Bologna to generate practices
grounded in values and beliefs integrated within specific contexts. As Christensen and
Røvik (1999) pointed out there are competing rules about appropriate behaviour. Some
rules are preferred and followed because
actors in modern organisations will often encounter situations where several identities might be
significant, and thus potentially be activated. We have argued that in such situations some
identities – especially those constituted by formalized structures, functions and roles – are more
likely to be chosen and others to be downplayed (Christensen & Røvik, 1999: 176).
within the interplay between the logic of consequentiality and the logic of appropriateness
in decision-making and policy implementation. Apparently, this interaction
promises to be one of the most exciting fields of future study. This is because in most real
situations involving decision-making, both these logics will be represented and sometimes
interwoven in highly complex ways. Very often, behaving appropriately in modern
organisations means demonstrating clearly that one’s actions are in accordance with the
rational logic of consequentiality (Feldman & March, 1981) (Christensen & Røvik, 1999: 171).
In short, this answer emphasises the tension in the role of formal structure as driving the
logic of appropriateness (Christensen & Røvik, 1999). At the organisational field, higher
education institutions practices and institutional contexts are influenced by and in turn
influence its environment.
The logic of appropriateness (March & Olsen, 1989) determines behaviour and individual
choices based on dominant institutional values. Routines generate appropriate behaviour
and rules formalise logics of appropriateness. It should be noted that interpretation
individuals make about dominant institutional values, routines and rules may differ (Peters,
1999). The logic of appropriateness depends on roles, functions, positions or
responsibilities, raising the question: ‘What is expected from me given my role?’ there is a
108
set of “behavioral expectations for individuals in positions within the institutions and then
reinforces behavior that is appropriate for the role and sanctions behavior that is
inappropriate” (Peters, 1999: 30). The logic of appropriateness creates adequate
performance based on routines and rules. Human agency is a product of the logic of
appropriateness (Bleiklie, Høstaker, & Vabø, 2000).
Implementing the Bologna process shapes the institutionalisation of the EHEA that
“revolves around a certain number of concepts such as ‘harmonisation’, ‘convergence’ or
coordination” (Enders & De Boer, 2009: 169). It entails imitation, translation, diffusion
and interpretation. Seeing the implementation of the Bologna process from a “top-down”
perspective, the European level defines guidelines and principles; the national level
translates those guidelines, sets policies and lines of action. higher education institutions,
depending on the power given to them, interpret guidelines, policies and lines of action
adapting, changing or transforming higher education institution’s own profile in such way
that the outcomes fulfil - or not - the Bologna process initial goals linked to the European
dimension. But policy implementation in higher education is closest to the idea of mutual
adaptation. And soft law mechanisms steer the “top-down” diffusion process by combining
higher education institution’s steering mechanisms with “bottom-up” approaches.
This chapter clarifies key concepts (e.g. higher education institution, policy
implementation in higher education, institution and institutionalisation) and will move by
detailing the theoretical perspective useful to grasp the meaning of institutionalisation.
1. Key concepts
1.1 The concept of higher education institution
The organisational learning perspective is useful to understand how policies and practices
circulate across higher education institutions. Also important to this account are the
concepts of fields of social action where actors struggle about something that is important
to them. (Bleiklie, et al., 2000).
109
Interaction within institutions occurs to enforce dominant (appropriate) values, norms and
routines implemented to enforce the logic of appropriateness. Actors within national
institutions and within higher education institutions translate and diffuse the Bologna
precepts according to each specific institutional and national contexts (Gornitzka, 2006;
Vällima, Hoffman, & Huusko, 2006). This process of translation and diffusion is
constrained by institutional rational choice processes (Scharpf, 1997) and shaped by the
role of institutions as perceived by normative or sociological institutionalism (March &
Olsen, 1989). The specificities of the “definition of problems or solutions may change, or
solutions become linked to other problems, and in this sense a transformation has
occurred” (Gornitzka, 2006: 22).
This dimension links up with the interpretative approach, which focuses on the microanalytic view. The latter point assumes that organisations are constantly at risk of
dissolution, and the reproduction of the status quo “depends on participants continually
negotiating a shared understanding of what they are doing (…) powerful actors, coalitions,
and interest groups may arise at any time to challenge dominant interpretation” (Howard,
1999: 56).
Universities as organisations do not conform to the instrumental perspective outlined by
Gornitzka and Olsen (2006). These authors see the university as an “organisational tool for
efficient implementation of predetermined preferences whereby change reflects a
continuous calculation of relative benefits and costs” higher education institutions, as
organisations, fit the institutional perspective, which constructs the University as “as an
enduring collection of constitutive rules, embedded in structures of meaning and resources.
Within this perspective, rules prescribe appropriate behaviour for specific actors in specific
situations” (Gornitzka & Olsen, 2006: 5).
110
Universities as organisations can be altered and reformed though deliberate intervention
would be avoided as
Causal chains between formal structures and university practices and performance are usually
indirect, long and complex; formal and informal structures can only to a limited degree be
deliberately manipulated; and successful universities tend partly to be loosely coupled
“organized anarchies” (Olsen, 2007:28).
Shaping the university’s internal organisation today requires an awareness that “debates
and policy making impacting the future of the University take place in a multi-level and
multi-centred setting, involving a myriad of actors institutions and processes” (Olsen,
2007: 28). Within the framework of our study, the implementation of the Bologna process
ties with the institutionalisation of the EHEA. However, this outcome depends on how
change affects the University as an institution (Olsen, 2007). In other words, how change
impacts on the University as organisational field? How and why there is organisational
change?
One simple explanation, among others, is that organisational actors themselves change, and
that even when trying to behave appropriately by applying ready-made rules, they create new
rules in the process. This regularly occurs because rules of appropriate behaviour tend to be
rather widely defined, allowing considerable room for actors to make their own interpretations
and versions. And when actors in various settings translate general rules in order to match
numerous and different practical situations, the rules themselves can be both differentiated and
transformed (Christensen & Røvik, 1999: 177).
Structural change within higher education institutions takes into account the analysis of
Burton Clark as to grasp how an academic organisation works, when centred on work,
beliefs and authority.
Clark (1983) explored the division of work in academic activities and proposed two
modes: enterprise and discipline. Enterprise refers to groups that link together and are
limited to a small range of fields. Discipline specialises by knowledge domain and unites
community interests that “reaches across large territories” (Clark, 1983: 29). This feature
in turn supports the notion that “discipline rather than institution tends to become the
111
dominant force in the working lives of academics” (Clark, 1983: 30). According to Henkel
and Vabø (2000) academic identity is constructed around concepts of a discipline which
“has a knowledge tradition – categories of thought – and related codes of conduct” (Clark,
1983: 76) and enterprise (basic units) and department. According to Maassen (1996) the
discipline is the only social institutional context that cannot be affected by the government.
Another characteristic of academic work in an academic organisation is that no strong
interdependence exists among different parts. Fragmentation can trigger the degree of
autonomy in academic organisations compared to other organisational types. Academic
freedom relies on values (integrity, respect for evidence, reasoned argument and critical
thinking) that develop within the discipline. Institutional autonomy is linked to the values
of self-regulation (Henkel & Vabø, 2000).
These arguments point to the existence of organisational structures in support of existing
cultural systems. They are likely to find within higher education institutions consensus
across role groups, such as academics, students and administrative and management staff.
The belief component inherent to the academic organisation reflects its symbolic side and
“outsiders generally know a formal organisation more through its symbols than its
technical structure, since they principally encounter official image and public reputation”
(Clark, 1983: 72). Among these beliefs are the culture of disciplines, the culture of the
enterprise, the culture of the profession and the culture of the system. Understanding
grounded norms within academic organisations allows distinctions to be drawn between
layers and conditions that structure agencies.
According to Hofstede (1997) the organisational culture is not as profound as is often
claimed because it is expressed not in its members’ values but in practices (symbols,
heroes and rituals). However, in the case of higher education institutions, Allen (2003)
argued that the organisational culture is more deeply rooted in norms, values, meanings
and symbols that evolve through social interaction over time and more resistant to
variations in the environment. In addition, within higher education institutions it is the
concept of academic culture that deserves further attention to learn how strong the
112
university must be as an institution. These arguments view disciplines as cultures, and hold
that such cultures generate individual identities (Henkel & Vabø, 2000).
Authority in an academic organisation determines who sets the roles. The academic
oligarchy may act as a coordination force replacing the “political bureaucratic dictate or
market-type interaction” (Clark, 1983: 139).
For Clark the academic oligarchy
is most prominent in chair-based organisation, since so much concentration of power locally in
individuals, amounting to small monopolies in thousands of parts, establishes conditions that
propel some of these persons to national power, by means that vary from sheer inflation of
status to steady participation in central councils” (Clark, 1983: 140).
Becher and Kogan (1992) noted the presence of two modes of authority: hierarchy, the role
that affects behaviour of others, and collegiums, where actors have “equal authority to
participate in decisions which are binding on each of them” (Becher & Kogan, 1992: 72).
Both co-exist in academic organisations. Hence executive structure and systems
committees attached to authority overlap and conflict. The executive structure operates
between academic values and pressures from the environment. Such an arrangement brings
together heads of basic units and individual teaching staff members (Becher & Kogan,
1992) and acts as a buffer between the bottom and the top of the organisation.
External pressures reinforce the authority of middle management representatives to put
forward institutional change proposals, “with a sufficient degree of knowledge about the
subject-matter to make the decision-making plausible” (Becher & Kogan, 1992: 73).
Middle management addresses only organisational changes that emerge rapidly in formal
organisational structures. Other aspects, the behaviour of academics and students and
institutional identities change gradually (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2000). If external
environmental agents use influence strategy to bring about change it is likely that
organisational changes will be superficial while creating organisational isomorphism at the
intermediate level (Scott, 1987).
113
As Clark (1983) observed and Becher and Kogan (1992) confirmed, authority within
higher education remains fragmentary, since within universities there are always basic
units that function by maintaining peer-group norms and values whilst ensuring the
organisation of curriculum and research to meet social, economic and cultural
requirements.
Given the interplay between basic units and the individual level, the fulfilment of academic
roles tends to be fragmented. Academic freedom of choice is a key element in higher
education. According to Becher and Kogan (1992) there are limited demands on collective
activity and limitation of resources that affect the performance of academic roles.
Changes in the environment may trigger changes of norms and shifts within the
collectivity’s basic units if academic values are not self-contained.
The relationship between organisational structure and organisational change may be
pursued through different institutional perspectives.
As table III.5 shows changes in higher education are embedded on established
arrangements in a process of incremental sedimentation a view that bears out institutional
perspectives shows in favour of the imprinting of organisation structures (e.g.
organisations acquire certain structural features because they are taken for granted), the
incorporation of organisation structures (e.g. everything that happens is not necessarily
intended) and the bypassing of organisational structures (e.g. organisational structures are
required to support cultural systems).
114
Table III.5 – Institutional perspectives and structural changes
INSTITUTIONAL
PERSPECTIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENTS
INSTITUTIONAL
PRESSURE
INSTITUTIONAL
ARGUMENT
STRUCTURAL
CHANGES
Imprinting of
organisational
structure
Variations according to
when units were
created
Persistence over
time
Organisations acquire
certain structural
features not by
rational decision but
because they are
taken for granted
Entail the creation of
reality
Incorporation of
organisational
structure
Evolution of
specialised boundary
roles to deal with
strategic contingencies
Adaptative
mechanisms
occurring over a
period of time
Everything that
happens is not
necessarily intended,
that every outcome is
not the result of a
conscious process
Organisations
operating in more
complex and
conflicted
environments will
exhibit greater
administrative
complexity and
reduce programme
coherence –
organisations
replicate salient
aspects of
environmental
differentiation
Bypassing of
organisational
structures
Social order (cultural
controls)
Consensus across
role groups
Organisational
structures are
required to support
and supplement the
cultural systems
The existence of
strong institutional
environments may
reduce rather then
increase the
elaborateness of
organisational
structure
Source: Adapted from Scott (1987).
As shown external pressure and environmental agents at European and at national level put
normative and mimetic pressure to change, which amounts to authorisation of
organisational structure by the former and to inducement of organisational structure by the
latter. Implementing Bologna clearly underlines a tension between changes in operational
structures and changes affecting basic units, “It is thus an open question how and to what
extent academic institutions and practices are affected by major policy changes. This
depends on the extent to which the changes are welcomed by, relevant to, and moulded and
absorbed by academic institutions and practices” (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2000: 30).
115
Bologna may even threaten a particular strategy of research and teaching and in spite of
support of the administrative authority, basic units and the individual level could resist.
Becher and Kogan have argued that innovations “which originate in planned changes on
deliberate coercion are more likely to arouse conflict or contention” (Becher & Kogan,
1992: 137).
Bologna’s message for higher education institutions is coercive in that it was adopted
following a political statement. And action may be based on the logic of consequentiality.
But environmental agents within higher education are not powerful enough to impose
significant changes. Imposition by law only guarantees superficial structural changes.
At European level, the European Commission has recourse to normative pressure
(establishing a superordinate authority for national accreditation systems) and influences
strategy (by providing financial incentives through European programmes), which entails
less superficial structural changes because change improves technical performance.
Organisation theories often recognise that organisations depend on their environment so
that implementing reform “is seen as a case of organisational change in higher education
institutions” (Gornitzka, Kyvik, & Stensaker, 2005: 49) in the sense that “the outcomes are
joint products of organisational performance and environmental response” (Scott, 2003:
145).
Organisation theorists argue:
Organisations are viewed as interdependent with environments in a number of senses.
Participants’ perceptions of their environments together with the attention structures of
organisations result in enacted environments that are products of both environmental features
and organisational information systems. Environments directly affect organisational outcomes,
which in turn affect subsequent perceptions and decisions. Environments influence
organisations, but organisations also modify and select their environments. And environments
supply the materials and ingredients of which organisations are composed (Scott, 2003: 149).
The organisational approach may contribute to explain processes and changes employed by
higher education institutions implementing Bologna. This process seen from the
116
organisational field reveals something about the capacity of the University for learning and
self-adjustment. Full recognition about the institutionalisation of the EHEA requires the
awareness of governance mechanisms in higher education organisations and systems.
1.2 The concept of policy implementation in higher education studies
The value of policy implementation for understanding the process of institutionalisation of
the EHEA stems from policy studies that seek to explain policies and their subsequent
development.
Institutional identities and competing logics of appropriateness create a specific dynamic
for interactions between structures and processes within higher education institutions.
Bologna lays out a concrete institutional model and brings beliefs and expectations of
European, national and higher education institutions close to the idea of framing
integration (Knill & Lehmkhul, 1999).
The reason for different perceptions within the pays politique and the pays réel, to use
Neave’s terminology, is not necessarily an implementation gap in the sense that social
actors or institutional arrangements constrain implementation. Rather there may be
different beliefs, expectations and perceptions of the goals of the Bologna process. It
depends on the level of analysis and on the “inter-organisational relationships, that is,
between organisations and different stakeholders in the organisational environment”
(Gornitzka, et al., 2005: 49) to achieve change taking that institutions are not endangered.
Therefore, different perceptions entail a misunderstanding of implementation itself because
institutions interact and shape socio-economic and political conditions. Explaining
different perceptions of achievements or the outcomes of policy implementation do not fit
a linear interpretation because there are limited time horizons, perverse effects, and
changing actors’ preferences.
According to a model of policy seen as evolving step-by-step, implementation corresponds
to the second stage. The first formulates policy. The third stage reformulates it. The
117
implementation stage should be considered as an “evolutionary process in which both the
set of formal goals and the structures and procedures for attaining them are subject to
modification” (Cerych & Sabatier, 1986: 11). Within the implementation stage, after the
initial step that corresponds to introduction, implementation will embed reform.
For that reason, more than an explanation about implementation one needs to grasp why
preferences take place and in what circumstances. It is here that the ‘policy cycle’
approach assumes a key role. It allows seeing how policy travels trough policy contexts.
This study employs a theoretical framework to understand institutionalisation and uses a
theoretical-methodological device to depict implementation to overcome drawbacks related
to “top-down”, “bottom-up” or networking perspectives of implementation.
Cerych and Sabatier identified six factors affecting implementation with special emphasis
on the attainment of formal goals in a “top-down” mode:
in most situations, an understanding of the causal assumptions behind a reform, the general
constellation of political actors, and the changes in socio-economic conditions over time will
permit the analyst to predict the general pattern of outcomes with relatively limited resources
(Cerych & Sabatier, 1986: 255).
According to Sabatier (2005) criticism of the “top-down” perspective stems from the
difficulty in establishing clear and consistent policy objectives that incorporate a multitude
of conflicting and partial objectives and on the overload of the governmental programme.
The former weakness relates to the reconceptualisation of what is acceptable in a specific
context. The latter relates to the curvilinear relationship between the effectiveness of
implementation and the background conditions.
This configuration anticipates incremental reforms with limited effects on the entire higher
education system to produce commitment and successful reform. However, proponents of
the “bottom-up” approach argue that the role of alternative governmental programmes and
subsystem actors (e.g. local implementing officials) are crucial to understand policy
implementation as a complex policy process.
118
Following Sabatier (2005) the “bottom-up” approach allowed us to identify a policy
network structure dedicated to implementation. Because “bottom-uppers” tend to focus on
the perception of problems and activities of local actors, they are able to assess the
importance of governmental policies in opposition to the strategies developed by the
organisational field.
Advantages and limitations to both approaches have been combined in the Advocacy
Coalition Framework (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999). It takes local actors, aggregated
into a number of advocacy groups, as the unit of analysis together with the legal
instruments and the socio-economic conditions. This framework according to Sabatier
(2005):
adopts the “‘bottom-uppers” unit of analysis – a whole variety of public and private actors
involved with a policy problem – as well as their concerns with understanding the perspectives
and strategies of all major categories of actors, not simply programme proponents. (…)
Finally, the synthesis adopts the intellectual style (or methodological perspective) of many topdowners in its willingness to utilise fairly abstract theoretical constructs and to operate from an
admittedly simplified portrait of reality (Sabatier, 2005: 26).
Other concepts of policy implementation are available - mutual adaptation and learning
process (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984). In the field of higher education, implementation
becomes an interactive process and its study should underline respective interactions
within institutions.
But implementation studies in higher education have been influenced by changes in public
policy since mid-80’s (e.g. new public management policy) (Kogan,, 2005) as “only broad
frameworks and objectives are specified, leaving much discretion to local organisation and
implementing agencies (see Van Vught 1989)” (Gornitzka, et al., 2005: 48). Changes in
the relationships between government and higher education institutions are crucial to the
conduct of policy analysis. And implementation “should be perceived as interactive
processes” (Gornitzka, et al., 2005: 53). They are essential to examine the relationship
between policy implementation and policy interaction.
119
Within the framework of Bologna, since European institutions, national institutions and
higher education institutions share the executive power to implement it is difficult to
determine the steering mechanisms. Projecting the Bologna principles is firstly the
responsibility of national institutions (e.g. governments). They set the legal framework.
And higher education institutions can also transpose the Bologna precepts according to
their own priorities. Institutions that enforce compliance are more difficult to identify.
Within higher education institutions, leadership is often in favour of reforms. The opening
for reform is analysed in each institutional context, in the knowledge that both at national
level and at organisation field the decision to build up the EHEA is interpreted. Such
interpretation is embedded in values, beliefs and frames of reference that differ among
policy makers and implementers. Olsen (2001) pointed out:
A major historic development in Europe is the emergence of differentiated and partly autonomous
institutional spheres with distinct logics of action, meanings and resources. Each sphere
legitimizes different participants, issues, and ways of making, implementing and justifying
decisions” (Olsen, 2001: 340).
Neave recognised that in countries where the law needs to shape the institutions, either by
law or ministerial circular, changes will be purely nominal. Other changes relate mainly to
substance and depend strongly on much more specific and institutional changes.
At European level, European institutions use incentive (e.g. funding) and deterrent (e.g.
shame and blame) mechanisms to enforce compliance. At national level, it is clear that
policies to attain desired outcomes have not been accurately assessed because national
reports follow a formal and political requirement and at the organisational field the
optimism does not prevail (Fulton, Amaral, & Veiga, 2004). This contradiction affects
politics and hinders the sharing of meaning within the EHEA. At the organisational level,
in spite of the academic freedom of academic staff and of institutional autonomy of higher
education institutions
120
discussions taking place within universities are impregnated with a ‘sense of inevitability’, as if
it were no longer worthwhile to ask fundamental questions, because every institution will be
moving along the same lines, independently of concerns they may have about this ‘inevitable’
progression” (Nóvoa & Lawn, 2002:148).
What are the characteristics of policy implementation processes? Gornitzka argued that it
cannot be assumed that policies “move from government to objects of implementation
unaffected by the road they travel” (Gornitzka, et al., 2005: 53). At national level, the
Bologna reports state the attainment of objectives. Benchmarking among countries moves
ahead by identifying key areas of development and by taking government initiatives (e.g.
legal framework) as steps towards success. The main characteristic is a need to show
success of one implementation mechanism based on negative reinforcement. Shame and
blame confirm that states are complying with the reforms without examining the
development of indispensable action that takes the objective of Bologna producing effects
at the organisational field. For instance, in the pays politique Ministers decided (Bologna
Declaration, 1999) that the degree structure, the credit system and the Diploma Supplement
are the measures to be taken towards the establishment of EHEA and in the pays réel these
measures are interpreted within specific contexts.
Implementation mechanisms reveal low levels of compliance. They ignore the stage of
implementation (e.g. introduction, implementation and embededness) reached and the time
passed. Fulfilling Bologna objectives relies highly upon internal reforms. The embedded is
crucial to understand what really changed. Anyhow Bologna as a policy process evolves
because it enhances the social legitimacy of the countries involved. Additionally, cases
may be singled out where details of implementation closely follow preferences determined
by the national context (Veiga, et al., 2008). Yet as Neave (2005) noted, intention to act
does not necessarily imply capacity to act. The analysis of progress towards building the
EHEA:
(…) is more examination of the ‘state of readiness’ amongst leaders. It is not about how far the
Bologna-inspired practices are integrated into the fabric, still less about the views of those
whose professional responsibility is to consolidate – to embed – those practices: academia
(Neave, 2005: 21).
121
The process associated with implementation entails – as in most implementation processes
– policy objectives. These are “characteristically multiple (because there are many things
we want, not just one), conflicting (because we want different things), and vague (because
that is how we agree to proceed without having to agree on exactly what will be done)”
(Cerych & Sabatier, 1986: 14). Whether a “top-down” approach or a “bottom-up”
approach is used, the roles of social actors and institutional arrangement tend to be
resistant to changes imposed by policy, mainly because the proposals of Bologna do not
coincide with the structures and processes of higher education institutions. For Cerych and
Sabatier these constraints “are likely to strongly affect the extent of goal attainment and the
reformulation of goal priorities and implementation structures” (Cerych & Sabatier, 1986:
15). Or as Sverdrup argued that ambiguity allows different groups to support the same
policies for different reasons and with different expectations about consequences, and in
particular the administrative consequences of the policies (Sverdrup, 2006). Yet,
implementation may also be seen as “mutual adaptation and a learning process, and
implementation as negotiation and interaction” (Gornitzka, et al., 2005: 45), provided there
is a clear definition of what is to be implemented. Here, it is necessary to examine further
whether it is possible to see implementing the Bologna process as linked to establishing the
EHEA and to ascertain whether possible correlation exists between the Bologna process
and the political unification that sees Europeanization as involving institutional mutual
adaptations (Olsen, 2002).
From this perspective, implementing the Bologna process becomes a learning trajectory.
The institutions involved learn from each other by imitating, translating and diffusing best
practices, evolving while filling gaps in the structure or eliminating inconsistencies either
by building comparable indicators or by gathering information within the framework of
stocktaking.
The learning approach sees organisations open to change and takes a developmental view
of organisational activities (Howard, 1999) and focuses “on how individuals, groups and
organisations notice and interpret information and use it to alter their fit with their
environment” (Howard, 1999: 57). The institutional perspective puts emphasis on mimetic
122
mechanisms. Organisations move towards isomorphism as they tend to copy each other
(Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). Reality may derive from external pressures (e.g. organisations
change because they are forced to do so). The interpretative approach, however, focuses on
the meaning social actions possess for different actors at different levels of analysis.
Organisations move through social interactions “in which people negotiate, compromise,
accept others’ definitions of what they are to do, and then act on them” (Howard, 1999:
54). This perspective construes the reality as built from “bottom-up”.
Implementing the Bologna process entails ambiguity and conflict. Sverdrup argues that
implementation process vary in terms of ambiguity and according to the degree of conflict
related to the decision that is supposed to be implemented (Sverdrup, 2006). Assuming that
as a Bologna process flows between high ambiguity (it deals with a considerable number
of social, political, economic and cultural institutions and actors) and high conflict (number
of actions to be taken, based on unstated consensus since those involved should all be
aware of, and share, the same goals, plus a subjective frame of reference), it is likely
following Sverdrup (2006) that implementation will be symbolic and will depend to a large
degree upon the strength of specific domestic coalitions. The interpretive approach may be
of some use in understanding the negotiated consensus that may be possible to achieve.
Making Bologna dependent on the ongoing processes of argumentation increases the
awareness of the connections or ties among social actors involved in its implementation.
Apparently European, national and organisational levels entertain different visions about
the university with implications for the process of implementation. Using Olsen’s
typology 41 (Olsen, 2007) it might be argued that in extreme positions the European
institution sees the university as a service enterprise, embedded in competitive markets; the
national level sees the university as an instrument for national political agendas; and the
organisational field sees the university as a self-governing community of scholars or the
university as a representative democracy. Establishing these relations will allow us to
argue that European institutions see the university as instrument of “an economic
41
The university as: a rule governed community of scholars; an instrument for natural political agendas; a
representative democracy; a service enterprise embedded in competitive markets.
123
enterprise operating in competitive markets. Research and higher education are
commodities. Competition and achieving individual gains are key processes” (Gornitzka &
Olsen, 2006: 6), on the one hand. On the other hand, national institutions see the
University as “a tool for achieving government purposes and it is assessed in terms of
effectiveness and efficiency” (Gornitzka & Olsen, 2006: 6). Both perspectives are driven
by economic rationales.
Yet, the organisational field sees the university either as a self-governing community
underscoring the institutional autonomy framework as an interpretative framework, which
favours institutional diversity in training and research; or as representative democracy
emphasising the representation of all the constituencies (although the university has never
been truly democratic (De Boer & Stensaker, 2007) ). Both perspectives see the university
governed by internal factors. The aspect related to conflicting or sharing norms and
objectives draws the distinction. The former features the university as a representative
democracy; and the latter characterises the university as a rule-governed community of
scholars.
1.3 The concept of institution
This study borrows from New Institutionalism 42 the concept of institution, which is a
stable collection of rules and practices embedded in structures of meaning. Institutions
provide codes of appropriate behaviour, affective ties, and a belief in a legitimate order
(March & Olsen, 1989). New Institutionalism (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983; Hall & Taylor,
1996; March & Olsen, 1989, 2006; Nee, 1998; Peters, 1999; Powell, 2007; Scott, 2003)
has institutions as objects of analysis. This study focuses on their role as governance
42
New Institutionalism is a school of thought proposing a new orientation regarding organizations. Technical
elements and resource dependency were not the only components reflecting organizations. Other dimensions
(e.g. institutional forces, rational myths, knowledge legitimated by education and by professions, public
opinion and law) are reflections of organizational practices and structures (Powell, 2007). In the literature
(Hall & Taylor, 1996), New Institutionalism refers to, at least, three analytical different but complementary
approaches (e.g. historical, rational choice, sociological). The historical institutionalism highlight an inherent
agenda based on the pattern of development of institutions – path dependency is a key concept. The rational
choice institutionalism emphasis the rules that govern behavior. The sociological institutionalism (or
normative institutionalism) focus on logic of appropriateness that guides individuals within an institution –
norms and formal rules shape the behavior.
124
mechanisms (e.g. policy instruments inspired on the idea of institutional pillar (Scott,
2003) with relevance for implementing Bologna.
New Institutionalism give centrality to political values and collective choice. Following
Powel (2007) the core idea is focusing on organisations deeply embedded in social and
political environments suggesting that practices and structures reflect rules, beliefs, and
conventions built into the wider environment. New Institutionalism was aiming at give
centrality to “interaction of symbols, values, and even the emotive aspects of the political
process” (Peters, 1999: 17). According to Peters (1999) collective action should become
the dominant approach to understanding political life.
The development of the common European public space does not entail a European demos
of being a polity in the conventional sense (Soysal, 2002); that is based on consensus and
conformity. Rather “It includes multiple spheres and subjects and it is created through the
activities of a growing contingent of social and political actors, who engage in the
discourse of Europe and deploy strategic action – with or without institutionalised contact
with the EU” (Soysal, 2002: 64). The complexity of interchanges related to the
construction of European project derives from the creation of rules and identities at various
levels of analysis. For March and Olsen “institutional complexity and the coexistence of
different partial orders, each considered legitimate in its sphere, seem to have become
permanent features of the international scene” (March & Olsen, 1998: 947). The
commonality among different institutional approaches gives primacy to the role of
institutions, which is central to understanding the “significance of existing structures,
histories and dynamics for understanding political transformations” (Olsen, 2002: 925).
Within a perspective founded on cultural community, institutions are defined as a
relatively enduring collection of rules and organised practices, embedded in structures of
meaning and resources.
The contrasting elements of different perspectives that bear on the concept of institution
are first the rational actor and cultural community approach, second the distinctions made
between institutions as a product that reflects environmental circumstances and the
understanding of institutions as independent of environment (March & Olsen, 2006).
125
The key features of the institutions environment, which consists of other institutions, also
rely on regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars (Scott, 2003). The assumptions
and reasoning developed towards each conception of institutional pillar appears in table
III.6.
Table III.6 - Conception of institutional pillars
REGULATIVE
NORMATIVE
CULTURAL-COGNITIVE
Basis of compliance
Penalty, absence of reward
Social obligation
Taken-for-grantedeness
Shared understanding
Basis of order
Regulative, rules
Binding expectations
Constitutive schema
Mechanisms
Coercive
Normative
Normative
Coercive
Mimetic
Logic
Instrumentality
Appropriateness
Orthodoxy
Indicators
Rules
Laws
Sanctions
Certification
Accreditation
Common beliefs
Shared logics of action
Basis of legitimacy
Legally sanctioned
Morally governed
Comprehensible
Recognisable
Culturally supported
Source: (Adapted from Scott, 2003)
As shown the regulative dimension views the institution as a system of rules set by the
governance structures. In the EU context the instrumental character of European
Community is based on law and treaties to pursuit economic interests (Laffan, 2001). The
normative pillar sees institutions as structures providing a moral framework: rules, norms
and laws are internalised by participants. The normative dimension of the European Union
is based on the central value of EU construction, the basis of the logic of appropriateness
representing dominant institutional values. The principle of subsidiarity takes the norm
“that decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level” (Laffan, 2001: 716) in
reaction to the spread of EU competence in the 80s (see chapter I, p. 50). The culturalcognitive pillar is often associated with New Institutionalism in as much as it refers to
individual perceptions as well as to symbolic systems and shared meanings that contribute
126
to make sense and ascribe meaning. In the EU the cognitive systems entail national frames
and the emergence of new frames of meaning (e.g. flag, passport, the single currency)
constructed within European Union (Laffan, 2001). Anyhow, “the cognitive pillar remains
the most underdeveloped of the pillars largely because the EU was founded by states,
institutions with a powerful cognitive dimension” (Laffan, 2001: 722). For this reason, the
national exceptionalism portrays a very important dimension within the Bologna process
(see chapter II, p. 83). The establishment of EHEA would entail the existence of a common
frame of reference to overcome this weight.
Institutionalisation is that process by which social reality is constructed (Scott, 2003)
entailing adaptation and changes. Following DiMaggio and Powell (1983), structural
change in organisations seems to be driven by institutional processes rather than economic
rationales, such as competition or efficiency.
For Scott (2003) part of the environment of an organisation consists of institutional
elements. These elements have technical and cultural features and both can be of influence
to an organisation. The key features of institutions at different levels of analysis constitute
the environment of organisations.
Institutional pillars form part of causal factors of organisational change in higher
education. They also affect institutional frameworks and institutional factors.
Social actors spread beliefs and rules that drive organisational change. According to
Dimaggio and Powell (1983) nation-states and professions shape of institutional forms.
The mechanisms used by state actors focus on coercion establishing of formal control,
while the mechanisms used by professions “rely on normative and/or mimetic influences
and to attempt to create cultural forms consistent with their own aims and beliefs” (Scott,
1987: 509).
New Institutionalists argue “modern societies contain many complexes of institutionalised
rules and patterns – products of professional groups, the state, and non-governmental
associations. These socially constructed realities provide a framework for the creation and
127
elaboration of formal organisations” (Scott, 2003: 119). Institutional theory developed by
Dimaggio and Powell (1983) gives particular relevance to cognitive controls as means of
organisational change. Institutional processes drive organisational change. Institutional
change can be associated with deinstitutionalisation which results in the weakening,
transformation or even disappearance of the institution.
Special attention will be given in this study to the institutional pillars at different level of
analysis, with emphasis on the role of ideas and discourse in providing the establishment of
the EHEA with meaning. In the context of higher education, policies and steering and
policy instruments are institutional pillars.
1.4 The concept of institutionalisation
The establishment of the EHEA corresponds to a decision made by 29 Ministers of
Education with the signature of the Bologna Declaration. This objective can be linked to
other political statements made before the Bologna Declaration, and to different initiatives
that can be traced back to the 80’s (see chapter V, p. 162).
The Bologna reforms are expected to reinforce the institutionalisation of the EHEA
because the objective of the Bologna process as made plain in the Bologna Declaration was
to build up the EHEA. This process of building up the EHEA will generate practices,
embedded in values and beliefs coping with new governance modes and organisational
changes in higher education.
The framework underlying this study on institutionalising EHEA uses the lens of New
Institutionalism. The institutionalisation of the EHEA could interact with other farreaching processes of Europeanization or integration, while education policies shift from
national to European scale as such reflecting discussions about the issue of holding
“polities struggling to accommodate unity and diversity” (Olsen, 2005: 12). These debates
rely on integration concepts and are central to understand both Europeanization (Delanty &
Rumford, 2005) and its links with institutionalisation.
128
Europeanization embraces different meanings. The initiative to build up the EHEA gives
prevalence to the European level in the meaning that “on the political unification project
that is to be brought into existence; it lives, however, with competing ideas about what
political organisation and system of governance is desirable, possible and likely to make
Europe a stronger entity” (Olsen, 2002: 940). But, Europeanization may also be applied to
“process by which national politics and/or policy processes are increasingly dominated by
the EU agendas and/or the ways in which the EU norms are domesticated in member (and
non-member) states” (Delanty & Rumford, 2005: 6) underlying the role of the national
level. Interaction, within institutions these levels, is crucial to grasp the institutionalisation
of EHEA.
This study focuses on Europeanisation as an agenda driving institutional change, which in
turn are transformations embedded in processes, such as imitation, organisational learning
and interpretation. They go beyond institutional frameworks and formal structures in that
they agree that the concept describes and explores “the formation of new European
identities within emergent policy networks, leading to the emergence of the European
education space, a fuzzy but significant concept in education policy” (Nóvoa & Lawn,
2002: 4).
For that reason, Bologna is seen as a lever empowering reforms in European higher
education, while constructing the EHEA through policy implementation. The tension is on
the national character of Bologna versus the European feature of the EHEA.
Integration might be seen as a product of learning through diffusion (March, 2002). This
view clearly involves thinking about the ways ideas, practices, beliefs, and information
move within different levels of analysis. In this setting, policy implementation passes
through different levels and phases envisaging different features.
Under the framework of the EHEA, the level of institutionalisation and integration
increases as the compound units “develop a common public space, civic society and
institutions able to educate and socialise individuals into informed citizens with a shared
political identity and culture” (Olsen, 2001: 327). A new form of governance and
129
institutionalisation is reproduced through policy (discourse and texts) within the network
“hidden in the formal EU policy discourse and in conventional studies preoccupied with
the rationality and effectiveness of its institutions” (Nóvoa & Lawn, 2002: 8). By the same
token, Nóvoa and deJong-Lambert (2003) introduced the idea that refers to the criteria
definition for construing an European educational space. The Bologna process bypassed
the impossibility of harmonisation within EU by extending the basis for cooperation
between member states and beyond by intergovernmental initiatives and activities
revitalising the aims for education and training that the EU failed to achieve in the 1980s
and 1990s (Ertl, 2006).
According to Scharpf (2001) it makes a difference, however, if Europeanization is seen as
a result of government’s strategies that are aware of mutual interdependences or whether
Europeanization is exercised in one of the following modes: intergovernmental
negotiations, joint decisions and supranational centralisation. These modes however, might
not be appropriate to understand the Europeanization of the education sector achieved so
far. Conceptually, it might be important to recognise that “top-down” initiatives might not
be so relevant in the Bologna context, instead recognize the fragmentation of governance
activities across different levels embedded in the perspective of rescaling education
policies.
So far, integration (e.g. economic and political) was not achieved by giving supremacy to
any of these modes. Rather it can be seen as a combination of modes of multilevel
governance justified by the consensus in the 80s around the possibility of the EU
enlargement: the quest for economies of scale, the economic pressures created by a world
system driven by capitalism and the ideological engagement among accession countries in
favour of a market economy were all accompanying features to push ahead with the
integration process. The challenge for EU is to find a bridge to match the problem-solving
gap, which tends to exist in policy areas where national government structures are under
competition. European action is supported when there is a consensus and European
initiatives are blocked when the consensus does not exist and problems are left to national
governments to settle (Scharpf, 2001).
130
The dynamics of economic and political integration are important to be aware of the links
between the European level, the national level and the organisational field. These can be
translated under the framework of policy implementation within the education sector
impacting institutional and systematic change implementation is a result of a dynamic and
interactive process headed for as an integrated process (Gornitzka, et al., 2005).
Institutionalisation instils value by “supplying intrinsic worth to a structure or process that,
before
institutionalisation,
had
only
instrumental
utility.
By
instilling
value,
institutionalisation promotes stability: persistence of the structure over time” (Scott, 1987:
494). But it may also have other meanings. And Scott (1987) in sketching its many facets,
refers to a process of creating reality; as a system of relational networks, exchange
processes and shared belief; as a process of differentiated and specialised cognitive and
normative systems that occurs in different institutional logics; or in the meaning of social
interaction that “results from the process by which actions become repeated over time and
are assigned similar meaning by self and others” (Scott, 1987: 495). Institutionalisation is
also viewed as the social process by which individuals come to accept a shared definition
of social reality placing emphasis on the meaning of institutionalisation rooted in
conformity
that
overlaps
notions
inherent
to
the
logic
of
appropriateness.
“Institutionalisation operates to produce common understanding about what is appropriate
and, fundamentally, meaningful behaviour” (Scott, 1987: 497).
For this study, institutionalisation of the EHEA is construed as policy integration since
institutionalisation of the EHEA might increase the level of integration of education
policies. The institutionalisation of the EHEA may be understood as an indicator of
political integration by inducing changes towards a higher level of integration of European
HE policies.
Institutionalisation “evolves over time through an adaptable, largely unplanned,
historically dependent process” (Scott, 1987: 506). Since New Institutionalism argues “that
everything that happens is not necessarily intended, that (every outcome is not the result of
a conscious decision process” (Scott 1987: 505), then New Institutionalism poses the
question whether it is possible to conceive the institutionalisation of the EHEA as an
131
integrative process which seeks “the creation, identification, and implementation of shared
preferences” (March & Olsen, 1989: 126). The establishment of EHEA in this study is
taken as policy as integration.
Thus, this study focuses on the institutionalisation of the EHEA as it relates a framework
reorganising and rewriting institutional forms, rules and roles; standardisation,
homogenisation on codes of meaning, ways of reasoning and accounts that requires shared
purposes, identities, traditions of interpretation and principles of legitimacy that explain
and justify practices and provide a basis for activating moral and emotional allegiances and
solidarity; binding resources to values and worldviews that provide the capability and the
capacity to act in a coordinated way and enforce compliance (Olsen, 2001, 2005).
In the perspective of rescaling education policies the decision to build up the EHEA has
developed increasing complexity in policy making and multi-level governance. Therefore,
given that this process of institutionalisation as policy integration or Europeanization of
education anticipates the formal decision of building up the EHEA, this study builds on the
underlying assumption that
the crystallisation of different complex of norms, rules and programmes which regulate the way
education is dealt with in the EU. The focus is on formal [institutions and actors] and informal
routines [actor strategy, coalitions and dependencies] that prescribe behavioural roles,
constrain activity, and shape expectations (Beukel, 2001: 126).
It is important to stress that Europeanization is held to be a process of integration that may
be embedded in different dominant logics, by namely the political, the economic and the
cultural. The view of rescaling education policies showed that economic logic prevailed
due to the linkage between the interference of European institutions and the vocational
training agenda. The European level sees the Bologna process as a structural reform
emphasising the regulative pillar as changes on structures require changes on the legal
framework, thus focusing on the coercive mechanisms (see table III.6, p. 126).
132
The Bologna process in higher education is an inter-governmental process, which also
contributes to the achievement of the Lisbon strategy. While Bologna is mainly an agenda for
structural reforms (in the architecture of degrees, their internal organisation in credits and
outcome-based units and their transparency), Education and Training 2010 mainly concerns
higher education policy (in particular funding, governance and attractiveness) (European
Commission, 2005b: 4).
At national level, for instance, The National Qualifications Authority's of Ireland
interpreted the establishment of EHEA guided by common themes “that have direct
relevance for the recognition of qualifications in VET and higher education: transparency,
credit transfer, quality, and frameworks of qualifications. These themes respond directly to
the EU goal of establishing a European Area of Education and Training” (Deane &
Watters, 2004: 24).
Europeanization has different meanings depending on its effects at national level, and also
at the organisational field. To Knill and Lehmkhul (1999), Europeanization results in
positive integration, negative integration or framing integration. This classification is
useful to distinguish the effects of European policy making in national contexts based on
political and economic rationales. Europeanization with positive impact at national level in
terms of recommending an institutional model to which domestic arrangements have to be
adjusted. Accordingly, member states have only limited institutional discretion when
deciding on the concrete arrangements in order to comply with European requirements.
Negative integration occurs when European legislation changes the national rules and
influencing directly power and resource distribution. Framing integration consists on a
European policy which neither prescribes concrete institutional requirements nor modifies
the institutional context for strategic interaction, but affects domestic arrangements even
more indirectly, namely by altering the beliefs and expectations of domestic actors.
The impact of the Bologna process matches the characteristics of framing integration
whereas although prescribing a degree structure (3+2) any change is arbitrary and
voluntary. Moreover, the adoption of lines of action or priorities moves around principles
(e.g. transparency, comparability, legibility) and instruments (e.g. degree structure, credit
system, Diploma Supplement) that fit a wide range of meanings. Consequently, the
133
mobilisation to change is steered by domestic reforms (Moscati, 2006, 2009; SchwarzHahn & Rehburg, 2004; Witte, 2006) as a re-nationalisation process (Musselin, 2009),
even if empowered and legitimated by European institutions. Moreover, the dominant
Europeanization mechanism is establishing a new explanatory framework due to the use of
policy tools linked to soft law mechanisms based on the exchange of good practice.
Conclusion
This study addresses the challenge to see how far the pays politique enforces its own logic
of appropriateness and to what extent pays réel has its own logic of appropriateness
(March & Olsen, 1989, 2004). What are the dominant institutional values? In this study,
dominant institutional values move around the establishment of EHEA and appropriate
performance takes the indispensable action towards Bologna objectives.
Theoretical explanations about institutionalisation stem from New Institutionalism.
Grasping policy implementation lacks a theoretical-methodological “because national
policy-making and implementation systems are different from each other” (Kogan, 2005:
62) and interpretation about dominant values and appropriated performance may differ
from pays politique and pays réel. On the other hand, in the perspective of rescaling
education policies governance activities are fragmented.
Shaping EHEA derives from a learning and self-reflexive process by which political actors
(e.g. European and national leaders and institutional leadership) define which behaviour is
adequate and which is not. Pledging essential principles and defining a number of
priorities, Bologna process derives essentially from proceduralism (Neave, Forthcoming).
As a policy mode it develops good practice, shared provision and common administrative
techniques expecting to generate appropriate performance. After passing the legislation
national authorities cannot control policy implementation due to the lack of linearity of the
process. The unfeasibility of defining a “top-down” implementation process, induced pays
politique to intrude technical aspects. The likelihood of success, anyhow, only guarantees
the achievement of partial institutionalisation. Despite shifts related to administrative
134
reorganisation and institutional capacity building, there are other two dimensions to fulfil
integration of education policies much more difficult to attain. The standardisation or
homogenization of ways of reasoning and binding resources to the establishment of EHEA
challenge pays politique differently. In the case of the former, convergence vis-à-vis
diversity of higher education systems was present on both the official text of Bologna and
the debate regarding the participation of European Commission in Bologna. The official
text avoided the word harmonisation to circumvent susceptibilities. The argument
preventing the intrusion of the European Commission in the Bologna process was based on
its ‘capacity to harmonise’ known in other policy areas. In the case of binding resources to
the establishment of EHEA the lack of resources was seen with perplexity (Neave &
Maassen, 2007).
Next chapter will thereby elaborate on the theoretical-methodological approach that will be
used to assess the institutionalisation of EHEA. This explanation underlines that New
Institutionalism might benefit “from more attention to the way in which frames of
meaning, scripts and symbols emerge not only from processes of interpretation but also
from processes of contention” (Hall & Taylor, 1996: 21) generated between the
constituencies of higher education institutions, to avoid seeing ‘action without agents’.
135
136
CHAPTER IV - Theoretical-methodological accounts
CHAPTER IV
Theoretical-methodological accounts
Introduction
Analytically, this research uses three levels of analysis (European, national and
organisational field) taking the perspective of higher education institutions over the
European and the national.
Theoretic-methodological accounts builds on both the ‘policy cycle’ approach (Ball, 2004;
Bowe, et al., 1992) to depict policy contexts relevant for policy implementations and the
New Institutionalism (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983; Hall & Taylor, 1996; March & Olsen,
1989, 2006; Nee, 1998; Peters, 1999; Powell, 2007; Scott, 2003) to understand the role of
institutions placed at different levels to the institutionalisation of EHEA.
Policy instrument overlaps the concept of institutional pillars (e.g. regulative, normative,
cognitive-cultural) in leading to the institutionalisation of the EHEA. The progression of
the Bologna process encompasses institutional pillars at different levels of analysis and
bears the influence of a broader environment.
European institutional pillars include the policies and steering instruments stemming from
the activities of ministerial meetings, the Bologna follow-up group and Bologna working
groups. National institutions comprise policies and steering mechanisms of higher
137
education systems. At the organisational field policies and steering mechanisms develop
within higher education institutions.
The grey arrows in Diagram II.1 represent the dynamics of policy implementation
grounded on the interaction of institutions placed at different levels of analysis and active
in policy contexts graspable by the use of ‘policy cycle’ approach in the Bologna process
and the institutionalisation of the EHEA aiming at the integration of European higher
education policies.
Diagram IV.1 – First step towards the theoretical-methodological framework
1. Imperatives
Identifying imperatives that relate to the dynamics of implementing the Bologna process
builds on document analysis and on the statements made during interviews with key
experts on higher education research, with political leaders, and with key actors in the
initial phase of Bologna. Apparently the joint-decision mechanisms that followed the
initiative of establishing the EHEA were determined by functional and normative
138
imperatives. The first column in blue shows them. Still the “transformation of institutions
is neither dictated completely by exogenous conditions nor controllable precisely by
intentional actions. For the most part, institutions evolve through a relatively mundane set
of procedures sensitive to relatively diffuse mechanisms of control” (March & Olsen,
1989: 170).
The analysis of these imperatives shows that official documents reflect much more the idea
of collective decision than the impressions gathered in interviews with experts in higher
education studies. Collective decision refers explicitly to those functional beliefs that relate
to external pressures. These imperatives were three: employability and access to the labour
market, attractiveness and competitiveness of European higher education systems (Bologna
Declaration, 1999, Prague Communiqué, 2001). However, these functional imperatives
were regarded by Neave as a shift in the regulation system on the grounds that they involve
outward movement that is where mobility of labour is not to create greater opportunities
for the individual but actually to create greater opportunities for reducing production costs.
The normative imperatives in the Bologna documents relate to the diffusion of new models
anchored on the two-cycle degree system. The Bologna Declaration stated “the importance
of education and educational co-operation in the development and strengthening of stable,
peaceful and democratic societies is universally acknowledged as paramount, the more so
in view of the situation in South East Europe” (Bologna Declaration, 1999). The
perception held by higher education expert was that overemphasis was placed on book
keeping and on converging structures, as opposed to substance and processes. The
substantive factor is more closely connected to the dimensions Olsen (2001) introduced,
namely the development of a common public space, which would raise the level of
institutionalisation and integration.
Other insights corroborate this idea that Bologna goes beyond collective decision. More
emphasis was placed on coalition building. Political tensions that urged forward the
coalition building framework can be identified. Official documents uphold those functional
imperatives related to the attractiveness of the EHEA. Arguing from a Eurocentric
position, Teichler recalled that when prime ministers and heads of Europe governments
139
participated in an European-Asian summit (during the mid 90’s) with an agenda around
science, technology, innovation and economic progress, they realised that students from
South-East Asia have no interest to study somewhere in continental Europe.
The normative imperatives seek to counter the emphasis on competition and attractiveness
and evoke social dimension: “The need to increase competitiveness must be balanced with
the objective of improving the social characteristics of the European Higher Education
Area, aiming at strengthening social cohesion and reducing social and gender inequalities
both at national and at European level” (Berlin Communiqué, 2003).
In Neave’s perspective Bologna has to do with internal straight power politics inside the
EU. Multiple channels of interest link different stakeholders in higher education. In Prague
(2001), for instance, the Ministers recognised representatives from European higher
education institutions and from students’ bodies. As for the participation of higher
education institutions, academics were unrepresented within the Bologna process because
they are not seen as social partners, having no single body to represent their interests 43 .
Avoiding clashes among European states is evident in the Bologna Declaration when
referring the outcomes of integrating new member states “Enlargement prospects together
with deepening relations with other European countries provide even wider dimensions to
that reality” (Bologna Declaration, 1999). Neave took the same view as it was part of the
political gesture in those countries of Central and Eastern Europe to show that they were
ready and prepared to take the steps to a system they saw emerging in Western Europe.
And Marçal Grilo (2003) clarified that the European Higher Education Area was first
mentioned in the context of the enlarging the European Union to Eastern European
countries.
This concern with avoiding dissent among European states also relates to normative
imperatives. In Eastern European countries, market values and privatisation has been taken
to its extreme. On a different point, Teichler argued about the existence of different views
43
Academic staff is officially represented by Education International as a consultative member of the
Bologna Follow-up Group since 2005.
140
about how desirable knowledgeable people are good for a knowledge society and linked
these discussions to the degree of stratification of the European society. This would
prevent the development of a new model of high stratification brought about by pressures
for convergence driven by globalisation.
In short, the procedures for identifying options uphold collective decisions but the
identification of political tensions drives the coalition building framework forward. This
process also involves other institutions at vary levels of analysis since European and
national influence institutional change.
Moreover, functional imperatives (e.g. employability, attractiveness, competitiveness) and
normative imperatives (e.g. the development of common frameworks for recognition and
mutual trust) rely on regulation and membership. For instance, international
competitiveness of European higher education systems endorsed by the Bologna
Declaration imposes highly visible regulation to implement the two-tier degree structure,
the Diploma Supplement or the credit system. Normative imperatives thus require
regulation. The clearest example of this can be seen in promoting recognition procedures to
bolster the development of national and European qualification frameworks.
Regulation in the Bologna process often overlaps with the institutionalisation of
standardisation and homogenisation. In Bergen the Ministers referred to “The overarching
framework for qualifications, the agreed set of European standards and guidelines for
quality assurance and the recognition of degrees and periods of study are also key
characteristics of the structure of the EHEA” (Bergen Communiqué, 2005).
Interestingly, perceptions of the Bologna process underscore the relationship between
environmental imperatives and regulation as a dimension of consistency. However, the link
between functional imperatives and high regulation reveals a tension between the need to
standardise and the need to retain diversity.
On the other hand, in Teichler’s perspective the intrusion of convergence into the
substantive factor through the argument that the convergence of structures would counter
141
one of the major barriers to mobility by importing or attracting students. Therefore other
barriers such as language diversity or organisation capacity were not addressed. In the
Bologna documents, the association between functional imperatives and membership
surfaces in the commitment to cooperation between the European level, the national level
and higher education institutions within the organisational field. For instance, Bologna
induced the commitment to co-ordinate policies with the aim of establishing “the European
area of higher education and to promote the European system of higher education worldwide” (Bologna Declaration, 1999) At Bergen, Ministers acknowledged that:
“Furthermore, there is a need for greater dialogue, involving Governments, institutions and
social partners, to increase the employability of graduates with bachelor qualifications,
including in appropriate posts within the public service” (Bergen Communiqué, 2005).
Urged forward by normative imperatives, the notion of strengthening cooperation got
shape. At Prague, Ministers encouraged “closer cooperation between recognition and
quality assurance networks” (Prague Communiqué, 2001) and at Bergen they underlined
the importance of cooperation between nationally recognised agencies with a view to
enhancing the mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance decisions (Bergen
Communiqué, 2005).
2. Institutional pillars
Implementing Bologna lacks legal and instrumental frameworks equivalent to different
levels of analysis. Different mechanisms lead to establishing the EHEA, as diagram IV.1
shows, in green. The Bologna process is seemingly driven by policy instruments
dominated by normative and cultural-cognitive elements, rather than by regulative
elements. March and Olsen observed “ideas about appropriate behaviour ordinarily change
gradually through the development of experience and the elaboration of worldviews. Such
processes tend to result in significant lags in the adjustment of institutions to their
environments” (March & Olsen, 1989: 171).
142
No European-wide law enforces implementing the Bologna process. Each signatory state
passed national laws to meet the agreed goals. An array of instruments including periodic
meetings of ministers of education, progress reports, stocktaking reports and scorecard
exercises provided a specific dynamic of policy implementation. Policy instruments have
an inertia effect, a particular representation and a specific way of presenting the issue
(Lascoumes & Galès, 2006). In their development of this classification Lascoumes and
Galès argue that inertia creates resistance, whereas representation constructs the agreed
reality by standardising information with the purpose of facilitating comparison and
communication. Problematisation generates interpretative models that associate a number
of variables to an explanation. Focusing on policy instruments brings about:
a stronger focus on procedural concept of policy, centring on the idea of establishing policy
instruments that enable the actors involved to take responsibility for defining policy objectives.
In a political context where ideological vagueness seems to prevail (…) the view can be taken
that it is now through public policy instruments that shared representations stabilize around
social issues” (Lascoumes & Galès, 2006: 19)
National reports, national action plans for recognition, stocktakings, scorecards or even the
tools of OMC (e.g. national action plans, benchmarks, indicators) are policy devices that
bring together different categories of policy instruments (e.g. information and
communication-based, best practice and de facto and de jure standards). They correspond
to the notion of low profile instrument or soft law procedure as the components of OMC.
They have a discrete visibility to external stakeholders. They also create strong
asymmetries between “top bureaucrats who develop them as part of higher education
institutions expertise and the actors who suffer from higher education institutions
implementation” (Bezes, 2007: 24). As Nóvoa and deJong-Lambert expressed:
What is presented as a strategy to improve education, is however a new mode of governance.
Democracy is circumvented as policy formation is removed from purview of politicians and
citizens, and falls under the control of groups conducting research and organising the date
culled from comparison (Nóvoa & deJong-Lambert, 2003: 60).
143
Analysis of the 2005/06 national reports, for example, prepared by official representatives
to the Bologna Follow-up Group, together with the NAPs for recognition prepared for the
2007 Ministerial meeting, bear out the idea of reinforcing the EHEA design. Negative
instruments of “shaming and blaming” induced by judging and criticizing countries’
performance at national and European levels used in both the Bologna process and the
Lisbon strategy reinforce the compliance of states with reform without any careful scrutiny
of what happens at different levels in policy formulation and policy implementation.
Within Bologna the national action plans for recognition, for instance, show that
recognition procedures at national level followed the requirements of the Lisbon
Convention. However, since higher education institutions are responsible for academic
recognition, dimensions of policy implementation remain uncovered.
As interpretative models, these tools comprise a number of variables such as student
workloads, learning competencies and learning outcomes linked to a specific credo of
mutual recognition of degrees that differ among higher education institutions. That the
explanatory framework is based on comparable variables or indicators, contributes to
policy formulation by giving the impression that numerous achievements have been made.
Yet, within higher education institutions no coherent way to allocate and to verify the
distribution of credits based on student workloads exists. Moreover, national action plans
on recognition highlight the revival of policy instruments and policy goals. Mutual
academic recognition might be a policy goal very difficult to achieve. Using NAP for
recognition as policy instrument to reach that goal leaves room for negotiation and
agreements between institutions, even if one leaves aside the most delicate issues of
national sovereignty. Simultaneously, NAPs recognition share the same frailties attached to
the NAPs within the Lisbon strategy. No formal sanctions apply to countries not making
progress; the reports present optimistic pictures. They are seen more as agenda followers,
rather than as agenda setters.
The mechanisms establishing the EHEA measure progress through institutional diffusion
linked with mimetic, normative and coercive practices, which align the cultural-cognitive
pillar, the regulative pillar and the normative pillar, respectively. To define it as a typically
144
“top-down” process driven by coercive mechanisms which facilitate “higher-level (more
encompassing) structures to shape, both to constrain and empower, the structure and
actions of lower-level actors” (Scott, 2003: 196) is difficult. However, one should resist the
simplistic temptation of seeing policy implementation as a linear “top-down” or “bottomup” movement (Gornitzka et al., 2005; Neave, 2005) steered and dominated by a single
entity. Account must be taken of different levels of policy compliance within policy
implementation. The embeddeness that is seeing the key features of Bologna as durable
practice (Neave, 2005) within higher education institutions is likely to be more significant
for the establishment of the EHEA.
3. Institutional change
Institutional change takes place through imitation, organisational learning, interpretation,
and the flow of discursive exchange as show in orange in diagram IV.2.
Imitation may be linked to mimetic mechanisms of diffusion. Organisational learning
stresses network structures, whereas interpretation sees variation introduced as people
negotiate meaning through interaction (Howard, 1999). Interpretation and sense-making
occur at European level, at national level and at the organisational field. The presentation
of reforms is analysed at national and local levels. Interpretation is embedded in values,
beliefs and frames of reference that vary among different policy makers and policy
implementers. Discourse as text and policy as the attribution of meaning to the EHEA flow
from both.
Implementing the Bologna may be seen as an outcome of institutional diffusion that are
injected with the features of the institutional pillars. Diffusion of institutional pillars takes
place through imitation, organisational learning and interpretation. Imitation may be
associated with mimetic diffusion. The cultural-cognitive pillar uses mimetic actions to
disseminate. The regulative pillar uses coercive actions. The normative pillar employs
standards.
145
Isomorphism moreover may be seen as “one possible indicator of institutional forces at
work” (Scott, 2003: 209) it being clear that exogenous pressures determine this movement
to reduce uncertainty and instability. Learning in organisations takes place through
network structures. Interpretation occurs when people negotiate meaning through
interaction (Howard, 1999). Interpretation and sense-making processes occur at European
and national levels and at the organisational field. Such action affects both politics and the
crystallisation of meaning within the EHEA.
Diagram IV.2 – Second step towards the theoretical-methodological framework
Diagram IV.2 sets out the reasoning developed in the theoretical model. Imperatives
bolster the functional and normative pressures contained in policy statements that shape
policy formation within the implementation of the Bologna process.
The institutional pillars (see chapter III, p. 126) serve as policy instruments in various
specific forms (e.g. national reports, national action plans for recognition, stocktaking, and
scorecards) closely related to developing the institutional framework. Diffusion of
146
institutional change stands as an outcome of regulative, normative and mimetic pressures
leading to the EHEA as a specific construct.
This process of institutional change stems from the increasing weight of normative
elements and cultural-cognitive elements of institutional systems, rather than from
regulative elements, due largely to the development of policy instruments more closely
linked to normative and cultural cognitive conditions. This assumption underlines the role
of institutions as institutional pillars, developing and transmitting norms and values using
specific policy instruments that bring about a shift towards the logic of appropriateness.
However, “institutions change, but changes are not predicted simply by institutional
environments” (March & Olsen, 1989: 167).
These institutions are located at different levels of analysis. The multi-level analysis
perspective shows a policy context largely dominated by the European and the national
levels where strategies and policies that affirm imperatives are consequences for higher
education institutions and ultimately for academic work development.
4. The ‘policy cycle’ approach
This “space” of policy formulation and implementation is disputed by European and
national layers by representatives of the constituencies in higher education institutions,
which remain “potentially free and autonomous resisters or subverters of the status quo”
(Bowe, et al., 1992: 6). As policy implementation leads to institutionalising the EHEA, it
unfolds a number of concepts, ideas and discourses that need to be brought together if only
to ensure consistent meaning. The production of meaning, however, is “neither stable, nor
precise, nor exogenous” (March & Olsen, 1989: 163). To grasp implementation the
theoretic-methodological device founded on the ‘policy cycle’ (Bowe, et al., 1992) will
allow to decreasing the level of abstraction focusing on how policy moves into practice,
which is crucial for the development of measures indispensable to attain the objective of
Bologna.
147
The theoretical-methodological device emphasising explicitly the stage of issue of
emergence makes clear that “policy making does indeed go through several stages and
emerges from different sources” (Kogan, 2005: 63).
In this model, institutionalising the EHEA through the development of an explanatory
framework is the prime research question in the study. Meaning becomes stabilised as the
ties between different levels of analysis connect with each other.
That institutionalising the EHEA depends on the implementation of the Bologna process
emphasises on the role of institutions since implementation “comprehends, changes, and
maintains a relationship with its environment through its institutions” (March & Olsen,
1989: 160). Simultaneously, it highlights the “endogenous nature of reality, interests, and
roles, and so a constructive vision of political actors, meanings, and preferences” (March &
Olsen, 1989: 160). The endogenous nature of reality is connected to the way institutions
diffuse.
The concept of ‘policy implementation’, which assumes policy-makers and policy
implementers as disconnected identities, is better replaced with the concept of ‘policy
embeddeness’. This starts from the assumption that Bologna must involve higher education
institutions if it is to produce durable action. It is not enough to reach out higher education
institutions. They should make implementation their own responsibility. Policy is, then,
subject to interpretation and recreation and the ‘policy cycle’ approach (Bowe, et al.,,
1992) is the device used to grasp it by focusing on the pays réel. Pays politique defined
indispensable actions (e.g. Bologna degree structure, credit system, Diploma Supplement,
quality assurance) to attain the establishment of EHEA without involving the pays réel.
The students were involved in 2001 (Prague Communiqué) and few attempts were made to
win over academics.
In policy analysis the State holds a central position. It shapes institutional features, defines
and enforces conditions of compliance. In this setting, policy implementation follows or
diffuses in a “top-down” direction. State-centred accounts see the State dominating the
process of policy implementation.
148
How far the implementers of Bologna consistently follow a well-defined policy text
remains to be seen. As Ball (1998) remarked, policy-making at national level is a “process
of bricolage: a matter of borrowing and copying bits and bits of ideas from elsewhere”
(Ball, 1998: 126). Given the dynamic in the diffusion of institutional change contained in
implementing Bologna, the access to the grassroots would entail meaningful and durable
set of practice.
In this study policy analysis gives centrality to indispensable measures with consequences
towards the establishment of EHEA enacted at the organisational field by higher education
institutions. Policy analysis draws on Ball and colleagues (Bowe, et al., 1992) the notion of
‘policy cycle’ where policy is text and discourse. This particular policy process allows
freedom of interpretation but also entails macro constraint aspects related to the
participating institutions at European and national levels. This approach aims at
overcoming the drawback of New Institutionalism that “seem so focused on macro-level
processes that the actors involved seem to drop from sight” (Hall & Taylor, 1996: 21).
A ‘policy cycle’ (Bowe, et al., 1992) assumes that production of a policy text takes place in
different contexts. The ‘context of influence’ has interested groups in constructing policy
discourses establishing key policy concepts (e.g. mobility, attractiveness, social dimension,
employability) - interaction within institutions placed at different levels of analysis
constructs policy discourses. The ‘context of text production’ sees texts representing
policies. Official texts (e.g. Bologna Declaration, legal framework at national level) and
policy documents (e.g. studies promoted by Bologna Follow-Up Group, EUA and ESIB
studies) produce interpretations trying to make-sense, travelling across policy
implementation – interaction within institutions placed at different levels of analysis give
primacy to different texts. Within the ‘context of text production’ more than official texts,
policy documents assume a key role because “groups of actors working within different
sites of text production are in competition for control of the representation of policy”
(Bowe, et al., 1992: 21), which in Bologna has been extremely insightful. The proliferation
of seminars around specific topics, for instance, aims at giving possible interpretations that
Bologna’s readers pick up as they wish. Responses to texts have consequences experienced
149
in the ‘context of practice’ because “policy writers cannot control the meanings of their
texts” (Bowe, et al., 1992: 22), in the ‘context of practices’, context policy is subject to
interpretation – interaction within institutions placed at various levels favours recreation of
policy.
To these primarily distinctive ‘policy contexts’ Ball (2004) added the ‘context of
outcomes’ and the ‘context of political strategy’ which included feedback loops from
‘context of practice’ to ‘context of influence’. The ‘context of outcomes’ is where the
effects of policies are evident as second order effects (in contrast of first order effects
evident in the ‘context of practice’ related to change in practice or structure) – interaction
within institutions at various levels supports institutional reconfiguration that relate, for
instance, with issues of academic freedom on Bologna framework. ‘Context of political
strategy’ identifies political activities to handle the negative effects of outcomes.
Empirically this study will not take into consideration the ‘context of political strategy’ due
to twofold limitations of the study. First, the depiction of this context would need a field
study at each surveyed university, which was not feasible in the timeframe available to
conduct the research; second, due to different speeds of implementation the universities
surveyed might be in different implementation stages of Bologna.
The ‘policy cycle’ has a micro-oriented perspective takes the constituencies by higher
education institutions as policy actors. On the other hand, it draws on the idea of
implementation as adaptation concurring with the vision that “higher education policymaking is not only country specific but also sub-sector specific” (Kogan, 2005: 62).
Pressman and Wildavsky argue “policy evolves during its implementation by adaptation”
(Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984: 227). It stands in contrast to state-centred and “top-down”
policy implementation, which narrows and leaves aside how policy evolves during its
implementation stage. Implementation in higher education emphasise complexity,
evolution, mutual adaptation, learning interactive, negotiate process, advocacy coalition
framework as alternative to “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches – that is “non-linear
nature of policy making and implementation” (Kogan, 2005: 60).
150
The present empirical analysis builds on the concept of indispensable action that takes the
objective of Bologna. This derives from the ‘context of practice’ and the effects it produces
in the ‘context of outcomes’ and makes use of both ‘context of influence’ and the ‘context
of text production’. These elements bring about the relationship among the voices within
higher education institutions.
The concept of policy as discourse (Ball, 1990) will allow us to determine discursive
frameworks articulating and constraining action. In Ball’s view, policy formulation and
policy implementation are distinctive. The “control of discourse and thus of its possibilities
is essentially contested in and between arenas of formation and implementation” (Ball,
1990: 185). In spite of their distinctiveness, interaction between these dynamics is worth to
exploring further.
Bernstein’s (2000) notion of re-contextualisation reveals interesting avenues for
development. The ‘policy cycle’ approach (Bowe, et al., 1992) underlines a significant
political context. Its recognition takes into what Bernstein (2000) calls the
‘recontextualisation field’ made of two points: the ‘official recontextualisation field’ and
the ‘pedagogic recontextualisation field’.
For Bologna, the ‘official recontextualisation field’ is created and dominated by the State
at national level and by European institutions (e.g. European Commission) at European
level, a domain which corresponds to the ‘context of influence’ and the ‘context of text
production’ in the ‘policy cycle’ approach.
The ‘pedagogic recontextualisation field’ enfolds the constituencies of higher education
institutions (e.g. professors, administrative and management staff and students) in my
analysis. It relates to the ‘context of practice’ and the ‘context of outcomes’ brought in by
the ‘policy cycle’.
The dynamics between these recontextualisation fields are particularly relevant especially
in the ‘text consumption’ where the recipients of a policy statement or policy strategy
incorporate other’s practices in the construction of their own. Hence, the ‘policy cycle’
151
construct allows us to explore inter-institutional relationships across different arenas and
will help to shape different contexts.
The concept of policy as discourse also contributes to see Bologna rooted in practices. As
far as they inject meaning into the EHEA, these practices articulate the discourse applied to
the EHEA. From the ‘policy cycle’ approach these same practices emerge from the context
of practice (Bowe, et al., 1992).
Discourse creates and simultaneously is created by the establishment of the EHEA. The
EHEA is a nodal point. That is a privileged sign “around which the other signs are ordered;
the other signs acquire their meaning from their relationship to the nodal point” (Phillips &
JØrgensen, 2004: 26). By the same token the Bologna process is an ongoing floating
signifier and different discourses struggle to invest with meaning higher education
institutions.
By translating indispensable action that takes the objective of Bologna into the language of
the ‘policy cycle’ the ‘context of practice’ will incorporate interpretations and ascribe
meaning. This dynamic echoes in the ‘context of outcomes’ (where it is possible to identify
the effects on values such as academic freedom) and the ‘context of political strategy’
(where one can identify initiatives that deal with disparities) are presented as feedback loop
arenas.
Having taken these components into account, returning to the model. Implementing the
Bologna process will be analysed empirically through examining the ‘context of
influence’, the ‘context of text production’, the ‘context of practice’ and the ‘context of
outcomes’ as perceived by the constituencies of higher education institutions – the three
Estates.
152
Diagram IV.3 – Final step towards the theoretical-methodological framework
The diagram IV.3 reflects the interplay and relevance of imperatives for the ‘context of
influence’ in formulating policy discourses and concepts and for the ‘context of text
production’ where the production of policy text reflects the pressures of a broader
environment. This diagram also reveals the relevance of institutional pillars for both the
‘context of text production’, and the ‘context of practice’, as much as policy instruments
induce compliance. Institutional changes determine policy effects graspable in the ‘context
of outcomes’ and impact the ‘context of political strategy inducing another ‘policy cycle’.
153
5. Instrument of empirical examination
The main instrument of this empirical examination takes the form of a survey. To answer
the research questions it was developed a questionnaire grounded on both field work and
interviews involving policy makers and two scholars in higher education. This instrument
was the most appropriate instrument to collect a large number of perceptions from the
constituencies of higher education institutions. The questionnaire44 was handed out in 2008
to academic staff, students and administrative and management staff from seven
comprehensive European universities.
The seven higher education institutions that accepted to participate in the survey are
located in Germany, Italy, Norway and Portugal. The selection process was random. higher
education institutions were among those related to European research centres having
cooperation links with CIPES.
The concern in drawing up the sample was to be able to gather a large number of
perceptions to see from a comparative perspective how far the constituencies of higher
education institutions contributed to the institutionalisation of the EHEA. The analysis of
the dynamics of institutionalisation of the EHEA focuses on Bologna stemming from
higher education institutions.
The contribution of each university was 30 professors and 60 students, per scientific area,
and 20 administrative and management staff. These numbers stand for a well-balance
representation of the constituencies of universities in the selected scientific areas (relevant
for professors and students): law, history, medicine and physics.
The context variables examined included primarily (i) the university (ii) the disciplinary
field and (iii) the three Estates (e.g. academic staff, students and administrative and
management staff. On a secondary basis the country might be brought into play within the
44
The master version of the questionnaire was in English and it was translated into Portuguese, Italian and
German. In Norway the questionnaire was applied in English (see Annex I, p. 7). In the pilot phase a number
of respondents were asked to complext the questionnaire. Suggestions and comments have been incorporated
accordingly.
154
section devoted to the discussion of research findings (see chapter VII, p. 381) whereas it
is important to analyse the political setting. Additionally to specify the national
background we referred to similarities and differences at national level. Anyhow, we
adopted a cautious view in comparing countries because the sample was not representative.
We did not succeed in having a homogenous distribution per country in spite of the efforts
made 45 .
Within the variable “university”, the features of higher education institutions selected
define their own context. They were analogous in terms of disciplines and legal status.
They are comprehensive universities and are public institutions.
The organisational field levels focused on the academic framework taking into
consideration the background of respondents (e.g. professors, students and administrative
and management staff) and a selection of academic disciplines representing each of the
disciplinary groups as elaborated by Becher and Trowler (Becher & Trowler, 2001: 36).
These included hard-pure, soft-pure, hard-applied and soft-applied disciplines to confirm if
the degree of organisational change associated to the institutionalisation of the EHEA was
due to the divergence of perceptions among the respondents.
In the variable “disciplinary field” the context was defined taking into account the
categorization hard/pure and soft/applied (Becher, 1981; Becher & Parry, 2005; Becher &
Trowler, 2001).
The sample included the paradigmatic discipline of each type, i.e. hard-pure – physics;
soft-pure history; hard-applied – medicine; soft-applied – law. These disciplines form four
distinctive disciplinary cultures in the meaning that each discipline has its own dynamics.
Disciplinary values ground resistance to change and disciplinary cultures are difficult to
depict (Clark, 1983). The categorization of disciplinary fields builds on the work of Becher
and colleagues and it was applicable to higher education in the United Kingdom. Finding
45
The reaction to the survey was very negative in Germany where we was able to get involved with only one
university, in spite of the contacts and efforts made. And in Norway, one of the surveyed universities
participated very disappointingly.
155
explanations for different perceptions biased on cultures of disciplines will be avoided in
this study.
Physics as a hard pure discipline carries high prestige and is well-organized and possess a
professional-political lobby. It has high degree of convergence regarding uniform
standards and procedures. It also possesses a strong consensual understanding. They are
technocratic and conservative. World is understandable and straightforward. They are
productive and economical (Becher, 1981; Becher & Parry, 2005; Becher & Trowler,
2001).
Medicine as hard applied is purposive and pragmatic. The prime function of knowledge is
the generation of product-oriented techniques and it is open to external influences (Becher,
1981; Becher & Parry, 2005; Becher & Trowler, 2001). Hard pure (e.g. physics) and hard
applied (e.g. medicine) disciplines are actively competing for research funds.
History deals with heterogeneous knowledge (relevance and value of their subject to
employers is under pressure) and like physics it has a high degree of convergence as it is
open-endedness or sense of collectivity sharing common assumptions (Becher, 1981;
Becher & Parry, 2005; Becher & Trowler, 2001). Everything is more complicated than it
seems. Prefer non-technical language (Becher, 1981; Becher & Parry, 2005; Becher &
Trowler, 2001).
Law as a soft-applied discipline is concerned with utilitarian knowledge and with the
improvement of professional practice (Becher, 1981; Becher & Parry, 2005; Becher &
Trowler, 2001). Lawyers are less academics (Becher & Trowler, 2001). Due to their links
with professional practices, professional associations are important in identifying issues
and in approving strategic initiatives (Becher, 1981; Becher & Parry, 2005; Becher &
Trowler, 2001). It occupies the intermediate ground between the convergent and divergent
156
stimulated by two opposite motivations a strongly vocational approach and an elitist view
(Becher, 1981; Becher & Parry, 2005; Becher & Trowler, 2001).
In the variable “the three Estates”, the context was defined by position the constituencies
of higher education institutions (e.g. academic staff, students and administrative staff) have
within higher education institutions.
Professors positioned themselves centrally in higher education institutions and according to
previous studies; they read changes and adapt to sustain their positions (Henkel, 1987 as
cited by (Becher & Trowler, 2001: 164). This emphasised the process of interpretation that
encompasses change. In that process academics ensure they will not loose things, which
can be preserved (Martin, 1999). Therefore, academic staffs are not passive; rather they
can be actively involved in using coping strategies, even discontent with the status quo, or
focused on policy reconstruction aimed at reinterpreting and reforming (Trowler, 1998).
Students as client or consumers placed in a peripheral, volatile and ephemeral position
regarding higher education. In the Portuguese context previous studies about the
involvement of students in evaluation processes (Cardoso, 2009) indicated that students
were not involved in the process of decision-making and evaluation processes because,
among other reasons, academics and administrative and management staff were seen as
more representative of academic authority and management role, respectively.
Consequently, students are not motivated to get involved in processes and institutional
dynamics within higher education institutions (Cardoso, 2009).
This position contrasted with the role of (some) students as consultative members within
the Bologna process throughout the European Students’ Union (ESU). Anyhow, this role
does not provide evidence to consider it as a stimulus to their active participation in the
university structures. Students do not sustain convincingly their intellectual interests and it
157
is difficult to grasp their perception about the university (Clark, 1983). Then, students are
often (in) voluntary excluded from institutional dynamics.
Administrative and management staff tended to be on the periphery of higher education
institution but as they create and spread routines and procedures related to their
professional activity, they moved to the centre (Clark, 1983). They risk either being seen as
“going native” if they support academic culture, or being regarded as managerialists if they
support the administrative culture (Whitchurch, 2006).
The survey covers a broad range of features relating to the establishment of the EHEA.
The questions draw on selected items and dimensions that contribute to the ascription of
meaning to the EHEA. It is based on both the analysis of texts – text formation process
(policy statements) – and practices taking the objectives of Bologna – text consumption
process (institutional pillars and institutional change) that developed within the ‘context of
practice’ and produced effects within the ‘context of outcomes’. Seeing policy
implementation within the ‘policy cycle’, the role of meaningful practices that stem from
the ‘context of practice’ has central role in policy analysis. Each question of the survey
consists of a general statement to which a number of considerations are related. The
general statement reflects the text formation process within the ‘context of influence’
whereas the considerations from the process of text consumption are linked directly to the
‘context of policy text production’.
This allowed questions corresponding to a specific interpretation of the grassroots. The
survey questions emanate from a process that might be labelled of ‘dialogical research’
since the survey was generated through ongoing dialogue with Bologna in the field
(Phillips & JØrgensen, 2004: 200).
The survey sets out to elucidate how policy formulation is embedded in the ‘context of
practice’ and affected the ‘context of outcomes’. It uses the ‘policy cycle’ and is based on
the perceptions of the constituencies of higher education institutions developed within the
‘context of practice’ and the ‘context of outcomes’ of the ‘policy cycle’ of Bologna.
158
The perceptions that were held by constituencies of higher education institutions
determine, where a particular perception dominates, where different perceptions conflict,
and which common assumptions are less open to change. Finally addressing how policy is
formulated and remade within the ‘context of the practice’ and is affecting the ‘context of
outcomes’ in the pays réel.
Conclusion
Imperatives determining the ‘context of influence’ and the ‘context of text production’ of
Bologna in the pays réel, institutional pillars impacting the ‘context of text production’ and
the ‘context of practice’ and institutional change shaping the ‘context of outcomes’ are
dimensions to grasp in this study revealing the perceptions of the three Estates. The aim is
to depict views about policy processes from the perspective of the pays réel –
interpretation and contention are the processes to explore.
As far as perceptions emerge, conditions to develop indispensable action taking the
objectives of Bologna to institutionalise the EHEA will be assessed.
Theoretical accounts about institutionalising the EHEA are linked to the way institutions
evolve within the implementation of the Bologna process. A dynamic that in turn, depends
on a shift towards the logic of appropriateness based on roles and responsibilities
differentiated across higher education institutions. Such a shift is better grasped by the
‘policy cycle’ approach in as much as it allows us to appraise empirically the embeddeness
of Bologna within the ‘context of practice’ and possible effects within the ‘context of
outcomes’ taking in hand the interpretations of the three Estates.
The extent to which there are different logics of appropriateness depends on both the
perspective of the pays politique about ‘what ought to be’ and the view about ‘what is’ in
the pays réel. The capacity to monitor and reinforce dominant views about appropriateness
takes in institutions located in the pays politique and in the pays réel. Whereas policy
implementation evolves across different policy contexts.
159
The ‘policy cycle’ of Bologna within each survey university follows differently. It is
outside the scope of this study to analyse the ‘policy cycle’ of Bologna in the surveyed
universities. That is, the ‘context of influence’ of one university may differ from the other.
To be acquainted with a broad view about the ‘policy cycle’ of Bologna it would be crucial
to depict its development more broadly. This exercise would be insightful to understand a
‘policy cycle’ of Bologna by grasping its scope within European higher education.
160
CHAPTER V - Bologna in the ‘policy cycle’
CHAPTER V
Bologna in the ‘policy cycle’: a perspective about pays politique
Introduction
This chapter will examine the dynamic of the Bologna process across a ‘policy cycle’
(Ball, 1994; Bowe, et al., 1992) to weigh the policy context with the aim of providing
insightful elements that would help to outline Bologna within an enlarged process of policy
integration in the field of higher education.
Despite Bologna being to develop its own ‘policy cycle’ at different levels of analysis, this
chapter will tend to focus on Bologna lato sensu not specifying the level of analysis.
It would be expected this analysis will instil and enlarge knowledge about the Bologna
process since this policy process allows freedom to Bologna’s readers to interpret it in their
own ways.
By analysing the ‘context of influence’ focus will be place on efforts occurring to influence
Bologna policy – what are global and international influences affecting Bologna? Who
were the interested groups able to exert influence? To keep with the ‘context of text
production analysis will emphasise – Who were the stakeholders represented in the
production of policy texts within Bologna? Who were present and absent in the production
of policy texts? Was the policy text consensual amongst governments?; Besides official
texts, is there the production of other policy texts? Trying to enlarge the views about the
161
‘context of practice’ examination will concentrate on the assessment of practice underlying
the role of national level in inducing compliance – What are the changes envisaged with
impact on national higher education systems? What are the policy instruments used to steer
change and adaptation? What is the perception of European and national levels about
policy implementation? Detecting the effects on the ‘context of outcomes’ analysis will
focus on academic freedom and academic work and institutional reconfiguration - What is
the impact of Bologna on academic staff, students and administrative and management
staff?; Are there unintended consequences or unexpected results? Are there any differences
between assessment of policy implementation by the pays politique and the pays réel?
What are the main changes? Are changes contributing to institutionalise the EHEA? And
identifying attempts to define a new ‘policy cycle’ in the ‘context of political strategy’ of
Bologna – What are the political strategies tackling integration of education policies?
1. Context of influence of the Bologna process
The deadlocks of European political project were impacting the reconfiguration of
institutional frameworks – the enlargement of the EU in 2007, threatening crisis in
monetary policies, which reinforced the role of European institutions (e.g. Central Bank),
transference of powers to European Commission regarding internal market achievements
(see chapter I, p. 50). Tension between European and national institutions characterizes the
construction of European political identity.
These items may present opportunities to reframe future action within the EU context and
contribute to shed light on the construction of policy discourse of European higher
education policies.
The ‘context of influence’ of Bologna is determined by European and national initiatives.
Despite the initiative of national governments to agree on Bologna the role of European
institutions inspired the idea of establishing the EHEA.
162
At European level activities of governance are fragmented across scales (e.g. European,
national, regional …) impacting the ‘context of influence’ of Bologna. The gradual growth
of policy-making at the European level (e.g. creeping competence) (Pollack, 2000)
impinged higher education policy (Amaral & Neave, 2009; Hackl, 2001) not affecting the
subsidiarity principle.
To grasp the setting of discourses within Bologna one uses the report Two Decades of
Reform in Higher Education in Europe: 1980 onwards (Eurydice, 2000). It identified, as
catalysts for reform in higher education, increase in demand, restriction on public
spending, globalisation of economies, technological progress and decentralisation. These
factors constitute the imperatives affecting the ‘context of influence’ of the Bologna
process. That is, policy discourse within Bologna was injected by these constrains.
The Sorbonne Declaration (1998) was used as an instrument to increase the level of
concern about European higher education, however, putting emphasis on the national level.
Other European countries that did not welcome an enactment by the four major states
(France, Germany, Italy and United Kingdom) rejected the initiative. As Ravinet argued,
the Conference of European Rectors and the Austrian presidency reasserted the EHEA
project and helped the Italian team to organise the Bologna meeting. Interestingly, the
Sorbonne initiative was formally condemned in the Education Council meeting in Baden
on October 1998 (Ravinet, 2008).
The Bologna Declaration enlarged the potential attempt to benefit for both layers: at
national level, Ministers had a justification to reform, while at European level the
intergovernmental initiative was an opportunity for growing interference by the European
institutions (e.g. European Commission) interpreted in terms of its creeping competences
within the EU, as well as to strength the organisational capacity towards the purpose of the
EHEA.
The Commission’s agenda enlarged actively the plan of action since initially it lacked a
European dimension. In Froment’s view only the European Universities Association
(EUA), the European Commission and the ESIB underwrote European arguments. In his
163
perspective, governments are pushing the reforms forward, they can even revise the degree
structure in their own countries, while using the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
and the Diploma Supplement as tools in the Bologna process. However, universities can
merely limit themselves to give a new name to all diplomas without changing anything.
The European level uses the national level to promote its own agenda being likely that
universities will interpret the requirements in their own terms.
It must kept in mind that institutions placed at European and national levels using
normative (e.g. social obligation) and mimetic (e.g. emulation of practice) mechanisms
influence policy actors.
The Bologna process emerges from different sources, e.g. European institutions, national
institutions and higher education institutions. It is then difficult to discern the in relative
weight. Institutions at various levels are involved in the process of decision-making and
definition of policies. These actors have the power to intervene in the decision makingprocess and in defining action plans. The Follow-Up Group of the Bologna process is a
European institution composed of two different types of political actors: voting actors (e.g.
47 countries participating in Bologna) and consultative actors. The latter exercise their role
with no formal authority. The balance of power among these actors is continuously
evolving and the European Commission was invested as voting member in 2005 (Bergen
Communiqué, 2005).
Under de framework of lifelong learning policy there is a specific measure on higher
education focusing on: university – business cooperation, improving the quality of teacher
education, modernising universities, reform of the universities, in the framework of Lisbon
strategy the focus is on the role of universities in the Europe of knowledge, in the scope of
the Bologna process the emphasis is on setting up the EHEA and quality of higher
education.
164
From 2002 onwards, the activity of European institutions focusing on education grew
swiftly 46 speciality in 2005 and 2006 reinforcing the link between European policies and
46
Below appears a list of acts emanated from the European level encompassing the Bologna process:
1998 - Council Recommendation (EC) No 561/98 of 24 September 1998 on European cooperation in quality
assurance in higher education [Official Journal L 270 of 07.10.1998]
2000 - Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - "Towards a European Research Area"
[COM(2000) 6 final - Not published in the Official Journal].
2001 - (Education) Council Report to the European Council on "The concrete future objectives of education and
training systems" of 14 February 2001 [5980/01 EDUC 18 - Not published in the Official Journal].
- Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2001 on European
cooperation in quality evaluation in school education [Official Journal L 60 of 1.3.2001].
- Report from the Commission - The concrete future objectives of education systems [COM(2001) 59
final - Not published in the Official Journal]
2002 - Communication from the Commission of 10 January 2003 -Investing efficiently in education and
training: an imperative for Europe [COM(2002) 779 final - Not published in the Official Journal]
- Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of Education and training systems in
Europe [Official Journal C 142/01 of 14.03.2002]
- Barcelona European Council, 15-16 March 2002, Presidency conclusions [Doc. 02/8 of 16 March 2002
- Not published in the Official Journal].
- Communication from the Commission -Investing efficiently in education and training : an imperative
for Europe [COM(2002) 779 final - Not published in the Official Journal]
- Communication from the Commission of 20 November 2002 on European benchmarks in education and
training: follow-up to the Lisbon European Council [COM(2002) 629 final - Not published in the Official
Journal].
- Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 on lifelong learning [Official Journal C 163 of 9.7.2002].
2003 - Communication from the Commission of 10 January 2003 - Investing efficiently in education and
training: an imperative for Europe [COM(2002) 779 final - Not published in the Official Journal]
- Communication from the Commission of 5 February 2003 - The role of the universities in the Europe of
knowledge [COM(2003) 58 final - Not published in the Official Journal]
- Communication from the Commission - "Education & Training 2010": The success of the Lisbon
Strategy hinges on urgent reforms (Draft joint interim report on the implementation of the detailed work
programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe) [COM (2003)
685 final - Not published in the Official Journal].
- Council Conclusions of 5 May 2003 on reference levels of European average performance in education
and training (Benchmarks) [Official Journal C 134, of 07.06.2003].
2004 - "Education and Training 2010" The success of the Lisbon Strategy hinges on urgent reforms (Joint
interim report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the detailed work programme
on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe) [Official Journal C 104 of
30.04.2004].
- Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions -Action Plan: The European agenda for
Entrepreneurship[COM(2004) 70 final - Not published in the Official Journal].
- Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of Council Recommendation
98/561/EC of 24 September 1998 on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education
2005 - Communication from the Commission of 1 August 2005 - "The European Indicator of Language
Competence" [COM (2005) 356 final - Not published in the Official Journal].
- Communication from the Commission of 20 April 2005 - "Mobilising the brainpower of Europe:
enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy" [COM(2005) 152 final - Not
published in the Official Journal].
- Communication from the Commission of 25 May 2005 on the independence, integrity and
accountability of the national and Community statistical authorities [COM(2005) 217 final - Not
- Communication from the Commission of 1 August 2005 - "The European Indicator of Language
Competence" [COM (2005) 356 final - Not published in the Official Journal].
165
- Communication from the Commission of 12 October 2005 - "More Research and Innovation: Investing
for Growth and Employment: A Common Approach" [COM (2005) 488 final - Official Journal C 49 of
28.2.2006].
- Communication from the Commission of 20 October 2005 - "European values in the globalised world Contribution of the Commission to the October Meeting of Heads of State and Government" [COM
(2005) 525 final - Not published in the Official Journal].
- Communication of 10 November 2005 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Implementing the
Community Lisbon programme -Modern SME policy for growth and employment[COM(2005) 551 final
- Not published in the Official Journal].
- Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 November 2005
on key competences for lifelong learning [COM(2005) 548 final - Not published in the Official Journal].
- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 December 2005
concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning [COM(2005)
2006 - Communication from the Commission of 13 February 2006 - Implementing the Community Lisbon
Programme: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning [COM(2006) 33 final Not published in the Official Journal].
- Council Recommendation (EC) No 561/98 of 24 September 1998 on European cooperation in quality
assurance in higher education[Official Journal L 64 of 04.03.2006]
- Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006
establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning - Official Journal L 327 of 24.11.2006.
- Communication of 10 May 2006 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament –
Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: education, research and innovation [COM(2006)
- Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament of 8 September
2006 on Efficiency and equity in European education and training systems [COM(2006) 481 final - not
- Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key
competences for lifelong learning- Official Journal L 394 of 30.12.2006.
- Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on further
European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education [Official Journal L 64/60 of 04.03.2006]
- Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on further
European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education[Official Journal L 64 of 04.03.2006]
2007 - Communication from the Commission of 21 February 2007 - "A coherent framework of indicators and
benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training"
- Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 3 August 2007
‘Improving the Quality of Teacher Education’ [COM(2007) 392 final – Not published in the Official
Journal].
2008 - 2008 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the ‘Education
and Training 2010’ work programme – ‘Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and
innovation’ [Official Journal C 86 of 5.4.2008].
- Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States,
meeting within the Council of 22 May 2008 on promoting creativity and innovation through education
and training [Official Journal C 141 of 7.6.2008].
- Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 2 April 2009 – A new partnership for the
modernisation of universities: the EU Forum for University Business Dialogue [COM(2009) 158 final –
Not published in the Official Journal].
2009 - Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and
training (‘ET 2020’) - (2009/C 119/02)
2010 - "Key competences for a changing world" 2010 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission
on the implementation of the “Education & Training 2010 work programme”
- Council Conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training ("ET
2020").
166
the Bologna process. Interference by the European Commission could be seen as
“strengthening an organisational capacity for collective action and the development of
common ideas, such as new norms and collective understandings” (Olsen, 2002: 929)
towards completing the EHEA. That is to say, that the institutionalisation of the EHEA
overlaps with a political process driven by European Union. Teichler considered that the
decision of some countries have paradoxily enforced the convergence strand. The main
implication is that the plan of action is being actively and continually improved by
European institutions. According to Lourtie the coordinating structure of the Bologna
process was not defined from the very beginning 47 . It gained shape by the involvement of
the European Commission (since the European Ministries Meeting held in Prague in 2001),
which by making available human and financial resources, acts as a catalyst.
In the Bologna Follow-up Group there are representatives of the 47 countries participating
in the Bologna process and the European Commission. As consultative members there are
a number of stakeholders: the Council of Europe, the National Unions of Students in
Europe (ESIB), the Education International (EI) Pan-European Structure, the European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), the European University
Association (EUA), the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education
(EURASHE), the European Centre for Higher Education (UNESCO-CEPES) and the
Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE).
The Follow-up Group prepares the work plan according to the priorities defined by
Ministers and set up in working groups. The working groups established in 2010 focused
on the following topics: Social Dimension, Qualifications Frameworks, International
Openness (again the enhancement of attractiveness), Mobility, Recognition, Reporting on
the implementation of the Bologna Process, Transparency mechanisms.
47
However, Ravinet (2008) argued the Education Council in Baden on October 1998 decided to create a
working group to organize the Bologna conference where the Troika (Austria, Germany, Finland), a
representative from Italy, the European Commission, the Confederation of European Rectors and the
Conference of European Rectors were sited. After the Bologna Declaration, by the initiative of Finnish
presidency a two-group structure was created and between 2001 (Prague Communiqué) and 2003 (Berlin
Communiqué) the Bologna Follow-Up Group was formalized.
167
The working group established to report on the implementation of the Bologna process
uses stocktaking as a methodology to gather information and appraise the results achieved.
This concept, however, is unfilled since it ignores that Bologna may challenge values and
beliefs within higher education institutions about either meaning or the existence of
autonomous institutional arenas.
Setting the agenda of the Bologna process is unclear. It reflects the balance of powers
among different institutions. Birkland (2000) argued that there are four levels of agenda
that help understand the complexity of the Bologna process. The agenda comprises all
ideas that could be discussed within a society; the systemic agenda comprises topics set by
policy actors important to discuss publicly; the institutional agenda contains successful
ideas that have emerged from the systemic agenda. The decision agenda contains topics to
be handled by a governmental body. The Follow-Up Group that coordinates the Bologna
process, influences the agenda setting at systemic and institutional levels. At the decision
level, the leadership of governments and of higher education institutions had influence.
Academics are, however, not represented as social partners as in Neave’s view the EUA
[European Universities Association] represents essentially leadership, which might makes
a very different relationship of that of academia.
Higher education institutions individually “seek actively to interact with environmental
constituents in order to shape and control dependency relations” (Gornitzka, et al., 2005:
50). The Bologna process is shaped by the process of translation and implementation. This
interactive process comprises goals of policy makers and goals of policy implementers that
may not coincide. However, distinguishing between policy makers and policy
implementers is not always easy. It is hard to recognise when Bologna has reached the
implementation of a policy decision taken at supranational (European) level. Within higher
education institutions governance bodies will handle the topics according to their own
capabilities, priorities and, in Neave’s perspective, policy is put forward as a hypothesis
due to the lack of involvement of all higher education institutions’ actors.
Yet, higher education institutions often change their environment rather than adapt to it.
And the institutionalisation of a polity will not be advanced just because there is an
168
institutional development (March & Olsen, 1989). It is necessary to dig deeper to analyse
and describe the evolution of the Bologna process, as institutionalisation attempting to
determine what kind of political integration may be possible to achieve without the
participation of all social actors.
The first policy text under the framework of Bologna was a report prepared by the
Confederation of European Union Rectors’ Conferences (CRUE) and the Association of
European Universities (CRE) (the two organisations merged in 2001 to create the EUA –
European University Association). These institutions were representatives of European
universities’ leaderships. The financial support to prepare the report was given by the
European Commission as clarified by Haug. Therefore without financial support from the
EC, the initiative would not happen because Bologna Declaration took over all the
recommendations that were in Trends I.
At that time, the European Directorate-General for education was managed by Dominico
Lennarduzzi, an Italian policy maker. The report “Trends in Learning Structures in Higher
Education” is a policy document and observed with some preoccupation:
There is a strong and growing governmental push towards shorter studies, first aimed at
reducing the real duration of studies to their official length (which is typically exceeded by 2 to
4 years in many countries), and more recently through the introduction of first degrees in
countries with traditionally long curricula without an intermediate exit point. Recent reforms in
Germany and Austria have introduced new bachelors/masters curricula on a voluntary basis
alongside traditional diplomas, whereas in Italy and France existing curricula are being rearranged in a first and postgraduate cycle. Elements of two-tier systems exist in many other
European countries, and it seems that currently only a few countries in the EU/EEA do not
have, or are not experimenting with two-tier curricula in at least part of their higher education
system (Haug, Kirstein, & Knudsen, 1999: 3-4).
and:
Governments in many countries have tackled this issue for more than a decade, but with
increased determination in recent years. Their first efforts seem to have gone into bringing
actual duration more in line with official duration, mainly through financial measures such as
the limitation of the duration of grants (e.g. Germany, Netherlands, Denmark), their
169
transformation into loans if the normal duration is exceeded by more than one year
(Netherlands, Denmark), the exclusion of “late” students from the count on which state grants
to institutions are based (Finland) or differential tuition fees for undergraduate and
postgraduate studies (Ireland, or UK in a different way).
The attention paid by many governments in Europe to the development of a strong, competitive
but shorter non-university sector, as well as the increasing shift of student enrolments towards
this type of higher education, also point in the direction of shorter studies.
More recently, governments have articulated plans to reduce the theoretical duration of studies,
and the attractiveness of models featuring shorter first qualifications followed by postgraduate
studies for a smaller number of students has grown. The move towards bachelor and master
degrees in countries where they are not traditional can also be explained in these terms (Haug,
et al., 1999: 11).
Subscribing the Bologna Declaration is rooted in the assumption that those obstacles may
be surmounted by joint efforts of governments. The report states:
The combined impact of the suggested action lines would also make European higher education
more understandable and attractive to students, scholars and employers from other continents;
they would enhance European competitiveness and thus help to consolidate (or in the eyes of
many, to re-establish) its role and influence in the world (Haug, et al., 1999: 5).
There is a stage of issue emergence (Kogan, 2005) in policy making that in the case of
Bologna is difficult to set. Looking at policy discourse focusing on both the restriction of
public spending by reducing the length of studies and the globalisation of economies by
underlying the enhancement of competitiveness of national higher education systems
resulting in the attractiveness to foreign students, there are insights on how these issues
injected Bologna. The effects of these constraints for the signature of Bologna Declaration
raised the awareness about efficiency and mobility and contributed to argue about a shift
on the concept of mobility from intra-European to international. The alertness about lack of
efficiency and enhancement of mobility were a drawback in Haug’s view because the
experience of European mobility programmes showed incompatibilies of education
systems.
170
Curiously, the Bologna Declaration was signed deliberately and intentionally without the
European Commission, while other European countries (beyond the European Union) were
invited to join the declaration featuring the EHEA beyond the European Union. Anyhow,
since 2005 European Commission is ‘additional member’ with voting power likewise
member states. This empowerment of European institutions might be important as far as
policies and activities developed at European level could intertwine without end with both
national institutions and higher education institutions. The capacity-building of European
Commission surpasses the capacity of individual member states unified around a number
of principles. The conditions, priorities and strategies are likely to differ across states
involved with Bologna weakening the bargain power of national institutions, while
European Commission develops its strategy towards the reinforcement of European
dimension of national policies.
The political discourse was dominated by the efficiency of higher education systems and
the enlargement of the EU played a role. In Haug’s view the access to the labour market,
efficiency and attractiveness were goals shared by the countries confirming the reason why
Bologna agenda has been relatively successful, even though it is not obligatory. This
reinforces the legitimising power of Bologna while underlying its national adequacy.
Also the rhetoric about the knowledge economy placed higher education in a more
competitive position (European Council, 2000) supporting the diffusion of Bologna to
tackle challenges related to new facets of knowledge. The European level by responding to
globalisation and economic competitiveness pressures launched Lisbon strategy with the
aim of creating the most competitive knowledge-based economy (European Council,
2000). This initiative aiming at increasing the investment in a knowledge-based and highly
productive society uses Bologna as the instrument of European Commission to push
forward the EHEA.
Other aspects were more influential and rooted deeply in history. It was part of the political
gesture in those countries of Central and Eastern Europe to show that they were ready for
free market and prepared to make the adjustment required by shifting from a Communist
171
system to a system that was based in capitalism, the system they saw emerging in Western
Europe (Tomusk, 2004).
The EU has used economic, technologic and social policy arguments to justify higher
education policies since 1984 (see chapter I, p. 41), instead of developing a direct action
towards the development of a European policy in higher education, a stance criticised by
higher education institutions on both quantitative and qualitative grounds (Barblan, Kehm,
Reichert, & Teichler, 1998; Barblan & Teichler, 2000; Teichler & Maiworn, 2002). On the
latter higher education institutions criticised the action of the EU for being unable to meet
the expectations they had for Europeanization/internationalisation. On the former, higher
education institutions upbraided the EU for its lack of investment, which prevented the
generalisation of the European mobility programmes to all students – international student
mobility remained limited to less than 10% of the student population. The European
funding of the Socrates programme to support internationalisation lagged well behind the
expectations of higher education institutions. Ironically Neave (2002) saw the Bologna
process as promoting a “euro elite”, favouring the interests of a minority of European
citizens.
2. Context of text production of the Bologna process
The ‘context of text production’ encompasses both political initiatives taken at European
level (e.g. official texts and policy documents) and the passing of legislation at national
level. At European level, Ministers agree on political statements issuing a formal
communiqué every two years. As objectives and lines of action have been increasing (see
chapter I, p. 52) some observers see this procedure as sustaining the impression of
progress.
Within the Bologna process the ‘context of text production’ is particularly relevant
whereas it is changing constantly benefiting from interchanges between the ‘context of
influence’ and the ‘context of practice’. For instance, the inclusion of the students as social
partners in Prague Communiqué (2001) by pressure of the students’ representatives (e.g.
172
ESU). The reinforcement of quality assurance mechanisms based on the emerging of
accreditation systems in some countries (e.g. Germany, Norway) in the Berlin
Communiqué (2003). The implementation of national qualifications framework for higher
education in the Bergen Communiqué (2005) overlapping Lisbon agenda’s requirement in
the area of vocational training. The data collection included in the London Communiqué
(2007) aimed at overcoming the lack of reliable data on mobility of students. The inclusion
of student-centred learning as an approach reinforcing the teaching mission in the Leuven
and Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué (2009) observing that at the organisational field this
topic was high in the agenda as the case of Portugal demonstrated (Veiga & Amaral,
2009b).
At national level, the passing of legislation upholds the perception of the Bologna process
as a regulatory framework, reinforcing national exceptionalisms (see chapter II, p. 83).
However, policy draftsmen do not always control the meaning their texts take on. The
dynamic of policy implementation intermeshes with the official and with the pedagogical
recontextualisation fields. Thus the ‘context of practice’ interchanges with the ‘context of
text production’ very strongly.
Within the ‘context of text production’, the policy documents assume a relevant role since
they proliferated within the Bologna process. However, there is evidence that its awareness
is not limited to a restricted number of Eurospecialists. The foundation of Bologna is based
on a policy document (Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education) assigning
particular importance to policy as text. This report was monitored by the Sorbonne Followup Group.
The Bologna Follow-Up Group, the formal structure monitoring Bologna is amongst the
key producers of policy documents related to the action lines defined by the Ministers (e.g.
qualifications frameworks, joint degrees, mobility, stocktaking etc.). More to the point
there are the studies undertaken by consultative members of the Bologna process and the
recommendations set out in Bologna seminars.
173
The studies by ESU (e.g. ‘Bologna with students’ eyes’, ‘Black book of Bologna’) focus
on dimensions related to student’s academic life and underscore facts grounded on reality
in contrast with the positions at political level. The latter are consistently more positive and
optimistic, than the view of students.
The studies by EUA comprise political declarations attempting to reinforce the role of
universities within the Bologna process (e.g. the role of universities, strong universities for
a strong Europe, Europe’s universities beyond 2010, European Universities: Looking
forward with confidence), although the association represents solely the leadership of
membership institutions. The works include analysis on Bologna topics, such as lifelong
learning, doctoral programmes, joint master programmes, aiming at controlling the
meaning of these concepts in the organisational field.
The publication series includes the Trends reports and the Bologna Handbook – ‘Making
Bologna Work’.
The recommendations made during Bologna seminars filter to the European level the most
relevant issues giving the impression that the perception of the organisation field involves
decision-making processes.
3. Context of practice of the Bologna process
In the ‘context of practice’, policy is subject to translation, interpretation, renegotiation and
contention. Policy actors most relevant are national institutions. On the contrary, policy
actors more influential in the ‘context of practices’ in the pays réel are the three Estates.
In implementing the Bologna process, the national level has been active in mediating, or
adapting to the European level by interpreting policy in interaction with functional and
normative imperatives (see chapter IV, p. 138). Bologna policies remained shaped at
national level but policies developed at European level (e.g. Erasmus Mundus) are also
relevant in the ‘context of practice’.
174
The interpretation of student mobility surfaces both the idea of cooperation and mutual
trust in exchanging students between European higher education institutions and the idea
of competition between higher education institutions for incoming (and in some cases
paying) students. The former relates to the interpretation ascribed to student mobility and
the latter evolved due to the enlargement of Erasmus programme funded by the European
Commission to non-European students constituting the Erasmus Mundus programme.
Bologna is then promoting a shift on the interpretation of mobility framing the idea of
enhancement of attractiveness with the economic rationales of competitiveness of higher
education systems.
Another example is the concept of employability that is shifting its meaning in tune with
the development of lifelong learning policies that would keep the individual employable
(Neave, 2002).
The first order effects, within the ‘context of practice’ also deal with assessment of
practice. The national level is not producing stability, uniformity and order, contributing
instead to developing tools of new governance. As the Prince extended his grasp through
the setting up of intermediary bodies “to reinforce control and oversight in the general area
of ‘output’ management” (Neave & Van Vught, 1991: xii), the use of new governance
mechanisms creates pressure no longer exerted by the central government through
regulative mechanisms.
Policy goals are subject to divergent interpretations for the establishment of the EHEA.
The analysis of the ‘context of practice’ focuses on policy implementation assuming the
idea of continuous evaluation (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984).
That evaluation, at European level uses the stocktaking method inspired in the tools of new
governance (e.g. OMC) (see chapter I, p. 58) however, to get acquainted with progress at
national level and within the organisational field required a timeframe compatible with
incremental reforms.
175
The OMC methodology transposed to stocktaking reports underscores the lack of
effectiveness of soft law mechanisms when national governments have their own policies.
For that reason one observed that national exceptionalism was an important dimension of
Bologna (see chapter II, p. 84). On the other hand, the criteria within the stocktaking
reports did not allow to detect that the passing of legislation at national level did not result
in changes. A critical analysis of these exercises is provided by confronting it with
evidence (Veiga & Amaral, 2006; Veiga & Amaral, 2009a; Veiga, Amaral, & Mendes,
2008).
National reports and national action programmes on recognition, stocktaking reports, and
the scorecard are the main tools of evaluation within Bologna. National reports became
practice in Berlin (2003) since for the first time all the countries corresponded to the
request made already for Prague in 2001. Ministers noted that the “National Reports are
evidence of the considerable progress being made in the application of the principles of the
Bologna Process” (Berlin Communiqué, 2003). The implementation of guidelines was
used to eliminate the lack of comparability of the 2003 reports. In 2005, the guidelines
imposed specific questions, such as those concerning the degree system, recognition,
mobility, internationalisation and quality. In 2006, following the recommendation of the
Bergen Communiqué (Bergen Communiqué 2005), other policy areas were included, such
as the implementation of standards and guidelines for quality assurance as proposed in the
ENQA Report; the implementation of the national frameworks for qualifications; the
awarding and recognition of joint degrees, including the doctorate level; and creating
opportunities for flexible learning paths in higher education, including procedures for the
recognition of prior learning.
This instrument allowed the comparison of performance between countries. However, it
hardly provided an objective and accurate interpretation of implementation at national
level. Trends report by EUA and studies by ESU are examples of sources of contradiction
between the picture presented by national reports and reality. The Trends IV report, for
instance, acknowledges that “In several countries, there is a high risk that concepts and
tools (…) are implemented haphazardly to comply with existing regulation, without deep
understanding of their pedagogical function” (Reichert & Tauch, 2005: 18), and the
176
students argue “Sometimes also everything looks very good on the first sight, but when
looking more closely at how practices are, it becomes apparent that there are still many
challenges left” (ESIB, 2005a: 3).
Recognising that 36 of the 47 participating countries have now ratified the Lisbon
Recognition Convention (Council of Europe 1997), ministers have committed to draw up
“national action plans to improve the quality of the recognition process of foreign
qualifications, which aligns the adoption of the OMC mechanisms. These plans will form
part of each country’s national report for the next Ministerial Conference” (Bergen
Communiqué 2005: 3). NAPs follow a common structure and should report on previous
and future developments concerning mutual academic recognition issues (see chapter IV,
p. 143).
To measure the progress in the implementation of the reforms within the EHEA the states
agreed on the use of the stocktaking exercise (Bologna Follow-up Group, 2005).
According to the Berlin communiqué (Berlin Communiqué, 2003) the stocktaking report
focuses on the progress and implementation of intermediate priorities, such as quality
assurance, the two-cycle system and the recognition of degrees and periods of studies. The
main sources of information for the stocktaking exercise are the national reports prepared
by representatives of national governments and the report Focus on the Structure of Higher
Education in Europe prepared by EURYDICE (Network on Education Systems and
policies in Europe). From Bergen (2005) onwards, Ministers decided to include besides
national reports submitted by all countries and the EURYDICE Report a number of other
sources including the EUA (European University Association) report ‘Trends’ and the
ESIB survey (National Unions of Students in Europe), ‘Bologna With Student Eyes’.
Stocktaking reports also feed the exchange of information among institutions involved in
policy implementation. For that reason, the stocktaking exercise is seen as an interpretation
and translation of the reality emerging from these data sources.
The progress is measured using the Bologna scorecard based on agreed criteria that guide
the accounting of the progress along the priority action lines. Each item under analysis is
177
given a mark from 1 to 5 and a colour, clearly skewed to an optimistic inclination: 1
(Reding) – little progress; 2 (orange) – some progress; 3 (yellow) – good; 4 (light green) –
very good and 5 – excellent. There is also an average mark and a colour given for each of
the three priority action lines and an overall average mark and colour for the overall
performance of each country.
Stocktaking may not be accurately measuring the progress of policy implementation of
Bologna, as there are inaccuracies related to the attempt of reducing the complexity of
measuring the progress of the reforms. The Bologna scorecard that has been chosen does
not allow discerning all the changing variables and does not give the right information at
the right time. Empirical data showed that the results of the stocktaking exercise favoured
an overoptimistic perspective of the Bologna process implementation in Italy, Germany
and Portugal (Veiga & Amaral, 2009b) and in Southern European countries (Veiga, et al.,
2008), for example thus preventing a critical analysis of the process.
In spite of using apparently very clear criteria, the stocktaking process builds on the
interpretation of key documents produced by officials of ministries and studies produced
by independent organisations, such as EURYDICE, translating them into the benchmarks.
As a result the attempt to present comparative data tends to homogenise the information
produced in the reports and studies to fit the benchmark.
The use of this mechanism induces appropriate behaviour. The stocktaking exercise does
not only measure the progress of policy implementation, but also feeds the implementation
of Bologna and institutionalises a specific idea of the EHEA. Therefore if the idea that
comparable indicators are a powerful way of policy formulation is accepted (Nóvoa &
deJong-Lambert, 2003), stocktaking exercise benchmarks could be contributing for policy
formulation with the inadequacy of transmitting a virtual reality.
The comparability and transparency of the systems correlates with the quality of
information provided by the stocktaking exercise. The emphasis of any exercise to measure
the progress of the Bologna process should reflect the complexity and subjectivity of
different action lines. A measurement exercise will have little value, except if measures
178
build on evaluation exercises that focusing on outputs compare the actual value with the
value that would be expected given the inputs available to different education systems.
Therefore, any exercise to measure the progress of Bologna should reflect the complexity
and subjectivity of different action lines. On the other hand, it should underlie the national
exceptionalism and cultures of disciplines, which proved to be important variables for the
Bologna implementation. For the sake of comparability and transparency it would be
worthwhile to follow the mechanisms of institutional diffusion without trying to classify or
categorize the national higher education systems. This process of stocktaking associated to
benchmarking techniques is trapped into the difficulty of seeing the difference between
copying and learning. What the exercise is suggesting is to copy the best performers
instead of inducing critical thinking about each country’s exceptionalism and development
of activities taking the objectives of Bologna.
From a broadened perspective, stocktaking derives from the OMC chosen to appraise
progress towards the common objectives in education and training set in the Lisbon
strategy. The Bologna scorecard resembles the Lisbon scorecard published since 2001 by
the Centre for European Reform that uses the labels “heroes” and “villains” to classify the
performance of European countries. European reports present, for instance, Portugal as a
good performer within Bologna and as a “villain” on the topics related to Bologna within
the Lisbon agenda. This reasoning is perhaps too simplistic but highlights the fact that it is
possible to generate different and opposite interpretations about interlocked performance.
4. Context of outcomes of the Bologna process
The ‘context of outcomes’ of the Bologna process focuses especially on the second order
effects policies have for issues such as academic freedom and academic work and
institutional reconfiguration. For obvious reasons within higher education institutions these
effects are grasped better. Research findings of this study aim at shedding light on this
policy context.
179
In the ‘context of practice’ it was observed that national and European institutions tended
to present favourable pictures about implementing the Bologna process. Additionally one
noticed the relevance of national exceptionalism (see chapter II, p. 83) to highlight that
issues guiding the national reforms (e.g. quality in Norway, increasing system’s diversity
in Portugal, learning outcomes in Ireland, low completion rate in Italy, European
harmonisation in Germany, etc.) were diverse from the issues incorporating the Bologna’s
policy dimensions into the national agenda.
The analysis at the organisational field level provided the assessment of expectations about
the plausible goals of the constituencies of higher education institutions and in the
Portuguese case it was observed that the strongest aspects were indeed related to very
positive expectations on the student-centred paradigm shift as an opportunity to rethink the
teaching/learning offer and reorganising the curricula (Veiga & Amaral, 2009b).
But these expectations rely on further action within the ‘context of practice’ of Bologna at
European and national levels to make available more resources (e.g. in Portugal there was
lack of implementation guidelines and the deadline to submit the proposals was too short,
there was also lack of clarification on the funding rules for the new Bologna-type study
programmes and the process of accreditation was not yet implemented) (Veiga & Amaral,
2009b), underscoring the need of further interaction in the ‘context of practice’ between
different levels. This interaction is more likely to take place if at European and national
level the perceptions about implementing Bologna go down to the grassroots. The 2009
stocktaking report recognised that the criteria to measure policy achievements should be
more restricted to better seize reforms at national level (Bologna Follow-up Group, 2009).
In the Portuguese case, the lack of institutional debate and the lack of flexibility of internal
norms and regulations, a deficit of student participation in the process that led to the
distribution of credits, were drawbacks that might prevent the progress of reforms within
the organisational field (Veiga & Amaral, 2009b).
180
5. Context of political strategy of the Bologna process
The ‘context of political strategy’ is where political initiatives are directed towards
influencing the way negative outcomes are taken up.
Bologna at European level appears to inject another issue: the ‘modernisation’ of European
higher education: “The modernisation of European higher education will be pursued and it
will rest upon increased institutional autonomy, quality assurance and accountability, as
well as sustainable funding” (Benelux Bologna Secretariat, 2009).
Bologna emphasised higher education institutions’ competitiveness while the EHEA
underlined the attractiveness of European higher education. The Bologna Declaration (as
political statement) is seen by the EU as an act framed under the quest of modernising
universities underlying the view to achieving convergence between higher education
systems in Europe.
Grafting the ‘modernisation’ agenda onto Bologna brought in different issues and set
Bologna into a larger process of policy integration. From this broader perspective by
focusing on the ‘modernisation’ agenda, “The Commission, in particular, has claimed that
a dynamic knowledge-based economy (and society) requires modernisation of the
European University” (Olsen & Maassen, 2007: 6) a clear demonstration that the influence
of the European level over the organisational field can also operate directly. This aspect is
extremely important in understanding policy definition and the effects such policies have
within higher education institutions. The European level, by seeing the Bologna process as
a structural reform shifts emphasis to the regulative pillar for the obvious reason that
changes in structures require changes to the legal framework, and particularly to coercive
mechanisms:
The Bologna process in higher education is an inter-governmental process, which also
contributes to the achievement of the Lisbon strategy. While Bologna is mainly an agenda for
structural reforms (in the architecture of degrees, their internal organisation in credits and
outcome-based units and their transparency), Education and Training 2010 mainly concerns
181
higher education policy (in particular funding, governance and attractiveness) (European
Commission, 2005b: 4).
This statement hints at the pressures from the European level on the national level and the
organisational field, largely because the reforms to modernise European higher education
initiated in the 80s did not yield the expected results (Maassen, 2006). In short, at
European level the Bologna process merely recycles the issue. Neave examining the longterm ‘policy cycle’ in terms of abiding changes argued that the Bologna ‘policy cycle’
dated back to 1981: “it is clear in Western Europe, the major reforms re-engineering the
task, the resources, the priorities and their verification (…) were largely completed or in
process of completion before the Bologna Declaration” (Neave, 2009: 49)
Despite attempts by European Ministers of Education “to define European cooperation as a
cultural project and they emphasize that the need to increase global economic
competitiveness must be balanced with the objective of improving the social characteristics
of the EHEA” (Olsen & Maassen, 2007: 8), economic arguments forged at European level,
contaminated the Bologna process. How far the ‘context of political strategy’ in the
Bologna process is able to impinge on the ‘context of influence’ in resuscitated topic
‘modernisation’ is the question. In this light the number of official position documents
emanated at European level is worth to explore further and to follow (see page 165).
Far more important is whether the political dimension is to dominate policy statements to
the extent that the balance between cultural and economic elements is crusted by political
beliefs. This would suggest that the Bologna process is closer to the state and market
models of coordination than it is to the academic oligarchy (Veiga, 2003). As the course
taken by Bologna was unable to counteract this, the ‘context of influence’ in the
modernisation agenda should be sensitive to grassroots, if it is to launch another ‘policy
cycle’.
182
Conclusion
Interpreting the Bologna process as it moved through the ‘policy cycle’ sought to enlarge
the view about Bologna by depicting the issues relevant in the pays politique in each policy
context.
In each policy context the most significant aspects of struggles taking place within
Bologna with the aim of shedding some light on the complexity of Bologna as a policy
process. The elements identified are sensitive issues in terms of its insertion in a larger
process of integration of education policies with repercussion to different levels of
analysis.
Table V.7 – Bologna in the ‘policy cycle’
POLICY CONTEXTS
INTERACTION WITHIN INSTITUTIONS
Context of influence
Obscures national level institutions - European Commission possesses the
status of additional member and is a powerful interest group by funding
exchange of best practice (e.g. projects, thematic seminars, etc.).
Context of text production
Reveals European level institutions - policy documents making sense of
official texts are relevant whereas implementers never read some official
texts firsthand.
Context of practice
Reveals national level institutions - Evaluation (e.g. national reports,
stocktaking and scorecard) making sense of pays réel give primacy to
passing legislation.
Context of outcomes
Reveals organizational field – interpretations within HEIs induce coping
strategies.
Context of political strategy
Reveals European level institutions - Impetus for a new (or recycled) ‘policy
cycle’.
As table V.7 shows in the ‘context of influence’ interaction within institutions obscures
national level institutions as European Commission achieved the status of ‘additional
member’ and at the same time it is a powerful interest group by funding exchange of best
practice (e.g. projects, thematic seminars, etc.). European institutions define appropriate
performance of both national governments and higher education institutions. The role of
European Commission was contested within the Bologna process. As an ordinary member
its position was not acceptable, as ‘additional member’ with voting powers its authority is
183
comparable to subscriber countries. This fine distinction allowed the European
Commission to keep the pace of establishing the EHEA by reasserting the vocational
orientation of EU policies in the field of education, whereas implementing the Lisbon
Agenda focusing on investment of highly productive society. Anyhow it will be interesting
to underline that Bologna goes beyond the European Union.
In the ‘context of text production’ interaction within institutions, reveals European level
institutions whereas policy documents making sense of official texts (e.g. Bologna
Declaration, Prague Communiqué, Berlin Communiqué, Bergen Communiqué, Louvain
Communiqué, London Communiqué) are relevant whereas implementers never read some
official texts firsthand. Policy documents would be active shapers of appropriate
performance taking the objectives of Bologna by providing (often multiple) frames of
reference (e.g. qualifications framework).
In the ‘context of practice’ interaction within institutions reveals national level institutions,
whereas appropriate performance is monitored by evaluation making sense of pays réel
(e.g. national reports, stocktaking and scorecard) by giving primacy to passing legislation
an objective criteria, but inducing erroneous belief about the pays réel. The awareness
about evaluation of policy is a sensitive issue since the interpretation different levels of
analysis produce about policy change foster or undermine the development of
indispensable action that takes the objectives of Bologna. For instance, if at national and
European levels there is the perception of a vague achievement at the organisation field,
there is a high risk that incentive or pressure for effective change will not occur.
In the ‘context of outcomes’ the second order effects are more open to different
interpretations. However, there is lack of empirical data about reactions within higher
education institutions that would favour or hamper responses to change. The analysis of the
Portuguese situation shows the need of further adjustments between official and pedagogic
recontextualisation fields to make some achievements in the area of pedagogical reform
(Veiga & Amaral, 2009b), for instance. Interaction within institutions reveals
organisational field whereas interpretations within higher education institutions induce
coping strategies.
184
The ‘context of political strategy’ aligning with the time frame of Bologna sees the
modernisation agenda re-entering a new ‘policy cycle’ by pressure of European
institutions. Interaction within institutions reveals European level institutions whereas the
activities of European Commission have been focusing on modernisation of higher
education to reframe action and giving impetus for a new (or recycled) ‘policy cycle’.
Next chapter will present and analyse research findings based on the perceptions of the
constituencies of higher education institutions about the ‘policy cycle’ of the Bologna
process. The ‘context of political strategy’ of Bologna go beyond the scope of this study
whereas the aim is to grasp the role of Bologna for the institutionalisation of EHEA.
Therefore the analysis of research findings, discussion and conclusions of this study, will
consider issues feeding this policy context only if appropriate, only if appropriate.
It should be noted that research findings of this study pursue both the ‘context of practice’
and the ‘context of outcomes’ of Bologna’s ‘policy cycle’ as presented in this chapter.
Analytical concern is with perceptions of the pays réel about policy implementation, policy
effects and institutional reconfiguration within organisational field as these reflect the
institutionalisation of EHEA.
185
186
CHAPTER VI - Analysis of research findings
CHAPTER VI
Analysis of research findings
Introduction
The findings of this study are presented in this chapter. The data presented sought to
answer the research questions:
What is the role of the Bologna process for the institutionalisation of the EHEA?
Two further issues were raised.
1. What are the perceptions of the actors involved in the implementation process
within higher education institutions?
1.1 What is the awareness of Bologna as a policy process?
1.2 What is the level of awareness about the transformations, changes
and impact of the reforms?
2. What is the role of policies and institutions placed at different levels of analysis
(European, national and organisational field) for policy analysis?
187
The questionnaire was made of 29 questions. For each question, there was a set of related
statements. Respondents should rate each statement according to a rating ordinal scale. A
four-point scale was used to force an option:
-
from “disagree” to “agree” – questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26,
28 and 29;
-
from “no change” to “large change” – questions 5, 9, 18, 19, 20, 27;
-
from “no impact” to “major impact” - questions 6, 7, 11, 12 13, 21;
-
from “not implemented” to “fully implemented” – questions 10 and 15; and
-
from “no activity” to “high activity” – question 25.
Respondents could also declare they had “no opinion” if the issues were recognizable but
they had no opinion, and could state, “do not know” if the issues were totally unfamiliar.
Three distinct parts made the questionnaire as follows:
-
the Bologna process as a policy process;
-
the views on the implementation of the Bologna process;
-
the views on changes in the teaching/learning and research processes.
In total, 947 respondents replied to the questionnaire, which corresponds to a response rate
of 31% (table VI.8). Tables VI.8 and VI.9 detail the response rate, per higher education
institution, per disciplinary field and the three Estates.
188
Table VI.8 – Response rate, per higher education institution
UNIVERSITIES
SAMPLE
NUMBER OF
RESPONSES
RESPONSE RATE
A-PT
385
304
79%
B-PT
385
267
69%
C-IT
385
113
29%
D-IT
385
82
21%
E-GE
385
63
16%
?-GE
385
0
0%
F-NO
385
88
23%
G-NO
385
30
8%
Total
3080
947
31%
SURVEYED
Legend: PT – Portugal; IT – Italy; GE – Germany; NO - Norway
189
190
Table VI.9 – Response rate, per higher education institution and “disciplinary field”
LAW
PHYSICS
HISTORY
MEDICINE
UNIVERSITIES
SURVEYED
Sample
Responses
Responses
rate
Sample
Responses
Responses
rate
Sample
Responses
Responses
rate
Sample
Responses
Responses
rate
A-PT
90
81
90%
90
40
44%
90
80
89%
90
83
92%
B-PT
90
39
43%
90
44
49%
90
78
87%
90
86
96%
C-IT
90
0
0%
90
93
103%
90
0
0%
90
19
21%
D-IT
90
70
78%
90
0
0%
90
2
2%
90
n.a.
n.a.
E-GE
90
0
0%
90
29
32%
90
29
32%
90
0
0%
?-GE
90
0
0%
90
0
0%
90
0
0%
90
0
0%
F-NO
90
19
21%
90
18
20%
90
23
26%
90
15
17%
G-NO
90
22
24%
90
2
2%
90
0
0%
90
0
0%
Total
720
231
32%
720
226
31%
720
212
29%
720
203
28%
191
192
Table VI.10 – Response rate, per higher education institution and “the three Estates”
ACADEMIC STAFF
UNIVERSITIES
ADM. & MGM. STAFF48
STUDENT
SURVEYED
Sample
Responses
Response rate
Sample
Responses
Response rate
Sample
Responses
Response rate
A-PT
120
101
84%
240
183
76%
25
20
80%
B-PT
120
79
66%
240
168
70%
25
20
80%
C-IT
120
40
33%
240
72
30%
25
1
4%
D-IT
120
24
27%
240
48
27%
25
10
40%
E-GE
120
20
17%
240
38
16%
25
5
20%
?-GE
120
0
0%
240
0
0%
25
0
0%
F-NO
120
48
40%
240
27
11%
25
13
52%
G-NO
120
9
8%
240
15
6%
25
6
24%
Total
960
321
33%
1920
551
29%
200
75
38%
48
In this chapter the “Adm. & Mgm. Staff”stands for Administrative and Management Staff.
193
194
The variables under scrutiny include the “university”, the “disciplinary field” of academic
staff and students and “the three Estates” (see chapter III, p. 154).
Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS (version 17.0). Kruskal-Wallis test (assuming
a two-sided significance of 5%) was used to investigate if statistical significant differences
existed among the distribution of answers (rated perceptions) of groups of respondents,
defined according to the context variables (e.g. "university", "disciplinary field" and "the
three Estates"). The main concern was to perceive if the context variables had influence on
different respondents’ answers (rated perceptions) to the set of questions composing the
questionnaire. Since the Kruskal-Wallis test provides information on the mean rank of each
group of respondents, it also allowed identifying which groups tend to agree more with the
proposition(s) (questions) where statistically significant difference(s) were detected.
To be acquainted with the relevance of "no opinion" and "do not know” aggregated results
were set against rated perceptions. The Chi-square test (with a two-sided significance of
5%) was used to compare the answers of the group of respondent stating "no opinion" and
"do not know" versus the group of respondents created according to the context variables.
That is, the test allowed the comparison of those who had a rated perception and those who
expressed a "no opinion" or "do not know". To retrieve the groups of respondents that
produced more rated perceptions and the groups of respondents who had "no opinion"
and/or "do not know" opinions about each item, the adjusted residual for each cell in the
cross-tabulation that had "higher than expected" frequencies was examined. Cells with an
adjusted residual ≥ 2 showing as significantly "higher than expected" were therefore
reported in the text.
This chapter starts by highlighting the dominant perspectives on specific subcomponents,
taking into consideration all the answers and aggregated results as they address prevailing
issues within specific dimensions. Results of statistical tests will be presented whenever
statistical significant differences between groups of respondents exist. Interpretation of
these findings will be presented after the presentation of the data. In Annex III the graphs
presented portray the distribution of rated perceptions controlling the three variables under
195
scrutiny. Only graphs considered important for the interpretation of data are included in
this chapter.
The chapter is organized in three distinctive sections: level of awareness about Bologna as
a policy process; level of awareness about transformations, changes and impacts at the
pays réel and level of awareness about transformations, changes and impacts on teaching
and learning. Within each section answers have been clustered to highlight prevailing
issues within each dimension to identify the most important elements in terms of what they
confirm about Bologna, what claims about Bologna they contradict and what is new about
Bologna.
1. Level of awareness about the Bologna process as a policy process
The aim of the questionnaire’s first section was to perceive how the constituencies of
universities have distinguished and appraised dimensions about Bologna related to its
drivers, objectives, focuses and changes, taking the perspective of each national higher
education system.
1.1 Motivations of the Bologna process
The first question dealt with the drivers of Bologna. Table VI.11 shows the number and
percentage of answers obtained.
196
Table VI.11– Motivations of the Bologna process: Number and percentages of answers
1. In (Your) higher education system implementing the Bologna process is strongly motivated by?...
Disagree
Partially
Disagree
Partially
Agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
1.1. Political considerations (e.g.
European political identity)
43
5%
41
4%
44
5%
231
25%
481
52%
87
9%
1.2. economic considerations (e.g.
economic competitiveness, efficacy
and efficiency or resources)
52
6%
59
6%
101
11%
272
29%
349
38%
90
10%
1.3. cultural considerations (e.g.
European cultural identity)
64
7%
154
17%
150
16%
225
25%
244
27%
77
8%
Respondents agreed with all the elements. Aggregated results of “partially agree” and
“agree” showed that cultural considerations were slightly preferred, followed by economic
considerations. 41% agreed with cultural considerations, 40% of the respondents agreed
that implementing the Bologna process was strongly motivated by economic
considerations. And 30% of the respondents agreed with political considerations.
However, there was some disagreement about cultural considerations as it gathered more
“partially disagree” (17%) and “disagree” (7%) while Economic considerations received
the highest percentage of “agree”.
However, there was an obvious lack of understanding about the drivers of Bologna, which
was translated into a very high percentage of suspended opinions. Political considerations
got the highest share (61%) of “no opinion” and “do not know” responses, which
corresponds to the majority of respondents, followed by economic considerations 48%).
Rated perceptions
Taking into account only the rated perceptions the Kruskal-Wallis test applied to the
context variables “university” and “the three Estates” revealed no disparity49.
49
p = 0.238; 0.348; 0.206 Kruskal-Wallis H = 8.002; 6.710; 8.458 df =6.
197
However, there was evidence of differences among disciplinary disciplinary field” in the
distribution of answers to political considerations and economic considerations as reported
by our respondents50. In relation to cultural considerations, we did not find any
differences51.
Illustration of the distribution of rated answers is presented in graph A (Annex II, p. 77).
As shown in graph A, the analysis of rated perceptions underlined the fact that respondents
from all disciplinary fields, except from medicine, agree more with political
considerations. Among those respondents who showed a rated perception about political
and economic considerations the answers by “disciplinary field” gave dominance to
political considerations because the percentages were higher for “agree”. However,
respondents from law “disagree” or “partially disagree” with this item, while they have a
high percentage of “partially agree” answers for economic considerations. Respondents
from physics and from history registered the lowest percentages of “disagree” answers on
both items. Respondents from history “partially agree” and “partially disagree” almost in
the same percentage with economic considerations. Respondents from medicine “disagree”
more clearly with both considerations. On further inspection, based on the Kruskal-Wallis
test mean rank we found that respondents from physics tended to agree more with political
and economic considerations.
Opinion suspended versus rated perceptions
Comparing the answers expressing rated perceptions with the answers with “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” there was evidence of statistically significant differences based on
chi-square test among the respondents from different universities. In the context variables
“disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”, there was confirmation of divergence of
opinions among respondents about political and cultural considerations, respectively.
50
51
p = 0.002; 0.006 Kruskal-Wallis H = 14.326 and 12.531 df =3.
p = 0.896 Kruskal-Wallis = 0.602 and df = 3.
198
In the context variable “university”, there were statistically significant differences in all the
items52. Related to political and cultural considerations there was also evidence of
statistically significant differences in the context variable “disciplinary field”53. There was
no evidence of differences in relation to economic considerations54. In the context variable
“the three Estates” there were only statistically significant differences on the item cultural
considerations55. We found no statistically relevant divergences of opinions about political
and economic considerations56.
Table VI. 12 shows which group of respondents answered “higher than expected” on each
item of the question focusing on the motivations of the Bologna process by indicating the
highest adjusted residuals.
Table VI.12 - Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about motivations of the
Bologna process
1.1 political considerations
1.2 economic considerations
1.3 cultural considerations
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION SUSPENDED
University
C (5,5)
B (2,2)
Disciplinary field
History (2,3)
Medicine (3,3)
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (4,1)
G (2,1)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
University
E (3,4)
D (3,3)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,7)
Medicine (2,9)
The three Estates
Academic staff (3,2)
Adm. & mgmt. staff (2,2)
As shown in table VI.12 respondents from universities C and E had more rated perceptions
and respondents from universities B, G and D had more “no opinion” and/or “do not
know” answers. Respondents from history and physics had more rated perceptions and
52
Chi-square test p < 0.001; 0.001; 0.001.
Chi-square test p = 0.003; p < 0.001.
54
Chi-square test p = 0.057.
55
Chi-square test p= 0.002.
56
Chi-square test p= 0.307; 0.255.
53
199
respondents from medicine had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
Academic staff and administrative and management staff showed more rated perceptions
and “no opinion” and/or “do not know”, respectively.
The groups of respondents from the University B and from medicine where those that have
contributed with more “no opinion” answers about political considerations, which was the
item that collected the highest percentage of suspended opinions, based on all responses.
1.2 Strategic goals of the Bologna reforms
Question 2 asked about the strategic goals of the reform at national level. Table VI.13
shows the number and percentage of answers obtained.
Table VI.13 – Strategic goals of the Bologna reforms: Number and percentage of answers
2. In (Your) higher education system do you agree that recent reforms...
Disagree
2.1 are being implemented to
establish European Higher
Education Area
Partially
Disagree
Partially
Agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
108
12%
59
6%
89
10%
215
23%
260
28%
185
20%
2.2 are being implemented
according the progression of
Bologna in other European
countries
119
13%
64
7%
88
10%
232
25%
233
25%
183
20%
according to the national agenda
117
13%
85
9%
86
9%
185
20%
259
28%
179
20%
Respondents agreed with all subcomponents. Aggregated results of “partially agree” and
“agree” showed that 35% of the respondents agreed that Bologna is being implemented
according to the progression of Bologna in other countries. 33% agreed that recent
reforms were implemented to establish the European Higher Education Area. And 29% of
the respondents perceived the national agenda as the main driver of the reforms.
200
Nevertheless, the percentages of disagreement were rather elevated. Aggregated results of
“disagree” and “partially disagree” were comparable to the percentages of “agree” for all
the sub-dimensions. However, according to our respondents the strategic goals of the
reform generated mainly “no opinion” answers. The highest percentage was 28% of all the
answers both for the establishment of the EHEA and the implementation according to the
national agenda (or 48% for the aggregate “no opinion” with “do not know”) followed by
25% for the statement that the progression of Bologna in other European countries drove
recent reforms (or 45% for the aggregate “no opinion” with “do not know”).
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception there was evidence of differences
regarding the context variables “university” and “disciplinary field” in the distribution of
answers to this question as reported by our respondents. In the context variable “the three
Estates” we did not find any relevant disparity57.
Within the context variable “university” there were differences in the distribution of
answers by our respondents to all the items of this question58.
Illustration of distribution of rated answers is given in graph B (Annex II, p. 79).
As shown in graph B, the universities that contributed more to the overall percentage of
“agree” with the implementation of Bologna according to the progression in other
countries were three universities (A, D, F). The implementation according to the national
agenda was considered relevant in three universities (E, F, G). Respondents from three
universities (C, E, G) were those who “agree” more with the statement that implementation
aimed to establish the European Higher Education Area. Respondents from C “disagree”
remarkably that Bologna is being implemented according to the progression in other
countries and that the implementation was made according to the national agenda.
57
58
p = 0.005; p < 0.001; p = 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis H = 18.507; 24.505; 24.098 df =6.
201
Further assessment based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank analysis revealed that for
the proposition about the establishment of the EHEA, respondents from university E tended
to be more enthusiastic. For the item, which links the implementation of Bologna to the
progression in other European countries respondents from university F tended to be more
positive. Similarly, the national agenda was subject to more agreement in this university as
reported by our respondents.
In addition, it was possible to note differences in the context variable “disciplinary field” in
the distribution of answers to this question by our respondents in relation to all the items59.
The differences for the implementation according to the national agenda were only
marginal.
Graph C illustrates the differences focusing on rated perceptions (Annex II, p. 81).
As can be seen, respondents from history and physics “agree” more than respondents from
other disciplinary fields with the proposition that Bologna was being implemented to
establish the European Higher Education Area. In a slightly higher percentage,
respondents from history, law and medicine “agree” that Bologna was being implemented
according to the progression in other European countries. The implementation according
to the national agenda was also relevant for these groups of respondents. Respondents
from physics “disagree” energetically with both the two last propositions.
Among those who “disagree” more with the idea that Bologna was linked to the
establishment of EHEA were respondents from law and medicine.
Further analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank showed that for the
propositions where it was possible to distinguish statistically significant differences
(implementation of Bologna to establish the EHEA and the implementation of Bologna
according to the progression in other European countries) respondents from history had
more positive perceptions.
59
202
Weighting the groups of respondents who expressed a rated perception against the groups
of respondents who expressed “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions there was
evidence of statistically significant differences based on chi-square test among the
respondents from the selected context variables of “university” and “the three Estates” on
specific propositions. Within the context variable “disciplinary field” no divergence of
distribution of responses was found60 for all the three propositions.
Within the context variable “university” there was evidence of differences of distribution
of aggregated answers expressing a rated perception and “no opinion” and/or “do not
know” opinions61, as reported by our respondents for the implementation to establish the
European Higher Education Area and the implementation according to the national
agenda, respectively.
Within the “the three Estates” there was evidence of differences of distribution of
aggregated responses expressing a rated perception and “no opinion” and/or “do not know”
opinions62, as reported by our respondents for the implementation to establish the
European Higher Education Area and the implementation according to the progression in
other European countries, respectively.
Table VI.14 shows which group of respondents answered “higher than expected” on each
item of the question focusing on the strategic goals of the Bologna reforms by indicating
the highest adjusted residuals.
60
Chi-square test p = 0.095; 0.591; 0.757.
Chi-square test p = 0.023; 0.001.
62
Chi-square test p = 0.037; 0.006.
61
203
Table VI.14 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the strategic goals of
Bologna reforms
2.1 are being implemented to
establish the European Higher
Education Area
according the progression of
Bologna in other European
countries
according to the national agenda
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
E (3,4)
Adjusted residual < 2,0
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Students (2,0)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (3,2)
University
E (3,3)
F (3,3)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
As shown in table VI.14 respondents from E had more rated perceptions, while
respondents from F had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers. Academic staff
had more rated opinions and students had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”
answers.
The items that collected the highest percentages, based on all the answers, of “no opinion”
and “do not know” were the implementation of Bologna to establish the European Higher
Education Area in the case of students and respondents from the University E; and the
implementation of Bologna according to the national agenda for respondents from the
University F.
1.3 The targets of Bologna reforms
Question 3 asked about the target of the reforms under the scope of Bologna. Table VI.15
204
Table VI.15 – The target of Bologna reforms: Number and percentages of answers
3. In (Your) higher education system do you agree that implementing the Bologna process is...
Disagree
3.1 an administrative reform (e.g.
establishment of degree structure
and establishment of recognition
and mobility procedures)
Partially
Disagree
Partially
Agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
46
5%
50
5%
69
8%
240
26%
446
49%
67
7%
37
4%
144
16%
163
18%
247
27%
273
30%
60
6%
3.3 a funding reform (e.g. lower
costs, diversified university
income, tuition fees, grants and
loans)
78
8%
142
15%
123
13%
208
22%
272
29%
105
11%
3.4 a governance reform (e.g.
university autonomy, strategic
partnership, quality assurance)
93
10%
143
16%
128
14%
244
26%
195
21%
118
13%
3.2 a pedagogic reform (e.g.
competence and skills based
learning)
Respondents agreed with the idea that Bologna was both targeting a pedagogic reform and
a governance reform. Aggregated results of “agree” and “partially agree” showed that 45%
of the respondents agreed with Bologna being a pedagogic reform, while 40% of the
respondents agreed with Bologna being a governance reform. The funding reform and the
administrative reform collected lower agreement.
However, the aggregated percentages of “disagree” and “partially disagree” were rather
elevated for Bologna as a governance reform (26%) and as a pedagogic reform (20%)
while Bologna as a funding reform collected 23% of “disagree” and “partially disagree”
answers.
The highest percentage of “no opinion” answers was given to Bologna as an administrative
reform (49%) with an additional 7% of “do not know” answers, which shows that the
majority of the respondents (56%) overlooked the sub dimension of administrative reform.
205
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about the targets of the reform there was
evidence of differences among “university”, “ “disciplinary fields” and “”the three Estates”
in the distribution of answers to this question.
Controlling the variable “university” allowed detecting there were differences in the
distribution of answers to this question relating to an administrative reform and a
pedagogic reform63. For a funding reform differences were marginal64 and for governance
reform there was no relevant disparity65.
Graph D illustrates the distribution of rated answers (Annex II, p. 83).
As shown in graph D, the analysis of rated perceptions emphasises the administrative
reform. And the perception about the target of the reform focusing on the pedagogic
reform was relevant for respondents from universities A and C. This item also received
higher percentages of “partially agree” from respondents from all the universities. The
funding reform and the governance reform were relevant for respondents from university
D.
Moreover, respondents from the University B gave the highest percentage of “partially
disagree” to the pedagogic reform.
Further attention based on the results of Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that
respondents from university E tended to be closer to an administrative reform, whereas
respondents from the University C tended to be more positive about a pedagogic reform.
Controlling the context variable “disciplinary field” also reveals differences in the
distribution of answers to this question for the statements of Bologna as an administrative
63
p = 0.001; 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis H = 23.129; 23.469 df =6.
p = 0.045 Kruskal-Wallis H = 12.862 df =6.
65
64
206
reform and a pedagogic reform66. For Bologna as a funding reform and as a governance
reform no relevant disparity was found67.
The distribution of rated answers is in graph E (Annex II, p. 85).
As shown in graph E, the administrative reform collected more agreement among those
who expressed a rated perception.
Respondents from history and physics agree more than the other groups of respondents
with an administrative reform as the target of Bologna reforms. These respondents also
perceived positively the item focusing on the pedagogic reform. However, the percentage
of those who “partially disagree” with this item was rather high.
Further examination based on the Kruskal-Wallis mean rank test disclosed that respondents
from physics tended to be more positive about Bologna as an administrative and Bologna
as a pedagogic reform.
In the context variable “the three Estates” differences in the distribution of answers were
found for Bologna as an administrative reform and Bologna as a funding reform68. For
Bologna as a pedagogic reform and Bologna as a governance reform no relevant
disparity69 was observed. Graph F illustrates the distribution of answers focusing only on
rated responses (see Annex II p. 87).
As shown in graph F, rated perceptions by the three Estates also put emphasis on an
Bologna as an administrative reform. And academic staff “agree” more with the idea of an
administrative reform, while the administrative and management staff “agrees” more with
the idea of governance reform.
66
p < 0.001; p = 0.007 Kruskal-Wallis H = 30.494; 12.051 df =3.
68
69
67
207
More attention based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that academic staff
were inclined to agree more with the idea of an administrative reform and administrative
and management staff agreed more with a funding reform.
Balancing the group of respondents who expressed rated perceptions and the group of
respondents who stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions there was evidence of
statistically significant differences based on chi-square test in the context variables
“university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”.
In the variable “university”, statistically significant differences were found on all the
items70. Among the context variable “disciplinary field” there was evidence of divergences
on the pedagogic and the funding reforms71 and within the context variable “the three
Estates” differences of distribution of answers appeared in items administrative, pedagogic
and funding reforms72. We found no statistically significant differences for the governance
reform73 for both context variables.
item of the question focusing on the target of Bologna reforms by indicating the highest
adjusted residuals.
Table VI.16 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended
3.1 an administrative reform
70
CONTEXT VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION SUSPENDED
University
C (5,2)
F (4,1)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student
Chi-square test p < 0.001.
Chi-square test p < 0.001; p = 0.003.
72
Chi-square test p < 0.001; 0.001; 0.001.
73
71
208
R
3.2 a pedagogic reform
3.3 a funding reform
3.4 a governance reform
CONTEXT VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION SUSPENDED
University
E (2,9)
A (4,5)
Disciplinary field
Physics (6,4)
Medicine (3,1)
The three Estates
University
C (3,0)
A (3,7)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,3)
History (2,7)
The three Estates
University
E (3,4)
F (3,2)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
As shown in table VI.16 respondents from universities C and E showed more rated
perceptions, while respondents from universities A and F had more “no opinion” and/or
“do not know”. Respondents from physics demonstrated more rated perceptions.
Respondents from medicine and history had a preference for “no opinion” and/or “do not
know” answers.
Academic staff and, in one item, students had more rated perceptions, while administrative
and management staff stated more “no opinion” and or “do not know” answers.
The highest percentage of “no opinion” for all the answers was obtained for Bologna as an
administrative reform based on “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers by
respondents from the university F and from the administrative and management staff.
1.4 The focuses of Bologna reforms
Question four asked about the focus of the reforms. Table VI.17 shows the frequency and
209
Table VI.17 – The focus of Bologna reforms: Number and percentages of answers
4. In (Your) higher education system would you agree that implementing the Bologna process is focused on the...
Disagree
Partially
Disagree
Partially
Agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
4.1 removal of barriers to facilitate
the mobility of citizens (e.g.
legibility and comparability of
European higher education
systems)
38
4%
69
7%
75
8%
271
29%
420
45%
52
6%
4.2 promotion of social cohesion
(e.g. wider access and promotion
of equity in European higher
education systems
65
7%
140
15%
155
17%
257
28%
231
25%
69
8%
4.3 development of supranational
governance institutions (e.g.
promotion of common European
quality standards)
100
11%
99
11%
163
18%
263
28%
196
21%
106
11%
4.4 development of a competitive
European higher education market
(e.g. attractiveness of the
European Higher Education Area
to foreigner student and
researches)
77
8%
86
9%
135
15%
284
31%
270
29%
71
8%
4.5 reduction of public
expenditure in higher education
92
10%
164
18%
133
14%
155
17%
257
28%
119
13%
4.6 efficiency of your national
higher education system (e.g.
reducing dropouts and mean time
to graduation
73
8%
175
19%
162
18%
249
27%
187
20%
72
8%
4.7 increase the relevance of
education to the labour market
76
8%
182
20%
163
18%
238
26%
173
19%
89
10%
Respondents agreed with all subcomponents, except with the reduction of public
expenditure. Aggregated results of “partially agree” and “agree” showed that the
development of a competitive European higher education market (46%), the development
of supranational governance institutions (46%), the promotion of social cohesion (45%)
and the efficiency of national higher education system (45%) were seen as the focus of the
reform.
210
The sub dimension that received more percentage of “no opinion” was the statement that
the Bologna process was focused on the removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of
citizens, which revealed lack of understanding on this issue.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about the focuses of the reform there was
evidence of statistically significant differences among “university”, “disciplinary field” and
“the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question.
Within the context variable “university” the differences found in the distribution of
answers to this question occurred for the removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of
citizens, the promotion of social cohesion, the development of supranational governance
institutions, the development of a competitive higher education market and the efficiency of
the national higher education system74. We found no relevant differences regarding the
reduction of public expenditure in higher education and the increase the relevance of
education to the labour market75.
Graph G shows the distribution of rated answers (Annex II, p. 89).
As can be seen, respondents from the University G agreed more than other respondents
that the removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens and the increase the
relevance of education to the labour market were the focus of the Bologna reforms.
Respondents from the University F agreed more with the promotion of social cohesion;
and together with respondents from the University C they agreed with the focus on the
efficiency of national higher education system. Respondents from the University D agreed
more clearly with the development of a competitive European higher education market and
in a smaller proportion with the development of supranational governance institutions.
74
p < 0.001; 0.001; p = 0.018; 0.011; p < 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis H = 27.152; 25.497; 15.368; 16.663; 38.618
df = 6.
75
211
The item that generated more disagreement was the reduction of public expenditure in
higher education. And respondents from one university (G) were obviously in
disagreement with the promotion of social cohesion.
Further examination based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that for the
proposition about the removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens, respondents
from the University G tended to be closer with agreeing, while for the proposition on the
promotion of social cohesion respondents from University F tended to be more positive.
On the contrary, respondents from the University C were more affirmative about the
development of supranational governance institutions. On the development of a
competitive European higher education market, respondents from the University D tended
to agree more. In relation to the efficiency of national higher education system respondents
from the University C were more encouraging.
In the context variable “disciplinary field” there were differences in the distribution of
answers to this question for items related to the development of supranational governance
institutions, the development of a competitive higher education market and the efficiency of
the national higher education system76. The items focusing on the removal of barriers to
facilitate the mobility of citizens, the promotion of social cohesion, the reduction of public
expenditure in higher education and the increase the relevance of education to the labour
market presented no relevant variation77.
Graph H shows the distribution of rated answers (Annex II, p. 91).
As shown in graph H, respondents from all the disciplinary fields under scrutiny agreed
more with the removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens, the highest
percentage based on rated answers being from respondents from physics. The development
of a competitive European higher education market also emerged clearly as having more
agreement from respondents from history. The reduction of public expenditure in higher
76
77
p < 0.000; p = 0.013; p < 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis H = 18.285; 10.833; 26.182 df =3.
p = 0.133; 0.057; 0.600; 0.243 Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.592; 7.504; 1.686; 4.180 df =3.
212
education, the efficiency of national higher education system and the increase the
relevance of education to the labour market received more disagreement.
A finer analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank showed that for the
propositions about the development of supranational governance structures and the
development of a competitive European higher education market, respondents from history
tended to be more favourable. In relation to the efficiency of national higher education
system respondents from physics agree more.
For the context variable “the three Estates” differences appeared in the distribution of
answers to this question for the removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens, the
promotion of social cohesion, the development of a competitive higher education market,
the reduction of public expenditure in higher education and the increase the relevance of
education to the labour market78. And for the efficiency of national higher education
system differences were marginal.79 For development of supranational governance
institutions no relevant variation was found80.
The administrative and management staff agreed more clearly with all the items except on
the development of supranational governance institutions and the reduction of public
expenditure. Academic staff agreed in higher percentage with the removal of barriers to
facilitate the mobility of citizens.
Further inspection based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank unravelled that for all the
propositions the administrative and management staff tended to be more positive.
Differences in the distribution of rated perceptions appear in graph VI.8 (see page 229).
Comparing the answers expressing rated perceptions with the answers stating “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” there was evidence of statistically significant differences based on
78
p = 0.032; 0.004; 0.016; 0.004; 0.007 Kruskal-Wallis H = 6.856; 10.845; 8.216; 10.924; 9.825 df =2.
80
p = 0.672 Kruskal-Wallis H = 0.796 df = 2.
79
213
chi-square test within all the context variables under analysis in the distribution of answers
as reported by our respondents.
Controlling the context variable “university” there were differences in the distribution of
answers to this question for all the items81. Under the scope of “disciplinary field” there
were differences in the distribution of answers to all the items82, except for the
development of supranational governance institutions83. For the context variable “the three
Estates” there were differences in the distribution of answers to the removal of barriers to
facilitate the mobility of citizens, to the promotion of social cohesion and the increase of
relevance of education to the labour market84. We found no relevant disparities for the
development of supranational governance institutions, the development of a competitive
European higher education market, the reduction of public expenditure in higher
education and the efficiency of your national higher education system85.
Table VI.18 shows which group of respondents answered “higher than expected” by
indicating the highest adjusted residuals regarding each item of the question on the focus of
the Bologna reforms at national level.
Table VI.18– Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the focus
of Bologna reforms
4.1 removal of barriers to
facilitate the mobility of citizens
4.2 promotion of social cohesion
81
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION SUSPENDED
University
C (3,9)
F (2,6)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,3)
Medicine (4,3)
The three Estates
University
E (2,9)
F (3,0)
Disciplinary field
Physics (5,0)
Medicine (4,0)
The three Estates
Chi-square test p < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.006; p < 0.001; 0.001. 0.001; 0.001; p = 0.001.
Chi-square test p < 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; p = 0.001; 0.007; p < 0.001.
83
84
Chi-square test p = 0.002; 0.045; 0.030.
85
Chi-square test p = 0.077; 0.060; 0.299; 0.234.
82
214
4.3 development of supranational
governance institutions
4.4 development of a
competitive European higher
education market
4.5 reduction of public
expenditure in higher education
4.6 efficiency of your national
higher education system
4.7 increase the relevance of
education to the labour market
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION SUSPENDED
University
C (2,7)
F (2,0)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (3,1)
D (2,4)
Disciplinary field
Physics (4,3)
Medicine (2,3)
The three Estates
-
-
University
D (3,3)
B (3,0)
Disciplinary field
History (4,0)
The three Estates
-
-
University
B (2,5)
F (4,2)
Disciplinary field
The three Estates
-
-
University
D (4,0)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,0)
Law (2,6)
The three Estates
Student (2,6)
Respondents from the University C had more rated perceptions, while respondents from
the University F had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
Respondents from physics clearly had more rated perceptions. The “no opinion” and/or
“do not know” perceptions prevailed in respondents from medicine.
Academic staff disclosed more rated perceptions. The administrative and management staff
and students expressed more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
The removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens got the highest percentage of
“no opinion” answers with a clear predominance from respondents of the University F,
from medicine and from the administrative and management staff.
215
1.5 Changes as a result of implementing the Bologna process
Question five asked about the changes in each higher education system as a result of
implementing the Bologna process. Table VI.19 shows the number and percentage of
answers obtained.
Table VI.19 – Changes as a result of implementing the Bologna process: Number and
percentages of answers
5. In (Your) higher education system which of these items do you reckon have a changed as a result of
implementing the Bologna process?
No change
Little
change
Moderate
change
Large
change
No opinion
Do not
know
5.1 autonomy of higher education
institutions
99
11%
158
17%
171
19%
227
25%
133
14%
135
15%
5.2 funding policy
103
11%
100
11%
167
18%
211
23%
198
21%
143
16%
5.3 internationalisation policy
71
8%
44
5%
103
11%
310
34%
294
32%
103
11%
5.4 quality of higher education
60
7%
191
21%
179
20%
248
27%
158
17%
76
8%
5.5 mobility of European students
and staff (e.g. academic and
administrative and management
staff)
51
6%
54
6%
138
15%
267
29%
330
36%
81
9%
5.6 attraction of foreign students
and academics
57
6%
104
11%
142
15%
268
29%
258
28%
91
10%
5.7 research policy
89
10%
172
19%
150
16%
211
23%
151
17%
139
15%
Respondents agreed with all the subcomponents. Aggregated results of “partially agree”
and “agree” showed that the policy area reckoned as having changed more as a result of
implementing the Bologna process was the quality of higher education (47%) and the
internationalisation policy (45%). However, for the sub dimension referring to quality of
higher education respondents perceived almost equally as having changed moderately
(20%) and little (21%).
216
Respondents recognized “no change” on the funding policy (11%) and the autonomy of
higher education institutions (11%) as a result of implementing the Bologna process.
Anyhow, there was lack of awareness about changes at system level regarding the changes
as a result of implementing Bologna. The policy area regarding the mobility of European
students and staff collected 36% of “no opinion”, followed by changes in the
internationalisation policy (32%) and the perception on changes on the attractiveness of
foreign students and academic staff (28%).
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about changes targeting specific policy
areas there was evidence of differences among all the context variables under scrutiny (e.g.
“university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”) in the distribution of answers to
this question.
In the context variable “university” divergences took place in the autonomy of higher
education institutions, funding policy, internationalisation policy and quality of higher
education86. We found no relevant disparities regarding the mobility of European students
and staff, the attraction of foreign students and academics and research policy87.
Illustration of distribution of rated answers is in graph I (Annex I, p. 93).
As shown in graph
I, respondents reckoned more clearly changes in the
internationalisation policy area. The mobility of European students and staff and the
attraction of foreign students and academics followed. Respondents from the University G
recognized more “large changes” in the first and the last propositions, while respondents
from the University D recognized more “large changes” in the mobility of European
students and staff.
86
87
p < 0.000; p = 0.020; 0.001; p < 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis H = 25.416; 15.048; 23.380; 43.194 df =3.
217
More noticeably, respondents from the University B recognized “little change” in the
quality of higher education and autonomy of higher education institutions.
Further assessment based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that for the
proposition on the autonomy of higher education institutions respondents from the
University D tended to be more positive in identifying “large change”. On policy changes
in the funding policy respondents from the University E tended to be more enthusiastic. As
for the internationalisation policy, respondents from the University G tended to be more
positive. On policies impacting the quality of higher education respondents from
University E tended to be more encouraging.
For the context variable “disciplinary field” there were no relevant differences in the
distribution of answers in the autonomy of higher education institutions, funding policy,
quality of higher education, the mobility of European students and staff and the attraction
of foreign students and academics88. The statistically significant differences emerged for
internationalisation policy and research policy89.
The distribution of rated answers appears in graph J (Annex II, p. 95).
As shown in graph J, respondents from history, physics and law distinguished more “large
change” in the internationalisation policy area. Respondents from medicine recognized
more clearly “large change” in the mobility of European students and staff. And
respondents from law more “large change” in the attraction of foreign students and
academics policy area.
Respondents from history and respondents from physics identified more “little change” in
the policy areas focusing the quality of higher education and the research policy,
respectively.
Further inspection based on the Kruskal-Wallis mean rank test revealed that respondents
from physics tended to recognize more “large change” in the internationalisation policy
88
89
218
area, whereas respondents from medicine recognized more “large change” in the research
policy area.
Within “the three Estates” differences aroused for the autonomy of higher education
institutions, the funding policy, the quality of higher education, the attraction of foreign
students and academic and the research policy90. To the internationalisation policy and the
mobility of European students and staff there were no relevant disparities91.
Administrative and management staff recognized a dominance of “large change” in all
policy areas, except the funding policy.
Academic staff and students went side-by-side in recognizing “large change” in
internationalisation policy area and mobility of European students and staff. Academic
staff distinguished “little change” in the research policy area and autonomy of higher
education institutions.
Further inspection based on the Kruskal-Wallis mean rank revealed that the administrative
and management staff tended to recognize “large change” for all the items. Illustration of
differences in the distribution of rated answers is in graph VI.8 (see page 229).
Examining aggregated responses of those who expressed qualitative opinions and those
who stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions about changes as consequence of
the implementation of Bologna reforms there was evidence of differences among
“university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to
this question by our respondents based on chi-square test.
90
91
219
Within “university”, differences were found for all the items92, except for quality of higher
education and research policy where there were no significant differences93. When the
“disciplinary field” was considered, divergences appeared in all the propositions94, except
in autonomy of higher education institutions and quality of higher education where no
variance was found95. In “the three Estates” statistically significant divergences appeared
in all the items96, except for changes on funding policy and on research policy where no
variance was found97.
item of the question on changes as a result of implementing the Bologna process by
indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
Table VI.20 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about changes as a result of
implementing the Bologna process
5.1 Autonomy of higher education
institutions
5.2 Funding policy
5.3 Internationalisation policy
5.4 Quality of higher education
92
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
B (2,9)
E (2,3)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (5,0)
University
C (2,9)
E (3,8)
Disciplinary field
Adjusted residual < 2
History (2,9)
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (2,7)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,9)
Medicine (5,6)
The three Estates
Student (2,0)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (4,5)
Chi-square test p = 0.001, 0.000. 0.001, 0.000. 0.000. 0.000.
Chi-square test p = 0.659, 0.078.
94
Chi-square test p = 0.016, 0.000. 0.000. 0.000.
95
Chi-square test p = 0.110. 0.383.
96
Chi-square test p = 0.000. 0.018, 0.000. 0.000. 0.000.
97
Chi-square test p = 0.649, 0.307.
93
220
5.5 Mobility of European students
and staff
5.6 Attraction of foreign students
and academics higher education
system
5.7 Research policy
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
E (3,9)
A (2,8)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,9)
Medicine (5,5)
The three Estates
Student (3,6)
University
C (4,0)
D (2,5)
Disciplinary field
Physics (5,4)
Medicine (4,2)
The three Estates
Student (6,5)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,6)
Medicine (3,2)
The three Estates
Student (5,9)
As shown in table VI.20, respondents from the University C had more rated perceptions,
while respondents from the University E had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”
answers. Respondents from physics had more rated perceptions and respondents from
medicine stated more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers. Academic staff had
definitely more rated perceptions and students had more “no opinion” and/or “do not
know” answers.
The group of respondents that contributed more with “no opinion” and “do not know”
answers were those from the University A, from medicine and the management staff, in
relation to the proposition on the mobility of European students and staff, the item that had
the highest percentage of all the “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
These findings about the Bologna process present a new perspective as they demonstrate
how far the pays reél is from integrating the political discourse of the pays politique. Table
VI.21 presents dimensions featuring Bologna as a policy process and indicates the most
relevant elements on a quantitative and a qualitative basis. They reveal how the
constituencies of universities distinguished and appraised dimensions of Bologna regarding
its drivers, objectives, targets, focuses and policy changes.
221
Table VI.21 – Awareness about Bologna as a policy process
EXPRESSION OF A RATED OPINION
DIMENSION
OPINION SUSPENDED
SUB-DIMENSION
WHO TEND TO BE
MORE POSITIVE?
(*)
SUB-DIMENSION
HOW
?
(**)
BY
WHOM?
(***)
Rationales
Economic considerations
(29% agree)
Physics
Political considerations
(52%)
N/O
B, Medicine
Objectives
Progression of Bologna
in other European
countries
(25% agree)
F, History
Establishment of EHEA
(28%)
N/O
Students
Targets
Pedagogic reform
(27% agree)
C, Physics
Administrative reform
(49%)
N/O
F,
Adm. &
mgmt. staff
Focus
Development of a
competitive European
higher education market
(31% agree)
D, History, Adm. &
mgmt. staff
Removal of barriers to
facilitate the mobility of
citizens
(45%)
N/O
F, Medicine,
Adm. &
mgmt. staff
Internationalisation
(34% large change)
G, Medicine, Adm. &
mgmt. Staff
Mobility of European
students and staff
(36%)
N/O
A, Medicine,
Student
Policies
(*) Results of Kruskal-Wallis test; (**) N/O – No opinion; (***) Result of Chi square test.
As table VI.21 shows respondents suspended their view on the dimensions related to
Bologna as a policy process. All the dimensions recorded higher percentages of “no
opinion” and “do not know” answers than of those answers expressing an opinion. The fact
that political considerations got the highest share (52%) of “no opinion” rejects the claim
that Bologna is perceived as integrating the European higher education systems. Political
rationales were received with opinion suspended at the pays réel.
Remarkably, the elements receiving suspended opinion were at the heart of Bologna as
perceived at European level. Indeed, political considerations, the establishment of EHEA,
the administrative reform, the removal of barriers to facilitate mobility and mobility
featured what Bologna ought to be in the perspective of the pays politique.
222
Ministers declared Bologna aimed at establishing the EHEA by adopting mobility as an
action line, the adoption of a two-tier structure being also a main concern (Bologna
Declaration, 1999). The administrative reform tacitly ties with the adoption of a two-tier
degree structure and the removal of barriers encourages mobility as perceived by the
European and national levels.
The lack of awareness about Bologna as a policy process was clearly expressed in three
different universities, by medical doctors and the students and administrative and
management staff. The finding related to suspension of opinion by administrative and
management staff about removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens and the
fact this group of respondents was at the same time more positive in recognizing that the
focus of national reforms was tackling this sub dimension, exposes an apparent incongruity
that may be related to shift grounded on conceptual terms. Further analysis should address
how far this sub dimension is associated to changes in internationalisation policy, mobility
and attractiveness.
The case of suspension of opinion by the administrative and management staff about
Bologna as administrative reform was unexpected since surveyed respondents were
engaged with Bologna at the organisational field.
The distribution of answers suspending opinion on sub-dimensions relevant to grasp the
level of awareness about Bologna as a policy process appears in graph VI.7 (see page 225).
As graph VI.7 shows, the level of opinion suspended is made of issues that are either
recognizable but unable to raise awareness or very unfamiliar. Unpredictably the
establishment of the EHEA collects the highest percentage of “do not know” answers. The
other sub dimensions essentially did not raise awareness.
Implications of these findings revealing institutional level lack of awareness about what
Bologna ought to be in the perspective of pays politique are eventually associated to the
weak pressure exerted by European and national level institutions when using soft law and
challenge the idea of “top-down” characteristics of European policy implementation.
223
The interaction of the European and national levels within institutions participating in
Bologna hints at the presence of interesting elements to be developed further. For instance,
the low level of awareness of Bologna as a policy eliminates European institutions from
commanding normative activities. Exploring the expression of rated opinions reveals
difficulties in agreement to a single sub dimension. For example, in the case of
identification of the drivers of Bologna, aggregated results of “partially agree” and “agree”
showed that cultural considerations were slightly preferred, followed by economic
considerations. When looking at the strategic goals, aggregated results of “partially agree”
and “agree” showed that 35% of the respondents agreed that Bologna is being implemented
according to the progression in other countries,. 33% agreed that recent reforms were
implemented to establish the European Higher Education Area, and 29% of the
respondents perceived the national agenda as strategic goal of the reforms. The
identification of the nature of the Bologna process, 45% of the respondents showed
agreement with the pedagogic reform (45%), while 40% of the respondents agreed with the
governance reform. When trying to identify the focus of national reforms, aggregated
results of “partially agree” and “agree” showed that the development of a competitive
European higher education market (46%), the development of supranational governance
institutions (46%), the promotion of social cohesion (45%) and the efficiency of national
higher education system (45%) were the focus of the reform. Even in the case of detecting
changes in specific policy areas, aggregated results of “partially agree” and “agree”
showed that the policy areas reckoned as having changed more as a result of implementing
the Bologna process were the quality of higher education (47%) and the
internationalisation policy (45%).
The categorisation of sub dimensions, as table VI.21 shows, took into consideration
whether aggregated results build on extreme positions or if there was significant
percentage of respondents disagreeing with the same item.
224
Graph VI.7 – Awareness about Bologna as a policy process
225
226
The recognition of economic considerations driving the Bologna process confirms the
colonisation of education policy by economic policy imperatives (Ball, 1998). This
reflected a plain interpretation of official texts of the Bologna process subscribed at the
pays politique. How far these elements are related to European pressures (e.g. development
of a competitive European higher education market) or national demands (e.g. reduction of
public expenditure and efficiency of national higher education systems) will be something
to explore in the next chapter.
The economic tone of the Bologna reforms will have implications for the development of a
competitive European higher education market and the establishment of EHEA. Would it
be possible to grasp the significance of the development of a competitive European higher
education market vis-à-vis the establishment of the EHEA?
The relevance of the progression of Bologna in other European countries as one of the
strategic goals of the Bologna implementation was not anticipated. Is this progression
associated to a European dimension of the Bologna reforms? This is something that is
worthwhile to explore since the European and national levels expect a convergence of
degree structures (Bologna Declaration, 1999) grounded on passing of legislation (Bologna
Follow-up Group, 2005, 2007). On the other hand, this finding addresses an issue related to
the impact of mimetic pressure that enforces fulfilment based on the exchange of best
practices. At national level, it might be the case that the message to implement Bologna
takes in the idea that other countries are already doing what is seen as appropriate to do in
the case of the Bologna implementation.
From the standpoint of the pays politique, the relevance given to the pedagogic reform as a
Bologna target was a surprise, taking into consideration the level of suspended opinion
about Bologna as an administrative reform. From the perspective of the pays réel the
relevance of the pedagogic reform is a direct consequence of teaching being a core
business of the university and does not need inducement from the national level, an aspect
to be confirmed later.
227
The relevance of changes in specific policy areas addresses internationalisation and
quality. The latter included a wide range of degrees of change, being difficult to ascertain
if these changes were actually large. The changes in internationalisation might be more
promising in terms of assigning a meaning to internationalisation policy within Bologna.
However, the mobility of European students and staff was left with opinion suspended,
which was unexpected at European level that had taken for granted the outcomes of
mobility activities developed under the framework of education policy.
The analysis by group of respondents confirmed how far the administrative and
management staff vested the interest of privileged interlocutor within the Bologna process.
This group of respondents was more positive about the focus of the dimensions of the
Bologna reforms and changes on specific policy areas. Graph VI.8 and VI.9 illustrates the
distribution of answers across the three Estates (see pages 229 and 231).
As seen in graph VI.8 administrative and management staff tended to be more enthusiastic.
This finding suggests administrative and management staff grasped the focus of Bologna
reforms at European level.
As shown in graph VI.3, administrative and management staff recognizes large changes in
all policy areas, except the funding policy. This tendency corroborates the positive stance
of administrative and management staff in acknowledging changes at national level in a
wide range of policy areas.
228
Graph VI.8 – The focuses of Bologna reforms: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates”
229
230
Graph VI.9 – Changes as a result of implementing the Bologna process: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates”
231
232
2. Level of awareness about transformations, changes and impacts at the
pays réel
The second part of the questionnaire focused on the implementation of the Bologna
process. The aim of this section was to perceive how the constituencies assessed the
implementation of Bologna in their university.
The views on the implementation of Bologna underscored the fact that the percentages of
“no opinion” and “do not know,” continued to be rather high but the expression of a rated
opinion was regularly emerging.
2. 1 Perceived impact of European and national initiatives and changes in
the individual university
The analysis about the level of awareness of policy implementation will start by underlying
the impact of European and national initiatives and the changes more noticeable in the
individual university.
2.1.1 Impact of European initiatives on the implementation of Bologna
The sixth question dealt with the impact of European initiatives on the implementation of
Bologna at the surveyed universities. Table VI.22 shows the number and percentage of
answers obtained.
233
Table VI.22 – Impact of European initiatives on the implementation of Bologna: Number
and percentages of answers
6. In your university how do you rate the impact of the following initiatives launched at European level for
No impact
Little
impact
Moderate
impact
Major
impact
No opinion
Do not
know
6.1 official documents (e.g.
Sorbonne Declaration; Bologna
Declaration and subsequent
communiqués)
124
14%
90
10%
141
15%
172
19%
116
13%
273
30%
6.2 European programmes funded
by the European Union (e.g.
Socrates programme, ECTS and
Diploma Supplement labels,
Erasmus Mundus programme)
84
9%
34
4%
120
13%
313
34%
210
23%
151
17%
141
15%
86
9%
156
17%
148
16%
58
6%
324
35%
6.4 Studies by Bologna working
groups established on specific
topics (e.g. qualifications
frameworks, social dimension,
stocktaking, external dimension)
144
16%
84
9%
164
18%
156
17%
62
7%
303
33%
6.5 Recommendations of European
professional associations relevant
to your area of specialisation
142
16%
116
13%
160
18%
155
17%
54
6%
284
31%
6.6 Establishment of rankings,
league tables, typologies of higher
educations institutions
121
13%
86
9%
152
17%
253
28%
88
10%
212
23%
6.7 Networking and exchange of
good practices with higher
education institutions abroad
102
11%
84
9%
143
16%
268
30%
109
12%
196
22%
6.3 Studies by the European
University Association (e.g.
Trends I – trends in Learning
Structures in Higher Education,
Trends II – Towards the European
Higher Education Area – survey of
main reforms from Bologna to
Prague, Trends III – Progress
towards the European Higher
Education Area, Trends IV –
European Universities
Implementing Bologna Handbook
– Making Bologna Work)
Respondents recognized the “major impact” of all the initiatives launched at European
level as listed in the question. Three of them collected the awareness of almost the majority
234
of respondents. Aggregated results of “partially agree” and “agree” showed that European
programmes funded by the European Union had “major impact” (47%), followed by
networking and exchange of good practices with higher educations abroad (46%) and the
establishment of rankings, league tables and typologies of higher education institutions
(45%). However, the percentages of “no impact” and “little impact” also gathered
significant percentages being the highest ones the recommendations of European
professional associations relevant to the specific area of specialisation (29%), the studies
by Bologna working groups (25%), the studies by the European University Association
(24%) and official documents (24%).
Regarding initiatives launched at European level, there was lack of knowledge about
impacts of studies by Bologna working groups as 35% of respondents answered, “do not
know” when asked if they had impact on institutional policy implementation. This
percentage was the highest calculated based on all the answers. Actually, the percentages
of “do not know” are higher than the percentages of “no opinion”, which demonstrates
unawareness about the impact of European initiatives.
Rated perceptions
Among those who had a rated perception about the impact in the university of initiatives
launched at European level, there was evidence of differences among “university” and “the
three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question. We found no disparities
within “disciplinary field”98.
Among “university”, divergences appeared related only to the establishment of rankings,
league tables, typologies of higher education institutions and networking and exchange of
good practices with higher education institutions abroad
99
. We found no relevant
disparities100 for the other items (e.g. official documents, European programmes funded by
98
p = 0.308; 0.643; 0.947; 0.178; 0.975; 0.126; 0.631 Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.600; 1.674; 0.366; 4.910; 0.216;
5.719; 1.726 df =3.
99
100
p = 0.462; 0.628; 0.078; 0.201; 0.718 Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.660; 4.359; 11.366; 8.548; 3.695, df =6.
235
the European Union, the studies by the European University Association, the studies by
Bologna working groups established on specific topics, and the recommendations of
European professional associations relevant to the specific area of specialisation).
The illustration of the rated answers is given in graph K (Annex II, p. 97).
As shown in graph K, among the respondents who showed a rated perception, the
establishment of rankings, league tables and typologies of higher education institutions
and networking and exchange of good practices with higher education institutions abroad
received the highest number of “major impact” answers from respondents of Universities
G and D, respectively. The “major impact” of European programmes funded by the
European Union was acknowledged by most respondents, as only the respondents from
two universities (C and E) did not recognized it clearly.
Further assessment based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from the University G tended to consider “major impact” on the establishment of rankings,
league tables, and typologies of higher education institutions and respondents from the
University D tended to perceive “major impact” on the networking and exchange of good
practices with higher education institutions abroad.
Within “the three Estates” statistically significant differences were found for official
documents, European programmes funded by the European Union and networking and
exchange of good practices with higher education institutions abroad101. In the case of the
studies by the European University Association, the studies by Bologna working groups
established on specific topics, the recommendations of European professional associations
relevant to the specific area of specialisation and the establishment of rankings, league
tables, typologies of higher education institutions no relevant disparities were found102.
A representation of the distribution of rated answers is given in graph L (Annex II, p. 99).
101
102
p < 0.001; p = 0.006; 0.020 Kruskal-Wallis H = 21.289; 10.144; 7.786 df =2.
p = 0.092; 0.807; 0.892; 0.258 Kruskal-Wallis H = 4.761; 0.429; 0.228; 2.710; 7.786 df =2.
236
As shown in graph L, respondents perceived European programmes funded by the
European Union as having by far a “major impact”. Noticeably more administrative and
management staff identified this initiative, together with the official documents, as having
impact than did academic staff and students.
On further inspection, based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank we found that that the
administrative and management staff tended to be more enthusiastic for the items where it
was possible to observe statistically significant differences.
Comparing aggregated results of those who had rated perceptions and those who stated “no
opinion” and/or “do not know” about the impact in the university of initiatives launched at
European level there was evidence of differences based on chi-square test. These
statistically significant divergences appeared among “university”, “disciplinary field” and
“the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question by our respondents.
Within the context variable “university” there were differences observed for the official
documents, the European programmes funded by the European Union, the studies by the
European University Association, the studies by Bologna working groups established on
specific topics and the recommendations of European professional associations relevant to
specific area of specialisation103. For the perceptions about the impact of the establishment
of rankings, league tables, typologies of higher education institutions and networking and
exchange of good practices with higher education institutions abroad there were no
significant differences104.
103
104
Chi-square test p = 0.017; p < 0.001; 0.001; p = 0.001; p < 0.001.
Chi-square test p = 0.394 and 0.201.
237
Within the “disciplinary field” divergences appeared in all the propositions105, except in
the assessment of the impact of the establishment of rankings, league tables, typologies of
higher education institutions where no variance was found106.
In “the three Estates” statistically significant divergences appeared in all items107.
Table VI.23 shows which group of respondents answered “higher than expected” regarding
each item of the question focusing on the impact of European initiatives on the
implementation of Bologna, by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
Table VI.23 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the impact of European
initiatives on the implementation of Bologna
6.1 Official documents
6.2 European programmes funded
by the European Union
6.3 Studies by the European
University Association
6.4 Studies by Bologna working
groups established on specific
topics
6.5 Recommendations of European
professional associations relevant to
your area of specialisation
105
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
C (2,4)
Disciplinary field
History (2,6)
Physics (3,0)
The three Estates
Student (3,3)
University
B (2,0)
D (4,0)
Disciplinary field
History (3,0)
Law (2,6)
The three Estates
Student (3,1)
University
G (3,4)
Disciplinary field
History (3,0)
Medicine (3,5)
The three Estates
Student (5,0)
University
F (3,0)
Disciplinary field
History (2,6)
Medicine (3,8)
The three Estates
Student (3,6)
University
D (2,7)
E (2,5)
Disciplinary field
Law (2,8)
Medicine (3,2)
The three Estates
Student (4,9)
Chi-square test p = 0.001; 0.006; 0.001; 0.001; p < 0.001.
107
Chi-square test p = 0.001; p < 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; 0.001.
106
238
6.6 Establishment of rankings,
league tables, typologies of higher
education institutions
6.7 Networking and exchange of
good practices with higher
education institutions abroad
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,2)
The three Estates
Student (5,2)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
History (2,2)
Medicine (3,8)
The three Estates
Student (4,2)
Respondents from universities E, C, F and G had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
Respondents from history had clearly more rated perceptions and respondents from
medicine had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers. Academic staff expressed
more rated perceptions and students revealed lack of knowledge about these issues, clearly
paying no attention to the impact of initiatives launched at European level.
The highest percentage of “do not know” answers calculated based on all the responses to
questions on the initiatives launched at European level went to the studies by the European
University Association. The group of respondents contributing more to the lack of
awareness about the topic were from University G, from medicine and students.
2.1.2 Impact of national initiatives on the implementation of Bologna
Question seven dealt with the impact of national initiatives on the implementation of
Bologna at the surveyed universities. Table VI.24 shows the number and percentage of
answers obtained.
239
Table VI.24 – Impact of national initiatives on the implementation of Bologna: Number
7. In your university how do you rate the impact of the following provisions developed at national level for
No impact
7.1 Legal framework (e.g. laws,
rules and regulations)
Little
impact
Moderate
impact
Major
impact
No opinion
Do not
know
92
10%
44
5%
118
13%
291
32%
222
24%
151
16%
7.2 Recommendations of
professional associations
relevant to your area of
specialisation
115
13%
107
12%
195
21%
204
22%
70
8%
220
24%
7.3 Networking and exchange
good practices with national
higher education institutions
95
10%
98
11%
205
22%
286
31%
75
8%
155
17%
Respondents perceived large impact on all the sub dimensions. Aggregated results of
“moderate impact” and “large impact” showed that 53% of the respondents reckoned the
impact of networking and exchange of good practices with national higher education
institutions.
There was a quota of 24% of the respondents, who had “no opinion” about the impact of
the legal framework and the recommendations of professional associations were unknown
for 24% of the respondents.
Rated perceptions
Rated perceptions about the impact of initiatives launched at national level showed
statistically significant differences among the context variables “university” and
“disciplinary field” in the distribution of answers to this question by respondents. Within
the “the three Estates” no significant differences were found for all the three
propositions108.
108
240
Among “university” relevant discrepancies took place in the networking and exchange of
good practices with national higher education institutions109. We found no relevant
disparities regarding the legal framework and the recommendations of professional
associations relevant to the area of specialisation of the respondent110. Illustration of the
distribution of rated answers is in graph M (Annex II, p. 101).
As can be seen in graph M, respondents from all universities rated more homogenously the
“major impact” of the legal framework. Only in the University F this percentage was not so
elevated, which contrasts with the highest percentage calculated based on all rated answers
of this group of respondents on “major impact” of recommendations for professional
associations relevant to the specific area of specialisation.
Other appraisal based on the Kruskal-Wallis mean rank test revealed that respondents from
the University C tended to give more relevance to “major impact” of the networking and
exchange of good practices in the national context.
For the context variable “disciplinary field,” statistically significant differences were only
found in relation to the legal framework111. We found no relevant discrepancies regarding
the recommendations of professional associations relevant to the area of specialisation of
respondent and the networking and exchange of good practices with national higher
education institutions112.
A representation of the rated perceptions is presented in graph N (Annex II, p. 103).
As shown in graph N, respondents from all disciplinary fields perceived the “major
impact” of the legal framework. However, respondents from medicine attributed a high
share of “no impact” to this proposition while assigning “major impact” to the other two
propositions.
109
111
112
p = 0.478, 0.803 Kruskal-Wallis H = 2.486, 0.993 df =3.
110
241
Further attention based on the Kruskal-Wallis mean rank test exposed respondents from
history as those recognising more frequently the “major impact” of the legal framework,
followed by the respondents from physics.
Comparing those who expressed qualitative answers and those who stated “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” opinions about the impact of provisions developed at national level
for implementing the Bologna process, there was evidence of differences among
university” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question by our
respondents. Within the “disciplinary field” no significant differences were found113.
In the “university” area differences were found for all the items (e.g. impact of legal
framework, impact of recommendations of professional associations relevant to the area of
specialisation and impact networking and exchange good practices with national higher
education institutions114).
each item of the question focusing on the impact of national initiatives on the
implementation of Bologna, by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
113
Chi-square test p= 0.407; 0.165; 0.279.
Chi-square test p < 0.001; p = 0.007; 0.002.
115
Chi-square test p = 0.011; p < 0.001; 0.001.
114
242
Table VI.25 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the impact of national
initiatives on the implementation of Bologna
7.1 Legal framework
7.2 Recommendations of
professional associations
relevant to your area of
specialisation
7.3 Networking and exchange
good practices with national
higher education institutions
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION SUSPENDED
University
C (3,3)
E (4,1)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (2,8)
University
B (2,6)
G (2,7)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (4,7)
University
B (2,1)
E (3,7)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (4,6)
Respondents from the University B had more rated perceptions, while respondents from
the University E had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”. Academic staff had more
rated perceptions and students had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
The highest percentages of “no opinion” and “do not know”, calculated based on all the
answers, allocated to the impact of the legal framework and the impact of
recommendations of professional associations came mostly from respondents of the
University E and from administrative and management staff, and by respondents from the
University G and from students, respectively.
2.1.3 European dimension of the Bologna process
Question eight concerned the European dimension of the Bologna process in the surveyed
universities. Table VI.26 shows the number and percentage of answers obtained.
243
Table VI.26 – European dimension of Bologna process: Number and percentages of
answers
8. How do you rate all these items as they reflect the European dimension of the Bologna process in your
university?
Disagree
Partially
Disagree
Partially
Agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
8.1 Degree structure converging
with other European degree
structure (e.g. length of studies
and designations)
58
6%
63
7%
84
9%
236
26%
401
44%
78
8%
8.2 Significant European content
of courses and curricula
63
7%
136
15%
158
17%
248
27%
215
23%
100
11%
8.3 Teaching language different
from the maternal tongue
87
9%
243
26%
149
16%
194
21%
148
16%
98
11%
8.4 New active and substantial
partnerships and consortia
activities and curriculum
development between higher
education institutions in Europe
(e.g. joint degrees)
119
13%
134
15%
129
14%
206
22%
153
17%
177
19%
Respondents do not completely agree with all the subcomponents. Aggregated results of
“agree” and “partially agree” and “disagree” and “partially disagree” showed that 44% of
the respondents agreed with the idea that the significant European content of courses and
curricula reflected the European dimension of the Bologna process in their university. But
35% of the respondents disagree with the idea that the teaching language different from the
maternal tongue was a sign of the European dimension of the Bologna process.
Still, the awareness about the degree structure convergence with other European degree
structures (e.g. length of studies and designations) received 44% of responses with “no
opinion”, being the highest percentage calculated based on all the answers, but equal to the
highest aggregated result of “agree and “partially disagree” related to the significant
European content of courses and curricula mentioned above.
244
Rated perceptions
Among those who rated the propositions that reflected the European dimension of the
Bologna process in the university context, there was evidence of differences among all the
context variables under scrutiny (e.g. “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three
Estates”) in the distribution of answers to this question.
Within “university” divergences took place in the rating of significant European content of
courses and curricula, teaching language different from the maternal tongue, and new
active and substantial partnerships and consortia activities and curriculum development
between higher education institutions in Europe as reflecting the European dimension of
Bologna in the university116. We found no relevant disparities regarding the evaluation of
the degree structure converging with other European degree structures117.
The illustration of the distribution of rated perceptions is presented in graph O (Annex II,
p. 105).
As referred in graph O, the analysis of rated perceptions emphasised that a single higher
education institution preferred clearly three out of the four items. The proposition focusing
on the degree structure converging with other European degree structures collected more
homogenous positions.
from the University D tended to agree more with significant European content of courses
and curricula, language of taught different from the maternal tongue, and new active and
substantial partnerships and consortia activities and curriculum development between
higher education institutions in Europe.
For the context variable “disciplinary field” there were statistically significant differences
in the distribution of answers on the assessment of the teaching language as it reflects the
116
117
p = 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.016 Kruskal-Wallis H = 22.485; 61.219; 15.575 df =6.
p = 0.230. Kruskal-Wallis H = 8.119 df =6.
245
European dimension of Bologna118. For answers covering the degree structure converging
with other European degree structures, the significant European content of courses and
curricula and new active and substantial partnerships and consortia activities we found no
significant divergences119. The illustration of the distribution of rated perceptions is
presented in graph P (Annex II, p. 107).
As shown in graph P, respondents generally agree with the idea that the degree structure
converging with other European degree structures reflected the European dimension of the
Bologna process. Focusing on the teaching language, respondents from history, but also
other groups of respondents, “partially disagree” that the European dimension of Bologna
was related to the teaching language. And respondents from medicine “disagree” and
“agree” almost in the same percentage with the idea that new and active partnerships and
consortia activities represented the European dimension of Bologna.
Further analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank showed that respondents from
physics tended to agree more that the teaching language different from the maternal
tongue reflects the European dimension of Bologna.
Within “the three Estates” differences were found for the assessment of the degree
structure converging with other European countries and the language of taught different
from maternal tongue120. We found no relevant disparities regarding the rating of
significant European content and curricula and new active and substantial partnerships
and consortia activities121.
Administrative and management staff agree with all the propositions as they reflected the
European dimension of the Bologna process. Academic staff and students “partially
disagree” with the teaching language as representing the European dimension of the
Bologna process.
118
p = 0.005 Kruskal-Wallis H = 13.062, df =3.
120
p < 0.001; 0.008 Kruskal-Wallis H = 16.494; 9.586 df =2.
121
119
246
Further inspection based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that the
administrative and management staff tended to “agree” more with the degree structure
converging with other European countries and the teaching language different from
maternal tongue as reflecting the European dimension of Bologna. The distribution of
answers focusing only on rated perceptions appears in graph VI.10 (see page 257).
Exploring the existing statistically significant differences among those who expressed
qualitative opinions and those who stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers
about the items that better reflect the European dimension of the Bologna process there
was evidence of differences among “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three
Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question by our respondents.
With “university” differences were observed for all the items122. Among “disciplinary
field” divergences appear in all propositions123, except about the new and active
partnerships and consortia activities where no variance was found124. In “The three
Estates”, statistically significant deviations became visible in all items125.
each item of the question focusing on the European dimension of the Bologna process by
122
Chi-square test p < 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; 0.001.
Chi-square test p = 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.013.
124
125
Chi-square test p = 0.004; p< 0.001; p = 0.001; 0.000.
123
247
Table VI.27 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the European dimension
of Bologna process
8.1 Degree structure converging
with other European degree
structures
8.2 Significant European content
of courses and curricula
8.3 Language of taught different
from the maternal tongue
8.4 New active and substantial
partnerships and consortia
activities and curriculum
development between higher
education institutions in Europe
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION SUSPENDED
University
C (5,8)
F (3,4)
Disciplinary field
Physics (4,0)
The three Estates
Student (2,3)
University
E (3,9)
D (2,2)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,4)
Medicine (3,6)
The three Estates
Student (3,5)
University
D (4,8)
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,7)
The three Estates
Student (3,8)
University
D (2,6)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (4,0)
As shown in table VI.27 respondents from universities C and E showed more rated
perceptions, while respondents from the University D had more “no opinion” and/or “do
not know” answers. Respondents from physics demonstrated more rated perceptions.
Respondents from medicine gave more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
Academic staff had more rated perceptions, while students stated more “no opinion” and or
“do not know” answers.
The highest percentage of “no opinion” and “do not know” answers, calculated based on
all the responses was given to degree structure converging with other European countries
got, and came mainly from respondents from the University F and from the administrative
and management staff.
248
2.1.4 Changes in the university as a result of implementing Bologna
Question nine enquired about changes as a result of implementing the Bologna process.
Table VI.28 shows the number and percentage of answers obtained.
Table VI.28 – Changes in the university as a result of implementing Bologna: Number and
9. In your university which of these items do you reckon have changed as result of implementing the Bologna
process?
No change
Little
change
Moderate
change
Large
change
No opinion
Do not
know
9.1 Governance (e.g. internal
governance structures)
105
11%
182
20%
217
24%
199
22%
53
6%
166
18%
9.2 Funding (e.g. diversified
funding sources)
94
10%
126
14%
207
22%
199
22%
111
12%
186
20%
9.3 Internationalisation (e.g.
allocation of additional
resources)
88
10%
115
12%
183
20%
292
32%
95
10%
148
16%
9.4 Mechanisms for monitoring
quality
93
10%
130
14%
202
22%
255
28%
105
11%
139
15%
9.5 Active and substantial
partnerships and consortia with
institutions in Europe and abroad
111
12%
126
14%
190
21%
221
24%
79
9%
198
21%
9.6 Benchmarking activities
152
17%
104
11%
123
13%
114
12%
41
4%
387
42%
9.7 Recognitions procedures of
European and foreign degrees
106
12%
51
6%
140
15%
296
32%
154
17%
167
18%
9.8 Recognition procedures of
periods of study in Europe (e.g.
use of ECTS grading system
which ranks the students on a
statistical bases – A, B, C, D, E)
95
10%
52
6%
98
11%
276
30%
213
23%
189
20%
9.9 Lifelong learning policy
109
12%
126
14%
188
20%
221
24%
87
9%
192
21%
9.10 Research (e.g. networking
across Europe, management of
international research activities)
109
12%
126
13%
188
20%
221
23%
87
9%
192
20%
Respondents recognized changes in the university as a result of implementing Bologna.
Aggregated results of “agree” and “partially agree” showed that 52% of the respondents
249
acknowledged changes in internationalisation. All the other aggregated results follow
closely. The exception was benchmarking activities. 17% of the respondents perceived “no
change” about this sub dimension and 42% of respondents answered, “do not know” about
probable changes. This percentage was the highest calculated on all the answers. It
followed the percentage of 23% of the respondents who had “no opinion” about changes
on the recognition procedures of periods of study in Europe.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about the changes as a result of
implementing the Bologna process there was evidence of differences among the groups of
respondents within the context variables under scrutiny (e.g. “university”, “disciplinary
field” and “the three Estates”) in the distribution of answers to this question.
Among “university” we found significant divergences of distribution of answers in relation
to internationalisation, mechanisms for monitoring quality, active and substantial
partnerships and consortia with institutions in Europe and abroad, benchmarking
activities and lifelong learning policy126. We found no relevant disparities regarding
governance, funding and recognition procedures of periods of study in Europe127.
The illustration of the distribution of rated answers is given in graph Q (Annex II, p. 109).
As shown in graph Q, the analysis of rated perceptions underlined that respondents
recognized “moderate change” on governance and funding. The other items changed more
obviously according to the perceptions of our respondents, being the recognition of
procedures of periods of study in Europe the item that was seen to have changed more
clearly in University F.
126
p = 0.028; p < 0.001; p = 0.012, 0.021, 0.020 Kruskal-Wallis H = 14.137; 29.179; 16.288; 14.849; 15.015,
df =6.
127
p = 0.632; 0.057; 0.692; 0.110; 0.123 Kruskal-Wallis H = 4.331; 12.255; 14.137; 3.888; 10.370; 10.045 df
=6.
250
from University D tended to reckon “large change” on internationalisation, mechanisms
for monitoring quality, active and substantial partnerships with institutions in Europe and
abroad. Respondents from University E tended to consider more changes on benchmarking
activities and respondents from A recognized more changes on lifelong learning policy.
For the context variable “disciplinary field” relevant differences were found in the
distribution of answers in relation to identification of changes as a result of implementing
Bologna on governance, active and substantial partnerships and consortia with institutions
in Europe and abroad, lifelong learning policy and research128. For answers covering
funding, internationalisation, mechanisms for monitoring quality, benchmarking activities,
recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees, recognition procedures of
periods of study in Europe no significant differences were identified129.
The illustration of distribution of answers focusing on rated opinions is presented in graph
R (Annex II, p. 111).
As shown in graph R, respondents from medicine recognized “no change” or “little
change” in the cases of governance, funding, internationalisation, active and substantial
partnerships, recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees and of periods of
study and research. However, in some of these issues it was possible to observe
contradictory positions. For instance, on internationalisation, a quota of respondents from
medicine also reckoned “large change” and on recognition procedures of European and
foreign degrees some also considered “large change”. Respondents from law regarded as
“moderate change” and “large change” issues focusing on governance, internationalisation,
mechanisms for monitoring quality and research. Respondents from history recognized
more clearly “large changes” on recognition procedures of periods of study in Europe.
Further inspection based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from history tended to recognize more “large changes” on governance, lifelong learning
128
129
p = 0.002; 0.002; p < 0.001; p = 0.028 Kruskal-Wallis H = 14.363; 15.061; 20.157 df =3.
p = 0.314; 0.417; 0.140; 0.647; 0.700; 0.433 Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.554; 2.525; 5.470; 1.654; 1.423; 2.743
df =3.
251
policy and research, while respondents from law reckoned more “large changes” on active
and substantial partnerships and consortia with institutions in Europe and abroad as a
consequence of implementing Bologna.
Within “the three Estates” statistically significant differences were found for all the
items130 including for governance. We found no relevant disparities for recognition
procedures of European and foreign degrees and research131.
Administrative and management staff recognized more clearly “large change” for all the
items. Further analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank confirmed that
evidence. However, it was difficult to recognize a pattern of answer. Academic staff
believed that the mechanisms for monitoring quality and the recognition procedures of
periods of study in Europe also had “large change”. Students felt that internationalisation
and research policies had “large change” as compared to other items. The illustration of
the distribution of rated perceptions is shown in graph VI.12 (see page 263).
Comparing those who expressed qualitative opinions and those who stated “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” answers about changes as consequence of the implementation of
Bologna reforms in the university there was evidence of differences among “university”,
“disciplinary field” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question by
our respondents.
With “university”, differences were found for the recognition of changes as a result of
implementing Bologna on governance, funding, internationalisation and recognition
procedures of periods of study in Europe132. It was not possible to find differences
regarding the acknowledgment of changes on mechanisms for monitoring quality, on active
and substantial partnerships and consortia with institutions in Europe and abroad, on
130
p = 0.042; 0.011; 0.021; p < 0.001; p = 0.013; p < 0.001; 0.001; p = 0.007 Kruskal-Wallis H = 6.347;
9.089; 7.710; 24.519; 8.764; 20.131; 21.146; 10.026 df =2.
131
132
Chi-square test p = 0.018; p < 0.001; p = 0.066; p< 0.001.
252
benchmarking activities, on recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees,
lifelong learning policy and on research133.
Among “disciplinary field” divergences appeared in all the propositions134, except in
governance, funding, recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees and
recognition procedures of periods of study in Europe135.
each item of the question focusing on changes in the university as a result of implementing
Bologna by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
As shown in Table VI.29, respondents from University C showed more rated perceptions,
while respondents from Universities F and G had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”
answers. Respondents from history had more rated perceptions. Respondents from
medicine had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
Table VI.29 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about change in the university
as a result of implementing Bologna
9.1 Governance
9.2 Funding
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
C (2,1)
F (2,1)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (4,7)
University
C (3,7)
E (2,8)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (3,1)
133
Chi-square test p = 0.219; 0.526; 0.265; 0.243; 0.154; 0.263.
Chi-square test p = 0.001; 0.005; 0.007; 0.008.
135
Chi-square test p = 0.128; 0.059; 0.050; 0.435.
136
Chi-square test p < 0.001; p = 0.008; 0.001; 0.001; p < 0.001; 0.001; p = 0.005; 0.030; p < 0.001; 0.001.
134
253
9.3 Internationalisation
9.4 Mechanisms for monitoring
quality
9.5 Active and substantial
partnerships and consortia with
institutions in Europe and abroad
9.6 Benchmarking activities
European and foreign degrees
periods of study in Europe
9.9 Lifelong learning policy
9.10 Research
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,4)
Medicine (3,7)
The three Estates
Student (3,4)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
History (2,1)
Medicine (3,3)
The three Estates
Student (2,7)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,5)
The three Estates
Student (5,2)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Law (2,3)
Medicine (3,2)
The three Estates
Student (5,8)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,5)
The three Estates
Student (3,3)
University
C (3,7)
G (3,4)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
History (2,5)
Medicine (3,4)
The three Estates
Student (4,7)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,4)
The three Estates
Student (4,4)
Academic staff had clearly more rated perceptions, while students stated more “no
opinion” and or “do not know” answers.
The highest percentage calculated based on all the answers of “no opinion” and “do not
know” about changes on benchmarking activities resulted mostly from the groups of
respondents from medicine and students.
How the constituencies of universities perceived the impact of European and national
initiatives and assessed changes in the individual university?
254
These findings recognize the awareness about pressures wielded at European and national
levels. Table VI.30 presents the most relevant sub dimensions to grasp their perceived
impact at the pays réel.
Table VI.30 – Perceived impact of European and national initiatives and changes in the
universities surveyed
OPINION SUSPENDED
SUB-DIMENSION
WHO TEND TO
BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
SUB-DIMENSION
HOW?
(**)
BY
WHOM?
(***)
Impact of
European
initiatives
European programmes
(34% major impact)
Adm. & mgmt.
staff
Studies by EUA
(35%)
D/K
G, Medicine,
Students
Impact of
national
initiatives
Legal framework
(32% major impact)
History
Legal framework
(24%)
N/O
E, Adm. &
mgmt. staff
European
dimension of the
Bologna process
Significant content of
courses and curricula
(27% agree)
Degree structure
converging with other
degree structures
(44%)
N/O
F, Adm. &
mgmt. staff
Benchmarking
activities (42%)
D/K
Medicine,
Students
DIMENSION
Changes in
individual
university as a
result of
implementing
Bologna
Internationalisation
(32% large change)
Recognition procedures
of European and foreign
degrees
D
Physics, Adm. &
mgmt. staff
D, Adm. & mgmt.
staff
Adm. & mgmt.
staff
(32% agree)
(*) Results of Kruskal-Wallis test; (**) N/O – No opinion, D/K – Do not know; (***) Results of Chi square test.
As table VI.30 shows opinion suspended is rather high for all the sub dimensions.
Regarding the initiatives launched at European level, there was lack of knowledge about
studies by the European University Association as 35% of respondents “do not know” if
they had impact on policy implementation, which confirms the lack of awareness of the
pays réel about the proliferation of studies and recommendations originating from different
stakeholders of the Bologna process. Regarding the impact of national initiatives the
position of the legal framework as mustering high levels of opinion suspended is an
unexpected result since legal requirements were sensitive to the adaptations of the Bologna
255
degree structure. However, this aligns with the reaction towards the assessment of Bologna
as an administrative reform also collecting 49 % of opinion suspended (see table VI.15, p.
205). Moreover, there is evidence that the administrative and management staff are
contributing to the share of “no opinion” and “do not know” answers, making the finding
even more unforeseen for the pays politique taking into consideration their involvement in
the supposed adaptation process of degree programmes.
The high percentage of suspended opinions about the degree structure converging with
other European degree structures was also surprising as it is related to the strategic goals
of Bologna and the results on the progression of Bologna in other European countries
suggested greater awareness about implementing Bologna in other European countries. As
these findings point to contradictory arguments further analysis will be necessary to
identify how far Bologna reforms have a European dimension. Moreover, as administrative
and management staff were contributing more to the share of “no opinion” and “do not
know” answers, the unexpected component of this item is even greater.
As graph VI.10 shows, the level of opinion suspended on the impact of the legal
framework and the awareness about the European dimension of Bologna focused on the
degree structure converging with other European degree structures were recognizable but
did not raise expression in terms of rated opinion. These findings were unexpected since
these subcomponents command policy action at national level.
The impact of studies by EUA and benchmarking activities were little known and
perceived inconsequential, which in the case of the latter hints at the low recognition of
benchmarking as strategic tool.
256
Graph VI.10 – Opinion suspended about the impact of European and national initiatives, European dimension and changes in the
universities surveyed
257
258
This suggests respondents did not adhere to this routine recommended under the
framework of soft law mechanisms, or at least, they were not able to recognize it under the
scope of Bologna, which denoted opposition to cope with benchmarking activities as an
appropriate tool for mutual learning. Additionally it shows the perception about these
activities is loose making them potentially ineffective to create change despite its support
at European level.
Examining rated perceptions the major impact is of European programmes funded by the
European Union with 34% of the respondents, followed by networking and exchange of
good practices with higher educations abroad (30%) and the establishment of rankings,
league tables and typologies of higher education institutions (28%). Administrative and
management staff was amongst the groups of respondents more positive about the impact
of European programmes, which confirms their addiction towards implementing Bologna.
The perceived impact of the legal framework was weakened by the high level of opinion
suspended, which increased the relevance of the impact of networking and exchange of
good practices with national higher education institutions as a means to promote the
implementation of Bologna. This finding questions the claim that Bologna focuses on the
impact of the legal framework while reinforcing the networking dimension of higher
education institutions grounded on an internationalist cooperative agenda that sees
networking in research and teaching for mutual benefit (van der Wende, Coate,
Kontgiannopoulou-Poydorides, Luijten-Lub, Papadiamantaki, Stamelos, Williams, (2005).
Confirming the importance of the European programmes should be further explored in the
chapter devoted to the discussion of results, namely the linkage between this dimension
and the European context of courses and curricula. Aggregated results of “agree” and
“partially agree” showed that 44% of the respondents agreed with the idea that the
significant European content of courses and curricula reflected the European dimension of
the Bologna process in their university. Reflecting on the European dimension of Bologna
it was interesting to observe that the administrative and management staff agreed with all
the sub-components as they reflect the European dimension of Bologna, while as expected
academic staff and students were sensitive to the teaching language, opposing their views
to those of the administrative and management staff. The illustration of the distribution of
answers appears in graph VI.11 (see page 261).
259
As graph VI.11 shows the administrative and management staff agree with all the
propositions as they reflected the European dimension of the Bologna process, reiterating
the high level of awareness of the administrative and management staff towards the
European dimension of Bologna.
As graph VI.12 (see page 263) shows the identification of changes related to
internationalisation and the recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees also
confirms the normative stance to privilege the administrative and management staff as
interlocutor between the pays politique and the pays réel. However, some policy areas are
somewhat lost in the trajectory of the Bologna process across different levels of analysis.
The perceived impact of European and national initiatives and changes in the individual
university based on the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank underlined that
respondents from University D tended to express more positive opinions about the
dimensions explored in this section. Historians and physicists are those expressing more
favourable views. Administrative and management staff were more enthusiastic about
dimensions close to their professional activity e.g. official documents of the Bologna
process, European programmes and networking and exchange of good practices
corroborating the hypothesis of being a preferred announcer of Bologna in higher
education institutions.
260
Graph VI.11 – European dimension of the Bologna process: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates”
261
262
Graph VI.12 – Changes in the university as a result of implementing Bologna: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates”
263
264
2.2. Embeddeness of Bologna dimensions
The level of awareness about the embeddeness of Bologna focused on instruments closely
related to Bologna as perceived by European and national levels (e.g. Bologna degree
structure, Diploma Supplement, Credit System and Quality Assurance Mechanisms)
(Bergen Communiqué, 2005; Berlin Communiqué, 2003; Bologna Declaration, 1999;
Bologna Follow-up Group, 2005, 2007, 2009; Prague Communiqué, 2001). The pedagogic
reform was added as a dimension grounded on the core activities of higher education
institutions and perceived as very relevant in the pays réel (Veiga & Amaral, 2009b). The
assessment of the level of awareness took the perceived impact these dimensions have for
individual universities.
2.2.1 Awareness about the implementation of the Bologna process
Question ten appraises the awareness about the implementation of the Bologna process at
university level. Table VI.31 shows the number and percentage of answers obtained.
Table VI.31 – Awareness about the implementation of the Bologna process: Number and
10. In your university how has implementation progressed in respect to the following items?
Not
implemented
Little
implemented
Moderately
implemented
Fully
implemented
No opinion
Do not
know
10.1 The Bologna degree
structure
64
7%
38
4%
67
7%
278
31%
311
34%
152
17%
10.2 Pedagogic reform
(e.g. curriculum reform
and teaching/learning
methods)
69
8%
38
4%
166
18%
342
38%
185
20%
108
12%
10.3 Diploma supplement
138
15%
33
4%
102
11%
174
19%
177
20%
275
31%
10.4 Credit system (e.g.
ECTS)
68
7%
31
3%
98
11%
215
24%
387
43%
108
12%
10.5 Quality assurance
mechanisms
105
12%
95
11%
196
22%
231
26%
114
13%
160
18%
265
Respondents perceived as implemented all the sub dimensions. Aggregated results of
“fully implemented” and “moderately implemented” showed that the majority of
respondents (56%) perceived the pedagogic reform as implemented, followed by the
quality assurance mechanisms.
However, 43% of the respondents had “no opinion” about the state of implementation of
the credit system and 31% of the respondents “do not know” about the implementation of
the Diploma Supplement. In the case of the latter, a quota of 15% declared the Diploma
Supplement as “not implemented”.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about the assessment of the
implementation in relation to some devices of the Bologna process there was evidence of
statistically significant differences among all the groups within the context variables under
examination (e.g. “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”) in the
distribution of answers to this question.
Within the context of the variable “university” statistically significant divergences came
out in the perceptions about the progress of the Bologna degree structure and the
pedagogic reform137. We found no relevant disparities regarding the implementation of the
Diploma Supplement, the credit system and quality assurance mechanisms138.
The representation of the distribution of rated perceptions is presented in graph S (Annex
II, p. 113).
As shown in graph S, the analysis of rated perceptions emphasised the “full
implementation” of the Bologna degree structure within the surveyed universities. The
universities C, D and G were exceptions as the perceptions about the implementation of
other components of the Bologna reforms within these universities were higher.
137
138
266
Additional analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank gave evidence that for the
assessment of the implementation of the Bologna degree structure respondents from
University E had a higher percentage of “fully implemented” answers, while he same was
true for University A regarding the pedagogic reform.
For the context variable “disciplinary field” statistically significant differences appeared
for the appraisal of the implementation of the Bologna degree structure and the answers
covering the pedagogic reform139. We saw no relevant differences in the distribution of
answers in the assessment of the implementation of the diploma supplement, the credit
system and quality assurance mechanisms140.
Graph T illustrates the rated perceptions (Annex II, p. 115).
As observed in graph T the awareness about the implementation of the Bologna degree
structure is higher in respondents from history, while respondents from law have higher
scores for the implementation of the pedagogic reform, the diploma supplement and the
quality assurance mechanisms. Regarding the awareness about the implementation of the
credit system different groups of respondents were very aware of its “full implementation”.
from history tended to consider more the Bologna degree structure as “fully
implemented”, whereas respondents from law tended consider more the full
implementation of the pedagogic reform.
Within the context variable “the three Estates” differences were found for the evaluation of
the implementation of the Diploma Supplement and quality assurance mechanisms141. The
evaluation of implementation of the Bologna degree structure, the pedagogic reform and
the credit system did not present any relevant disparity142.
The administrative and management staff perceived all the items as fully implemented.
139
141
142
p = 0.427, 0.192, 0.209 Kruskal-Wallis H = 1.704, 3.298, 3.129 df =2.
140
267
administrative and management staff tended to recognize more as fully implemented the
Diploma Supplement and quality assurance mechanisms.
Students perceived more clearly as “not implemented” the Diploma Supplement, whereas
academic staff perceived in the same manner the implementation of the credit system. The
illustration of the distribution of rated perceptions is given in graph U (Annex II, p. 117).
Examining those who expressed rated perceptions and those who stated “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” about the assessment of the implementation of specific items, there
was evidence of significant differences among groups of respondents belonging to
different “university” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question.
We found no statistically relevant differences within the context variable “disciplinary
field”143.
Controlling the context variable “university” there were relevant differences for all the
items144. In the context variable “the three Estates” no variance was found on the
implementation of the Bologna degree structure as well as of the Diploma Supplement,
credit system and quality assurance mechanisms145. Only for the implementation of the
pedagogic reform significant differences were discovered146.
each item of the question focusing on the awareness about the implementation of the
Bologna process by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
143
p = 0.016; p < 0.001; 0.001; 0.001.
p = 0.016, p < 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; 0.001.
145
p = 0.283; 0.135; 0.130.
146
p = 0.002.
144
268
Table VI.32 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the awareness of the
implementation of Bologna
10.1 The Bologna degree structure
10.2 Pedagogic reform
10.3 Diploma Supplement
10.4 Credit system (ECTS)
10.5 Quality assurance mechanisms
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
F (3,7)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
University
B (3,3)
D (2,4)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (3,5)
University
C (3,0)
F (3,1)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (5,4)
F (4,6)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
University
B (3,0)
F (3,8)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
As shown in table VI.32, respondents from universities B and C showed more rated
perceptions, while respondents from University F had more “no opinion” and/or “do not
know” answers. Academic staff had more rated perceptions, while students stated more
“no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
The highest percentage calculated based on all the answers of “no opinion” and/or “do not
know” for the awareness about the implementation of the credit system was given by
respondents from University F.
269
2.2.2 Impact of implementation of the Bologna degree structure
Question eleven seized the perception of respondents on the fulfilment of specific
objectives as result of implementing the Bologna degree structure. Table VI.33 shows the
number and percentage of answers obtained in the question.
Table VI.33 – Perceived impact of implementation of Bologna degree structure: Number
11. In your university how far in your opinion has implementing the Bologna degree structure fulfilled the
following objectives?
No
impact
Little
impact
Moderate
impact
Major
impact
No opinion
Do not
know
11.1 Improved the legibility of
systems
84
9%
101
11%
209
23%
298
33%
100
11%
119
13%
11.2 Improved the employability
of graduates
78
9%
200
22%
238
26%
211
23%
65
7%
118
13%
11.3 Improved the efficiency of
your higher education system
69
8%
189
21%
230
25%
242
27%
74
8%
98
11%
11.4 Increased the mobility of
students and graduates
52
6%
74
8%
184
20%
343
38%
165
18%
89
10%
11.5 Enhance the attractiveness of
systems to foreign students
75
8%
100
11%
187
21%
313
34%
122
13%
113
12%
Respondents perceived the impact of the Bologna degree structure on the fulfilment of the
listed objectives. Aggregated results of “major” and “moderate” impact showed that the
increase on the mobility of students and graduates was the objective with higher rate of
accomplishment as perceived by 58% of respondents. The percentage of respondents
stating “no opinion” or “do not know” about the impact of the Bologna degree structure on
the fulfilment of specific objectives was rather low but the sub dimension mostly
overlooked was the impact of the implementation of the Bologna degree structure on the
increase of the mobility of students and graduates (18%).
270
Respondents perceived with lower impact the implementation of the Bologna degree
structure on the fulfilment of objectives related to the improvement of the employability of
graduates as 35% of respondents perceived it with “no” or “little” impact.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about the impact of the Bologna degree
structure in specific objectives there was evidence of differences among groups of
respondents according to their “university” in the distribution of answers to this question.
The context variables “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates” were tested but no
statistically significant divergences emerged147.
Within the context variable “university” significant divergences took place in the
awareness about the impact of the Bologna degree structure on the improvement of
employability of graduates, on the improvement of the efficiency of national higher
education system and on the increase of the mobility of students and graduates148. We
found no relevant disparities regarding the improvement of the legibility of European
higher education systems and the enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher
education systems to foreign students149.
The illustration of the distribution of rated answers is presented in graph V (Annex II, p.
119).
As referred in graph V, the analysis of rated perceptions emphasised the increase of the
mobility of students and graduates as the primary impact of the implementation of the
Bologna degree structure. Respondents also perceived the implementation of the Bologna
degree structure as relevant for the improvement of the legibility of European higher
education systems and the enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher education
systems to foreign students. The impacts on the improvement of the employability of
147
p = 0.863; 0.356; 0.447; 0.522; 0.334 Kruskal-Wallis H = 0.616; 3.240; 2.661; 2.251 df =3.
148
149
p =0.861; 0.192 Kruskal-Wallis H = 2.565; 8.685 df =6.
271
graduates and on the improvement of the efficiency of national higher education systems
were more close to “little” and “moderate” impact.
from the University G tended to perceive more major impacts of the Bologna degree
structure on all the items were it was possible to observe significant statistical differences
(e.g. improvement of employability of graduates, improvement of the efficiency of national
higher education system and increase of the mobility of students and graduates).
Comparing the group of respondents who expressed rated perceptions and those who stated
“no opinion” and/or “do not know” about the impact of the Bologna degree structure on
the fulfilment of specific objectives there is evidence of differences among “university”,
“disciplinary field” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question by
our respondents.
For the context variable “university” differences came into sight for the improvement of the
legibility of European higher education systems, the improvement of the employability of
graduates, the improvement of the efficiency of national higher education system and the
increase of the mobility of students and graduates150. We observed no significant
differences for the enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher education
systems to foreign students151. In the “disciplinary field” divergences appeared in relation
to all the items152.
Within the “the three Estates” statistically significant differences emerged in relation to
both the improvement of the employability of graduates and the enhancement of the
attractiveness of European higher education systems to foreign students153. We detected no
relevant disparities concerning the improvement of the legibility of European higher
150
Chi-square test p < 0.001; p = 0.002; p < 0.001; p = 0.002.
152
Chi-square test p= 0.039; 0.020; 0.005; 0.003; 0.027.
153
Chi-square test p= 0.006; 0.001
151
272
education systems, the improvement of the efficiency of national higher education system
and the increase of the mobility of students and graduates154.
each item of the question focusing on the impact of the Bologna degree structure on the
fulfilment of specific objectives by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
Table VI.34 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the perceived impact of
implementation of Bologna degree structure
R
European higher education systems
11.2 Improved the employability of
graduates
11.3 Improved the efficiency of your
higher education system
11.5 Enhanced the attractiveness of
to foreign students
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
C (2,6)
F (3,6)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,8)
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (3,9)
F (3,4)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,1)
The three Estates
Student (3,2)
University
C (3,4)
F (3,5)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,5)
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (3,5)
A (2,0)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,7)
The three Estates
-
-
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,9)
The three Estates
Student (2,9)
As shown in table VI.34 respondents from university C showed more rated perceptions,
while respondents from F had more answers “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
Respondents from medicine had more answers “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
“do not know”.
154
Chi-square test p=0.155; 0.124; 0.052.
273
The item mostly disregarded was the impact of implementation of the Bologna degree
structure on the increase of the mobility of students and graduates and the groups of
respondents contributing mostly with “no opinion” and/or “do not know” were respondents
from the University A and respondents from medicine.
2.2.3 Impact of the implementation of the Diploma Supplement
Question twelve grasped the perception of respondents on the fulfilment of specific
objectives as a result of implementing the Diploma supplement. Table VI.35 shows the
number and percentage of answers obtained in the question.
Table VI.35 – Perceived impact of the implementation of Diploma Supplement: Number
and percentage of answers
12. In your university how far in your opinion has implementing the Diploma Supplement fulfilled the following
objectives?
No impact
Little
impact
Moderate
impact
Major
impact
No opinion
Do not
know
systems
122
13%
82
9%
137
15%
198
22%
87
10%
283
31%
of graduates
114
13%
128
14%
170
19%
171
19%
64
7%
265
29%
107
12%
138
15%
159
18%
169
19%
74
8%
259
29%
12.4 Increase the mobility of
your higher graduates
107
12%
71
8%
125
14%
231
26%
112
12%
257
28%
12.5 Enhance the attractiveness
of European higher educations
111
12%
78
9%
140
16%
200
22%
82
9%
281
32%
The awareness about the impact of the implementation of Diploma Supplement on the
fulfilment of the listed objectives was unconvincing. Aggregated results of “major impact”
and “moderate impact” and of “no impact” and “little impact” showed that the percentages
of “no impact” and “little impact” were rather elevated. However, 40% of respondents
274
perceived “moderate impact” and “major impact” of the Diploma Supplement in
increasing the mobility of students and graduates.
Additionally, the percentages of respondents ignoring the impact of the Diploma
Supplement on the selected objectives were rather high which contrasts with the lower
percentages of “no opinion”. In effect, the highest percentage calculated based on all the
answers of “do not know” went for the enhancement of the attractiveness of European
higher education systems to foreign students (32%), but all the other sub dimensions
followed very closely.
Rated perceptions
All context variables under scrutiny were tested and no statistically significant differences
appeared within the rated perceptions controlling the context variable “university”155.
However, in the distribution of rated perceptions there were relevant discrepancies in the
context variables “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”.
Within “disciplinary field” statistically significant differences appeared in items related to
the improvement of the efficiency of national higher education system, increase of the
mobility of students and graduates and enhancement of the attractiveness of European
higher education systems to foreign students156. We did not find disparities regarding the
improvement of the legibility of European higher education systems, and the improvement
of the employability of graduates157.
The representation of the distribution of the rated perceptions is presented in graph W
(Annex II, p. 121).
As can be seen in graph W, in spite of respondents from all disciplinary fields recognizing
the “major impact” of the Diploma supplement on the increase of the mobility of students
155
p= 0.013; 0.028; 0.026 Kruskal-Wallis H = 10.721; 9.062; 9.232 df= 3.
157
p =0.056; 0.592 Kruskal-Wallis H = 7.573; 1.908, df =3.
156
275
and graduates, there was a rather high percentage of respondents from medicine
considering this item as having “no impact”, the same being true for the other items.
Further attention based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from history were more positive about the impact of the Diploma Supplement in improving
the efficiency of national higher education system, increasing the mobility of students and
graduates and enhancing the attractiveness of European higher education systems to
foreign students.
Within “the three Estates” there was evidence of statistically significant differences in the
item related to the improvement of the legibility of higher education systems158. We did not
observe disparities regarding all the other items159.
The percentage of the administrative staff perceiving the improvement of legibility of
European higher education system was rather high, while the percentages of “no impact”
were similar for all the university’s estates regarding all the other items.
Additional analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank showed the administrative
and management staff was more affirmative about the impact of the Diploma Supplement
in improving the legibility of higher education systems. Graph X illustrates differences in
the distribution of the rated perceptions (Annex II, p. 123).
Balancing the group of respondents who expressed qualitative opinions and those who
gave “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers about the impact of the Diploma
supplement on the fulfilment of specific objectives there was evidence of differences
among “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of
answers to this question by our respondents.
158
159
p= 0.015 Kruskal-Wallis H = 8.436 df= 2.
p =0.488; 0.557; 0.924; 0.509 Kruskal-Wallis H = 1.453; 1.172; 0.159; 1.351 df =2.
276
For the context variable “university” differences came into view for the improvement of the
legibility of European higher education systems, the improvement of the employability of
graduates, the improvement of the efficiency of national higher education system and the
increase of the mobility of students and graduates, enhancement of the attractiveness of
European higher education systems to foreign students
160
. Among “disciplinary field”
divergences appeared in relation to all the items161. Within the “the three Estates”
statistically significant differences emerged in relation to all the items162, except for the
impact of the Diploma Supplement on improving the legibility of European higher
education systems163.
each item of the question focusing on the impact of the Diploma Supplement on the
fulfilment of specific objectives by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
the implementation of Diploma Supplement
systems
of graduates
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
A (3,6)
F (4,3)
Disciplinary field
History (2,7)
Physics (4,0)
The three Estates
-
-
University
A (2,3)
G (4,1)
Disciplinary field
History (2,9)
Physics (2,1)
The three Estates
Student (2,8)
University
A (2,3)
G (3,8)
Disciplinary field
History (3,4)
Physics (2,9)
The three Estates
Student (3,7)
160
Chi-square test p= 0.003, p < 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; p = 0.004; 0.015.
Chi-square test p< 0.001; p < 0.006; 0.001; 0.014.
162
Chi-square test p= 0.014; 0.001; 0.006; p < 0.001.
163
161
277
12.5 Enhanced the attractiveness
of European higher education
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
G (2,9)
Disciplinary field
History (2,6)
Physics (2,6)
The three Estates
Student (3,2)
University
G (3,2)
Disciplinary field
History (2,6)
Physics (2,7)-
The three Estates
Student (4,4)
As shown in table VI.36 respondents from the university A showed more rated
perceptions, while respondents from the University G had more “no opinion” and/or “do
not know”. Respondents from history had more rated perceptions, whereas respondents
from physics had more answers “no opinion” and/or “do not know”. Academic staff had
more rated perceptions, while students stated more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
The respondents contributing more to the construction of “no opinion” and/or “do not
know” opinions about the impact of the Diploma supplement on the enhancement of the
attractiveness of European higher education systems to foreign students were respondents
from the university G, from physics, and students.
2.2.4 Impact of the implementation of the credit system
Question thirteen drew attention on the perception of respondents on the fulfilment of
specific objectives as a result of implementing the credit system based on the student
workload. Table VI.37 shows the number and percentage of answers obtained in this
question.
278
Table VI.37 – Perceived impact of the implementation of the credit system: Number and
13. In your university how far in your opinion has implementing the credit system based on student workload
fulfilled the following objectives?
No
impact
Little
impact
Moderate
impact
Major
impact
No opinion
Do not
know
systems
91
10%
109
12%
182
20%
279
31%
99
11%
146
16%
13.2 Improved the comparability
systems (e.g. criteria of
evaluation, scale of evaluation)
70
8%
72
8%
160
18%
322
35%
162
18%
122
13%
of graduates
92
10%
177
19%
250
27%
180
20%
63
7%
153
17%
80
9%
169
19%
238
26%
234
26%
66
7%
115
13%
72
8%
87
10%
182
20%
273
30%
155
17%
136
15%
13.5 Enhanced the attractiveness
92
10%
108
12%
189
21%
258
29%
99
11%
153
17%
Respondents perceived that the implementation of the credit system based on the student
workload had relevant impact on the fulfilment of specific objectives. Aggregated results
of “major impact” and “moderate impact” showed that 53% of the respondents perceived
“major impact” and “moderate impact” of the credit system on the improvement of the
comparability of European higher education systems.
However, as the percentages of responses of opinion suspended were not as high as in
previous questions, the highest percentage calculated based on all the answers was 18%
assigned to the effect of the credit system on the improvement of the comparability of
European higher education systems.
279
Rated opinions
All the context variables under scrutiny were tested and statistically significant differences
appeared in relation to “university” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of rated
answers. We did not find divergence in “disciplinary field”164.
In the context variable “university” statistically significant differences appeared in relation
to the impact of the credit system based on student workload on the improvement of the
employability of graduates, on the improvement of the efficiency of national higher
education system, and on the enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher
education systems to foreign students165. We did not find relevant disparities in the case of
the improvement of the legibility of European higher education systems, the improvement
of the comparability of European higher education systems, and the increase of the
mobility of students and graduates166.
Graph Y shows the distribution of the rated answers (Annex II, p. 125).
As can be seen, the impact of the credit system on the comparability of European higher
education systems and on the increased of mobility of students and graduates was
reasonably perceived by respondents from different universities. Respondents from the
University G gave the highest percentage of answers of “no impact” regarding all the
items.
Further attention based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank unravelled that respondents
from University C tended to be more positive about the impact of the credit system on the
improvement of the employability of graduates. Respondents from the University A were
more affirmative about the effects on the improvement of the efficiency of national higher
education system, while respondents from the University D tended to be more positive
164
p= 0.835; 0.695; 0.845; 0.488; 0.584; 0.107 Kruskal-Wallis H = 0.861; 1.446; 0.819; 2.431; 1.946; 6.097,
df =3.
165
166
280
about the results on the enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher education
systems.
Within “the three Estates” statistically significant differences were found in relation to the
improvement of the legibility of European higher education systems167. We did not find any
disparities regarding all the other items168.
Respondents perceived “major impact” of the credit system on all the items, except for the
“moderate impact” of the credit system on the improvement of the employability of
graduates.
Further attention revealed that the administrative and management staff was the group that
agreed more with the impact of credit system in improving the legibility of European
higher education system. The representation of the distribution of the rated perceptions is
given in graph VI.14 (see page 299).
The comparison between groups of respondents who stated rated perceptions and “no
opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions indicated statistically significant differences
within the context variables “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”.
In the context variable “university” differences emerged within all the items169, excluding
the impact of the credit system on the enhancement of the attractiveness of European
higher education systems to foreign students170.
Within “disciplinary field” statistically relevant differences came into sight for all the
items171, except in the case of the enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher
education systems to foreign students, as we observed no divergences172.
167
p =0.014 Kruskal-Wallis H = 8.581 df =2.
p= 0.162; 0.451; 0.165; 0.248; 0.917 Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.643; 1.593; 3.609; 2.787; 0.172 df= 2.
169
Chi-square test p= 0.003; p< 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; p = 0.004.
170
168
281
The test applied to the context variable “the three Estates” revealed that significant
disparities came into view for the elements focusing on the impact of the credit system on
the improvement of the legibility of European higher education systems, improvement of
the employability of graduates, improvement of the comparability of European higher
education systems and enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher education
systems to foreign students173. Regarding the effects on the improvement of the efficiency of
national higher education system, increase of the mobility of students and graduates we
did not find any statistical differences174.
each item of the question focusing on the impact of the credit system on the fulfilment of
specific objectives by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
the credit system
13.2 Improved the comparability of
13.3 Improved the employability of
graduates
171
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
B (2,5)
F (2,7)
Disciplinary field
History (2,7)
Medicine (2,7)
The three Estates
Student (2,2)
University
C (3,7)
G (4,4)
Disciplinary field
History (3,6)
Medicine (4,4)
The three Estates
Adm. & mgmt. staff
(2,4)
University
C (3,0)
G (3,3)
Disciplinary field
History (2,5)
Medicine (3,8)
The three Estates
Student (2,6)
University
C (4,7)
F (3,3)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,8)
The three Estates
-
-
Chi-square test p= 0.004; p < 0.001; p = 0.001; 0.041; 0.006.
Chi square test p= 0.238.
173
Chi-square p= 0.007; 0.020; 0.031; 0.005.
174
Chi-square p= 0.333; 0.441.
172
282
13.6 Enhanced the attractiveness of
to foreign students
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
C (2,9)
A (2,4)
Disciplinary field
History (2,6)
Medicine (2,7)
The three Estates
-
-
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (3,2)
As shown in table VI.38 respondents from the University C showed more rated
perceptions, while respondents from universities G and F had more “no opinion” and/or
“do not know”. Respondents from history had more rated perceptions, whereas
respondents from medicine had more answers “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
“do not know”.
The respondents contributing more to “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions about
the impact of the credit system on the comparability of European higher education systems
were those from the University G, from medicine and the administrative and management
staff.
2.2.5 Objectives of quality assurance mechanisms
Question fourteen appraised the perception of respondents about the objectives of quality
assurance mechanisms. Table VI.39 shows the number and percentage of answers obtained
in this question.
283
Table VI.39 – Objectives of quality assurance mechanisms: Number and percentages of
answers
14. In your university quality assurance mechanisms are implemented...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
14.1 to reinforce public
accountability
118
13%
119
13%
131
14%
214
23%
132
14%
198
22%
14.2 to enhance academic
standards (e.g. institutional
quality culture)
78
8%
133
14%
148
16%
226
25%
225
24%
111
12%
14.3 to progress on
accreditation
93
10%
89
10%
94
10%
251
27%
227
25%
159
17%
14.4 to enhance the European
dimension
89
10%
98
11%
124
14%
233
26%
237
26%
125
14%
Respondents agreed with the objectives listed. Aggregated results confirmed that position.
41% of the respondents agreed that quality assurance mechanisms enhance academic
standards. Disaggregated results showed that 27% of the respondents “agree” that quality
assurance mechanisms are implemented to progress on accreditation; however, the other
objectives record similar percentages. 13% of the respondents “disagree” that its
implementation is to reinforce public accountability.
26% of the respondents had “no opinion” about the implementation of quality assurance
mechanisms to enhance the European dimension. This percentage was similar to those
aggregated results of “disagree” and “partially disagree”.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about objectives fulfilled with the
implementation of quality assurance mechanisms there was evidence of differences among
284
“university” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question. The
context variable “disciplinary field” was also tested and no divergences came into view175.
Within “university”, statistically significant differences appear in the items relating to the
quality assurance mechanisms implemented to reinforce public accountability, to enhance
academic standards and to progress on accreditation176. The item on the enhancement of
European dimension does not hold significant disparities177.
The representation of the distribution of the rated answers is given in graph Z (Annex II, p.
127).
As can be seen in graph Z, respondents agree more clearly that quality assurance
mechanisms fulfil the objective of progress on accreditation. Further inspection based on
the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank unveiled that respondents from the University E tended
to be more positive about the implementation of quality assurance mechanisms to reinforce
public accountability and respondents from the University D tended to favour the
implementation of those mechanisms to progress on accreditation. Respondents from the
University G had a propensity to be more affirmative about the implementation of those
mechanisms in the university to enhance academic standards.
In the “the three Estates”, statistically relevant disparities emerged within the items related
to quality assurance mechanisms implemented to reinforce public accountability and to
progress on accreditation178. The elements referred to the enhancement of academic
standards and the enhancement of European dimension did not present significant
differences179.
Academic staff and students agree that the implementation of quality assurance
mechanisms aims above all to progress on accreditation. The administrative and
175
p =0.045; 0.920; 0.311; 0.950. Kruskal-Wallis H = 8.045; 0.493; 3.579; 0.353 df =3.
P< 0.001; p = 0.002; 0.003 Kruskal-Wallis H = 37.318; 20.574; 20.127 df =6.
177
p= 0.168 Kruskal-Wallis H = 9.097, df =6.
178
P< 0.001; p = 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis H = 18.802, 14.154, df =2.
179
p= 0.298; 0.586 Kruskal-Wallis H = 2.419; 1.070 df =2.
176
285
management staff had the highest percentage, calculated on rated perceptions, of
“disagree” regarding the enhancement of academic standards.
Further analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis mean rank test revealed that the
administrative and management staff tended to be more positive about the reinforcement of
public accountability, while academic staff tended to perceive that the implementation of
quality assurance mechanisms aim to progress on accreditation. The illustration of the
distribution of the answers is presented in graph AA (Annex II, p. 129).
The balance between those respondents who stated rated perceptions and “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” opinions suggested that there are statistically significant differences
in the distribution of answers as reported by our respondents within the context variables
In the context variable “university”, differences appeared for all the items180.
Within “disciplinary field”, statistically relevant differences came into view within all the
items181. In the context variable “the three Estates”, the test revealed significant differences
for the elements focusing on the implementation of quality assurance mechanisms to
reinforce public accountability and to enhance the European dimension182. On the topic of
the enhancement of academic standards and on the progress to accreditation we did not
find any statistical differences183.
each item of the question focusing on the objectives of quality assurance mechanisms by
180
Chi-square test p= 0.031; p < 0.001; 0.001; p< 0.001.
Chi-square test p= 0.004; p< 0.001; 0.003; p< 0.001.
182
Chi-square p= 0.038; 0.001.
183
Chi-square p= 0.074; 0.491.
181
286
Table VI.40 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the objectives of quality
assurance mechanisms
14.1 to reinforce public
accountability
14.2 to enhance academic
standards
14.3 to progress on accreditation
14.4 to enhance the European
dimension
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
C (3,2)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,5)
The three Estates
Student (2,5)
University
C (5,1)
F (3,1)
Disciplinary field
Physics (4,6)
Medicine (3,8)
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (4,2)
A (2,1)
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,9)
Medicine (3,2)
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (5,2)
B (2,4)
Disciplinary field
Physics (4,8)
Medicine (3,4)
The three Estates
Student (2,6)
perceptions, while respondents from universities F, A and B had more “no opinion” and/or
“do not know”. Respondents from physics demonstrated more rated perceptions.
Respondents from medicine gave more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
“No opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions about the implementation of quality
assurance mechanisms to enhance the European dimension was the item that had the
highest percentage, calculated based on all the answers, of “no opinion” answers given by
respondents from the University B, from medicine and students.
287
2.2.6 Working procedures of internal quality systems
Question fifteen assessed the awareness of respondents about the working procedures of
internal quality systems. Table VI.41 shows the number and percentage of answers
obtained in this question.
Table VI.41 – Working procedures of internal quality systems: Number and percentages of
answers
15. How far in your university are working procedures of its internal systems implemented...
Not
implemented
Little
implemented
Moderately
implemented
Fully
implemented
No opinion
Do not
know
15.1 Approval,
monitoring and
periodic review of
programmes
88
10%
76
8%
196
22%
267
29%
114
13%
168
18%
15.2 Assessment of
teaching quality
75
8%
75
8%
174
19%
301
33%
134
15%
147
16%
15.3 Assessment of
research quality
101
11%
100
11%
177
19%
242
26%
86
9%
211
23%
Respondents perceived as “fully implemented” or “moderately implemented” the working
procedures of internal quality systems. Aggregated results showed that 52% of the
respondents perceived the assessment of teaching quality as “fully implemented” and
“moderately implemented”. The aggregated results of “not implemented” and “little
implemented” were rather low.
Additionally, 23% of the respondents were unaware about the implementation of the
assessment of research quality. The other subcomponents recorded percentages lower than
20% either among those who state “do not know” or “no opinion”.
288
Rated opinions
Among those who expressed rated perceptions the test applied to the context variables
“university, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates” revealed that significant disparities
emerged in the distribution of answers as reported by our respondents.
Within “university”, statistically significant divergences took place in all the items184.
The illustration of the distribution of the rated answers is given in graph AB (Annex II, p.
131).
As shown in graph AB respondents generally perceived that all the items were
implemented.
Further analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank shows that respondents from
the University F tended to be more enthusiastic about the degree of implementation
regarding the approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes. Respondents from
the University C were more positive about the degree of implementation of assessment of
teaching quality and respondents from the University D were more optimistic about the
degree of implementation of the assessment of research quality.
In “disciplinary field”, relevant divergences appeared on the subject of the assessment of
teaching quality185. For the remaining items no significant discrepancy appeared186. The
representation of the distribution of the answers is presented in graph AC (Annex II, p.
133).
As shown in graph AC and based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank respondents from
history tended to be more positive about the degree of implementation of the assessment of
teaching quality.
184
186
p = 0.391, 0.200 Kruskal-Wallis H = 3.006, df =3.
185
289
Within the context variable “the three Estates” statistically significant differences appeared
in the distribution of answers to this question as reported by our respondents187. Regarding
the approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and the assessment of
research quality no relevant discrepancies emerged188.
All the constituencies considered that the assessment of teaching quality was “fully
implemented”. However, the administrative and management staff perceived more clearly
that other items were “not implemented”, being less optimist when compared to academic
staff and students.
administrative and management staff tended to be more optimistic about the degree of
implementation of the assessment of teaching quality. The distribution of the rated
perceptions is given in graph AD (Annex II, p. 135).
Comparing the group of respondents who declared rated perceptions and the group who
stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions statistically significant differences
emerged among the groups of respondents within the context variables “university”,
“disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”.
In the context variable “university” relevant differences emerged vis-à-vis the perception
about the degree of implementation of the approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes, the assessment of teaching quality and the assessment of research quality189.
The context variable “disciplinary field” unravels significant differences in respect of the
views about the degree of implementation of the assessment of teaching quality and the
187
189
Chi-square test p< 0.001; 0.001; p= 0.021.
188
290
assessment of research quality190. For the proposition on the approval, monitoring and
periodic review of programmes no divergences appeared191.
The test applied to in context variable “the three Estates” disentangles significant
differences on the perceptions about the degree of implementation of the approval,
monitoring and periodic review of programmes and the assessment of research quality192.
For the item on the assessment of teaching quality no significant differences surfaced193.
each item of the question focusing on the working procedures of internal quality systems
by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
Table VI.42 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about working procedures of
internal quality systems
15.1 Approval, monitoring and
periodic review of programmes
15.2 Assessment of teaching quality
15.3 Assessment of research quality
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
C (3,4)
F (4,8)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Adm. & mgmt. staff
(2,6)
University
C (4,5)
F (2,5)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,2)
The three Estates
-
-
University
C (3,1)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,8)
The three Estates
Student (3,0)
perceptions, while respondents from the University F had more “no opinion” and/or “do
not know”. Respondents from medicine had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” and
190
192
193
191
291
academic staff had more rated perceptions, whereas student and administrative and
managements staff had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
The quota of “no opinion” about the degree of implementation of assessment of research
quality derived mainly from “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers by respondents
from medicine and the students.
How the constituencies of higher education institutions perceived the embeddeness of
specific dimensions of Bologna as introduced by pays politique? Table VI.43 shows the
perceptions about the implementation of those dimensions and identifies the perceived
impact of the Bologna degree structure, Diploma Supplement, Credit system and Quality
Assurance Mechanisms. Findings focusing on policy embeddeness show that the
pedagogic reform194 was a dimension introduced by the pays réel into the pays politique,
as the pedagogic reform was not included from the beginning as an action line of Bologna
by the pays politique. This finding reinforces the relevance of pedagogy as perceived by
the pays réel.
Table VI.43 – Embeddeness of Bologna instruments
OPINION SUSPENDED
SUB-DIMENSION
WHO TEND
TO BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
SUBDIMENSION
HOW?
(**)
BY
WHOM?
(***)
Awareness
implementation
of Bologna
Pedagogic reform
(38% fully implemented)
A, Law
Credit system
(43%)
N/O
F
Impact degree
structure
Increase mobility of
students
(38% major impact)
G
students
(18%)
N/O
Medicine
History
Adm. & mgmt.
Staff
Enhanced the
attractiveness of
European higher
education systems to
foreigners
(32%)
D/K
G, Physics,
Students
DIMENSION
Impact Diploma
Supplement
194
(26% major impact)
The perceived impact of the pedagogic reform on teaching and learning is further explored in the last
section of the questionnaire (see p.332-348).
292
OPINION SUSPENDED
WHO TEND
TO BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
SUBDIMENSION
Impact credit
system
Improvement of the
comparability of European
higher education systems
(35% major impact)
Quality assurance
Internal quality
systems
DIMENSION
HOW?
(**)
BY
WHOM?
(***)
-
Improvement of the
comparability of
European higher
education systems
(18%)
N/O
G-NO,
Medicine,
Adm. &
mgmt. Staff
To progress on
accreditation
(27% agree)
D, Academic staff
To enhance European
dimension
(26%)
N/O
B,
Medicine,
Students
Assessment of
teaching quality
(33% fully implemented)
C, History, Adm.
& mgmt. Staff
Assessment of
research quality
(23%)
N/O
Medicine,
Students
SUB-DIMENSION
As table VI.43 shows, the level of opinion suspended was unexpected for the dimension of
the implementation and impact of the credit system. Its implementation is closely related to
the implementation of the pedagogic reform, which was perceived as fully implemented.
This latter finding by itself was also unforeseen taking the incremental nature of those
reforms.
The impact of the implementation of the credit system was seen in opposite direction of the
sub-dimension improvement of comparability of European higher education systems that
musters high agreement and high opinion suspended. The piece of evidence that shows the
administrative and management staff contributing more to “no opinion” and “do not know”
contributed to see that this impact might be associated to teaching learning activities (e.g.
criteria of evaluation and scale of evaluation). To this account, the perceived impact of the
credit system was relevant to signal a reasonable level of awareness about the system of
credits in the Bologna process.
The perception about the impact of Bologna degree structure reflected another incongruity
as the increase of mobility of students appears to have major impact and simultaneously
was subject to the highest percentage of opinion suspended. This finding confirms that
293
carrying out the Bologna degree structure might be critical for the mobility of students. On
the one hand, the compression of the length studies affected the number of electives, which
were the first choice of mobility students as obtaining their recognition was easier; on the
other hand, it restricted the possibilities for mobility activities to the second year of the 1st
cycle degree programmes.
Also unanticipated was the percentage of suspended opinion about the enhancement of
European dimension regarding the implementation of quality assurance mechanisms. This
topic is high in the agenda of European level but respondents did not perceive its weight.
In the Bologna Declaration (Bologna Declaration, 1999) the European co-operation in
quality assurance of higher education with a view to developing comparable criteria and
methodologies was perceived as a priority action line. In 2001 the European Ministers of
Education (Prague Communiqué, 2001) invited ENQA (European Association for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education) to collaborate in establishing the European quality
assurance framework by 2010. In 2003 the Ministers (Berlin Communiqué, 2003) engaged
ENQA to explore a peer review system for quality assurance agencies and to develop an
agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance. In 2005 the
European Ministers of Education adopted the "Standards and Guidelines for Quality
Assurance in the European Higher Education Area" drafted by ENQA (Bergen
Communiqué, 2005) and ENQA was accepted as a new consultative member of the
Bologna Follow-up Group. In 2007 (London Communiqué, 2007) the Ministers agreed on
setting up of EQAR (European Register for Quality Assurance Agencies) emphasising its
voluntary and independent nature. In 2009 the Ministers extended the quality assurance
framework to the establishment of national qualifications frameworks, learning outcomes
and workload (Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, 2009).
As graph VI.13 shows, the level of opinion suspended is high. Unpredictably the
awareness about the implementation of the credit system did not raise awareness as in a
small proportion the impact of the degree structure on the increase of students’ mobility.
Opinion suspended about European dimension is better explained by the lack of awareness,
whereas the issue was not entirely unfamiliar. Unexpectedly the impact of the Diploma
Supplement was mainly unknown.
294
Graph VI.13 – Opinion suspended about embeddeness of Bologna instruments
295
296
Focusing on rated opinions, the pedagogic reform at organisational field level was
perceived by 38% of respondents as fully implemented. This was the dimension perceived
as more positively embedded. This finding, together with the level of opinion suspended
about the implementation of the Bologna degree structure, questions the claim that
Bologna has already implemented the degree structure. One of the priority action lines of
Bologna was the establishment of the two-cycle degree structure (Bologna Declaration,
1999). The pedagogic reform as a new Bologna dimension appeared in the political
rhetoric linked to the establishment of the credit system based on the student workload (see
for instance the Tunning project). The shift from teaching to learning has emphasized the
notion of student workload. However, the very large percentage of suspended opinions
associated with perceptions about the implementation of credit system, as Table VI.36
shows, weakens the embeddeness of the pedagogic reform.
When discussing research findings it will be important to grasp the significance of the
pedagogic reform in terms of its association with Bologna’s priority action lines (e.g.
credit system, Diploma supplement and Bologna degree structure) as perceived at
European level. Also important will be to seize the impact of initiatives launched at
European and national levels as well as to depict the importance of specific dimensions
impacting teaching and learning (e.g. pedagogies, development of learning competencies,
flexible learning paths).
Focusing on the views about the impact of the Bologna degree structure, research findings
do not confirm employability as one of the main goals of policy implementation. Within
Bologna the goal was established in 1999 (Bologna Declaration, 1999) and in 2007 it was
identified as a priority (London Communiqué, 2007). Respondents perceived the Bologna
degree structure as having low impact on the improvement of the employability of
graduates.
In contrast, the other main goal of policy implementation focusing on mobility was high on
the agenda at the organisational field, despite 18% of the respondents having suspended
their opinion about the impact of the Bologna degree structure on mobility activities.
Actually, the Bologna degree structure and Diploma Supplement affected the enhancement
of mobility activities.
297
As the concept of mobility in Bologna is not clear-cut due to contradictory policy goals
aiming at enhancing the mobility within European countries and enhancing the
attractiveness of national education systems to non-European students, further analysis
should focus on the linkages that respondents established between the perceived impact of
the Bologna degree structure and the several dimensions of mobility.
The perceived impact of the Diploma Supplement was on the increase of mobility of
students and graduates suggesting the enhancement of vertical mobility activities (e.g.
between cycles of studies) within the Bologna process, eventually related to the capacity of
attractiveness.
The percentage of “do not know” answers was rather elevated for all the dimensions,
suggesting low awareness of the Diploma Supplement as a Bologna instrument in
consonance with the perception about its implementation. The proposition that the
Diploma Supplement was perceived at European level as a tool for promoting mobility and
employability deserves further exploration in the chapter discussing the research findings.
The impact of the credit system was mainly focused on the comparability of European
higher Education systems. However, the perception of its implementation generated mainly
suspended opinions, as table VI.43 shows. This suggests the need of further analysis for
grasping the meaning of the credit system.
The gap between the awareness about its implementation and the perception about its
impact is striking. The fact the administrative and management staff tended to agree more
with the impact of the Diploma Supplement in improving the legibility of European higher
education systems reveals their affinity with the topic and suggested to look at the
distribution of answers by the three Estates. Graph VI.14 (see page 299) illustrates the
distribution of answers controlling variable “the three Estates”.
Graph VI.14 confirms the administrative and management staff perceived clearly its major
impact to all the dimensions, except for the enhancement of attractiveness of European
higher education systems to foreign students. This finding upholds the position of the
administrative and management staff as privileged supporter of Bologna within the
298
Graph VI.14 – Perceived impact of the implementation of the credit system: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates”
299
300
Favourable opinions are almost evenly distributed amongst enhancement of academic
standards (e.g. institutional quality culture), enhancement of the European dimension of
quality assurance and progress towards accreditation. However, the latter two propositions
also receive a higher percentage of suspended opinion. Therefore it is not clear that
establishing the European quality assurance framework by 2010 is noticeable, except in the
pays politique. There is not a clear predominance of impacts of European quality assurance
mechanisms over the traditional use of internal quality mechanisms to promote academic
quality or over national systems of accreditation. How far the trend towards accreditation is
associated to environment forces at national level or at European level? Discussion of
results will bring out this dimension. On the internal dimensions of quality systems it was
interesting to observe that the assessment of the teaching quality was perceived as fully
implemented and more positively so by the administrative and management staff (graph
AD, Annex II, p. 135).
This finding suggest additional effort to understand the linkage respondents made between
the internal quality systems and the implementation of the pedagogic reform stated to be
fully implemented and carrying on the Bologna degree structure.
The perceptions about the impact of the Bologna core dimensions were more positive in
the case of the administrative and management staff. This finding underlines the
procedural aspects related to the impact of the Diploma Supplement and the internal
quality systems. Also interesting was to observe that the awareness about the
implementation of Bologna was also seen more positively by the administrative and
management staff. Historians also tended to show more rated opinions. Regarding groups
of respondents by universities, it is difficult to establish a pattern of answer for a rated
opinion. Medical doctors and the students are the groups of respondents most contributing
with suspended answers.
301
2.3 Weaknesses and success factors
2.3.1 Weaknesses of policy implementation
Question sixteen considered potential difficulties of implementation. Table VI.44 shows
the number and percentage of answers obtained in this question.
Table VI.44 – Perceived weaknesses of policy implementation: Number and percentages of
answers
16. In my university difficulties of implementation are related with frailties on the...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not know
16.1 consistency of
institutional policies
with policies and
strategies developed at
European level
150
17%
59
7%
79
9%
221
24%
212
23%
185
20%
16.2 consistency of
institutional policies
with policies and
strategies developed at
national level
130
14%
51
6%
79
9%
214
23%
267
29%
172
19%
16.3 participation of
higher education
institution in the
decision-making process
and agenda setting
121
13%
50
6%
73
8%
223
25%
265
29%
175
19%
16.4 adaptation of
different field of
specialisation to the
Bologna degree structure
117
13%
73
8%
85
9%
215
24%
273
30%
143
16%
16.5 dependency on
additional changes (e.g.
legal framework,
resource allocation)
105
12%
34
4%
58
6%
195
22%
350
39%
163
18%
Respondents agreed that in the university the difficulties of implementation concerned the
frailties listed. Aggregated results of “agree” and “partially agree” confirmed that all the
sub dimensions were difficulties, not emphasising any particular sub dimension.
302
Disaggregated results demonstrated that 25% of the respondents “agree” that difficulties of
implementation of the Bologna process are related with frailties on the participation of
higher education institutions in the decision-making process and agenda setting of
Bologna. There were a considerable percentage of respondents (17%) who “disagree” that
difficulties of implementation were related with frailties on the consistency of institutional
policies with policies and strategies developed at European level.
The highest percentage calculated based on all the answers reflected that 39% of
respondents overlooked the sub dimension related to the dependency on additional
changes. This share was the highest. However, all the other sub dimensions reflected very
high percentages of “no opinion”, all of them higher than the percentages of “agree”,
except for the consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies developed at
European level.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about difficulties of implementing Bologna
in relation to the selected frailties there was evidence of differences among all the groups
of respondents within the context variables under scrutiny (e.g. “university”, “disciplinary
field” and “the three Estates”) in the distribution of answers to this question as reported by
our respondents.
Within “university”, divergences emerged in assuming that difficulties of implementation
regarded frailties on the consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies
developed at European level, the participation of higher education institutions in the
decision-making process and agenda setting of Bologna, the adaptation of different fields
of specialisation to the Bologna degree structure and the dependency on additional
303
changes195. The consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies developed
at national level did not present any significant disparity196.
The illustration of the distribution of the answers is given in graph AE (Annex II, p. 137).
As shown in graph AE, respondents “agree” that the dependency on additional change was
one of the main difficulties. In addition, the participation of higher education institutions
in the decision-making process and agenda setting of Bologna was a frailty, except for
respondents from universities F and G who tended to “disagree” more with this item as
they also “disagree” more with the adaptation of different field of specialisation to the
Bologna degree structure and with the dependency on additional changes. Actually, the
percentages of “disagree” with the consistency of institutional policies with policies and
strategies developed at European level were noticeable.
from D tended to agree more that the consistency of institutional policies with policies and
strategies developed at European level was a frailty. Respondents from the University E
tended to be more positive in agreeing that the participation of higher education
institutions in the decision-making process and agenda setting of Bologna, the adaptation
of different field of specialisation to the Bologna degree structure, and the dependency on
additional changes fade the process of implementation.
In the context variable “disciplinary field”, statistically significant differences appeared in
perceiving that difficulties of implementation regarded frailties on the consistency of
institutional policies with policies and strategies developed at European level, the
consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies developed at national level,
the participation of higher education institutions in the decision-making process and
agenda setting of Bologna, and the adaptation of different fields of specialisation to the
195
196
p = 0.049; 0.001; p< 0.001; 0.002 Kruskal-Wallis H = 12.648; 22.436; 42.171; 21.061 df =6.
304
Bologna degree structure197. In relation to the dependency on additional changes no
relevant inequality was observed198.
The representation of the distribution of the rated perceptions is presented in graph AF
(Annex II, p. 139).
As can be seen, respondents from history “agree” more that frailties concerned the
consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies developed at national level,
whereas respondents from medicine and physics “agree” more that weakness related to the
dependency on additional changes. Respondents from law “agree” more with frailties
located on the consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies developed at
European level and on the dependency on additional changes.
Controlling the context variable “the three Estates”, statistically significant differences
appeared in recognizing that implementation difficulties concerned frailties in the
consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies developed at European
level199. In relation to limitations on the consistency of institutional policies with policies
and strategies developed at national level, the participation of higher education
institutions in the decision-making process and agenda setting of Bologna, the adaptation
of different fields of specialisation to the Bologna degree structure and the dependency on
additional changes no significant inequalities emerged200.
As can be seen, academic staff and students “agree” with all the propositions as frailties to
the implementation of Bologna, while the administrative and management staff mainly
disagreed with these weaknesses, and primarily with the perception that difficulties of
implementation concerned the consistency of policies with policies and strategies
developed at European level. Further inspection based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean
rank revealed that students tended to agree more with this weakness. The distribution of
the rated perceptions appears in graph VI.16 (see, p. 315).
197
199
200
198
305
Examining those who expressed qualitative opinions and those who stated “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” opinions about difficulties of implementation related with frailties on
the selected items there was evidence of differences among “the three Estates” in the
distribution of answers to this question by our respondents. Within “university”201 and
“disciplinary field” 202 no relevant disparity was found.
In the context variable “the three Estates” statistically significant divergences appeared in
all items203, except for the item that perceives the dependency on additional changes as a
frailty of the implementation process204.
each item of the question focusing on the weaknesses of policy implementation by
Table VI.45 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about weaknesses of policy
implementation
16.1 consistency of institutional
policies with policies and
strategies developed at European
level
16.2 consistency of institutional
policies with policies and
strategies developed at national
level
16.3 participation of higher
education institutions in the
decision-making process and
agenda setting of Bologna
201
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Adm. & mgmt. staff
(2,8)
Student (3,2)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (3,7)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (2,7)
Chi-square test p= 0.916; 0.713; 0.162; 0.353; 0.625.
Chi-square test p=0.134; 0.133; 0.646; 0.080; 0.078.
203
Chi-square test p= 0.001; 0.001; 0.019; p< 0.001.
204
202
306
16.4 adaptation of different field
of specialisation to the Bologna
degree structure
16.5 dependency on additional
changes
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (4,3)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
As shown in table VI.45 academic staff had more rated perceptions, while students had “no
opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
The test performed was not able to grasp the context variables mostly contributing for “no
opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions about dependency on additional changes, the item
that gathered the highest percentage of “no opinion” based on all the responses.
2.3.2 Success factors of policy implementation
Question seventeen judged potential success factors of policy implementation. Table VI.46
shows the number and percentage of answers obtained for this question.
Table VI.46 – Success factors of policy implementation: Number and percentages of
answers
17. In my university the most important success factors to implement the Bologna process are...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
17.1 institutional leadership (e.g.
clear objectives, strategies,
guidelines and orientations)
117
13%
77
8%
94
10%
194
21%
293
32%
137
15%
17.2 support structure (e.g.
administrative, information and
communication systems)
96
11%
63
7%
94
10%
224
25%
300
33%
132
15%
307
17. In my university the most important success factors to implement the Bologna process are...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
17.3 adequate resources (e.g.
financial and administrative)
87
10%
66
7%
94
10%
195
21%
335
37%
132
15%
17.4 adequate level of
institutional autonomy
129
14%
69
8%
109
12%
224
24%
237
26%
147
16%
Respondents agree with the success factors listed for policy implementation. Aggregated
results of “agree” and “partially agree” and of “disagree” and “partially disagree”, showed
that 36% of the respondents agreed that the adequate level of institutional autonomy was
an important success factor for policy implementation, whereas 22% of the respondents
disagreed with this factor. 35% of the respondents agreed that support structures were
promoting the implementation of the Bologna process.
Among those who expressed a “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinion, 37% had “no
opinion” about adequate resources as a success factor for the implementation of the
Bologna process. This percentage was the highest calculated based on all the answers. And
all the percentages recorded as “no opinion” were higher than the expression of “agree”.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about the changes targeting specific policy
areas there was evidence of differences among the groups of respondents within context
variables “university” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question
as reported by our respondents. In the case of “disciplinary field” we did not find relevant
discrepancies205.
205
308
Within the context variable “university”, statistically significant differences emerged for
the perception of support structures as a success factor for policy implementation206. For
the other items no significant disparities were found207.
The representation of the distribution of the rated perceptions is given in graph AG (see
Annex II, p. 141).
As shown in graph AG, respondents from the University F clearly agree that institutional
leadership, support structures and the adequate level of institutional autonomy were
successful factors for the implementation of Bologna. Respondents from the University C
obviously disagreed more with the institutional leadership as strength.
from the University C perceived more positively the support structures as a success factor
of policy implementation.
In the context variable “the three Estates”, statistically significant differences appeared
within the item of institutional leadership and support structures208. A propos of adequate
resources and adequate level of institutional autonomy no statistically significant
differences emerged.
Administrative and management staff agree with all the listed factors as success factors.
Academic staff agree more clearly with support structures.
Additionally, the percentage of students and administrative and management staff who
“disagree” with all these factors was rather high.
Further interest based on the Kruskal Wallis test mean rank showed that administrative and
management staff tended to be more affirmative about the institutional leadership, while
academic staff tended to be more positive about the support structures as a successful
206
208
207
309
factor for policy implementation. The representation of the distribution of the rated
perceptions appears in graph VI.17 (see, page 319).
Comparing the group of respondents who declared qualitative opinions and “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” about the successful factors for the implementation of the Bologna
process there was evidence of differences among the groups of respondents from different
context variables “university” and “the three Estates” in the distribution of answers to this
question as reported by our respondents. Within “disciplinary field” no significant
disparities emerged209.
In the context variable “university”, statistically significant differences emerged for the
institutional leadership and support structures210. On the subject of adequate resource and
adequate level of institutional autonomy211 no significant discrepancy appeared.
Inside the context variable “the three Estates” important divergences emerged for support
structures212 as for all the other items where there was confirmation of no differences213.
each item of the question focusing on the most important successful factors to implement
the Bologna process by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
209
Correlation coefficient p= 0.735; 0.536; 0.927; 0.767.
p = 0.035, 0.027.
211
p= 0.271, 0.488.
212
p= 0.10.
213
p= 0.251, 0.303, 0.747, 0.171.
210
310
Table VI.47 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about success factors of policy
implementation
17.1 institutional leadership
17.2 support structures
17.3 adequate resources
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
E (2,5)
G (2,0)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
University
E (2,7)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
As shown in table VI.47 respondents from the university E showed more rated perceptions,
while respondents from the University G had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
Respondents from the administrative and management staff had more “no opinion” and/or
The test performed was not able to grasp the main “the three Estates” contributing for “no
opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions about adequate resources, the item that gathered
the highest percentage of “no opinion” based on all the responses.
How the constituencies of higher education institutions perceived weaknesses and success
factors of policy implementation were dimension to assess with the aim of identifying
explanations for possible failures or achievements (mis)leading to the establishment of the
EHEA Table VI.48 shows the level of awareness about these factors influencing
implementation.
311
Table VI.48 – Level of awareness about weakness and success factors
SUB-DIMENSION
WHO TEND TO
BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
SUBDIMENSION
HOW?
(**)
BY
WHOM
?
(***)
Participation of HEIs in
the decision-making
process and agenda
setting of Bologna
E
Dependency on
additional changes
N/O
-
N/O
-
DIMENSION
Weaknesses of
policy
implementation
OPINION SUSPENDED
(39%)
(25% agree)
Success factors
of policy
implementation
Support structures
(25% agree)
C, Academic staff
Adequate
resources (37%)
(*) Results of Kruskal-Wallis test; (**) N/O – No opinion; (***) Results of Chi square test.
Opinion suspended exceeds the percentages of those expressing a rated opinion for all the
sub dimensions, except for consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies
developed at European level. Curiously the students were those that tended to agree more
with this weakness. For the first time this group emerged as inclined to agree more than
other groups of respondents while identifying a weakness.
As for the identification of success factors the percentages without rated opinion also
surpassed the percentages of a rated opinion.
Oddly, the sub components mostly holding opinion suspended either as weakness or as
success factor share the same nature. Both refer to resource allocation. Respondents do not
give a rated opinion about a dimension that is crucial to furthering Bologna at the
The distribution of opinion suspended on the level of awareness about weaknesses and
success factors appears in graph VI.15.
312
Graph VI.15– Opinion suspended about weaknesses and success factors of policy
implementation
As graph VI.15 shows, the level of opinion suspended derives more from elements
recognizable but unable to raise awareness (no opinion) than to very unfamiliar subdimensions (do not know). This finding suggests failure in grasping the adequacy of the
financial resources provided for policy implementation during its accomplishment.
In recognizing weaknesses and identifying success factors respondents agreed with the
existence of specific limitations and encouragements when expressing a rated opinion.
313
The weakness related to the participation of HEIs in the decision-making process and
agenda setting of Bologna contribute to question the claim that higher education
institutions were influencing the Bologna process. They are probably having some
influence through the participation of EUA but the association does not represent
academia, which was only involved in 2005214. This observation is important as it
challenges the assumptions of “top-down” or “bottom-up” implementation in the Bologna
process. Even in situations of open debate within the Bologna seminars there is lack of
evidence that the recommendations of those seminars always reflect all the views.
The analysis by “the three Estates” shows that the academic staff and students were able to
identify more consistently the weaknesses of policy implementation, which contrasts with
former circumstances where the administrative and management staff recurrently appeared
as more positive. In this case, the optimism of the administrative and management staff did
not contribute to the identification of existing weaknesses. Graph VI.16 illustrates the
distribution of answers across the three Estates (see page 315).
As seen in graph VI.16, academic staff and students “agree” with all the propositions as
weaknesses to the implementation of Bologna, while the administrative and management
staff mainly disagreed with these weaknesses, and primarily with the perception that
difficulties of implementation concerned the consistency of policies with policies and
strategies developed at European level. Further inspection based on the Kruskal-Wallis test
mean rank revealed that students tended to agree more with this weakness. This finding
corroborates the notion of the better integration of the administrative and management staff
with the pays politique.
Moreover, as respondents identified the adaptation of different fields of study of
specialisation to Bologna degree structure as hindering the implementation of Bologna it
will be worthwhile to explore the extent to which this weakness is linked to other flaws,
more specifically the lack of consistency of institutional policies with policies and
strategies developed at European and national level.
214
The EI Pan-European Structure was recognised as a consultative member of the Bologna Follow-up
Group. However, it is highly questionable how far academics fill represented by this organisation.
314
Graph VI.16 – Weaknesses of policy implementation: Distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates”
315
316
Regarding the success factors research findings show that the level of institutional
autonomy was considered adequate. This was an interesting finding since some of the
surveyed universities are located in two countries (e.g. Italy and Germany) where major
changes took place regarding institutional autonomy. In some cases the increase of
institutional autonomy in the perspective of higher education institutions lead to
proliferation of degree programmes, most of them second cycles (Fulton, et al., 2004;
Schwarz-Hahn & Rehburg, 2004). However, at European level there are recurrent claims
to increase institutional autonomy (Berlin Communiqué, 2003; Crosier, Purser, & Smidt,
2007). The next chapter will appraise further the association respondents made between the
adequate level of institutional autonomy and its increase.
Other important success factors include the role of institutional leadership and the
establishment of support structures. The academic staff tended to consider more positively
the support structures and the administrative and management staff was in favour of
institutional leadership. Both findings were insightful in alerting about the presence of
technical and procedural demands. In the case of the latter, the perspective of respondents
reinforced the role of institutional leadership within the Bologna process. In the case of the
former, it will be necessary to find possible linkages respondents made between support
structures with Bologna instruments (e.g. Diploma Supplement, credit system) to find out
the relevance of support structures. The analysis of responses controlling for the variable
“the three Estates” reassert the role of the administrative and management staff in
supporting new governance modes based on concentration of power at central level.
As graph VI.17 (see page 319) shows the administrative and management staff agrees with
all sub dimensions as success factors. Academic staff agree more clearly with support
structures, which show the requirement of Bologna for new arrangements regarding the
institutional reconfiguration. The difficulty is to see those arrangements without adequate
resources as the level of opinion suspended revealed about these dimensions.
Despite the percentages of “disagree” by administrative and management staff their
perception about success factors is more optimistic than the view about weaknesses of
policy implementation, denoting a pro-active approach.
317
The perceptions about weaknesses and success factors in terms of distribution of answers
across groups of respondents did not provide critical divergences. It was interesting to note
that all disciplinary fields surveyed tended to be more positive, at least, regarding one sub
component. As mentioned above the students, although in general being inclined to
suspend opinion, also emerged as a group of respondents formulating opinions about the
weaknesses of policy implementation.
2.4 Changes implemented as a result of the Bologna process
2.4.1 Organisational structures
Question eighteen considered potential changes implemented as a result of the Bologna
process affecting the configuration of organisational structures. Table VI.49 shows the
number and percentage of answers obtained.
Table VI.49 – Perceived changes on organizational structures: Number and percentages of
answers
18. In my university how do you assess the changes implemented as result of the Bologna process?
No change
Little
change
Moderate
change
Large
change
No opinion
Do not
know
18.1 Increased management and
administrative workload
113
12%
43
5%
72
8%
219
24%
277
30%
192
21%
18.2 Increased control by central
administration
140
15%
49
5%
136
15%
242
26%
115
13%
233
25%
18.3 Improved information/
communication systems
108
12%
122
13%
205
22%
236
26%
91
10%
156
17%
18.4 Improved or created new
university support structures
(e.g. services of students
counselling)
102
11%
151
17%
200
22%
237
26%
72
8%
147
16%
318
Graph VI.17 – Success factors: distribution of rated answers by “the three Estates”
319
320
Respondents agree that changes implemented as result of the Bologna process concerned
the sub dimensions referred. Aggregated results of “agree” and “partially agree” showed
that 48% of the respondents agreed with changes relative to the improvement of
information/ communication systems and the improvement or creation of new university
support structures. However, the aggregated results of “disagree” and “partially disagree”
also revealed rather high percentages for these two sub dimensions.
Among those who expressed “no opinion” and/or “do not know” there were 30% of the
respondents who declared “no opinion” about the increase of management and
administrative workload. This percentage was the highest calculated based on all the
answers. Furthermore, the percentages of “do not know” on the topic of the increased
management and administrative workload and the increased control by central
administration also recorded quite high percentages.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about the assessment of changes as a result
of the Bologna process there was evidence of differences among all groups of respondents
within the context variables under scrutiny (e.g. “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the
three Estates”) in the distribution of answers to this question as reported by our
respondents.
In the context variable “university”, statistically significant disparities appeared in the
increase of management and administrative workload, the increased control by central
administration and the improvement or creation of new university support structures215.
The item on the subject of improvement of information/communication systems presented
no disparities216.
The distribution of the rated answers appears in graph AH (Annex II, p. 143).
215
216
p = 0.021; p < 0.001; 0.001 Kruskal Wallis H = 14.871; 30.626; 26.160 df =6.
p= 0.245 Kruskal Wallis H = 7.911 df =6.
321
As shown in graph AH rated perceptions focused on “large change” about the increasing
management and administrative workload. Respondents from the University C clearly
recognized “no change” regarding the increased control by central administration.
from the University F tended to be more favourable on the idea that changes increased
management and administrative workload, respondents from the Universiry G were more
positive about the increased control by central administration and respondents from the
University E tended to be closer to the topic of improvement and creation of new university
support structures.
Inside the context variable “disciplinary field” statistically significant differences emerged
vis-à-vis the increased management and administrative workload and the increased
control by central administration217. A propos of the improvement of information/
communication systems and improvement or creation of new university support structures
no statistically significant differences emerged218.
Illustration of distribution of rated answers appears in graph AI (Annex I, p. 145).
As shown in graph AI, focusing on rated perceptions, respondents from history, law and
physics considered there was “large change” on the increase of management and
administrative workload, whereas respondents from history and law assigned “large
change” to the increased control by central administration.
history tended to be more affirmative about the assessment on changes related to the
increase of management and administrative workload, while respondents from law tended
to be closer to the idea that changes increased control by central administration.
217
218
p = 0.026; 0.005 Kruskal Wallis H = 9.237; 12.786 df =3.
322
Within the context variable “the three Estates” there was confirmation of statistically
relevant differences vis-à-vis all the items219.
Respondents perceived more clearly changes on the increase of management and
administrative workload.
Further analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank confirmed that the
administrative and management staff tended to be more positive about the recognition of
changes in all the suggested items. The distribution of the rated answers appears in graph
AJ (Annex II, p. 147).
Comparing the group of respondents who declared rated perceptions with the group of
respondents who stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” there was proof of statistically
significant differences in the distribution of answers as reported by our respondents vis-àvis the context variables “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”.
Within the context variable “university” there was evidence of relevant differences on the
subject of the increase of management and administrative workload, the increase control
by central administration and the improvement or creation of new university support
structures220. On the improvement of information/communication systems no statistically
significant differences appeared221.
In the context variable “disciplinary field” there was confirmation of statistically
significant differences in relation to the increase of management and administrative
219
Chi-square test p= 0.021; 0.004; 0.001.
221
220
323
workload and the improvement of information/communication systems222. For the other two
items no statistically significant differences appeared223.
For the context variable “the three Estates” significant differences emerged as regards the
increased control by central administration and the improvement of information/
communication systems224. For the other items no statistically significant differences
emerged225.
each item of the question focusing on the successful factors of policy implementation by
Table VI.50 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about perceived changes on
organisational structures
18.1 Increased management and
18.2 Increased control by central
administration
18.3 Improved information/
communication systems
18.4 Improved or created new
university support structures
222
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
A (2,3)
E (2,6)
Disciplinary field
-
Medicine (2,9)
The three Estates
-
-
University
A (2,7)
C (2,4)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Adm. & mgmt. staff
(3,5)
Student (4,8)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,4)
The three Estates
Student (2,8)
University
C (2,8)
F (2,7)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
-
-
224
Chi-square test p< 0.000, p = 0.016.
225
223
324
As shown in table VI.50 respondents from the university A showed more rated
perceptions, while respondents from universities E and F had more “no opinion” and/or
“do not know”. Respondents from medicine preferred “no opinion” and/or “do not know”
answers. Academic staff and the administrative and management staff had more rated
perceptions, while students stated more “no opinion” and or “do not know”.
The highest percentage of “no opinion” calculated based on all the answers about the
increased management and administrative workload originated mostly from respondents
from the University E and respondents from medicine.
2.4.2 Changes in the participation of different interest in the decision of
implementating the Bologna process
Question nineteen drew attention on potential changes in the participation of different
interests in the decision of implementing the Bologna process. Table VI.51 presents the
Table VI.51 – Perceived changes in the participation of different interest in the decision of
implementing the Bologna process: Number and percentages of answers
19. In my university how do you assess the changes in the participation of different interests in the decision
involved in the implementation of the Bologna process?
No change
Little
change
Moderate
change
Large
change
No opinion
Do not
know
19.1 Academic staff
60
7%
84
9%
149
16%
279
31%
172
19%
160
18%
19.2 Students
51
6%
100
11%
182
20%
209
23%
246
27%
113
13%
19.3 Administrative and
management staff
89
10%
135
15%
199
22%
185
20%
71
8%
226
25%
19.4 External stakeholders
with interests outside my
university
160
18%
103
11%
96
11%
104
12%
56
6%
380
42%
Respondents agree with changes in the participation of different interests in the decision
involved in the implementation of the Bologna process focusing on academic staff,
325
students and administrative and management staff. Aggregated results of “agree” and
“partially agree” showed that 47% of the respondents agreed that the participation of the
academic staff changed in the implementation of the Bologna process. Aggregated results
of “no change” and “little change” showed that 29% of the respondents reckoned “no
change” in the participation of external stakeholders with interests external to the
university.
The highest percentage calculated based on all answers showed that 42% of the
respondents “do not know” about changes in the participation of external stakeholders with
interests external to the university. The percentages of “no opinion” focusing on the
participation of academic staff and students were also relevant.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception about changes in the participation of
different interests there was evidence of differences among the groups of respondents
within context variables under scrutiny (e.g. “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the
three Estates”) in the distribution of answers to this question as reported by our
respondents.
Within “university”, divergences emerged in considerations about changes in the
participation of administrative and management staff and external stakeholders226. In the
participation of academic staff and students the distribution of answers did not show any
relevant discrepancy227.
Graph AK represents the distribution of the rated answers (Annex II, p. 149).
As shown in graph AK, focusing on rated perceptions, respondents from all the universities
perceived “large change” about the participation of academic staff and reckoned “no
226
227
326
change” about the participation of external stakeholders with interests outside the
university.
Further inspection based on Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents from
the University F tended to be more affirmative about changes in the participation of
administrative and management staff, while respondents from the University E tended to
be more positive about changes in the participation of external stakeholders in the
decision-making process involved in the implementation of Bologna.
The context variable “disciplinary field” showed pertinent differences a propos of changes
in the participation of academic staff, administrative and management staff and external
stakeholders228. For the subject of the participation of students no differences emerged229.
The distribution of the rated answers is given in graph AL (Annex II, p. 151).
As shown in graph AL, focusing on rated perceptions, higher percentages of respondents
recognized “large change” to the participation of academic staff in the decisions involved
in the implementation of the Bologna process. However, in history and physics these
shares were superior. Respondents from medicine recognized more clearly “no change”
regarding the participation of external stakeholders.
Complementary analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank showed that
respondents from history tended to be more optimistic about changes in the participation of
the academic staff and the administrative and management staff in decisions involved in
the implementation of Bologna, while respondents from law tended to be more positive
about changes in the participation of external stakeholders.
Within the context variable “the three Estates”, significant differences were observed for
changes in the participation of students and administrative and management staff230.
228
p = 0.256 Kruskal Wallis H = 4.047 df =3.
230
p = 0.026; p< 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis H = 7.279; 17.671 df =2.
229
327
Changes in the participation of academic staff and external stakeholders231 did not reveal
relevant divergences in the distribution of answers.
The distribution of the answers appears in graph AM (Annex II, p. 153).
As shown in graph AM, focusing on rated perceptions, the administrative and management
staff perceived “large change” on the participation of administrative and management staff.
Besides, further analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that the
administrative and management staff tended to be more affirmative about changes in the
participation of students and of themselves in the decision involved in the implementation
of Bologna.
Examining those who expressed rated opinions and those who stated “no opinion” and/or
“do not know” opinions about changes in the participation of different interests in the
decision involved in the implementation of Bologna there was evidence of differences
among groups of respondents within “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three
Estates” in the distribution of answers to this question by our respondents.
Within “university” important differences emerged for changes in the participation of
students and administrative and management staff232, while on the subject of changes in
the participation of academic staff and external stakeholders no discrepancies emerged233.
In the context variable “disciplinary field”, statistically significant divergences came up on
the subject of changes in the participation of academic staff, students and external
stakeholders234. For the participation of administrative and management staff no deviations
emerged235.
231
Chi-square test p< 0.001; p= 0.001.
233
234
Chi-square test p= 0.001; 0.001; 0.027.
235
232
328
As for the context variable “the three Estates” statistically significant divergences appeared
in all items236.
each item of the question focusing on changes in the participation of different interest in
the decision of implementing the Bologna process by indicating the highest adjusted
residuals.
Table VI.52 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about perceived changes in the
participation of different interest in the decision of implementing the Bologna process
19.1 Academic staff
19.2 Students
19.3 Administrative and management
staff
19.4 External stakeholders with
interests outside my university
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,2)
Medicine (3,3)
The three Estates
Student (3,2)
University
C (5,8)
A (4,6)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,9)
Law (2,5)
The three Estates
Student (3,9)
University
A (2,5)
G (2,0)
Disciplinary field
-
-
The three Estates
Student (4,7)
University
-
-
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,8)
The three Estates
Student (4,8)
As shown in table VI.52 respondents from the university C showed more rated perceptions,
while respondents from the University G had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
Respondents from physics demonstrated more rated perceptions. Respondents from
medicine and law suspended their opinions with higher percentages of “no opinion” and/or
“do not know”.
236
Chi-square test p= 0.001; p< 0.001; 0.001; 0.001.
329
The highest percentage calculated based on all the answers of “do not know” about the
perception on changes in the participation of external stakeholders in the decision involved
in the implementation of Bologna resulted from answers by respondents of medicine and
students.
How the constituencies assessed changes affecting reconfiguration of institutional
frameworks? Their views appear in table VI.53 underlying the most significant findings.
Table VI.53 - Changes implemented as a result of the Bologna process
SUB-DIMENSION
WHO TEND
TO BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
Increased control of central
administration
(26% agree)
G, Law, Adm. &
mgmt. staff
DIMENSION
Organisational
structures
Changes in the
participation of
different interest
in the decision of
implementing
Bologna
Improved
information/communication
systems
(26% agree)
E, Adm. & mgmt.
staff
Improved or created new
university structures
(26% agree)
Adm. & mgmt.
staff
Academic staff
(31% large change)
History
OPINION SUSPENDED
SUBDIMENSION
HOW?
(**)
BY
WHOM?
(***)
Increased
management
and
administrative
workload (30%)
N/O
E, Medicine
External
stakeholders
(42%)
D/K
Medicine,
Students
(*) Result of Kruskal-Wallis test; (**) N/O – No opinion, D/K – Do not know; (***) Result of Chi square test.
The percentage of respondents with opinion suspended was higher than the percentage of
respondents formulating rated perceptions. The level of opinion suspended focusing on the
recognition of changes implemented as result of the Bologna process affecting the
institutional reconfiguration and the changes focusing on the participation of different
interests was not high, generating mainly rated opinions.
330
The finding related to a high level of suspended opinions on the increase of management
and administrative workload may not fit with the recognition of support structure as a
success factor. On the other hand, as it was recognized, in smaller percentage (24%) as a
consequence of Bologna, further analysis should clarify the linkages established with the
increase of management and administrative workload (see chapter VII, p. 429).
All the other changes concern the institutional reconfiguration of the surveyed universities.
There is a clear input from mechanisms increasing the control and monitorisation
processes. Therefore, it will be important to grasp these changes. They set against new
patterns of institutional autonomy as the administrative and management staff have a
consistent tendency to present more positive opinions as graph AM (Annex II, p. 153)
shows almost the majority of respondents agree with changes in the participation of
different interests in the decision involved in the implementation of the Bologna process
focusing on academic staff, students and administrative and management staff.
Respondents agreed that the participation of the academic staff changed in the
implementation of the Bologna process. Aggregated results of “no change” and “little
change” showed that 29% of the respondents reckoned “no change” in the participation of
external stakeholders with interests external to the university. And the highest percentage
calculated based on all answers showed that 42% of respondents “do not know” about
changes in the participation of external stakeholders with interests external to the
university. The percentages of “no opinion” focusing on the participation of academic staff
and students were also relevant.
Further analysis should focus on the assessment of the participation of academic staff and
students in specific dimensions of Bologna related, for instance, to the calculation of
credits.
The most significant finding relates to perceptions of the administrative and management
staff on the dimensions covered in the institutional reconfiguration within the
implementation of Bologna.
331
3. Level of awareness about transformations, changes and impact on
teaching and learning
The third, and last, section of the questionnaire focused on changes in the teaching,
learning and research processes as perceived only by academic staffs. The aim of this
section was to grasp how academic staff assessed the implementation of Bologna in the
university in relation to changes in teaching and learning processes237. In this part of the
questionnaire manifestation of opinion suspended decreased radically.
3. 1 Changes in the teaching and learning process
3.1.1 Changes in the teaching/learning process as a consequence of implementing the
Bologna process
Question twenty assessed the changes associated with implementing the Bologna process
in the teaching/learning area. Table VI.54 gives the number and percentage of answers
obtained.
237
Comparisons between aggregated responses by groups of respondents stating rated opinions and “no
opinion” and/or “do not know” examining the context variable “university” were absent since the underlying
assumptions required to perform the Chi-square test were not met.
332
Table VI.54 – Perceived changes by academic staff in the teaching/learning process:
Number and percentage of answers
20. In my university how do you assess the changes associated with implementing the Bologna process in the
teaching/learning area?
No
change
Little
change
Moderate
change
Large
change
No opinion
Do not
know
20.1 Pedagogies
27
6%
67
15%
105
24%
152
34%
57
13%
35
8%
20.2 The development of flexible
learning paths
30
7%
62
14%
111
25%
144
33%
66
15%
24
5%
20.3 The development of learning
competencies
33
8%
64
15%
111
26%
128
30%
56
13%
39
9%
20.4 Number of formal contact hours
26
6%
56
13%
109
25%
126
29%
82
19%
35
8%
20.5 Level of participation of
students in learning/teaching
activities
23
5%
64
15%
114
27%
132
31%
64
15%
29
7%
20.6 Evaluation of teachers by
students
25
6%
74
17%
115
27%
124
29%
46
11%
43
10%
20.7 Evaluation of students by
teachers
20
5%
63
15%
105
25%
131
31%
60
14%
41
10%
20.8 Student workload to obtain the
final approval
20
5%
46
11%
94
22%
121
29%
101
24%
39
9%
Respondents agree that changes occurred in the teaching/learning process as a consequence
of implementing the Bologna process. Aggregated results of “large change” and “moderate
change” showed that 58% of the respondents recognized change on pedagogies, the
development of flexible learning paths and the level of participation of students in
learning/teaching activities. Percentages of “no change” were rather low. And the
percentages of “little change” were not higher than “moderate change”.
The percentages of “no opinion” and of “do not know” are not so elevated; still 24% of
respondents had “no opinion” about changes on the student workload to obtain final
approval.
333
Rated perceptions
Among those respondents who expressed a rated perception about changes associated with
implementing the Bologna process in the teaching/learning process there was evidence of
differences among the groups of respondents within context variables under scrutiny (e.g.
“university”, and “disciplinary field”) in the distribution of answers to this question as
In the context variable “university” there was evidence of statistically significant
differences with regard to pedagogies, development of flexible learning paths, development
of learning competencies, and number of formal contact hours238. Regarding the level of
participation of students in learning/teaching activities, the evaluation of teachers by
students, the evaluation of students by teachers and the student workload to obtain the
final approval no relevant divergences emerged239.
Graph AN represents the distribution of the rated answers (Annex II, p. 155).
As shown in graph AN, and based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank, respondents from
the University D tended to be more optimistic about changes on the topic of pedagogies
and development of flexible learning paths. Respondents from the University A tended to
be more positive about the development of learning competencies and respondents from the
University E tended to be closer to changes on the number of formal contact hours.
Within the “disciplinary field” there was evidence of relevant differences in the assessment
of changes on pedagogies, development of learning competencies, number of formal
contact hours, student workload to obtain final approval and evaluation of students by
teachers
238
240
. And there were no significant divergences in the judgment of changes
p = 0.002; 0.008; p <1 0.001; 0.003 Kruskal-Wallis H = 21.062; 17.352; 32.813; 20.221 df =6.
240
239
334
concerning the development of flexible learning paths, the level of participation of students
in learning/teaching activities and evaluation of teachers by students241.
Illustration of the distribution of rated answers appears in graph AO (Annex II, p. 157).
As shown in graph AO, focusing on the rated perceptions, respondents from history
recognized more clearly changes in all the items, except on the development of flexible
learning paths, on the development of learning competencies, on the evaluation of teachers
by students as respondents from law assigned higher percentages to these items.
Further examination based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from history tended to be more encouraging about large changes in pedagogies,
development of learning competencies and student workload to obtain final approval and
respondents from law tended to be more positive about large change in the evaluation of
students by teachers.
The comparison of respondents who declared rated perceptions and “no opinion” and/or
“do not know” opinions will proceed on the basis of the analysis of statistically significant
differences within the context variable “disciplinary field”. There was evidence of
divergences on the topic of pedagogies, development of flexible learning paths, number of
formal contact hours, level of participation of students in learning/teaching activities,
evaluation of teachers by students and student workload to obtain the final approval242.
Table VI.55 shows which respondents by disciplinary field answered “higher than
expected” regarding each item of the question focusing on changes in the teaching/learning
process as a consequence of implementing the Bologna process by indicating the highest
adjusted residuals.
241
242
p = 0.426; 0.667; 0.470 Kruskal-Wallis H = 2.783; 1.565; 2.532; df =3.
Chi-square test p= 0.009; 0.044; 0.031; 0.001; 0.047; p < 0.001.
335
Table VI.55 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about changes in
teaching/learning
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
20.1 Pedagogies
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,3)
20.2 The development of
flexible learning paths
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,1)
Medicine (2,2)
20.3 The development of
learning competencies
Disciplinary field
-
-
20.4 Number of formal contact
hours
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,8)
20.5 Level of participation of
students in learning/teaching
activities
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,6)
Medicine (2,7)
20.6 Evaluation of teachers by
students
Disciplinary field
-
Medicine (2,1)
20.7 Evaluation of students by
teachers
Disciplinary field
-
-
20.8 Student workload to obtain
the final approval
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,8)
History (2,7)
Respondents from physics had more rated perceptions, while respondents from medicine
had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
The highest percentage of “no opinion” calculated based on all the answers focusing on
changes on student workload to obtain final approval resulted mainly from respondents of
history.
3.1.2 Impacts of different elements associated to the definition of competencies in the
Bologna degree structure
Question twenty-one grasped the impacts of different elements related to the definition of
competencies in the Bologna degree structure. Table VI.56 presents the number and
336
Table VI.56 – Perceived impact by academic staff of different elements associated to the
definition of competencies in the Bologna degree structure: Number and percentages of
answers
21. In my university what is the impact of different elements related to the definition of competencies in the
Bologna degree structure?
No
impact
Little
impact
Moderate
impact
Major
impact
No
opinion
Do not
know
21.1 Definition of competencies
associated to degree programme and
to different units
36
9%
36
9%
77
19%
151
37%
42
10%
67
16%
21.2 Definition of learning objectives
associated to degree programmes and
to different units
31
8%
26
6%
87
21%
151
37%
53
13%
62
15%
43
10%
43
10%
99
24%
119
29%
40
10%
68
17%
32
8%
29
7%
64
16%
148
36%
69
17%
65
16%
21.3 Differentiation of profile of
qualification (e.g. applied vocational
as opposed to more theoretical
academic studies)
21.4 Distribution of credits bases on
the student workload associated to
degree programmes and to different
units
Respondents perceived impact of different elements related to the definition of
competencies in the Bologna degree structure. Aggregated results of “major impact” and
“moderate impact” showed that 58% of the respondents perceived the impact of definition
of learning objectives associated to degree programmes and to different units and 56% of
the respondents perceived the impact of definition of competencies associated to degree
programmes and to different units.
10% of the respondents assigned “no impact” to the differentiation of profile of
qualification under the scope of the Bologna degree structure.
On the top of “no opinion” or “do not know” 17% of the respondents stated “no opinion”
about that impact of distribution of credits based on the student workload associated to
degree programmes and to different units within the Bologna degree structure.
337
Rated perceptions
Along with those who expressed a rated perception, there was confirmation of statistically
significant differences in the groups of respondents within the context variables
“university” and “disciplinary field”.
In the context variable “university” a propos of the definition of competencies associated to
degree programmes and to different units, definition of learning objectives associated to
degree programmes and to different units and differentiation of profile of qualification243
statistically significant differences detected. On the item of distribution of credits based on
the student workload associated to degree programmes and to different units no relevant
differences emerged244.
The representation of the distribution of the rated perceptions is given in graph AP (Annex
II, p. 159).
As shown in graph AP, the analysis of rated perceptions demonstrated that all these items
had “major impact” in all the universities, except in the case of respondents from the
University C who perceived “moderate impact” to all the items. The definition of
competencies and learning objectives was most important for respondents from universities
A, B, D and E.
Further scrutiny based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank disclosed that respondents
from the University D tended to be more positive about the impact of the definition of
competencies and learning objectives under the scope of the Bologna degree structure.
Respondents from the University B tended to be more encouraging about the impact of
differentiation of profile qualification under the scope of the Bologna degree structure.
Within the context variable “disciplinary field” statistically significant differences emerged
only for the item that refers to the definition of competencies associated to degree
243
244
338
programmes and to different units and to the distribution of credits based on the student
workload245.
Graph AQ shows the distribution of the rated answers (Annex II, p. 161).
As pointed up in graph AQ the analysis of the rated perceptions emphasised that
respondents from history recognized “major impact” of definition of competencies,
learning objectives and differentiation profile of qualification, while respondents from
physics shared the same opinion about the distribution of credits.
Further inspections based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from history were more positive about the impact of the definition of competencies
associated to degree programmes and to different units courses. Respondents from physics
tended to be more encouraging about the impact of distribution of credits based on the
student workload under the scope of the Bologna degree structure.
Comparing the groups of respondents who stated rated perceptions and “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” there was evidence of statistically significant differences among the
groups within the context variable “disciplinary field” on the topic of distribution of credits
based on the student workload associated to degree programmes and to different units246.
For all the other items there was no evidence of significant differences247.
expected” regarding each item of the question focusing on the impacts of different
elements related to the definition of competencies in the Bologna degree structure by
245
247
246
339
Table VI.57 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the impact of different
elements associated to the definition of competencies in the Bologna degree structure:
Number and percentages of answers
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
21.1 Definition of competencies associated to
degree programmes and to different units
Disciplinary field
-
-
21.2 Definition of learning objectives
associated to degree programmes and to
different units
Disciplinary field
-
-
21.3 Differentiation of profile of qualification
Disciplinary field
-
-
21.4 Distribution of credits based on the
student workload associated to degree
programmes and to different units
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,0)
Medicine (3,7)
The highest percentage of “no opinion” calculated based on all the answers focusing on
changes on distribution of credits based on the student workload associated to degree
programmes and to different units resulted mainly from respondents of medicine.
3.1.3 Bologna degree structure and curricular reform
Question twenty-two weighed up the effects of the implementation of the Bologna degree
structure and curricular reform. Table VI.58 gives the number and percentage of answers
obtained.
340
Table VI.58 – Perceived impact of Bologna degree structure and curricular reform:
Number and percentages of answers
22. In my university the implementation of the Bologna’s degree structure and curricular reform...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No
opinion
Do not
know
21.1 develops students’ research
skills
25
6%
135
32%
77
18%
97
23%
52
12%
31
7%
21.2 develops students’
professional competencies
37
9%
117
28%
86
20%
97
23%
54
13%
30
7%
21.3 narrows professional
profiles of graduates
51
12%
92
22%
77
19%
92
22%
58
14%
45
11%
Respondents agreed with all the sub dimensions. Aggregated results of “agree” and
“partially agree” showed that 43% of the respondents agree that the implementation of the
Bologna degree structure and curricular reform developed students’ professional
competencies. However, the percentages of “partially disagree” are rather high, to be
precise 32% of the respondents “partially disagree” that the Bologna degree structure and
curricular reform developed students’ research skills.
The highest percentage calculated based on all the answers among those who expressed
“no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions, represented 14% of the respondents who
declared “no opinion” about the narrowing of professional profiles of graduates as a result
of implementing the Bologna degree structure and curricular reform.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed a rated perception there was evidence of statistically
significant differences among the groups of respondents within the context variables under
scrutiny (e.g. “university” and “disciplinary field”) in the distribution of answers as
341
Within the context variable “university”, significant differences emerged in the definition
of the professional profiles of graduates248. On the subject of development of students’
research skills and students’ professional competencies there were no confirmation of
divergences249.
The distribution of the answers comes out in graph AR (Annex II, p. 163).
As shown in graph AR, the analysis of rated perceptions emphasised that the percentages
of “partially disagree” were rather high for all the items.
Further attention based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from the University E tended to confirm that the implementation of the Bologna degree
structure and curricular reform narrowed the professional profiles of graduates.
Within the context variable “disciplinary field” also statistically significant divergences
came into view a propos of the definition of the professional profiles of graduates250. Other
items show no relevant disparities251.
The illustration of the distribution of the answers is presented in graph AS (Annex II, p.
165).
As shown in graph AS, the analysis of rated perceptions underlined that respondents from
physics “partially disagree” with all the propositions more clearly.
Further analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that the respondents
from history tended to be more in favour about the effect of the Bologna degree structure
and curricular reform in narrowing the professional profiles of graduates.
248
250
251
249
342
Comparing both the group of respondents with rated perceptions with the group of
respondents who stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” there was evidence of
statistically significant differences in the distribution of answers among groups of
respondents within the context variable “disciplinary field” vis-à-vis all the items252, except
on the subject of the definition of the professional profile of graduates253, as reported by
our respondents.
expected” regarding each item of the question focusing on the Bologna degree structure
and curricular reform by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
Table VI.59 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about impacts of Bologna
degree structure and curricular reform
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
22.1 develops students’ research skills
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,3)
Medicine (3,5)
22.2 develops students’ professional
competencies
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,8)
22.3 narrows professional profiles of
graduates
Disciplinary field
-
-
It was not possible to retrieve the groups of respondents contributing more to the highest
percentage of “no opinion” calculated based on all the answers focusing on the possibility
of the Bologna degree structure and curricular reform contributing to a narrowed
professional profile of graduates.
252
253
343
How academic staff perceived changes in teaching and learning? Changes associated with
implementing Bologna in the teaching/learning area were assessed jointly with the
perceived impact of elements associated to the definition of competencies in the Bologna
degree structure. Table VI.60 underlines the most significant findings.
Table VI.60 – Changes in teaching and learning processes as a consequence of
implementing Bologna
OPINION SUSPENDED
SUB-DIMENSION
WHO TEND
TO BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
SUBDIMENSION
HOW?
(**)
BY
WHOM?
(***)
Changes in
teaching and
learning
Pedagogies
(34% large change)
D, History
Student workload to
obtain final
approval (24%)
N/O
History
Definition of
competencies in
the Bologna
degree structure
Definition of
competencies and
definition of learning
objectives
(37% major impact)
D, History
Distribution of
credits based on the
student workload
associated to degree
programmes and to
different units
(17%)
N/O
Medicine
Bologna degree
structure and
curricular reform
Develops students'
research skills
(32% partially disagree)
E, History
Narrows
professional
profiles
(14%)
N/O
-
DIMENSION
(*) Results of Kruskal-Wallis test – (**) N/O – No opinion - (***) Results of Chi square test.
As table VI.60 shows, the academic staff recognized change in a wide range of sub
components related to teaching and learning. Major changes affected pedagogies (34%),
the development of flexible learning paths (33%) and the level of participation of students
in learning/teaching activities (31%). Percentages of “no change” were rather low.
Moreover, respondents perceived the impact of both definition of learning objectives
associated to degree programmes and to different units and definition of competencies
associated to degree programmes and to different units.
344
Graph VI.18 – Opinion suspended about changes in teaching and learning
345
346
Then, these findings should be better grasped by taking into consideration both the
implementation of pedagogic reform and the Bologna degree structure whereas the sub
component related to the student workload emerges as generating suspended opinion. In
the case of the dimension related to changes on teaching and learning, as historians
declared to agree on large change on changes in pedagogies it is intriguing that they
suspended opinion on changes in student workload to obtain final approval.
The distribution of opinion suspended about changes in teaching and learning appears in
graph VI.18 (see page 345).
As graph VI.18 shows, the level of opinion suspended derived mainly from dimensions
recognizable but unable to raise awareness (no opinion) as it is the case of student
workload to obtain the final approval. In the situation of differentiation of profile of
qualifications, the unfamiliar character of this sub dimension was responsible to increase
the level of suspended opinions (do not know). The element related to the distribution of
credits based on the student workload balances the character of being identifiable but
unable to raise rated opinions about it with the nature of being a totally new element for the
surveyed respondents.
Focusing on the subcomponents of the Bologna degree structure and curricular reform
research findings showed that the highest percentage of respondents partially disagrees that
the Bologna degree structure develops student’s research skills, which would reinforce
possible linkages between the Bologna degree structure and the more vocational profiles of
qualifications as opposed to more theoretical studies, an aspect to be examined in the
discussion of results. However, the differentiation of profile of qualifications was
perceived as impacting less in the Bologna degree structure as compared to the other sub
dimensions.
Additionally, within the dimension of the Bologna degree structure and curricular reform it
should be noted that the students’ professional competency was not seen as developing
within the Bologna degree structure as 28% of the respondents partially disagree with this
347
proposition. This finding makes more delicate the attainment of employability as a goal of
policy implementation.
Historians tended to be more encouraging regarding the sub components of pedagogic
reform and Bologna degree structure adaptations.
3.2 Perceived importance of Bologna instruments
3.2.1 Worth of the Diploma Supplement
Question twenty-three reviewed the importance of the Diploma Supplement. Table VI.61
stand for the number and percentage of answers obtained.
Table VI.61 – Perceived importance of Diploma Supplement by academic staff: Number
and percentage of answers
23. In my university the implementation of Diploma Supplement...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No
opinion
Do not
know
23.1 promotes the access of
graduates to the labour market
38
14%
60
22%
50
18%
43
15%
19
7%
69
25%
23.2 facilitates academic
recognition
33
12%
45
16%
35
13%
51
19%
51
19%
59
22%
23.3 improves the information
given to all stakeholders
52
19%
42
16%
25
9%
29
11%
19
7%
103
38%
Respondents disagree with the elements related to the worth of Diploma Supplement.
Aggregated results of “disagree” and “partially disagree” showed that 36% of the
respondents disagreed that the Diploma Supplement promotes the access of graduates to
the labour market. Percentages of “partially disagree” were comparable to those of
“partially agree” and the highest rated percentage calculated based on all the answers
represented 22% of the respondents who “partially disagree” with the sub dimension
already mentioned.
348
However, the highest percentage calculated based on all the answers represented 38% of
the respondents who “do not know” about the importance of the Diploma Supplement in
improving the information given to all stakeholders.
Rated perceptions
Among those who expressed rated perceptions there was evidence of significant
divergences in the distribution of answers among respondents within the context variables
“university” and “disciplinary field”, as reported by our respondents.
Within the context variable “university” there was confirmation of relevant discrepancies
on the subject of the promotion of access of graduates to the labour market and the support
to academic recognition254. With reference to the improvement of information given to all
stakeholders255 there were no differences.
The distribution of the answers appears in graph AT (Annex II, p. 167).
As pointed up in graph AT, the analysis of the rated perceptions emphasised the
percentages of “disagree” were rather high as reported by respondents from universities G
and B. Respondents from the University D were amongst the group who more “partially
disagree” with the worth of the Diploma Supplement in promoting the access of graduates
to the labour market. However, the pattern of answers differs a lot.
from the University C had a tendency to be more positive about the value of the Diploma
Supplement to promote access of graduates to the labour market and respondents from the
University A tended to be more enthusiastic about the worth of the Diploma Supplement to
facilitate academic recognition.
254
255
349
In the context variable “disciplinary field” there was proof of relevant discrepancies on the
same items (e.g. the promotion of access of graduates to the labour market and the support
to academic recognition256). As regards the improvement of information given to all
stakeholders257 no differences appeared.
The distribution of the answers appears in graph AU (Annex II, p. 169).
As pointed up in graph AU, the analysis of the rated perceptions emphasised that
respondents from law and respondents from medicine clearly “partially disagree” with the
idea that the Diploma Supplement promotes the access of graduates to the labour market.
Additionally, the percentages of “disagree” by respondents from medicine were rather
high.
physics tended to be more positive about the value of the Diploma Supplement to promote
the access of graduates to the labour market, while respondents from history tended to be
more affirmative about the value of the Diploma Supplement to facilitate academic
recognition.
Comparing the group of rated perceptions with the group of “no opinion” and/or “do not
know” there was evidence of statistically significant differences in the context variable
“disciplinary field”. On the topic of both the promotion of access of graduates to the
labour market and on the improvement of information given to all stakeholders there was
confirmation of differences258. A propos of the support of academic recognition no
differences emerged259.
256
p = 0.014; p< 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis H = 10.681; 22.975 df =3.
258
259
257
350
expected” regarding each item of the question focusing on the worth of the Diploma
Supplement by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
Table VI.62 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about the importance of
Diploma Supplement
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
“NO OPINION”
23.1 promotes the access of graduates to the
labour market
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,7)
23.2 facilitates academic recognition
Disciplinary field
-
-
23.3 improves the information given to all
stakeholders
Disciplinary field
Law (2,7)
History (2,2)
“DO NOT KNOW”
Respondents from law had more rated perceptions, while respondents from medicine and
history had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” answers.
The highest percentage of “do not know” calculated based on all the answers focusing on
the worth of the Diploma Supplement in improving the information given to all
stakeholders resulted mainly from respondents from history.
3.2.2 Worth of the credit system based on the student workload
Question twenty-four ensured the importance of the implementation of the system of
credits based on student workload. Table VI.63 shows the number and percentage of
answers obtained.
351
Table VI.63 – Perceived importance by academic staff about the credit system: Number
24. In my university the implementation of the system of credits based on student workload...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No
opinion
Do not
know
24.1 facilities academic recognition
28
10%
43
15%
49
18%
86
31%
47
17%
27
10%
24.2 fosters the adoption of ECTS
grading system (e.g. the system ranks
the students on statistical basis A, B,
C, D, E)
29
11%
17
6%
39
14%
87
32%
78
28%
26
9%
24.3 makes flexible the curricular
organisation
20
7%
64
23%
44
16%
82
29%
50
18%
19
7%
24.4 prevents overloaded curricula and
undue burden on learners
27
10%
53
19%
44
16%
86
31%
44
16%
24
9%
24.5 facilitates the participation in
lifelong learning activities
29
3%
61
6%
39
4%
71
7%
42
4%
37
4%
Respondents assessed positively the system of credits based on the student workload.
Aggregated results of “agree” and “partially agree” showed that 49% of the respondents
agreed that the system facilitates the academic recognition, 47% of the respondents agreed
that it prevents overloaded curricula and undue burden on learners, and 46% of the
respondents agreed that it fosters the adoption of ECTS grading system.
However, the idea that the credit system fosters the adoption of ECTS grading system
recorded the highest (32%) percentage of “agree” calculated based on all the answers also
got the higher percentage of “disagree”, although in lower proportion (11%).
Additionally, 28% of the respondents had “no opinion” about the value of the credit system
in fostering the adoption of the ECTS grading system.
352
Rated perceptions
Within the group of respondents who expressed rated perceptions there was evidence of
statistically significant divergences in the distribution of answers as reported by our
respondents in the context variables “university” and “disciplinary field”.
In the context variable “university” the significant disparities overlapped all the items260.
The illustration of the distribution of answers appears in graph AV (Annex II, p. 171).
As shown in graph AV, focusing on rated perceptions, there was a wide range of
preferences in ascribing value to the credit system.
the University D tended to be more positive about the value of the credit system based on
the student workload provided that it facilitated academic recognition and prevented
overloaded curricula and undue burden on learners. Respondents from the University A
tended to be more enthusiastic about all the other items.
In the context variable “disciplinary field” there were important divergences vis-à-vis the
value of the credit system in fostering the adoption of the ECTS grading system, the
avoidance of overloaded curricular and undue burden on learners and the promotion of
participation in lifelong learning activities261. For the remaining items there were no
relevant disparities262.
The illustration of the distribution of the answers appears in graph AW (Annex II, p. 173).
As shown in graph AW, focusing on rated perceptions respondents from history clearly
agreed with all the propositions. Respondents from law “partially disagree”, namely with
the proposition that the credit system prevents overloaded curricula and undue burden on
learners.
260
p = 0.031; 0.018; 0.023 Kruskal-Wallis H = 8.899; 10.113; 9.522; 17.234 df =3.
262
261
353
Complementary attention based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank showed that
respondents from history tended to be more positive about all the items where there was
evidence of statistically significant differences.
Examining those who expressed qualitative opinions and those who stated “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” opinions about the value of the credit system there was evidence of
differences among the groups of respondents within the “disciplinary field” in the
distribution of answers to this question as reported by our respondents.
Statistically significant differences emerged for all the items263.
expected” regarding each item of the question focusing on the worth of the credit system
based on the student workload by indicating the highest adjusted residuals.
Table VI.64 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended the importance of credit system
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
24.1 facilitates academic recognition
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,1)
Medicine (4,3)
24.2 fosters the adoption of ECTS
grading system (e.g. the system ranks
the students on statistical basis A, B,
C, D, E)
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,2)
Medicine (2,1)
24.3 makes flexible the curricular
organisation
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,0)
24.4 prevents overloaded curricula
and undue burden on learners
Disciplinary field
Law (2,1)
Medicine (2,8)
24.5 facilitates the participation in
lifelong learning activities
Disciplinary field
-
Medicine (2,5)
263
Chi-square test p< 0.001; p= 0.007; 0.011; 0.015; 0.031.
354
The highest percentage of “no opinion” calculated based on all the answers focused on the
worth of the credit system to foster the adoption of ECTS grading system resulted mainly
from respondents from medicine.
3.2.3 Calculation of credits
Question twenty-five assessed the participation of different constituencies in the
calculation of credits based on the student workload. Table VI.65 presents the number and
Table VI.65 – Participation of different interests in the calculation of credits: Number and
25. In my university how do you rate the participation of different constituencies in the calculation of credits based
on student workload?
No
participation
Little
participation
Moderate
participation
High
participation
No
opinion
Do not
know
25.1 Academic staff
16
6%
8
3%
34
12%
98
35%
88
32%
34
12%
25.2 Students (e.g.
surveys, participation in
governance boards)
19
7%
20
7%
83
30%
84
31%
20
7%
48
18%
Respondents considered there was “high participation” of students. Aggregated results of
“high participation” and “moderate participation” showed that 61% of the respondents
perceived the participation of students was high.
However, the percentages of “high participation” were close to those of “no opinion” on
the participation of the academic staff. 32% of the respondents had “no opinion” about the
participation of the academic staff.
355
Rated perceptions
Inside the group of respondents who expressed rated perceptions there was evidence of
statistically significant divergences in the distribution of answers as reported by our
respondents in the context variables “university” and “disciplinary field”.
The context variable “university” offered evidence for statistically significant divergences
on the topic of the participation of students264. Regarding the rating of the participation of
academic staff there were no relevant discrepancies265.
Graph AX shows the distribution of the rated answers (Annex II, p. 175).
As shown in graph AX, focusing on rated perceptions respondents from universities E and
D recognize “high participation” of academic staff, and students, respectively.
Respondents from the University G reckoned more clearly “no participation” of academic
staff as well as of students, although in smaller percentage.
from the University D tended to be more optimistic about the participation of students.
In the context variable “disciplinary field” on the item on the participation of academic
staff there was evidence of significant divergences266. The topic on the participation of
students acknowledged no significant differences.
The illustration of the distribution of the answers is presented in graph AY (Annex II, p.
177).
As shown in graph AY, the analysis of the rated perceptions showed that the respondents
from all disciplinary fields perceived “high participation” of academic staff in the
calculation of credits.
264
266
265
356
Complementary analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank showed that
respondents from history tended to be more positive about the participation of academic
staff in the calculation of credits.
Investigating the group of respondents who expressed qualitative opinions and those who
stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions about participation of the
constituencies in the calculation of credits, there was no evidence of differences in the
groups of respondents within the variable “disciplinary field” in the distribution of answers
to this question as reported by our respondents267.
As there was no proof of relevant deviations a propos of the participation of different
constituencies in the calculation of credits it was not possible to determine the origin of
more “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions on the basis of “disciplinary field”.
How the constituencies of higher education institutions perceived the relevance of the
Diploma Supplement and the credit system? Their significance was assessed by taking into
consideration the objectives the pays politique aims to fulfil with their implementation in
the pays réel. Table VI.66 presents the most relevant findings.
267
357
Table VI.66 – Relevance of Diploma Supplement and credit system
DIMENSION
SUB-DIMENSION
WHO TEND TO
BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
OPINION SUSPENDED
SUBDIMENSION
HOW?
(**)
BY
WHOM?
(***)
Improves the
information given
to stakeholders
(38%)
N/O
History
Worth diploma
supplement
Promotes the access
of graduates to the
labour market
(partially disagree
22%)
Worth credit
system based on
the student
workload
Fosters the adoption
of ECTS grading
system (agree 32%)
History
Fosters the
adoption of ECTS
grading system
(28%)
N/O
Medicine
Participation in
the calculation of
credits
Students
(high participation
31%)
D
Academic staff
(32%)
N/O
-
C, Physics
As table VI.66 shows the percentages of opinion suspended in assessing these dimensions
are rather high. Moreover, the perceived relevance of the Diploma Supplement in
promoting the access of graduates to labour market is as disappointing as it is the sub
component related to the improvement of information given to stakeholders as this
instrument aims at acting as a vehicle of information about the qualification awarded.
Research findings confirm the lack of awareness about the objectives of proceduralism
associated to Bologna.
Focusing on the perceived relevance of the credit system by the academic staff it is striking
that the element, which mustered agreement, is also the component gathering more opinion
suspended. This question the perceptions about the purposes and value of the credit system
based on the student workload, which is unexpected.
Moreover, the findings related to the application of the credit system to lifelong learning
activities also question the attainment of lifelong learning as a policy goal. Academic staff
358
established no relevant linkage between the implementation of the credit system and the
participation in lifelong learning activities.
The assessment of the participation of different constituencies in the calculation of credits
based on the student workload showed high participation of students even if the percentage
of “moderate participation” was rather high. Therefore, discussion of results should
consider this rather unclear perception.
Historians were those inclined to be more enthusiastic in assessing the relevance of the
Diploma Supplement and of the credit system.
3.3 Institutional autonomy and academic freedom
Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are sensitive dimensions within the Bologna
process. Institutional autonomy affects the relationship between national government and
higher education institutions and academic freedom is inherent to academic activity.
3.3.1 Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis institutional autonomy
Question twenty-six looked into the perceptions about specific implications of
implementing the Bologna process versus institutional autonomy. Table VI.67 gives for the
359
Table VI.67 – Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis institutional autonomy: Number and
percentage of answers
26. Here are some statements about implementing the Bologna process in your university vis-à-vis the institutional
autonomy, what are your views?
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No
opinion
Do not
know
26.1 increases institutional autonomy
in designing curricular reform
36
13%
75
27%
57
21%
51
18%
24
9%
33
12%
in recruiting students
37
13%
89
32%
64
23%
42
15%
15
5%
28
10%
in recruiting, selecting and promoting
academic staff
35
13%
102
38%
61
22%
41
15%
5
2%
28
10%
Respondents disagreed that institutional autonomy increased in relation to the
implementation of Bologna. Aggregated results of “disagree” and “partially disagree”
showed that 51% disagree that institutional autonomy increased in relation to the
recruiting, selection and promotion of academic staff.
The percentages of opinion suspended were rather low. 12% of respondents stated, “do not
know” about an increase of institutional autonomy in designing the curricula vis-à-vis the
implementation of Bologna.
Rated perceptions
Among those who stated rated perceptions there was evidence of statistically significant
differences among the groups of respondents within the context variables “university” and
“disciplinary field”.
In the context variable “university” there was evidence of relevant discrepancies on all the
subjects268.
Graph AZ shows the distribution of the answers (Annex II, p. 179).
268
p = 0.003; p< 0.001; p= 0.008 Kruskal Wallis H = 19.807; 28.867; 17.323 df =6.
360
As shown in graph AZ, the analysis of the rated perceptions underlined that respondents
from the University D agree more obviously with the increase of institutional autonomy in
designing curricular reform and in recruiting students. Respondents from the University B
“partially disagree” more notably with all the items listed. In the case of the item focusing
on the increase of institutional autonomy in recruiting students respondents from the
University A had a similar percentage.
Further attention based on the Krusal-Wallis test based on mean rank revealed that
respondents from the University D tended to be more optimistic about the implementation
of Bologna vis-à-vis the increase of institutional autonomy in designing the curricular
reform, while respondents from the University E were more in favour of the increase of
institutional autonomy in recruiting students. Respondents from the University B tended to
agree less that the implementation of Bologna increases institutional autonomy in
recruiting, selecting and promoting academic staff.
Within the context variable “disciplinary field” there were also relevant discrepancies on
all the topics269.
The distribution of the rated answers appears in graph BA (Annex II, p. 181).
As shown in graph BA, the calculation of percentages by disciplinary field based on rated
perceptions reveals that “disagree” and “partially disagree” were the preferred choices.
Complementary investigation based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank confirmed that
respondents from physics tended to be more positive about implementing Bologna vis-àvis an increase of institutional autonomy, for all the items.
Studying the group of respondents who expressed qualitative opinions and those who
stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions there was no evidence of differences in
269
p = 0.002; p < 0.001; p= 0.032 Kruskal-Wallis H = 15.284; 21.055; 8.796 df =3.
361
“disciplinary field” in the distribution of answers to this question as reported by our
respondents270.
3.3.2 Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic freedom
Question twenty-seven explored changes in the area of academic freedom as a
consequence of implementing Bologna. Table VI.68 gives the number and percentage of
answers obtained.
Table VI.68 – Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic freedom: Number and
27. What has changed specifically as a result of the implementation of the Bologna process in your university in
the area of academic freedom?
No
change
Little
change
Moderate
change
Large
change
No
opinion
Do not
know
27.1 I am free to design my course(s)
within the study programme
14
5%
75
28%
78
29%
67
25%
21
8%
17
6%
27.2 There is strong interference from
other academic staff members in inducing
changes in my course(s)
18
7%
97
36%
83
31%
44
16%
15
6%
15
6%
governing board of my faculty/ department
in inducing changes in my course(s)
19
7%
91
33%
73
27%
50
18%
20
7%
19
7%
governing board of my university in
inducing changes in my course(s)
21
8%
113
42%
61
23%
33
12%
20
7%
21
8%
national government in inducing changes
in my course(s)
20
7%
118
44%
54
20%
25
9%
22
8%
28
10%
Respondents perceived modest change regarding the area of academic freedom as a result
of implementing the Bologna process. Aggregated results of “no change” and “little
change” showed that 58% of the respondents perceived no change regarding the
270
Chi-square test p= 0.078; 0.200; 0.109.
362
interference from external stakeholders with interests outside the university in inducing
changes in their courses.
Aggregated results of “large change” and “moderate changed” showed that 47% of the
respondents recognized changes regarding the interference from other academic staff
members in inducing changes in their courses.
Among those who stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions, 19% of the
respondents voiced “do not know” about stronger interference from external stakeholders.
The percentages recorded for all the other sub dimensions were rather low.
Assessing changes affecting academic freedom, the modest change on the perceived
interference of external stakeholders should not obscure that the academic staff perceived
also little change in the interference from the national government and from the governing
board of the university. However, aggregated results of “large change” and “moderate
changed” showed that 47% of respondents recognized changes regarding the interference
from other academic staff members in inducing changes in their courses.
These findings suggest there were no large changes in these areas. It should be noted that
regarding the dimension of institutional autonomy its sub dimensions were generating
disagreement across universities, which might suggest that different national contexts
contribute to shifting reasoning about institutional autonomy.
Rated perceptions
There was evidence of statistically significant differences among the groups of respondents
within the context variables “university” and “disciplinary field” in the distribution of
answers of those who stated rated perceptions.
363
In the context variable “university” there were relevant disparities on the subject that
examines the changes on the interference from national government in inducing changes in
their courses271. For the remaining items no divergences were found272.
The distribution of the rated answers is presented in graph BB (Annex II, p. 183).
As shown in graph BB, the analysis of rated perceptions showed that respondents from the
University G perceived more “little change on the degree of freedom to design the courses
with in the study programme. Focusing on other areas of academic freedom respondents
from the University G perceived “little change”.
Additional analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from the University D tended to be more affirmative about changes on the topic that
acknowledged stronger interference from national government.
In the context variable “disciplinary field” there were relevant differences on the subject of
all the items273, not including the interference of external stakeholders274 as discrepancies
were unimportant.
Graph BC represents the distribution of the rated answers (Annex II, p. 185).
As shown in graph BC, the analysis of the rated perceptions revealed that the respondents
perceived “little change” predominately in items focusing on changes stemming from
outside the departmental level. Respondents perceived more changes in the items closer to
them as academic staff members.
respondents from law tended to be more positive in distinguishing changes in the freedom
to design specific courses within the study programme. Respondents from physics tended
to be more in agreement with changes in the interference of other academics staff members
271
p = 0.003 Kruskal-Wallis H = 20.048; df =6.
273
p= 0.023; 0.001; 0.046; 0.014; 0.003 Kruskal-Wallis H = 9.579; 16.881; 7.979; 10.641; 13.850 df =3.
274
p= 0.171 Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.014 df =3.
272
364
in inducing changes, in the interference from the governing board located at departmental
level, interference from the governing board of my university and in the interference from
the national government in inducing changes.
Comparing those who expressed rated perceptions and those who stated “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” opinions about implementing Bologna a propos of academic
freedom there was evidence of statistically significant differences within the context
variable “disciplinary field”. These differences emerged on the subject of the freedom to
design specific courses within study programmes, stronger interference from other
academic staff members and from national government in inducing changes275. Other items
revealed no divergences276.
each item of the question focusing on changes in the area of academic freedom by
Table VI.69 – Rated perceptions versus opinion suspended about implementing Bologna
vis-à-vis academic freedom
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
27.1 I am free to design my course(s)
within the study programme
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,1)
other academic staff members in inducing
changes in my course(s)
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,0)
governing board of my faculty/department
in inducing changes in my course(s)
Disciplinary field
-
-
governing board of my university in
inducing changes in my course(s)
Disciplinary field
-
-
275
276
Chi-square test p= 0.041; 0.017; 0.030.
Chi-square test p= 0.512; 0.180; 0.189.
365
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
external stakeholders with interests
outside the university in inducing changes
in my course(s)
Disciplinary field
-
-
national government in inducing changes
in my course(s)
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,8)
As shown in table VI.69 respondents from physics had more rated perceptions, while
respondents from medicine had more “no opinion” and/or “do not know”.
The source of “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions about the perception of
stronger interference from external stakeholders was not possible to determine.
Any change on institutional autonomy affects policy implementation. Interference in
academic activities by other academic staff member, the governing board of the university,
the national government or external stakeholders have an impact on academic freedom.
How academic staff perceived changes associated to these dimensions? Table VI.70 shows
most significant findings.
Table VI.70 – Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis institutional autonomy and academic
freedom
DIMENSION
SUB-DIMENSION
Implementing
Bologna versus
institucional
autonomy
Increases institutional
autonomy in recruiting,
selecting, and promoting
academic staff
(38% partially disagree)
Implementing
Bologna versus
academic
freedom
Interference of external
stakeholders
(45% little change)
OPINION SUSPENDED
WHO TEND TO
BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
SUBDIMENSION
HOW
?
(**)
BY WHOM?
(***)
B, Physics
Increases in
designing
curricular reform
(12%)
D/K
-
Law
Interference of
external
stakeholders
(19%)
N/O
-
366
As table VI.70 shows respondents did not suspend their view in assessing these
dimensions. The research finding on the level of disagreement about Bologna as extending
institutional autonomy in recruiting, selecting, and promoting academic staff contributes to
question the claim that institutional autonomy is in the Bologna’s agenda. Further analysis
would clarify whether this finding connects to the perceived success factor of adequate
level of institutional autonomy to carry out the reforms.
3.4 Academic work
3.4.1 Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic role
Question twenty-eight explored the modifications on the academic role. Table VI.71 stands
for the number and percentage of answers obtained.
Table VI.71 – Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic role: Number and percentages of
answers
28. How does implementing the Bologna Process is modifying your academic role...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
28.1 Increases the time to
teaching/ learning activities
(e.g. including tutorial
activities)
11
4%
45
17%
38
14%
69
25%
96
35%
12
4%
28.2 Increases academic
standards
16
6%
98
36%
67
24%
55
20%
18
7%
22
8%
28.3 Increases academic
19
7%
17
6%
16
6%
74
27%
133
49%
15
5%
28.4 Increases time for writing
research proposals
27
10%
72
26%
36
13%
49
18%
73
27%
16
6%
28.5 Increases the pressure to
publish
20
7%
76
27%
36
13%
58
21%
73
26%
15
5%
367
28. How does implementing the Bologna Process is modifying your academic role...
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No opinion
Do not
know
28.6 Increases time spent on
entrepreneurial activities
39
14%
86
31%
33
12%
44
16%
41
15%
32
12%
28.7 Increases the level of job
satisfaction
19
7%
122
45%
53
19%
44
16%
19
7%
16
6%
Respondents either disagree or agree with specific sub dimensions. Aggregated results of
disagree and “partially disagree” and of “partially agree” and “agree” showed that the
majority of respondents disagree that implementing Bologna was increasing the level of
job satisfaction. 52% of the respondents showed that position. And 44% of the respondents
agreed that implementing Bologna was increasing academic standards.
However, 49% of the respondents declared “no opinion” about the increase of academic
administrative workload as a consequence of the implementation of Bologna. This was the
highest percentage and most of the other sub dimensions also gathered rather high
percentages of “no opinion”.
Rated perceptions
There was evidence of statistically significant differences in the distribution of rated
perceptions as reported by our respondents within the context variable “university” and
“disciplinary field”.
Within “university” relevant discrepancies emerged on the subject of writing research
proposals277 as all the remaining items showed not significant divergences278.
Graph BD shows the distribution of the answers (Annex II, p. 187).
277
278
p= 0.088; 0.407; 0.666; 0.425; 0237; 0.787 Kruskal-Wallis H = 10.998; 6.144; 4.081; 5.988; 8.020; 3.169
df =6.
368
As shown in graph BD, rated perceptions by university revealed that the increase of
academic administrative workload was subject to major agreement. Respondents from
Universities D and G expressed more clear positions.
A further inspection based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from the University C tended to be more positive about the proposal that implementing the
Bologna process increased the time to write research proposals.
Within the context variable “disciplinary field” there was evidence of statistically
significant differences in the distribution of answers on the subject of increasing academic
administrative workload279. The remaining topics did not show relevant differences in the
distribution of answers280.
The distribution of the rated answers is given in BE (Annex II, p. 189).
As can be seen, this proposition collected in general more “agree”, except from the
respondents from medicine who answered more with “disagree”.
Additional analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank showed that respondents
from law tended to be more affirmative about the idea that implementing the Bologna
process increased academic administrative workload.
Examining those who expressed rated perceptions and those who stated “no opinion”
and/or “do not know” opinions about the implementation of Bologna and changes on the
academic role, the context variable “disciplinary field” was tested and significant
differences appeared in the distribution of answers as reported by our respondents.
279
280
p= 0.131; 0.071; 0.057; 0.391; 0.403; 0.276 Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.631; 7.028; 7.509; 3.001; 2.929; 3.868
df =3.
369
Among “disciplinary field” divergences appeared in all propositions281, except on the
subjects of writing research proposals and time spent on entrepreneurial activities282.
expected” regarding each item of the question focusing on changes in the academic role as
a consequence of implementing the Bologna process by indicating the highest adjusted
residuals.
vis-à-vis academic work
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
28.1 Increases the time to
teaching/learning activities
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,5)
History (3,6)
28.2 Increases academic standards
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,5)
Medicine (2,9)
28.3 Increases academic administrative
workload
Disciplinary field
Law (2,7)
Medicine (2,4)
28.4 Increases time for writing research
proposals
Disciplinary field
-
-
28.5 Increases the pressure to publish
Disciplinary field
Physics (2,6)
History (2,4)
28.6 Increases time spent on
entrepreneurial activities
Disciplinary field
-
-
28.7 Increases the level of job
satisfaction
Disciplinary field
Physics (3,2)
Medicine (5,4)
The highest percentage of “no opinion” based on all the answers focused on the increase of
academic administrative workload resulted mainly from the respondents of medicine.
281
282
Chi-square test p= 0.002; 0.015; 0.002; 0.027; p< 0.001.
Chi-square test p= 0.377; 0.230
370
3.4.2 Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic work
Question twenty-nine investigated the impacts of Bologna on academic work. Table VI.73
Table VI.73 – Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic work: Number and percentages of
answers
29. Here are some statements about implementing the Bologna process in your university vis-à-vis your
academic work, what are your views?
Disagree
Partially
disagree
Partially
agree
Agree
No
opinion
Do not
know
29.1 Bologna induces a new
equilibrium between values and
practices in the way I conduct
teaching and research
25
9%
59
21%
31
11%
79
29%
61
22%
20
7%
29.2 Bologna is part of the new
27
10%
60
22%
35
13%
79
29%
50
18%
23
8%
29.3 Bologna does not impact core
values and practices embedded in
the way I conduct teaching and
research
27
10%
70
25%
55
20%
54
19%
57
21%
14
5%
Respondents agree that Bologna had an effect on academic work. Nevertheless the
percentages of “partially disagree” were all of them rather high. Aggregated results of
“partially agree” and “agree” showed that 42% of the respondents agree that Bologna is
part of the new equilibrium between values and practices in the way [I] conduct teaching
and research. However, 39% of the respondents also agree that Bologna does not impact
core values and pracitices embedded in the way [I] conthe duct teaching and research.
Percentages of “no opinion were rather high. 21% of respondents had “no opinion” about
the statement that focused on Bologna as inducing a new equilibrium under the scope of
academic work. The other two statements collected similar percentages.
371
Rated perceptions
There was evidence of statistically significant differences in the distribution of rated
perceptions as reported by our respondents in the context variable “university”. Within the
context variable “disciplinary field” there were not significant divergences283.
Controlling the context variable “university” relevant discrepancies emerged on the
statements focusing on Bologna as inducing a new equilibrium and on Bologna as part of
a new equilibrium284, while on the proposal assigning no impact to Bologna no significant
divergences appeared285.
Graph BF shows the distribution of the rated answers (Annex II, p. 191).
As shown in graph BF, rated perceptions presented similar percentages for “agree” and
“partially disagree”. Respondents from the University G had the highest percentages for
“disagree”. Respondents from the University A had the highest percentages for “agree” at
least for the first two statements.
Further scrutiny based on the Kruskal-Wallis test mean rank revealed that respondents
from the University C tended to be more positive about the statement that focuses Bologna
as inducing a new stability and respondents from the University A tended to be more
affirmative about Bologna as part of a new equilibrium.
Exploring the group of those who expressed rated perceptions and the group of those who
stated “no opinion” and/or “do not know” opinions about the implementation of Bologna
and changes on the academic role, the context variable “disciplinary field” was tested and
significant differences appeared in the distribution of answers as reported by our
respondents.
283
p= 0.080; 0.096; 0.439 Kruskal-Wallis H = 6.771; 6.352; 2.705 df =3.
p= 0.000; 0.000 Kruskal-Wallis H = 32.748; 29.977 df =6.
285
284
372
In “disciplinary field” discrepancies appear in all the propositions286, except on the subject
assigning no impact of Bologna on academic work287.
expected” regarding each item of the question focusing on changes of academic work as a
consequence of implementing the Bologna process by indicating the highest adjusted
residuals.
vis-à-vis academic work
CONTEXT
VARIABLES
RATED
PERCEPTIONS
OPINION
SUSPENDED
29.1 Bologna induces a new
Disciplinary field
Medicine (2,5)
29.2 Bologna is part of the new
Disciplinary field
Medicine (3,2)
29.3 Bologna does not impact core
values and practices embedded in the
way I conduct teaching and research
Disciplinary field
-
-
Respondents from medicine had more opinion suspended.
How far Bologna affects academic work? Looking at the strength of Bologna in inducing
changes in teaching and learning gave an indication about the perceived modification of
the academic role. Table VI.75 presents the most significant dimensions.
286
287
373
Table VI.75 – Implementing Bologna vis-à-vis academic work
DIMENSION
SUB-DIMENSION
Academic role
Increases the level of
job satisfaction
(45% partially
disagree)
Bologna induces a new
equilibrium
Academic work
WHO TEND TO
BE MORE
POSITIVE?
(*)
SUBDIMENSION
HOW?
(**)
BY
WHOM?
(***)
C, Law
Increases
academic
administrative
workload (49%)
N/O
Medicine
Bologna induces a
new equilibrium
(22%)
N/O
Medicine
C
(29% agree)
Bologna is part of a
new equilibrium
(29% agree)
OPINION SUSPENDED
A
As table VI.75 shows, respondents perceived the academic role changing as the time to
teaching and learning activities is increasing as well as the academic and administrative
workload. Academic standards are not increasing, the same being true for the time for
writing proposals, the time spent on entrepreneurial activities and the level of job
satisfaction. This finding reveals how Bologna is modifying the academic role, even if in a
subtle way. It was the first time that a perception focusing on the increase academic
administrative workload appeared, although balanced by the suspension of opinion by 49%
of the respondents, which was unexpected. It may be well that academic administrative
workload affected differently respondents as institutional reconfiguration kept making new
demands.
Further analysis will focus on the linkages established between these sub dimensions of the
academic role to grasp the extent to which the lack of increase of the level of job
satisfaction is related to any of these elements.
Respondents agree that Bologna has an effect on academic work. Nevertheless the
percentages of “partially disagree” were all of them rather high. Respondents agree that
374
Bologna is part of the new equilibrium between values and practices in the way [I]
conduct teaching and research. However, 39% of the respondents also agree that Bologna
does not impact core values and pracitices embedded in the way [I] conduct teaching and
research.
Percentages of “no opinion” were rather high. 21% of the respondents had “no opinion”
about the statement that focused on Bologna as inducing a new equilibrium under the
scope of academic work. The other two statements collected similar percentages. Trying to
discern the range of influence of Bologna on academic work, further analysis should
clarify which are the dimensions of the reform linked to the new equilibrium between
values and practices eventually promoted by Bologna.
Conclusion
The findings presented show how Bologna puzzled the pays réel and stunned the pays
politique. The dimensions covered in the survey elicited a wide range of contradictory
views between groups of respondents. Few elements were consensual (e.g. cultural
rationales, reduction of public expenditure, governance reform, perceived impact of the
Bologna degree structure, etc.) which hint at differences in arguments and different
perceptions about external pressures.
In general, respondent groups who tended to agree more were historians and the
administrative and management staff, while respondents from University F (Norway),
medical doctors and the students were contributing more obviously to the percentages of
opinion suspended. Academic staff contributed with more rated opinions.
Historians were particularly keen on the changes in teaching and learning. Medical doctors
in general suspended their opinion, relying on a large percentage of “no opinion” and/or
375
Administrative and management staff tended to be more enthusiastic showing a proactive
approach towards the development of a competitive European higher education market,
internationalisation, the perceived impact of European programmes, the significant
European content of courses and curricula, the recognition procedures of European and
foreign degrees, the perceived impact of Bologna degree structure, support structures, the
perceived
increase
control
by
central
administration,
the
improvement
of
information/communication systems, setting up new university structures.
Academic staff were more positive in their perception of the impact of quality assurance
mechanisms progressing towards accreditation. The expression of a rated opinion
outnumbered other groups of respondents, revealing more understanding about the issue.
As the sample is not representative to allow comparisons by country, the findings
controlling for the variable “university” were just insightful in showing the extent to which
institutional strategies and policies steer the implementation of the Bologna process. To
this account the relevance of institutional leadership appeals to the reconfiguration of
institutional frameworks, although it is not clear this is a direct consequence of Bologna.
Other dimensions focusing for instance, on performance indicators, rankings and league
tables surface in the environment of higher education institutions.
These multiple interpretations reinforce the role of the administrative and management
staff as privileged interlocutor between the pays politique and the pays réel, while it
confirms the apparently marginal role of students. Interpretations across disciplinary fields
confirm the relevance of academic cultures for policy embeddedness as already observed
in the anatomy of scholarship (see chapter II, p. 73-106). The level of opinion suspended is
probably the most disturbing result from the standpoint of the pays politique especially
when one considers the objective of implementing the EHEA by 2010.
376
Bologna as a policy process
The perceptions of Bologna as a policy process were rather low. The pays politique did not
raise awareness, nor was it unfamiliar to the pays réel. The dimensions referring to
rationales (e.g. political rationales), strategic objectives (e.g. establishment of EHEA),
targets (e.g. administrative reform), focus of the reforms (e.g. removal of barriers to
facilitate the mobility of citizens) and policies (e.g. mobility of European students and
staff) generated mainly opinion suspended. This finding questions the possibility of
producing the system-wide change in the pays réel by 2010, which is necessary for
attaining the formal goals linked to the EHEA, as these sub dimensions are the core of the
Bologna process.
This finding also questions the claim about Bologna that political rationales drive the
establishment of the EHEA based on an administrative reform which imposes adaptations
on the degree structure. The lack of awareness about those political rationales undermines
the role of Bologna in the integration of European higher education policies. The analysis
of Bologna as a policy process revealed the extent to which causal explanations underlying
the reform were absent. It was fascinating to observe the emergence of progression of
Bologna in other European countries as a strategic objective of the Bologna reforms. The
implementation of the EHEA is seen more as “compliant action” – being forced to imitate
what the others are doing, what is fashionable in Europe – rather than as the result of a
determined political resolve to establish convergent European policies.
Yet, the low level of awareness about Bologna as a policy process has strong implication
on factors affecting the implementation process as identified in the literature (Cerych &
Sabatier, 1986). The analysis of rationales and strategic objectives as perceived by the pays
réel shows lack both of consistency and clarity as they move in the trajectory of policy
interpretation. This assumption undermines the degree of commitment to the various
objectives linked to the EHEA that seek to attain increasing mobility, employability,
competitiveness and attractiveness.
377
These objectives as in most policies are multiple, conflicting and vague (Cerych &
Sabatier, 1986). The analysis of Bologna as a policy process shows that increasing
mobility is perceived indistinctly, as the high percentage of opinion suspended about
mobility elements confirm. The fundamental nature of mobility activities might be shifting
within the EHEA. Mobility of students was part of the landscape. It was based on the
concept of mobility established by the European programmes that have been promoting
mobility for a period of study and later included setting up mobility between cycles of
studies. More recently, mobility is being linked to the notion of the attractiveness of
European higher education systems to non-European students. The objective of
competitiveness and attractiveness engages economic rationales, the development of
competitive European higher education market and internationalisation intertwine.
The emphasis placed by the pays réel on pedagogic reform within Bologna as a policy
process was probably an unintended consequence for the pays politique since it was not a
component in the initial dimensions of Bologna. Despite the political promotion of the
objective of implementing a readable and transparent European system based on two main
cycles [from Berlin (2003) onwards the third cycle corresponding to doctoral education
was included] the visibility of this administrative reform was obscured by the relevance
given to the pedagogic reform at organisational level.
Bologna as policy implementation
The level of awareness about the pays réel improved as compared to the knowledge about
Bologna as a policy process. This might be explained by implications that policy decisions
have for the grassroots of higher education institutions. The level of opinion suspended in
some areas is still disturbing for the attainment of policy goals. For instance, the level of
opinion suspended about the perceived impact of the legal framework, degree structure
converging with other degree structures, benchmarking activities, enhancement of
European dimension through the implementation of quality assurance mechanisms,
weaknesses and success factors of policy implementation related to internal dynamics of
the individual university, as well as to management and administrative workload.
378
Research findings were insightful in raising awareness about transformation, changes and
impacts and in exposing some unpredictable results from the assessment of specific
dimensions.
Awareness about transformation, changes and impacts addresses the impact of European
programmes, the changes in internationalisation and quality policy areas and in recognition
procedures of European and foreign degrees, the setting up of support structures aiming to
improve information/ communication systems, the recognition of large changes in teaching
methods and the major impact of competencies definition and learning objectives in the
Bologna degree structure. The perceived impact of the Bologna degree structure on
mobility and the perceived impact of the credit system on comparability addressed two
aims of EHEA (e.g. mobility and comparability).
Critical aspects
The perception of these critical impacts was related to the increased control by central
administration and the level of job satisfaction that will be further explored in next chapter
to grasp possible associations. Research findings also revealed some unpredictable results.
The perceived level of implementation of pedagogic reform is not apparently compatible
with the level of opinion suspended about the degree of implementation of the credit
system and the awareness about student workload. The perceptions of the academic staff
about the relevance of the Diploma Supplement and of the credit system were
disappointing for pays politique.
Analysing the level of awareness about the implementation of Bologna identified at least
two issues lost in translation in the trajectory of policy implementation – increasing
employability and relevance of lifelong learning. For instance, answers on the perceived
impact of the Bologna degree structure placed employability after everything else (see p.
270). The differentiation of profile of qualifications was not perceived with great interest
(see p. 337) and the development of students’ professional competencies (see p. 341)
mustered the highest share of partial disagreement with the reinforcement of that sub
379
dimension in the curricular reform. The recognized changes in lifelong learning were
appreciated. However, the latter’s linkage with the credit system was not established
clearly (see p. 352). These findings have implications for the ‘context of political strategy’
of Bologna (see chapter V, p. 181). The modernisation of the European social model is
driven by the investment in people and by setting up an active welfare state (European
Council, 2000). The Lisbon agenda is concerned with sustainable growth, competitiveness,
R&D and innovation, the creation of more and better jobs, social inclusion and active
citizenship and regional policies. Consequently, the European Commission paid particular
attention to investment in the research and lifelong learning dimensions and to the
European Employment Strategy. Also the Ministers in charge of education adopted, in
February 2002, the Detailed work programme on the follow-up objectives of education and
training system (2002), put forward by the European Commission explicitly to support the
Lisbon strategy. Since 2002/2003 the number of reports published by European institutions
has intensified European awareness about lifelong learning and vocational training, as it
has efficiency associated with the modernization of education systems, research and
innovation, quality and so forth1. But lifelong learning and employability, as dimensions
of modernisation of European higher education, were not perceived as significant by the
three Estates surveyed. This finding has strong implications for the attainment of
objectives within EHEA.
This chapter contributed to a more nuanced grasp of the awareness about Bologna as a
policy process and its implementation. Findings presented are new elements about Bologna
whilst the views entertained by the three Estates – Academia, Administrative and Student –
took on a new visibility. The next chapter will discuss these findings by focusing on
associations made by the respondents between the different dimensions of Bologna as a
means to better understand the perceptions of the pays réel on the process of
implementation.
380
CHAPTER VII - Discussion of research findings
CHAPTER VII
Discussion of research findings: a perspective from pays réel
Introduction
This chapter discusses the research findings with the aim of grasping policy
implementation. Institutionalising the EHEA is an objective of the implementation of
Bologna and empirical analysis showed that sub dimensions of Bologna might be
intertwined. This should be further explored to understand its significance as perceived by
the pays réel.
The strength of linkages between the variables was estimated on the basis of Spearman's
rho 288 . Correlation analysis stemmed from the analysis of the research findings (see
chapter VI, p. 187-380) and the literature contributes to explain and to reflect upon the
evidence found. A causal theory of relationships will be avoided.
Instead, correlation analysis will be valuable in disclosing interactions within institutions
placed at various levels in terms of revealing or obscuring their role in policy
implementation. The perceptions about the role of institutions located at European,
national and organisational field (e.g. higher education institutions) obscure or reveal their
288
The level of significance was set at 0.01 and was used due to identify only the most significant
correlations. Correlation coefficients can be classified as: weak (if the value is between 0 and 0.3), moderate
(if the value is higher than 0.3 and up to 0.6) and strong (if the value is above 0.6).
381
action in the perspective of those surveyed. The awareness about specific dimensions of
implementing Bologna either obscure or reveal institutions at different levels of analysis the perceptions about economic rationales and the development of a competitive European
higher education market obscure or reveal institutions at European or national levels? How
far the perceived impact of European programmes obscured or revealed the European
level?
Three context variables (e.g. “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”)
were singled out to achieve better understanding about the development of practices
relevant for the EHEA within the groups of respondents.
This chapter follows the ‘policy cycle’ approach (Ball, 2004; Bowe, et al., 1992) (see
chapter IV, p. 147) to better seize the perceptions of the constituencies of higher education
institutions about the ‘context of influence’, the ‘context of text production’, the ‘context
of practice’, and the ‘context of outcomes’ of Bologna at the universities surveyed.
Perceptions represent what Bologna is in the perspective of the pays réel.
1. Context of influence
The ‘context of influence’ of the Bologna process is dominated by the pays politique and
includes national and European institutions. Within the ‘context of influence’ the European
Commission as ‘additional member’ of the Bologna process reasserted the vocational
orientation of the EU policy while implementing the Lisbon Agenda, in reaction to external
pressures towards competitiveness, knowledge-based economy, etc., obscuring the national
level (see chapter V, 162.).
Our respondents perceived indistinctively the EHEA as a strategic goal of the Bologna
reforms at national level, ignoring mostly the influence of the European level. We may say
that the European level was obscured, fragmenting governance activities under the
framework of Bologna. The ‘context of influence’ is steered by European institutions
whereas their influence was decisive to formulate the Bologna’s policy goal –
382
establishment of EHEA - but their role is undetected by the organisational field. The
articulation between the European level and the national level is straightforward, but
ineffective.
1.1 Scrutinising economic aspect
Our respondents saw, political, economic and cultural considerations driving the Bologna
process forward (see chapter VI, p. 197).
Perceptions about cultural considerations drew on those who “partially agree”, which
raises doubts about cultural consideration in driving Bologna at national level. Yet
cultural considerations do not see significant differences between groups of respondents.
Nor were, political considerations regarded as driving the reform mainly became of a
broad unawareness of political issues. An earlier content analysis (Veiga, 2003) of the
documents produced by the Bologna process and European policy documents put out by
higher education institutions suggested they favoured different aspects. Higher education
institutions favoured cultural considerations. Bologna policy documents uphold the
economic aspects. The enhancement of political considerations relied, on the one hand, on
reinforcing the power of the national state through the signature of Sorbonne and Bologna
Declaration to push the reforms through (Veiga, 2003). On the other hand, Bologna
advanced at the same pace as the increasing power of European institutions (e.g. European
Commission), while reducing the ability of national governments to intervene (Martens &
Wolf, 2009). Explaining the unawareness about political drivers might relate to the shifts
of political dimension itself. In the initiatives of national governments, Bologna could
serve as a lever. However, since Ministers did not anticipate the creeping competence of
European institutions in the shape of their formal involvement in the Bologna Follow-up
Group, power at national level retracted. Perceptions about this were not greatly sensitive.
Greater awareness of economic considerations saw more agreeing, but it does not allow to
argue that the Bologna process ‘context of influence’ (see chapter V, p. 162) affected the
383
perceptions of the pays réel. Despite alertness to economic issues, our respondents did not
perceive its importance.
Economic rationales may relate to both, European and national forces, pressures or
impacts. Enhancing the international competitiveness of the national’s economy by
successful performance of the higher education sector focused on the optimum use of
resources. Improving the international competitiveness of the national higher education
sector promoting the recruiting of fee paying students from other countries, for instance
(Luijten-Lub, Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, van der Wende, & Williams, 2004). Thus,
notion of economic aspects was linked to efficacy and efficiency of resources in the
national agendas of the Bologna reforms.
Competitive market forces and spread of new models inherent, for instance, to the Bologna
degree structure build up the broader environment where HEIs are deeply embedded. In
New Institutionalism this environment bears on the development of universities which
however never fully control the direction of their development (Olsen, 2007).
1.1.1 Bologna reforms and the higher education market
The focus of the reforms gave rise to different and competing interests within the surveyed
universities (see chapter VI, p. 210). A possible explanation for the wide range of
interpretations for Bologna at organisational field reflected different academic disciplines
and different constituencies of higher education institutions.
The expected response to the removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens was
absent because almost the majority of respondents (45%) had “no opinion” on the matter.
Here was an awkward situation since this objective relies at the core of Bologna and in
establishing the EHEA.
Despite contending views about the Bologna reforms, the development of a competitive
European higher education market generated more agreement compared to removal of
barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens, the promotion of social cohesion, the
384
development of supranational governance institutions and the reduction of public
expenditure in higher education.
This option development of a competitive European higher education market raised the
issue whether the Bologna degree structure and study programmes were not transforming
state monopolies into competitive markets (Dill, Teixeira, Jongbloed, & Amaral, 2004).
Evidence suggests that the development of a competitive European higher education
market together with the efficiency of national higher education systems were the most
highly controversial issues. Divergences of opinions emerged for every context variable,
By contrast, the item reduction of public expenditure in higher education was less
controversial but it also gathered the least agreement. Reducing costs as a possible
consequence in adapting to the Bologna degree structure was not perceived in the ‘context
of influence’ of Bologna at national level. This was unexpected. Discussions within an
economic perspective focused on funding of higher education as a prime pacemaker “the
financial pressures felt by many governments and institutions to use resources in a more
efficient and economic seems to become a permanent feature of higher education systems
(Teixeira, 2009: 58).
The European level effectively determined national context. Yet, it shed a different light on
the linkage between economic considerations and the progress of Bologna at national
level. Respondents were not au fait with European pressure then obscuring it.
Positive judgements about economic considerations correlated weakly with the
development of a competitive European higher education market 289 or the reduction of
public expenditure in higher education 290 though more with efficiency of national higher
education systems 291 . Amongst these latter items, the strongest (although moderate)
correlation involved the reduction of public expenditure in higher education and efficiency
289
Correlation coefficient = 0.145.
291
290
385
of national higher education systems 292 , which underlined the functional imperatives
within overall national policies.
In an attempt to clarify the perceived focus of the reforms correlation analysis was used. It
showed that respondents placed a moderate association between the development of a
competitive European higher education market and the strategic goal of implementing
Bologna as it related to establishing the EHEA 293 , more obviously.
From the “university” perspective, both Italian universities displayed a similar level of
agreement with the proposition of Bologna as the development of a competitive European
higher education market. However, correlation analysis revealed only for an Italian
university did the focus of reforms at national level have the European dimension. The
correlation between the development of competitive European higher education market and
the establishment of EHEA 294 was moderate but statistically significant, in particular for
the two Portuguese universities in the survey 295 .
From the standpoint of “disciplinary field” medicine, law and history, in that order
correlated unambiguously moderately with both topics 296 . The perception of academic staff
and students aligned also moderately those topics 297 .
For three of the universities surveyed, for all disciplinary fields, save physics; and for
academic staff and students the focus of national reforms reflected priorities at the
European level.
These findings show the way in which economic considerations as perceived by our
respondents serve to draw attention to add further weight to those arguments used to
interpret Bologna at the national level. The economic rationales may reinforce education as
an issue with economic relevance emphasising the European Commission’s perspective of
292
294
295
Correlation coefficient = 0.358; 0.469.
296
Correlation coefficient = 0.529; 0.398; 0.323.
297
293
386
the university as “a service enterprise embedded in competitive markets” (Olsen, 2007:
30). This vision serves analytical purposes (see chapter III, p. 123).
1.2 Interpreting the lack of awareness about establishing EHEA
Our respondents felt that the strategic goals of the Bologna reforms at national level
echoed a pragmatic approach. Implementing national reforms followed the progression of
Bologna in other European countries. All sub-dimensions in this issue (see chapter VI, p.
200) reflected controversy across the variables “university” and “disciplinary field”. All
groups of respondents, whether controlling for “university” or “disciplinary field” reflect
that controversy – a reflection of different academic cultures.
As for the variable “the three Estates”, responses did not vary. Academic staff, students
and the administrative and management staff reacted in the same way. It is then by
breaking out “university” and “disciplinary field”, that one may grasp differences in
opinion about strategic goals invoked in the Bologna reforms.
Thus, one comes closer to understanding the basis of legitimacy on which the Bologna
reforms rest. Normative and cognitive-cultural dimensions of policy instruments develop
out of best practice, standards and shared representations that do not necessarily reinforce
the power of individual states. Actually, these mechanisms give the impression that a wide
range of activities fit for compliance, avoiding to narrow frames of reference.
This view suggests that in the ‘context of influence’ national leaderships were able to
spread the idea that the international context was important to induce progress in
implementing Bologna. Either it served as a crucial argument for domestic reform, or it
was used to justify being amongst the front-runners. In Norway, for instance, national
policy makers made ample reference to Norway’s frontrunner position in carrying Bologna
out (Gornitzka, 2006).
However, the national context does not determine the direction of response within
universities. One (of two) Norwegian universities and one (of two) Italian universities
387
reacted differently. Only, in the case of Portuguese universities might the national context
be relevant. Both universities agreed with the notion of implementing Bologna according
to the progression in other European countries. One explanation may well be that
Portuguese HEIs until 2006 waited for the necessary legal framework to begin
implementing Bologna under the additional pressure that came of being a “late comer”.
In terms of “disciplinary field”, the national context may also have influenced disciplinary
cultures. Historians reacted more positively to the strategic goals of the Bologna reforms.
In the ‘context of practice’ of Bologna (see chapter V, p. 174), at European level this
finding also has relevance. Progress qua implementation in other European countries had
taken on overtones of evaluating policy in the light of practice (Bowe, et al., 1992). Even
so, perceptions at European and at national levels remained imprecise about both criteria
and information on policy achieved across European countries (e.g. National reports or
Bologna stocktaking reports) (Veiga & Amaral, 2009a; Witte, 2006). Hasty, judgements
contaminated the level of awareness about implementing Bologna (Veiga, et al., 2008).
Assessing implementation in many cases had as its main criteria the passing of legislation.
Such an interpretation stressed the importance of a consensual vision based on the
performance of other European countries. In 2009, so called the “stocktaking exercise”
inserted stricter criteria, which resulted in a lowering of performance levels relative to the
previous years (Bologna Follow-up Group, 2009). It admitted that previous country reports
on reform implemented were too optimistic by far. For, the Bologna scorecard a lighter
shade of green than earlier. For Portugal, the hues for implementing the qualifications
framework and the level of its international participation in the quality system were
bleached, as we will see later. For the first time, the Bologna Follow-up Group
acknowledged “that not all the goals of the Bologna Process will be achieved by 2010”
(Bologna Follow-up Group, 2009: 12).
Yet, from the views expressed by our respondents, the impact of policy assessment for
European initiatives was not high (see chapter VI, p. 234). Implementation according to
the progression in other European countries was certainly relevant for the progress of
policy as discourse, which itself stemmed from the forging of policy instruments based on
388
normative and cultural-cognitive dimensions. The basis of the model involved
convergence, not harmonisation to accommodate national exceptionalism and to avoid
susceptibilities. Thus, revealing national level but weakening the political will at European
level.
Furthermore, the progress of Bologna as seen in the universities polled entailed normative
and cultural pressures to adapt national higher education systems less by deliberate choice
than by following, or even completing, a requirement for convergence, which in itself
represents a shift towards the logic of appropriateness (March & Olsen, 1989) (see chapter
III, p. 108 ). Dominant institutional values reinforce the need of adaptation based on a
vision about what Bologna ought to be in the perspective of the pays politique.
Academic staff, students and administrative and management staff shared the vision of
implementation according to the progression in other European countries with no great
difference emerging. This suggests the shift towards the logic of appropriateness (March &
Olsen, 1989). However, it does not necessarily promote the establishment of the EHEA, as
this item was seen with a marked lack of interest.
Thus, despite awareness of the progression of Bologna in other European countries, the
development of the indispensable action that takes the objectives of Bologna at national
level did not take account of the establishment of EHEA. Those agreeing that Bologna was
implemented according to progression of Bologna in other European countries held
positive views about implementation according to the national agenda 298 . Similarly,
physicists and medical doctors held the same perception, but more strongly 299 .
This association together with the absence of opinion over the establishment of the EHEA
see national dynamics as more important than European dynamics within the Bologna
process, which contrasts with the vision by “French faculty members as a non-escapable
move imposed by Europe” (Musselin, 2009: 183).
298
299
389
1.2.1 Interpreting the intended reform of pedagogy
As for the reforms’ purpose, (see chapter VI, p. 205) the pedagogic reform can align on the
national context in the Portuguese (Veiga & Amaral, 2009b) or the Italian (Moscati, 2009)
cases; but responses diverged within “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three
Estates”. Different academic disciplines and the constituencies of higher education
institutions also mirrored differences of perception.
Administrative reform was the most controversial across the variables under scrutiny and
governance reform the less, with pedagogic reform mustering highest levels of agreement.
Respondents perceived the notion of Bologna reforms as a pedagogic reform which
entailed normative elements such as student centred approaches plus development of
competence and skills based on best practice. Pedagogic reform is intrinsic to academic
activity and tacitly was a protected domain.
In Italy, the topic of the pedagogic reform extended to issues including high dropout rates
and the absence of a non-university sector. The absence of reforms for a long period was
probably important in securing agreement on the perception of the pedagogic reform as the
end product of Bologna reforms. Amongst the positive aspects of the reform in Italy was
the new system of university degrees and the reduction in dropout rates (Moscati, 2009).
In the Portuguese case an earlier study (Veiga & Amaral, 2009b) showed that the
pedagogic reform was based on relevant intended changes as yet intended - teaching
method, laying down formal contact hours, reduction in student/staff ratios. Moreover,
views about the paradigm shift from teaching to learning gave grounds for optimism.
Findings from the Portuguese case together with those of the current study showed that
specific issues within the Bologna context (e.g. pedagogic reform) did not take place in the
vacuo. Changes in demographic characteristics of students (e.g. massification of higher
education) showed them to be less prepared and lacking adaptations to the curriculum. This
issue had political salience both at European and at national level, which lent weight to
390
pedagogic reform within the Bologna agenda. Interpreting Bologna raises the issue of
pedagogies as a vested interest.
Associations of Bologna with a pedagogic reform reinforced normative ideas about what
the system ought to be mainly because pedagogies might be intrinsic to the Bologna
reforms. How far this vision is dependent on the input of academic staff to interpret
Bologna, it needs further analysis.
In Italy, the reform clarifies the importance of teaching activities (Luzzato & Moscati,
2005). Physicists tended to agree more with pedagogic reform. However, a recent study
into extending Bologna reforms into physics programmes in Europe revealed that only
16% perceived the need for compulsory training of teaching staff in educational methods
(Kehm, 2009).
In 2005 (Bergen Communiqué, 2005) did Ministers for the first time alluded loosely to
formal pedagogical training “We welcome the clear commitment of higher education
institutions across Europe to the Process, and we recognise that time is needed to optimise
the impact of structural change on curricula and thus to ensure the introduction of the
innovative teaching and learning processes that Europe needs”. This was subsequently
reaffirmed in 2009 (Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, 2009): “Student-centred
learning and mobility will help students develop the competences they need in a changing
labour market and will empower them to become active and responsible citizens (…)
Student-centred learning requires empowering individual learners, new approaches to
teaching and learning, effective support and guidance structures and a curriculum focused
more clearly on the learner in all three cycles. Curricular reform will thus be an ongoing
process leading to high quality, flexible and more individually tailored education paths”.
Only in 2009 did student-centred learning emerge clearly in Bologna’s policy discourse,
which suggests that only as Bologna unfolded did pedagogies take shape. In short,
pedagogic reform entered the Bologna’s ‘context of text production’ at European level in
as much as it dominates the ‘context of text production’ and the ‘context of practice’ at
391
both national level and organisational field. Interaction within institutions revealed the
It is possible that its inclusion in Bologna shifted the adequacy of action in the sense that
Bologna reforms depended on pedagogic reform and thus a shift in policy as discourse.
However, it did not mean that indispensable action is taken to develop Bologna’s
objectives towards the EHEA.
In Portugal, fewer doubts were voiced. According to annual institutional implementation
reports, most higher education institutions show change in teaching paradigm to learning
paradigm as the most important item as the immediate agenda.
Be that it may, those one surveyed saw pedagogic reform at the expense of administrative
reform, which undermined the influence of the regulative component of policy
instruments. The linkage between administrative changes and legal framework was far
more straightforward. The poor perceptions of administrative and management staff
towards administrative reform seemed to underline either that its relevance was dissolving
or it had never achieved significance.
On the other hand, this view contrasted with the perspective of the European Commission:
The Bologna process in higher education is an inter-governmental process, which also contributes
to the achievement of the Lisbon strategy. While Bologna is mainly an agenda for structural reforms
(in the architecture of degrees, their internal organisation in credits and outcome-based units and
their transparency), Education and Training 2010 mainly concerns higher education policy (in
particular funding, governance and attractiveness) (European Commission, 2005: 4).
European institutions seeing the Bologna process as a structural reform put emphasis on
the regulative pillar since changes on structures require changes on the legal framework,
thus focusing on the coercive mechanisms.
392
1.2.2 Internationalisation interpreted as a multidimensional concept
The acknowledgement of changes to specific policy fields at national level entailed
primarily internationalisation policy. On effect perception of changes in the quality of
higher education relied heavily on those perceiving “moderate change”. Also the
percentage of “little change” is elevated. Thus the awareness of the direction of change in
this policy area (see chapter VI, p. 216) remains uncertain.
Changes within internationalisation policy in the meaning of policy as text underscored
how internationalisation moved towards multiple concepts.
The ties with other policy areas inserted new meaning to these changes. Correlation
analysis revealed that changes in internationalisation as a result of implementing Bologna
aligned moderately with changes in mobility of European students and staff 300 , with quality
in higher education 301 and with attraction of foreign students and academics 302 ,
respectively. Even if the mobility of European students and staff generated more
consensuses as an institutionalised activity; it also gathered more “no opinion”, which is
ambiguous. Correlation analysis may elicit further interpretations of internationalisation by
focusing the degree of relationship between other pairs of variables.
When university groups were broken out changes in internationalisation policy correlated
from moderately to strongly with mobility of European students and staff in four of the
seven universities surveyed 303 . Likewise, changes in internationalisation policy correlated
in two universities 304 strongly with the attraction of foreign students and academics. These
interpretations underline interaction within institutions revealing European level.
Linking changes in internationalisation to the attraction of foreign students and
academics, this correlation was more evident amongst respondents belonging to
universities that contributed more to “no opinion” and “do not know” for the item of
300
302
303
Correlation coefficient between 0.321 and 0.621.
304
301
393
removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens and the topic mobility of European
students and staff. Therefore, the core of cooperation activities established in the field of
education was it would seem, not the subject of great concern.
Interestingly topics left out (e.g. removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens,
mobility of European students and staff) hint at shift in policy as discourse by associating
internationalisation with attraction of foreign students, at the expense of removal of
barriers and the mobility of students.
But even if one assumed the hypothesis that internationalisation of higher education was
evolving from cooperation to competition (Luijten-Lub, et al., 2004) the removal of
barriers to facilitate the mobility of citizens and mobility of European students and staff
topics, also figured in Bologna. These results were though below the level expected, given
their significance in the EHEA as fundamental taken for granted in higher education policy
pursued at European level.
Education policies at European level are becoming institutionalised thus feeding the belief
that they would be central in establishing EHEA. They were launched by collective
agreement (Luijten-Lub, et al., 2004). For our respondents a link between the focus of
Bologna reforms at national level and the removal of barriers to facilitate the mobility of
citizens and the mobility of European students and staff was absent. A major proportion
expressed “no opinion” or “do not know” about such changes. This finding echoes the
Trends V report: “there is little change in the percentage of institutions with established
recognition procedures since 2003” (Crosier, et al., 2007). The report Bologna with
Students’ Eyes (2009) also agreed commitment to mobility was rather spotty.
Turning “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates” it was interesting to observe that
respondents from physics 305 and history 306 , academic staff, students and administrative and
management staff upheld a statistically significant though moderate correlation between
internationalisation and mobility of European students and staff, though with
305
306
394
administrative and management staff the correlation was stronger 307 . Respondents from
law 308 associated changes in internationalisation moderately with autonomy of higher
education institutions while respondents from medicine 309 made a strong association with
research policy.
Clearly, the attraction of foreign students and academics became less relevant when
controlling for “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”. A possible explanation may be
had from the hypothesis that external pressure is more evident to university constituencies
and becomes more diffuse as it works down to the basic unit level, where it impacts on
academic disciplines and their norms and cultures.
2. Context of text production
The ‘context of text production’ of Bologna gave prominence to official documents. Policy
documents emerge as interpretation about official sources as required (see chapter V, p.
172). For those surveyed, an important feature of the ‘context of text production’ was the
fragile backing the legal framework received to carry through the reforms outlined in the
Bologna framework itself. This finding highlights the interaction within institutions in
obscuring the national level.
2.1 Achievements of European initiatives
European programmes funded by the EU (see chapter VI, p. 234) was the initiative most
clearly identified as having an impact on the implementation of Bologna.
At European level, all other initiatives aligned with the Bologna process (e.g. official
statements, studies by Bologna working groups and studies by European University
307
Correlation coefficient = 0.669 (administrative and management staff); Correlation coefficient = 0.565
(students); Correlation coefficient = 0.442 (academic staff).
308
309
395
Association) trailed far behind. Whatever the reason, the percentages of do not knows for
all these items were high.
Examining the impact of the European programmes on the implementation of Bologna,
revealed differences both by “university” and by “the three estates” and doubtless reflect
external pressures and professional roles. Controlling for “disciplinary field” showed
greater consensus. Academic disciplines perceived the effects of European programmes
more uniformly. The establishment of rankings, league tables, typologies of higher
education institutions was diversely appreciated when broken out by “university”.
The national background was important for Portuguese universities. Both Portuguese
universities recognized the “major impact” of rankings. As for the German university, the
CHE – excellence ranking 310 may have played a part. For Italian and Norwegian
universities in the survey perceptions diverged among universities reflecting differences in
academic cultures, rather than elements in the national context.
Awareness of the impact of European programmes injecting the Bologna process into the
university can also be interpreted as recognizing the creeping power of the Commission
(Amaral & Neave, 2009; Pollack, 2000). That is, the organisational weight and financial
clout of the European Commission that enhanced its influence as a ‘additional’ member
pushing the Bologna process forward. Whether such power was evident to those surveyed
must remain a moot point, if only because of the high percentage of “do not know” in
answers to those items that dealt with precisely the organisation and financial capacity of
the European Commission inside the Bologna process. In short, the suspension of opinion
with regard to studies by Bologna Working groups and the studies by the European
University Association which the European Commission funded was only too evident
whether this abstention explains the lack of effects European initiatives had as Bologna
speeds down the grassroots of higher education is worth pondering.
310
The ranking was designed to support the search for a German higher education institution (HEI) suitable
for master or doctoral programmes. Nowadays it expanded its scope and highlights the research strengths of
European HEIs and provide those HEIs listed in the ranking with ideas for the further improvement of their
already excellent programmes (http://www.excellenceranking.org/eusid/EUSID).
396
The grasp of the impact of European programmes was most pronounced among academic
staff and respondents from history who had more estimable views on the matter, whilst
administrative and management staff was more enthused by their impact.
Why administrative and management staff showed a “large impact” by European
programmes may account for the professional background of those units (e.g. international
offices, information and technologies services, academic units) more engaged with
activities of the European Commission in the general area of education policy. Yet,
particular response may involve administrative and management staff acting as a nonacademic unit in the context of Bologna by supporting the interests of academic staff or
aligned with the corporate interests of leadership (Whitchurch, 2006) and thus polling in
two opposite directions.
Administrative and management staff was often more aware, than academic staff and
students of the implementing impulse the Bologna process within the university itself (see
chapter VI, p. 234).
2.2 Fragile backing for the legal framework
The legal framework made the national level initiative more understandable for our
respondents. Perceptions about the impact of networking and exchange of good practices
with national higher education institutions were heavily influenced by the percentages of
those “partially agree” which blunted the awareness about the impact this initiative had.
However, the legal framework mustered the highest percentage of those with “no opinion”,
mainly administrative and management staff, which might reflect the declining importance
of the legal framework for policy implementation (see chapter VI, p. 240). Other
mechanisms tended to enforce convergence in higher education systems.
Absence of opinion amongst administrative and management staff on this issue lined up
with the perception that the impact of the European level prevailed over the impact of the
397
national level. The fact that administrative and management staff was more positive about
the impact of European programmes may shed light on this alternative hypothesis.
Within the national context, the diversity of opinion by “university” enclosed activities
related to networking and exchange of good practices with national higher education
institutions. Since this particular aspect entails normative and cultural-cognitive features it
stresses change that follows from mutual learning underlying thereby the importance of
academic disciplines to the process of interpretation, perception and assessment of policy
or its subcomponents.
As these became operational in the university there was a shift taking place towards the
logic of appropriateness that accelerated organisational learning. However, as a proportion
of respondents judged these components as having only “moderate impact” unfolding
Bologna inside the university may produce differentiated impact.
2.3 The ‘Loose’ European dimension in the Bologna reforms
Further investigation focused on the European dimension of the Bologna process (see
chapter VI, p. 244). In our respondents’ view, the significant European content of courses
and curricula caught the idea of the European dimension in the Bologna process. Still, the
issue was controversial within individual universities. Different ratings flourished a
reflection of the influence different academic cultures and different professional roles play
in the university setting.
How were the different subcomponents to European dimension of the Bologna process
interconnected? The most significant link emerged in the moderate correlation between
language of taught different from the mother tongue and new and active partnerships and
consortia activities and curriculum development between higher education institutions in
398
Europe 311 . The latter also correlated moderately with the significant European content of
courses and curricula. 312
When control was exercise for “universities” the correlation was maintained moderately
for all 313 , except for one, of the two Italian universities, where the association between the
significant European content of courses and curricula and degree structure converging
with other European degree structures 314 was stronger. This was an unexpected given that
in Italy reorganising teaching programmes was based on Classes strictly conforming with
national requirements.
From the standpoint of “disciplinary field”, moderate correlation between the language of
taught different from the mother tongue and the significant European content of courses
and curricula 315 was important for respondents from history, whereas respondents from
physics assigned only a moderate linkage between language of taught different from the
mother tongue and degree structure converging with other European degree structures 316 .
Respondents from medicine and law were associated more clearly with language of taught
different from the mother tongue and new and active partnerships and consortia activities,
which correlated more strongly 317 .
When one turns to the Three Estates, academic staff 318 and students 319 placed respectively
a moderate and a strong correlation between language of taught different from the mother
tongue and new and active partnerships and consortia activities. Administrative and
management staff, by contrast, established strong correlation between language of taught
311
A correlation coefficient = 0.574.
313
A correlation coefficient = 0.528; 0.501; 0.486; 0.617; 0.589.
314
A correlation coefficient = 0.525; 0.508.
315
316
317
318
319
312
399
different from the mother tongue and the significant European content of courses and
curricula 320 .
Much weight was placed on the vehicular teaching language, an issue that was
controversial in the individual university, bears out the idea language policies at both
national and organisational field are under great pressure, a situation corroborated by
Luijten-Lub and colleagues. Language may enhance the attractiveness of European higher
education systems but may equally hamper student mobility in countries where less spoken
languages are the norm (Luijten-Lub, et al., 2004).
Nevertheless, European dimensions in the Bologna process strengthened the use of policy
instruments grounded in ‘best practice’. Often, informal arrangements are activated by
cooperation links at organisational field. Clearly, the impact of policy instruments in
promoting mutual learning is evident.
The component degree structure converging with other European degree structures
showed a very high level of opinion suspended, a paradoxical situation given that
progression of Bologna in other European countries figured as a strategic goal in the
Bologna reforms. One possible explanation, that resolves the paradox is that respondents
were more aware of the strategic goal in the Bologna reforms in their own country but
were uncertain as to the degree of convergence achieved by those reforms.
This finding becomes even more striking given that administrative and management staff
suspended judgement to a greater degree on that component that focused on the degree
structure converging with other European degree structures in the European dimension of
the Bologna process. This suspension of response focused an issue potentially decisive for
administrative reform (also suspended by 44% of respondents (see chapter VI, p. 205).
Another possible explanation, turns around the extent to which different levels of
convergence form part of an individual’s knowledge and conceptual set. Among the
320
400
countries where the universities surveyed were located, the convergence of degrees
structures involved only four higher education systems and seven universities.
Norway employed the most precise application of Bologna terminology. The degree
structure - Bachelor degree (three years), Master’s degree (two years) and PhD (three
years) – was faithfully replicated in the universities covered.
In the Portuguese and Italian cases, however, descriptors did not meet the Bologna
requirements and the transposition into the university followed a different path. One of the
Portuguese universities translated Licenciatura into first cycle. The other kept the
designation Licenciatura (in italic) 321 . Such eclecticism reflects the failure of the national
level to adopt the terms and conditions of Bologna assigned to the Bachelor degree.
In Italy descriptors also followed national criteria. Besides Bachelor – Master (i.e. Laurea
and Laurea Specialistica), Master Universitario di 1º nivello and Master Universitario di 2º
nivello figured within professionally oriented qualifications and served as official
descriptors.
In Germany the situation was even more complex. If at national level Bachelor and Master
degrees were indeed present so were previous structures. At the university level Bachelor
and Master descriptors were to be found in DAAD, giving the impression that the
international programme database was not necessarily the national database. In all cases
the duration of study programmes varies substantially.
Such situation of relative ambiguity showed how fragile the comparability of the Bologna
degree structure was across countries and its ancillary status position in our survey.
321
Universities are free to offer a first cycle with 180 to 240 credits and are the only institutions allowed to
offer integrated masters corresponding to 300 to 360 credits (5 to 6 years) – when European law imposes the
longer duration of studies or if that corresponds to a well-established European practice. For polytechnics, the
normal first cycle degree structure will be 180 credits (3 years). Only in exceptional cases – when national or
European legislation imposes a longer education period before professional practice is allowed or if there is a
well-established practice in “reference” European higher education institutions – can polytechnics offer
longer first cycles, up to 240 credits (4 years).
401
The organizing initiative of the European Union in supporting curriculum development for
establishment of joint degrees (e.g. Erasmus Mundus programme) is well known. For this
reason, they may be a contaminating factor to the clarity of the European dimension in the
Bologna process. Hence, it is not to be excluded that the sub component significant
European content of courses and curricula may also in the minds of our respondents
extend to aspects of curricular development backed by the EU with the framework of
European programmes. The correlation 322 between these sub components (e.g. significant
European content of courses and curricula and European programmes) though statistically
significant was weak, and served to desensitize the perception of the role the European
Commission played. Nor was it possible to distinguish statistically significant differences
among the four disciplinary fields the survey covered.
2.4 The iterative process for promoting internationalisation and
recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees
Characteristics of the ‘context of text production’ by the universities in the enquiry were
identified in terms of changes in specific policy areas that followed from implementing
Bologna.
Major change our respondents reported, took place in recognition procedures of European
and foreign degrees and internationalisation. The sub component of recognition
procedures of European and foreign degrees commanded wide agreement. Conversely, the
element dealing with internationalisation was less so among “university” and “the three
Estates”, reflecting different national context, but also differing academic cultures and
divergent professional roles.
Correlations analysis disentangled explanations as statistically significant differences
emerged.
322
402
Changes in internationalisation policy at national level correlate moderately with changes
in internationalisation 323 , with recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees 324
and with changes in funding 325 in the university.
As for changes in policies at national level (see chapter VI, p. 216), in Norway
internationalisation was of political significance in the ‘context of influence’ and within
the ‘context of text production’ of both Norwegian universities. In the view of their
members such changes correlated 326 positively if moderately to adaptations in the
university setting. In Norway, the national context was determinant.
Italian universities displayed different pattern of answers. One university yielded a
moderate correlation 327 between internationalisation policy at national level and
internationalisation within university. Other changes in internationalisation in the
university setting, however aligned more moderately although with changes in recognition
procedures of European and foreign degrees 328 . Further analysis should focus on the drive
represented by recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees if they are to
explore further changes that result from differences in the levels of analysis.
Focusing on recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees and recognition of
changes in internationalisation policy revealed a moderate correlation in the case of the
two Portuguese universities 329 , one Italian university 330 and the German university 331 .
Thus, the predominance of the European level, over national context was present in
Portugal. In Italy and Germany, however the hypothesis that the European level prevailed,
was not confirmed.
323
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
324
403
When “disciplinary field” was controlled, internationalisation policy correlated moderately
with recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees in the case of law 332 and
medicine 333 . For physicists 334 and historians
335
a moderate correlation was present
between internationalisation policy and internationalisation strategies developed in the
individual university. Lawyers and medics were more receptive to changes implied in
mobility and their views recognized that mobility remained an important issue. For
historians and physicists capacity-building by their universities, meeting national changes
and internal adjustments drew their attention, a recognition that internationalisation was
entering a new phase.
Similarly, academic staff 336 reacted in the same way as their colleagues from history and
physics by subscribing to a moderate correlation between internationalisation policy and
internationalisation policies and strategies at university level. Administrative and
management staff 337 mirrored their colleagues in medicine and law by associating
internationalisation policy with recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees
though emphasising the technical aspects.
Students 338 established also a moderate
correlation but with funding. As the ESIB report noted “Financial barriers include the
absence of additional funding schemes for students to cover the costs of living in different
countries and the failure of the student grants and loans scheme of the home country to
permit the use of the money for tuition fees abroad” (ESIB, 2007: 66).
These findings suggest that dismantling national and European drivers of policy change
was by no means easy, especially when they originated from only one level. Shifts in
internationalisation policy called for political action to stimulate (incremental) changes to
recognition procedures or to both develop further international policies and strategies. This
interpretation emphasises different levels of analysis and those structures that maintain and
transform normative and cognitive-cultural aspects to meet further challenges. The
332
334
335
336
337
338
333
404
normative aspects influence the establishment of requirements necessary to handle
recognition of degrees in the individual university and cognitive-cultural aspects persuade
frames of meaning to insert new terminology associated to recognition procedures.
Views on changes in internationalisation relied heavily on “moderate change”. From this it
is reasonable to suggest that changes actually undertaken will take time. Why
administrative and management staff alone took the view that “large change” was taking
place in the recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees suggests further
investigation is needed, if only because in this area they relied heavily on their professional
role, which in all likelihood was not shared by the institution as a whole.
3. Context of practice
The ‘context of practice’ of Bologna underlined evaluation of progress trying to make
sense how practice develops. The evaluation of practice and its consequences for
interpreting policy were highly germane at European and national level (see chapter V, p.
174). Within the universities polled pedagogies dominated policy interpretation. This
finding confirms that interaction within institutions at different levels of analysis revealed
the organisational field.
3.1 Pedagogic reform and policy as discourse
Pedagogic reform in the view of our respondents was “fully implemented” along the other
sub components that supplement it (see chapter VI, p. 249). That pedagogic reform has
been fully implemented was subject to some reserve in the case of studied universities.
Trends V noted “although progress in implementing new Bologna degree structures is
clear, student-centred learning was mentioned surprisingly infrequently during the site
visits as a guiding principle of curriculum reform” (Crosier, et al., 2007: 20). Additionally,
an earlier study identified pedagogy as an item of intent in the Bologna reforms (Veiga &
Amaral, 2009b). Finally, students polled did not rally around the subject of pedagogic
405
reform. “No opinion” or “do not know” was the student view of implementing pedagogic
reform.
That respondents viewed pedagogic reform as fully implemented was intriguing. It
suggested that pedagogic reform was construed as the appropriate set of choices within
Bologna in that it focused on those core values which academic freedom guaranteed. In
short, the weight placed on pedagogies reflected how receivers read Bologna (policy as
text). In the perspective of the pays politique those practices developed anchored in policy
as procedure (Neave, Forthcoming). This notion emphasises technical and mechanical
aspects of policy instruments as expressed in the Bologna degree structure, credit system
(ECTS), in the Diploma supplement, in the qualifications framework 339 , and in learning
outcomes of the Bologna process.
Within the survey, it was reasonable to accept that the component of pedagogic reform
stimulated awareness of other issues, amongst which credit system, quality assurance
mechanisms as contributing to the overall issue of pedagogic reform.
Correlation analysis identifies the accepted parameters of pedagogic reform. The surveyed,
however, associated albeit moderately the implementation of the pedagogic reform with
the credit system 340 ; the Diploma supplement 341 ; the Bologna degree structure 342 ; and
quality assurance mechanisms 343 .
The perceptual consensus around full implementation of pedagogic reform held across
“disciplinary fields” and “the three Estates”. Only when the variable “university” was
controlled differences emerge suggesting variation in the ‘context of practice’ of Bologna
reforms across different universities. In two universities, awareness of implementing the
Bologna process honed in the Bologna degree structure, not on pedagogic reform.
339
The item of qualifications framework relates to the topic of pedagogic reform but was deliberately out of
the enquiry because when the survey was conducted the item was being introduced in Bologna jargon and
was (as it is still now) excluded from practices in the university setting. Some authors hold that National
Qualifications Frameworks were not appropriate for higher education (Allais, 2007; Blackmur, 2004).
340
341
342
343
406
The level of awareness about implementing the pedagogic reform was less consensual
once “university” and “disciplinary field” were controlled which suggests different
academic disciplines entertained different views.
Medics and lawyers often expressed “no opinion” or “do not know” even though they state
the Bologna degree structure to be “fully implemented”. It may well be that the level of
awareness medical doctors and lawyers are prepared to admit in relation to implementing
the Bologna degree structure was insufficient to revise the way they perceive policy. All
too often they appeared to take refuge in “no opinion” or “do not know”.
Suspending judgement on the question of their level of awareness of implementing the
credit system was an unusual stance to take. It stressed important contradictions with the
idea that pedagogic reform was “fully implemented”. It remained uncertain about the
implementation of the credit system, a central component of the pedagogic reform. Even
so, amongst those venturing an opinion a moderate correlation was established between
awareness about the implementation of the pedagogic reform and awareness about
implementing the credit system.
Quality Reform also included initiatives to revise teaching and learning. Norway was
presented as one of the top three in Europe adopting the provisions in the Bologna
Declaration (Gornitzka, 2006). In implementing the credit system, Norway, so the report
by ESIB ‘Bologna with Student Eyes’ (2009) noted, there is an accepted degree of
flexibility allowing students failing some modules to continue. Exams for those modules
could be reset the following year. Trends V report (Crosier, et al., 2007) pointed that in the
majority of Norwegian institutions diplomas were awarded in all subjects on the basis of
credits accumulated only.
Despite the favourable environment, specific dynamics within one Norwegian university
disposed the institution to challenge the pedagogic reform with the implementation of the
credit system.
407
Awareness about implementing that element of the Bologna process that focused on
pedagogic reform also reinforced the idea of adopting appropriate conduct. Which issues
aligned with pedagogic reform and illustrate logic of appropriateness? How far did
pedagogic reform amount to rhetoric or practice?
As objective of reforms in national higher education systems, pedagogic reform stood as
central the national context (see chapter VI, p. 205). Yet the target of the reform correlated
weakly
344
with awareness in universities of its implementation. This suggested the
national context played little part in interpreting Bologna as a pedagogic reform
emphasising it as ‘policy as discourse’.
Controlling for “university” showed only one 345 of them established a weak correlation
between these two items. Only physicists 346 and students 347 made the same association.
Clearly, the national context was not as important as expected; otherwise, correlation
would have included other groups.
Thus, the ‘context of influence’ and the ‘context of text production’ reflected broader
issues and other pressures. National level initiatives, held to have less input compared to
European programmes. Interaction within institutions in the ‘context of influence’
obscured the European level as driving forces and strategic goals were indistinctive. In the
‘context of text production’ interaction revealed the European level through European
programmes.
The most evident, although weak correlation 348 between the level of awareness about
embedding the Bologna process on the subject of pedagogic reform and European level
initiatives were studies undertaken by Bologna working groups.
When the analyses shifted to “university”, the moderate correlation between awareness of
pedagogic reform and the impact of European programmes was clearer 349 .
344
346
347
348
345
408
Once “disciplinary field” was introduced all the remaining initiatives at European level
correlated with the level of awareness about the introduction of pedagogic reform.
Physicists 350 associated moderately the impact of studies by the European University
Association with awareness implementing pedagogic reform in the university. Medical
doctors 351 tended to link pedagogic reform with studies by Bologna working groups
though again moderately. Physicists and medical doctors were more open to the impact of
European level initiatives and the awareness about implementing pedagogic reform.
Amongst “the three Estates” academic staff 352 weakly associated the impact of studies by
Bologna working groups with awareness of introducing pedagogic reform.
Students 353 and administrative and management staff 354 established a moderate association
between the impact of European programmes with awareness of embedding the pedagogic
reform. A possible explanation for this finding relied on the status of European
programmes in contributing to mobility of students and on the concurrence of political
agendas of Ministers within the Bologna process and the European Commission.
Save for the European programmes, at the organisation field, the pedagogic reform was
not carried along as part of European level initiatives. This corresponds to a blurring of
boundaries between European Union policies in education and general Bologna based
policies.
3.2 Student workload at chalk face
Digging further into pedagogic reform that follows from implementing the Bologna
process, some elements generate considerable disagreement amongst academic staff.
Amongst them, assessment of changes in pedagogies, the development of learning
349
Correlation coefficient = 0.426 and 0.581.
351
352
353
354
350
409
competencies; flexible learning paths and contact hours. These elements were debated
within the “university”. Changes in student workload and evaluation of students by
teachers varied across “disciplinary field”. All these topics were held to involve to major
change.
How far these changes were linked to the awareness about implementation of pedagogic
reform? A weak correlation was established between pedagogic reform and development of
learning competencies 355 . Linkages with other elements present weaker correlation, such
as. Pedagogic reform with pedagogies 356 and pedagogic reform with contact hours 357 . The
strongest correlation was linking pedagogic reform with student workload 358 .
There was some awareness about Bologna degree structure when it was associated with
the development of learning competencies 359 , though weak. The strongest, though
moderate linkage was established between Bologna degree structure and development of
student research skills 360 . Unexpectedly the association between Bologna degree structure
and development of professional competencies 361 was rather weak.
The linkages between pedagogic reform, the credit system and the quality assurance
mechanisms were moderate, being weak with the student workload to obtain the final
approval 362 . Therefore, changes on the student workload to obtain the final approval were
not a very sensitive dimension within the pedagogic reform as perceived by academic staff.
Leaving aside whether changes increased or decreased student workload, the report
‘Bologna with Student Eyes’ (2009) recognized that the workload from the student
perspective remained much the same after Bologna was implemented.
355
357
358
359
Coefficient correlation = 0.290.
360
361
362
Coefficient correlation = 0.356; 0.431; 0.286.
356
410
3.3 Definitions of competence
Different components included in defining competencies to be developed by the Bologna
degree structure were held to have “major impact”. “Moderate impact” enhanced its
relevance by gathering rather high percentages for all the items. Opinions did not close
around a single meaning, which suggests their meaning may evolve (see chapter VI, p.
337).
Defining the competencies of the Bologna degree structure saw a wide range of opinions
around different constituencies and stemming from different disciplinary cultures.
What is impact of different definitional elements figuring amongst the competencies
undertaken in the Bologna degree structure? The definition of competencies associated to
degree programmes and to different units 363 and the differentiation of profile of
qualifications 364 associated moderately and weakly to the awareness about the
implementation of the Bologna degree structure. The definition of learning objectives
associated to degree programmes and to different units 365 and the distribution of credits
based on the student workload associated to degree programmes and to different units366
correlated moderately with the awareness about the implementation of the credit system.
As our respondents put side-by-side these topics, there was a shared logic of action based
on new terminology (e.g. definition of competencies, learning objectives, student
workload) and on conflict of opinions across different groups of respondents.
The Bologna degree structure associated with competences definition and qualification
profile, while they aligned the credit system with learning objectives and distribution of
credits. This confirms how Bologna was about to permeate the degree structure and the
dynamics regarding the curriculum, the student workload and the profile of qualifications
in the perspective of respondents.
363
365
366
364
411
3.4 Coping with institutionalised and innovative agendas
The implementation of the Bologna degree structure has considerable impact on increase
of the mobility of students, the enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher
education systems to foreign students 367 , the improvement of the legibility of European
higher education systems (see chapter VI, p. 270). Differences in opinion were marked
between universities and between the three Estates. It is likely that different perspectives
relate to the ‘context of practice’ in each university, each defining its priorities, policies
and strategies, in case, of mobility and internationalisation. Controlling for “disciplinary
field” and “the three Estates” revealed great consensus.
Respondents held that increase in mobility of students and graduates should focus on
mobility aligned on a period of studies (e.g. the horizontal mobility promoted by the
European programmes), rather than the enhancement of the attractiveness of European
higher education systems to foreign students. Shortening programmes’ duration was not
seen as negative. Although in Italy students feared that participation in the Erasmus
programme might increase study time (Moscati, 2009) – a possible source of difficulty in
recognition procedures and embedding the credit system.
Paradoxically mobility of students and graduates appeared to figure in both the ‘context of
influence’ and ‘context of text production’ of the universities polled. In part, the values
Bologna promotes at European and at national levels did not point into a clear direction to
promote mobility of students.
Clearly distinguished, external pressures tended to drive towards predominantly economicoriented
rationales
for
internationalising
higher
education.
Awareness
about
implementation of the Bologna degree structure and its objectives served to uphold this
367
Trends V acknowledged that “the changes in degree structures so far seem to have had only a marginal
impact. Indeed, the potential for greater mobility between cycles is not greatly exploited at this stage, and is
rarely an element of national or institutional policy. Indeed many national funding systems currently act as a
disincentive to mobility, rewarding institutions that retain students, but not providing incentives to mobility”
(Crosier, et al., 2007: 9). Therefore, this perception about “major impact” regarding the enhancement of the
attractiveness of European higher education systems to foreign students was probably intended or envisaged.
412
paradox since in shaping the ‘context of practice’ higher education institutions have their
own routines and procedures.
Installing the Bologna degree structure was moderately associated with the increase of
mobility of students and graduates 368 ; and enhancing the attractiveness of European
education systems to foreigners 369 .
Interestingly, surveyed universities associated awareness of the Bologna degree structure
with improvement of the legibility of European higher education systems more obviously.
Law and history echoed the same ties. For physics and medicine, the Bologna degree
structure was associated with mobility of European students and graduates for the former
and with the enhancement of the attractiveness of European education systems to
foreigner, for the latter. For academic staff, however, awareness of the Bologna degree
structure ties with improvement of the legibility of European higher education systems
even more clearly, while students saw it in terms of mobility of European students and
graduates.
Familiarity with increased mobility of students and graduates as a consequence of the
Bologna degree structure showed the durability and permanence of this association.
Respondents from physics and students somehow reinforced the normative dimension of
these activities as far as they made a clear association between these two elements. Since
for students mobility is widely supported, it was not surprising to see their commitment to
it.
There is, however, another side to this. In Germany as the European Students Union noted“
students feel that they are not supported by the home institutions in terms of recognition”
(ESIB, 2009: 75); in Norway “academic staff posed obstacles and overburdening curricula,
and 85% of respondents of Bologna with Student Eyes 2009 reported problems in
recognizing credits earned abroad” (ESIB, 2009: 75). The Report ‘Bologna with Student
Eyes’ commented “a coherent and overarching European strategy for mobility,
368
369
413
underpinned by concrete national action plans to remove mobility obstacles, would ensure
an increased and more balanced inward and outward flow of mobile students” (ESIB,
2009: 78).
Concurring with innovative political agendas there was enhancement of the attractiveness
of European education systems to foreign students interpreted as inserted in Bologna
policy.
Weight attached to legibility of European higher education systems underlines the
regulative process and as such was perceived more clearly by academic staff than students,
administrative and management staff. Legibility of Bologna degree structure is simply a
formality.
Clearly change affected universities and academic disciplines in a variety of ways, thereby
generating a plethora of interpretations by academic staff and by students.
These interpretations entail different logics. The logic of action in the wake of mobility of
students set routines codified in common conceptions built on the experiences promoted by
European programmes. The logic of action following the attractiveness positioned the
Bologna degree structure in the marketplace and fulfilling an external challenge. The logic
of action behind legibility assigned to the Bologna degree structure has an instrumental
function based on formal arrangements. These arrangements carry out regulative
frameworks.
3.4.1 The elusive relevance of the Diploma Supplement
Another Bologna instrument is the Diploma Supplement. Views on its implementation
revealed the highest incidence of opinions “do not know” (see chapter VI, p. 274). The
purpose of issuing the Diploma Supplement to all graduates automatically and free of
charge complied with a policy endorsed at the Berlin meeting (2003). However the
knowledge about its value and significance were desolating in the extreme.
414
Our respondents declared the Diploma Supplement went far in satisfying the increase the
mobility of students and graduates, which was consensual across different groups of
universities though less so when “disciplinary fields” and “the three Estates” were
involved. Administrative and management staff were even more familiar with this
provision, in contrast with the ESIB (2009) report that argued students as a group were
albeit more sensitive to the Diploma Supplement.
The impact of the Diploma Supplement was held to be more positive by administrative and
management staff with closer kinship to the dynamics of regulation.
To which objectives the awareness about the implementation of the Diploma Supplement
was associated? Respondents moderately associated the Diploma Supplement with the
improvement of the employability of graduates 370 as it provides additional information on
the qualification gained. The Diploma Supplement by improving employability was seen as
a process believed to be effective at delivering information reinforcing its normative
component. Yet, this relationship was not widely recognized. Only a minority of those
polled thought the Diploma Supplement had made a major impact in meeting this purpose.
Once we controlled for “university” other topics emerged associated to the Diploma
Supplement, which suggests that universities attached importance to different institutional
processes. In short, the Diploma Supplement did not command a uniform clarity of
purpose from one university to another.
Lawyers 371 and physicists 372 stress cultural-cognitive aspects by focusing on an embedded
activity. Mobility of students had become generally accepted. This awareness about the
implementation of the Diploma Supplement correlated moderately for law and weakly for
physics with increase on the mobility of students and graduates. Regulative processes were
underlined by historians 373 via a moderate correlation with the improvement of the
370
372
373
371
415
legibility of European higher education system. Medicine 374 by juxtaposing the awareness
of the Diploma supplement with the enhancement of the attractiveness of European higher
education systems enhanced a pragmatic choice.
Analysis by “the three Estates” tied moderately awareness of the Diploma supplement to
increase of the mobility of European students and graduates and to the improvement of the
legibility of European higher education system, for both administrative and management
staff 375 and students 376 . Administrative and management staff construed mobility in terms
of its technical features. Students emphasised its formal benefits.
The analysis of the views of academic staff about the Diploma Supplement (see chapter
VI, p. 348) show the promotion of access of graduates to the labour market and the
facilitation of academic recognition were disputing prevalence within “university” and
“disciplinary fields” suggesting different national contexts and different academic cultures.
Academic staff did not see the Diploma Supplement as an instrument of comparability and
legibility of European higher education systems, a curious situation indeed as academics
left aside one of the main purposes of the Diploma Supplement. As tool for
communication, the Diploma Supplement did not seemingly bestow much benefit.
Interaction within institutions obscured the European level in promoting this tool.
3.4.2 Procedural aspects of the credit system
When asked about the impact of the credit system in the subject of student workload our
respondents believed improving the comparability of European higher education systems,
though this same item was also subject to opinion suspended (see chapter VI, p. 279).
This consensus held across “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three Estates”.
However, respondents identified this purpose with the credit system. Trends V report
argued that the use of the credit system was both incorrect and superficial, and widespread.
374
376
375
416
Even so, at European level, at least, its purpose found an acceptable echo. Interaction
within institutions revealed the European level. It was not however greatly revealing of
procedural aspects involved in its insertion with the ‘context of practice’ in the universities
under scrutiny.
Additionally, the implementation of the credit system fulfilled all the objectives as
aggregated results of “moderate impact” and “large impact” gathered very high
percentages (see chapter VI, p. 279).
What is the meaning of the credit system ascribed by our respondents? Awareness of the
credit system correlated moderately with improving the comparability of European higher
education systems 377 . Controlling for “university”, “disciplinary field” and “the three
Estates” the association most evident touched upon both awareness about the
implementation of the credit system and improvement of the legibility of European higher
education systems.
Clearly, the credit system was perceived in terms of comparability and legibility, an
appropriate terminology since in political discourses they were associated with the
Bologna principles and were identified as such across different groups of respondents.
Interpretations about the credit system stand for what the system of credits ought to be.
Thus, new cognitive framing of student workload and learning outcomes would emerge to
meet objectives related to qualifications framework, etc. The challenge was evident
The recognition of informal, non-formal and work-based learning remains a key challenge to institutions in
the context of lifelong learning, and ECTS now needs to be developed more holistically in order to ensure
that learning outcomes are recognized appropriately in all institutions and for all types of learning. Moving
to another level of ECTS development should not, however, deflect attention away from the crucial task of
ensuring that the fundamental elements of the system – learning outcomes and student workload – are well
understood and implemented (Crosier, et al., 2007: 38).
The comparability of higher education systems rested on the views academic staff held
about the validity of the credit system. These views revolved primarily around recognizing
377
417
that it fostered the adoption of the ECTS grading system, since opinions of support to
academic recognition relied heavily on the percentages of those “partially agree”. In short,
the association between support to academic recognition and the adoption of ECTS
grading system is dubious (see chapter VI, p. 279).
Whilst views of the worth of a credit system based on student workload generated some
positive support, the numbers of those “disagree” and “partially disagree” were significant.
It is then difficult to gauge the value of the credit system in the eyes of the academic
staff 378 . Furthermore, those holding percentages of “no opinion” outnumber those who “do
not know” which suggests the topic on the agenda did not stimulate critical judgment. The
value of the credit system in fostering the adoption of ECTS grading system saw the
highest level of opinion suspended, despite law enforcing its application both in Portugal
and Norway. The pressure of legislation did not alter the perception of our respondents,
which suggests a certain selectivity in interpreting Bologna instruments. Awareness of the
benefit deriving from a credit system based on the student workload as academic staff
perceive it, fluctuates.
Academic staff in one university and in history tended to “agree” more with the notion that
the credit system fostered the adoption of ECTS grading system. Respondents from
medicine inclined more towards suspended judgement. These differences between
university and disciplinary field show the finding the credit system does not command
universal acknowledgement.
3.4.3 From quality assurance to accreditation
Appraising the objectives of quality assurance mechanisms focused primarily on progress
on accreditation since opinion on the enhancement of academic standards rested heavily
on those “partially agreeing”. Accordingly assessing the enhancement of academic
378
As already mentioned in Italy there was a similar situation in assessing the credit system as a means to
encourage international student mobility as 48% of respondents were optimistic and 42.4% were sceptical
(Moscati, 2009).
418
standards at the university level remained unclear as reported by our respondents (see
chapter VI, p. 284).
Progress on accreditation varied between individual “universities” possibly reflecting
different national priorities and circumstances, just as the level of awareness varies across
the three Estates. Within “disciplinary field” it generated more consensuses.
Seen from an institutional perspective, national policy initiatives stressed accreditation as
the major quality assurance instrument and, at European level, ENQA published and set its
standards and guidelines into the framework of the Bologna process, which partially
explains the diffusion of quality assurance mechanisms within the Bologna process down
to the organisational field level.
Yet, in contrast to this, the numbers withholding opinion or suspending judgment were so
pronounced on all items, save the reinforcement of public accountability.
How far was the progress on accreditation associated with regulative or normative policy
instruments? Correlation between European level and measures at national level with to
progress on accreditation showed the latter to be more evident. A moderate association
emerged from the national level. In effect, the perceived impact of the legal framework
was associated with implementing quality assurance mechanisms as progress on
accreditation 379 . This perception underlined the regulative aspect in the drive towards
accreditation. It also emphasised the revealing of the national level as a consequence of
interaction within institutions.
Moreover, the correlation between implementation of the Bologna process at national level
viewed as developing supranational governance institutions to promote common European
standards was only weakly correlated with this same item e.g. to progress on
accreditation 380 . This was not unconvincing. It suggests that the perception of policy as
procedure is weak. The weight of national dimension was clear. Judgment was suspended
when the purpose of quality assurance mechanisms was presented as enhancing European
379
380
419
dimension meaning the European level was obscured by national level initiatives, despite
considerable international pressure brought to bear on the establishment of European
Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education.
Empirically recognizing national initiatives in quality assurance bears this out. As Trends
V dryly remarked “Many institutions and agencies currently consider only local or national
dimensions to quality assurance and enhancement. Greater communication about
developments across Europe in the Quality Assurance field is vital” (Crosier, et al., 2007:
58).
In Norway the Quality reform was implemented; in Portugal the Evaluation and
Accreditation Agency established; in Germany accreditation was perceived as the quality
assurance tool that would serve the paradigm of increased differentiation or competition,
“it was moreover seen as an international gold standard” (Witte, 2009: 230). In Italy,
delays to evaluation policy held the reform back. Without evaluation, institutional
autonomy did not lead to any genuine quality system (Moscati, 2009).
Accreditation at national level presumed that accreditation was sufficient to deal with a
wide range of educational standards (Westerheijden, 2007). From the institutional
perspective, the laying down of common criteria and their enforcement by coercive
procedures pushed the move towards accreditation forward. Pressures exerted in the
‘context of influence’ were decisive to this development.
3.4.4 Unconvincing procedures of internal quality systems
Within the general area of quality, awareness of working procedures of internal quality
systems provided proof sufficient to support the idea they were fully implemented.
Assessment of research quality was less positive. In many higher education systems,
Portugal for example, research assessment follows specific procedures undertaken by
agencies different from those charged with assessing teaching quality.
420
The component assessment of teaching quality was the most controversial of all those
analysed. The remaining two items gave rise to disagreement once “university” was
controlled, which suggests differences in the national context.
Our attention now turns to how universities handled and set indispensable action that takes
the objective of Bologna. To test this, association between the working procedures of
internal quality systems with level of awareness of pedagogic reform plus its counterpart
applied to quality assurance mechanisms were examined.
Awareness of pedagogic reform correlated moderately with quality assurance mechanisms
and with teaching quality 381 procedures, which is not altogether surprising, given that
Trends V (Crosier, et al., 2007) observed that the majority of higher education institutions
conducted periodic exercises in monitoring teaching quality.
However, the distinction between the various processes involved in the approval,
monitoring and periodic review of programmes that play a major role in the Bologna
process is a fine one. We tested the correlation between awareness about Bologna degree
structure and the approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes 382 .
The
correlation was present though being weaker when compared to previous components.
The correlation was moderate for two universities,383 in law 384 and for the academic
staff 385 . Controlling for the variable “university” revealed a deeply unenthusiastic
embedding of internal quality mechanisms at the organisation field level. This is a sensitive
issue given the recent establishment of degree programmes under the Bologna degree
structure. And academic staff involved in the design of new study programmes and
curricula might be more responsive to those practices.
381
Correlation coefficients = 0.353; 0.426.
383
384
385
382
421
3.5 Context of outcomes
The ‘context of outcomes’ of Bologna focused on coping strategies developed in the
pedagogic field dominated by the academic Estate (see chapter V, p. 179). At the
organisation field the second order effects showed up the impact of those policies
involving new patterns of institutional autonomy, academic freedom, academic status and
academic work, also revealing weaknesses in three areas of policy making.
3.5.1 Three weaknesses: lack of participation of policy consistency and
adaptation of disciplinary fields
Agreement over the weaknesses of policy did not offset the lack of awareness about the
issue involved in that weakness (see chapter VI, p. 302).
Amongst the sub-elements of policy weakness, the more controversial emerged with
participation of higher education institutions in the decision-making process and agenda
setting of Bologna and lack of consistency of policies on the one hand, and on the other
hand with the adaptation of different field of specialisation to the Bologna degree
structure.
Lack of participation found really echo in the absence of academia in the Bologna Followup Group; the inconsistency of policies addressed to strategic issues at the organisation
field level and the adaptation of different disciplinary fields to the Bologna degree
structure illustrate once again the argument of the exceptional condition 386 of particular
fields of scholarship (e.g. general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife,
architect, pharmacist and medical doctor).
386
The exceptions refer to both those specialisation fields where the directive 2005/36/European Commission
establishes the number of years of study required for professional practice (general care, dental practitioner,
veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and medical doctor) and to those fields (e.g. “engineering”
and “psychology”) that apparently fit the notion of regulated profession. The regulated professions often
voice their arguments favouring longer studies based on the assumption that professional qualifications
required by competent authorities demand additional years of study.
422
To stress the significance of frailties we introduced into play factors Cerych and Sabatier
(1986) considered as detrimental to the attaining of formal goals: clarity and consistency of
policy objectives and the degree of commitment to vary programme objectives.
Weakness in the consistency of institutional policies with policies and strategies developed
at European level affected policy implementation in the ‘context of influence’ because the
struggles in the Bologna process involved the status of the European Commission.
Clarity and consistency of official objectives did not mesh with the perceptions of our
respondents. In Italy knowledge of the reform strategy was inadequate (Moscati, 2009).
The component participation of higher education institutions in the decision-making
process and agenda setting of Bologna affected the degree of commitment to programme
objectives among those responsible for its implementation. Users and receivers of the
Bologna process did not command the possibility of intervening in the ‘context of
influence’. They were thus unable to develop actions taking the objectives of Bologna in
the ‘context of practice’. In Norway higher education institutions and academics saw
themselves as implementing a national reform rather than directly adjusting to European
developments (Gornitzka, 2006).
To what extent the adaptation of different field of specialisation to the Bologna degree
structure affected goal priorities within the ‘context of practice’? In Portugal, an attempt
was made to involve higher education institutions through setting up twenty-three
working-groups appointed by the Ministry in 2006. They represented the most appropriate
disciplinary fields to make proposals on the profile and competences of study programmes.
It soon emerged the debate was driven by vested academic interests and the next
government did not persist down this path.
The weaknesses of policy involved both consistency of institutional policies with policies
and strategies developed at European level and participation of higher education
institutions in the decision-making process and agenda setting of Bologna, which showed a
weak association with the awareness of adaptation of different field of specialisation to the
423
Bologna degree structure 387 . This item correlated moderately with the level of awareness
about the credit system 388 . Thus, goals priorities in adapting to the Bologna degree
structure were affected by the implementation of the credit system.
In three universities, these correlations were statistically significant. In the disciplinary
fields surveyed and across “the three Estates” academics and students, the same
correlations held good. Clearly, other elements can also disrupt policy implementation.
Returning for a moment to the issue dealt with earlier, namely the contribution of official
documents to policy implementation it was suggested that the lack of knowledge about
official texts would undermine both the causal assumptions underlying the reforms and the
implications for the ‘context of text production’ in the Bologna process (see chapter V, p.
172). Therefore, dominant institutional values (e.g. comparability, transparency, legibility,
etc.) at European level were difficult to grasp. The multiplicity of policy documents failed
to provide users of the Bologna’s texts with the possibility to design the ‘context of
practice’ with the attainment of goals (e.g. establishment of the EHEA, use of Diploma
Supplement, credit system, quality assurance, mobility) of Bologna as perceived by the
pays politique (Bergen Communiqué, 2005; Berlin Communiqué, 2003; Bologna
Declaration, 1999; Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, 2009; London
Communiqué, 2007; Prague Communiqué, 2001).
The remaining factors Cerych and Sabatier (1986) identified rested on the adequacy of the
assumptions underlying the reform and on the financial resources provided to carry it out.
As for the adequacy of financial resources on which the dependency on additional change
rested, our respondents expressed not the slightest opinion denoting lack of awareness
about it.
387
388
Correlation coefficients = 0.266; 0.288.
424
3.5.2 Institutional leadership, support structures as factors of success
Factors of success relate primarily to support structures. In effect, views of the adequate
level of institutional drew on those “partially agree”. They also included a significant
proportion of respondents that “disagree”, which makes awareness about the adequate
level of institutional autonomy (see chapter VI, p. 307) a trifle indecisive.
The institutional leadership and the support structures generated less agreement. Being the
latter the success factor more evident according to the views of our respondents.
The perceptions about the subsistence of support structures varied within “university” and
across “the three Estates”, as did institutional leadership. As for changes in the support
structures academic staff regarded it as a condition if only to cope with the increasing
academic administrative workload.
Views on strengthening institutional leadership were more affirmative amongst
administrative and management staff, a clear point to the presence of “top-down”
managerial ethic within universities.
Institutional leadership was perceived as a factor of success in policy implementation. In
the Portuguese case, a previous study (Veiga & Amaral, 2009b) showed that intended
changes distorted the vision leadership entertained about the progress of Bologna. Whereas
in Italy, the rector’s council supported the Bologna process whilst in the disciplinary field
academics engaged in a multiform resistance (Moscati, 2009).
The extent to which support structures facilitate policy implementation requires further
exploration. Thus, a more precise understanding may result from determining which
factors facilitate implementation.
The association between support structures as a factor of success was moderate and more
pronounced when related to the level of awareness about Diploma Supplement 389 , followed
389
425
by awareness of the credit system 390 . These associations illustrate how the development of
actions that takes the objectives of Bologna need complementary measures.
These correlations achieved statistical significance in three universities; in history; and
amongst the student Estate. Procedures and the formal routine components both of
Diploma Supplement and of credit system upheld the need for support structures and
reinforced the bureaucratic weight of Bologna. Using Neave’s terminology policy as
procedure (Neave, Forthcoming) refers to technical expertise that ensures the integration of
academic systems by using voluntary based arrangements creating imprecise obligations
and simultaneously complying with requirements of the Evaluative state.
Within the academic and administrative and management staff, other correlations showed
the university was central to understanding how support structures were crucial to other
topics of the reform. Institutional priorities and strategies thus demanded reinforcing of
formal organisation.
Moreover, financial resources, which Cerych and Sabatier (1986) identified as affecting
implementation, generated very high percentages of opinion suspended. In Italy lack of
financial resources hindered the policy of incentives to academic staff that compensated
their increased teaching activities (Luzzato & Moscati, 2005).
That implementation policy followed a wandering path in the universities surveyed might
in some measure account for the withholding of opinion. Shortage of money, however, did
not affect the perception of our respondents uniformly. In the Portuguese case, only
recently have higher education institutions begin to complain about financial compression
under the framework of Bologna (Universidade do Minho, 2008).
Nevertheless, in assessing the changes brought about by the Bologna process it is
important to analyse changes in the participation of different interests in the attendant
decisions for implementing Bologna, when appraising the value of success factors added.
390
426
3.5.3. Administrative and management staff and interest groups outside the
university
On the assessment of shifts in the participation of different interests in decisions for
implementing the Bologna process in the university, (see chapter VI, p. 325) amongst the
most controversial issues were awareness about changes in participation by administrative
and management staff together with the participation of external stakeholders with interest
outside the university. The predominant opinion of those two components “no change” and
“little change” rather than “moderate change” and “large change” give interesting insight
into contending arguments in favour of participation by external stakeholders.
Furthermore, it was an issue where judgement was suspended, with highest percentage of
“not knows”.
Despite major changes in legislation dealing with student participation, as the ‘Report
Bologna with Student Eyes’ (2009) admitted, awareness of this development was less
evident in our survey and then mainly amongst the academic staff (see chapter VI, p. 355).
Participation of students in drawing up credits based on student workload showed that its
awareness vacillated. The percentage of “moderate participation” assigned to this item was
very high suggesting it was not without its ambiguities and thus liable to change in the
future.
Furthermore, the level of agreement on the participation of students varied according to
university, whereas participation of academic staff fluctuated across disciplinary fields.
Historians were more positive. The participation of academic staff though highly
associated showed that those differing judgement were on a par with those expressing an
opinion. Again, respondents perceived the workings of the credit system unclearly.
The participation of students in assigning credits casts a broader light on these findings.
Student participation in this process has tended to chop and change though whether such
shift accentuated or diminished over time, we have no way to ascertaining.
427
The recommendation made by students and endorsed by Ministries at the Prague Summit
meeting of 2001 of the desirability of student opinion to governments and higher education
institutions (ESIB, 2007), should in the light of this finding, be taken cum grano salis.
3.5.4 New patterns of institutional autonomy and academic freedom: positional
autonomy
Change that follows from the Bologna process concerns primarily the increase control by
central administration. Perceptions of the improvement of information/communication
systems and the improvement or creation of new university structures both built out from
the percentage of those who “partially agree” (see chapter VI, p. 318). Muster is, then,
doubtful.
Items that focused on the increased management and administrative workload and the
increased control by central administration showed a variety of response particularly
amongst group of respondents, per disciplinary field and the tree Estates. Administrative
and management staff judged more changes in these spheres in terms of creating a “culture
of production, power and authority”, and transforming institutional autonomy into “an
operational task and the individualisation of a once-shared collective responsibility”
(Neave, 2009: 12). Reconfiguration of institutional frameworks reiterates this argument:
control by central administration increased.
To what extent success factors of policy implementation were associated with new patterns
of institutional autonomy and academic freedom? From an analysis of the success factors
and changes that brought about Bologna process ties between perception of institutional
leadership as a success factor and changes involving increased control by central
administration 391 were evident.
391
428
Views on support structures also correlated moderately to changes regarding the
increasing control by central administration 392 . These correlations concern primarily
positional autonomy in the meaning that
creating optimum effective administrative structures that permit institutional leadership to develop
and carry out those strategic decisions that enable the institution to discharge the responsibilities
and tasks which external interests and stakeholders have laid upon and to do so with speed and
within cost (Neave, 2009: 12).
A further examination of the success factor focused on perceptions related to an adequate
level of institutional autonomy. It also raised the issue whether changes following from the
Bologna process increased control by central administration. This was fascinating indeed,
not least because its shed further light on what Neave (2009) termed “Institutional
Autonomy’s mutation” (Neave, 2009: 14). Our respondents juxtaposed adequate level of
institutional autonomy and increased control by central administration. In short, academic
staff viewed the rise of administrative control as paralleled to the (adequate) level of
institutional autonomy. Respondents perceived the adequacy of institutional autonomy as
matching the introduction of managerial practices and to be efficient. It appears to reflect a
general shift from collegiality to “top-down” management (Neave, 2009).
Not only are these correlations statistically significant. They held good across three
universities 393 , for the discipline of medicine 394 and law 395 both applied disciplines; not
unsurprisingly in the eyes of administrative and management staff 396 .
Institutional autonomy was explored further by asking whether the Bologna process had
extended it (see chapter VI, p. 366).
To see an extension of institutional autonomy was not unreasonable. Indeed, Trends V
Report asserted that “the many legislative and procedural reforms which have been taken
place across most European higher education systems are in fact devolving greater
392
Correlation coefficients = 0.465; 0.457; 0.413.
394
395
396
393
429
autonomy to institutions” (Crosier, et al., 2007: 57). Institutional autonomy come under the
eye of Ministers as a Bologna priority (Berlin Communiqué, 2003). From Berlin meeting
onwards. Another interpretation which derives in the same direction (Neave, 1988,
Forthcoming) sees shifts in institutional autonomy as part of a broader development,
mainly the rise of the Evaluative state 397 which created a wide range of new stakeholders
with interests extended to the university but was not part of the Bologna reform.
The claim by Ministers at Berlin meeting that institutional autonomy would ensure higher
education had no excuse to complete the process. In Germany the Federal Government
amended the Federal Higher Education framework in 1998 to prepare HEIs for new
responsibilities and to strengthen institutional autonomy (Witte, 2006). In Italy, same link
between absence of institutional autonomy to reform was made (Luzzato & Moscati,
2005).
However, when polled, academic staff they did not agree that institutional autonomy
increased when applied to designing curricular reform, to recruiting students, to
recruiting, selecting and promoting academic staff. The adequate level of institutional
autonomy was viewed as a success factor by academic staff (see chapter VI, p. 307).
Correlation between these items showed no linkage whatsoever in the opinion of our
respondents being premature to juxtapose the adequate level of institutional autonomy with
the increase of institutional autonomy.
3.5.5 Increasing intervention of governance structures
Changes impinging on academic freedom (see chapter VI, p. 362) ranged from “little” to
“moderate”. Implementing Bologna did not affect academic freedom, or at least, the
academic Estate was able to preserve it. To this account, how pedagogic reform evolved
will be highly important since it is a responsibility - and a prime one – of academics.
397
The Evaluative state (Neave, 1988) stemmed from policy reforms in Western Europe (1980s) and in
Central and Eastern Europe (1990s). Governments moved back from higher education and other interest
groups emerged. Committees and agencies examined the performance of higher education institutions.
430
Controlling for “university” the response to the question of strong interference from
national government was more varied, one university more inclined to see “little change”
in the situation.
Variation was more marked across different disciplinary fields. Lawyers drew a line
between changes affecting the design of specific courses within the study programme,
which they saw as a limitation to academic freedom, while physicists were more sensitive
to the interference of other academic staff members.
Yet those items dealing with interference of external stakeholders, with interference from
national government and with interference of governing board of my university inducing
changes in my courses were held to be of “little change” and connected to managerial
hierarchy (Neave, 2009).
3.5.6 Academic status and academic work: Undermining the development of actions
taken to the objectives of Bologna
For those surveyed Bologna modified the academic status by lowering the level of job
satisfaction (see chapter VI, p. 367).
Increase in academic administrative workload accounted for most of the perceived
changes in academic status. Effectively increase of academic standards derived from a
large number of those “partially agree”. Therefore, awareness about the effects of these
changes upon the academic status are less clear as a result.
To what extent lowering the level of job satisfaction ties with changes in academic status?
Increase the time to teaching activities 398 and the increase of the administrative
workload 399 revealed lower levels of correlation, thereby illuminating the fall of in job
satisfaction, at least partially.
398
399
431
If the assumption that implementing the Bologna process serves the interests of academics
in satisfying work (El-Khawas, 2008) this would allow academics to act taking the
objectives of Bologna (e.g. Bologna degree structure, Diploma Supplement, credit system)
defined by the pays politique. However, these findings were indicating that the decrease on
the level of job satisfaction would prevent the enactment of such objectives.
Further investigation opened a new angle on the way the Bologna process influenced the
academic domain (see chapter VI, p. 370). In our respondents’ view either in part or
wholly Bologna induces a new equilibrium between values and practices in the way
teaching and research is conducted. In fine, the Bologna process had impact on both
teaching and research. However, since the percentages of “disagree” and “partially
disagree” were high and the percentage of those agreeing that Bologna did not impinge on
academic work was high, the assimilation of Bologna into the academic work was merely
plausible, but not confirmed.
How far academic work was associated to pedagogic reform? Awareness about the
pedagogic reform was the only element of the Bologna process which related to academic
work. The clearest association to emerge was between the pedagogic reform and the
component that stated Bologna is part of a new equilibrium between values and practices
in the way teaching and research was conducted 400 . In short, for academic staff of the
survey pedagogic reform was the heart of Bologna process. This result clearly emphasised
the teaching and learning dimension.
400
432
Conclusion
Policy analysis focusing on the implementation of Bologna examined expectations from
the standpoint of the pays politique (dominated by European and national level institutions)
and the views of the pays réel (dominated by the universities surveyed).
Empirical findings revealed that the level of awareness about Bologna as a policy process
was below expectations, given the level of opinion suspended. The discussion of the results
confirmed there was low awareness of Bologna, bringing out the linkages established by
respondents.
Reading Bologna as a policy process
Those rationales of Bologna linked to economic aspects were associated with pressures
wielded at national level which in turn related to efficiency in, and reduction of, public
expenditure. Conversely, the establishment of EHEA as a strategic goal was linked to the
development of a competitive European higher education market as it was proposed by the
European level. The vision of implementation was one influenced by its progress in other
countries and was paralleled by implementation of the national agenda, rather than being
associated with the establishment of EHEA, which seemed to set great store on the
relevance of the national dynamic in policy-making. This would appear to bear out the
findings of Witte’s study (Witte, 2006) which compared adaptation by European higher
education systems to the Bologna context in England, France, Germany, the Netherlands.
At national level, internationalisation policy was associated with mobility, quality in
higher education and attraction of foreign students. This association entails close
interaction between European and national levels. Correlation analysis made it possible to
evaluate how the pays réel perceived the significance of the most relevant dimensions of
Bologna as a policy process. The pressures exerted by European and national level
institutions are multiple and in different directions. The character of Bologna as an
intergovernmental initiative brings in national and European level institutions. The
433
linkages established by respondents reflect this pattern as European and national
institutions evolve, thereby confirming the interplay between European and national
policies (Huisman & Van der Wende, 2004).
Reading Bologna as policy implementation
The level of awareness about transformations, changes and impacts included aspects both
positive and negative. Positive aspects related, for instance, to changes in recognition
procedures for European and foreign degrees, with internationalization, pedagogic reform,
the perceived impact of the Bologna degree structure and of the credit system. Negative
aspects concerned the level of opinion suspended about specific sub dimensions crucial to
understand the tangibility of the reforms.
Changes focusing on recognition procedures and internationalization were associated with
changes in this policy area at national level. The introduction of pedagogic reform to the
Bologna process was not associated with national authorities. European programmes
launched at European level went side-by-side with pedagogic reform. The credit system,
the Diploma Supplement and the Bologna degree structure were also associated. Other
dimensions such as teaching methods and contact hours were scarcely associated with the
pedagogic reform. This unveils how pedagogic reform might not be fully implemented at
least as it is perceived by respondents. From the perspective of the pays politique,
pedagogic reform is a recent priority. In the pays réel the views expressed may be
interpreted as a plea to sustain academic values. The fact that students suspended their
opinion about its implementation would seem to confirm that possibility.
The perceived impact of the Bologna degree structure was associated with mobility,
attractiveness and legibility. The level of awareness about impact on these dimensions in
itself reflects the ability of the European level to permeate the organisational field with
new concepts. Attractiveness and legibility were introduced by Bologna and recognizable
by respondents. However, the Bologna degree structure was weakly associated with the
434
procedures of internal quality systems which hints at a low level of awareness about the
requirements a new degree structure demands.
The impact perception of the credit system upon comparability and legibility reflects what
the system ought to be. Perceptions about its value do not command general recognition.
Moreover, the perceptions about its implementation were limited and the association
established between the student workload and the pedagogic reform, weak.
The awareness of the Diploma Supplement did not generate uniform clarity. The
associations mainly reinforced technical features. In the minds of academic staff, linkages
with comparability and legibility were absent.
The perceptions about the success factors which related to the development of support
structures, included the implementation of both the Diploma Supplement and the credit
system, thereby confirming the need for technical support to embed these instruments in
the universities surveyed.
Negative aspects relate to the awareness about transformations, changes and impacts also
involved the perception of institutional leadership as a success factor as it also noted the
increased control by central administration.
Confirming that Bologna raises other issues, the increased control by central
administration as a perceived change at the universities posted emerges in an adequate
level of institutional autonomy perceived as a success factor. This raises Institutional
Autonomy’s Mutation (Neave, 2009) in the meaning that “top-down” managerial practices
guarantee efficiency. Lack of job satisfaction amongst academic staff correlated with the
increase of both teaching workload and administrative workload.
Reading the role of institutions sited at different levels
The impact institutional pillars (e.g. regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive
instruments) are perceived to have in implementing Bologna draws in this study on the
435
perspective grounded in the pays réel. Following the policy cycle, the identification of the
most relevant sub dimensions takes into consideration the main features of regulative (e.g.
laws and regulations), normative (e.g. what ought to be) and cultural-cognitive (e.g.
common frames of reference) instruments.
The perceptions of those surveyed about the ‘context of influence’ underwrote one thing:
EHEA rested on a challengeable and unsound basis. Moreover, economic rationales were
associated with national dimensions such as efficiency of national higher education
systems.
At national level, institutions develop normative instruments to define goals or objectives
related to efficiency and promote the construction of standards to which they wish to be
compared which in turn derive from the perceptions that the implementation of Bologna at
national level progresses in other European countries. At European level normative
mechanisms rely on the definition of goal attainment focusing on attractiveness as key to
the development of European higher education market.
Perceptions as to the ‘context of text production’ showed surprisingly the weak relevance
of official policy texts for implementation. Regulative instruments did not register, to any
great extent, major consequences. Other options, networking and the exchange of good
practices, rallied support. Interaction within institutions served therefore to obscure the
European and national levels. Official and policy documents were seen as irrelevant. The
European dimension of Bologna in the sense of degree structures converging with other
degree structures was seen as unsteady. At European level, cultural-cognitive mechanisms
operate through the notion that routines developed within the framework of European
programmes are largely taken for granted. A common framework of meaning was
conceived as participation in previous activities promoted by the European Commission
(e.g. the concept of mobility anchored on mobility for a period of studies). In the surveyed
universities, the development of recognition procedures reinforced the regulative
dimension in strengthening the basis to define rules.
436
Views on the ‘context of practice’ concentrated around pedagogic issues, an interesting
departure from Bologna’s objectives as the pays politique set them out in terms of
mobility, employability, competitiveness and attractiveness. Despite the perceived linkages
between the pedagogic reform with the credit system, the Diploma Supplement and
Bologna degree structure, perceptions of their implementation are far from backing the
idea that these goals have been attained.
‘Policy as procedure’ became the key to steering policy as implementation. It placed
weight on specific instruments - degree structure, Diploma Supplement, credit system, and
quality assurance mechanisms.
European level institutions, by contrast, developed
normative mechanisms to consolidate the impact of Bologna degree structure, Diploma
Supplement and credit system. In developing the European dimension of quality assurance,
impact of cultural-cognitive mechanisms did not appear to count for much.
Indeed,
interpretations took little consideration of external frameworks – for instance, ENQA.
National level institutions wielded regulative pressure to drive towards accreditation.
Perceptions relating to the ‘context of outcomes’ revealed a number of weaknesses –
amongst them the fall in the level of job satisfaction amongst academics and new
configurations of institutional autonomy based on positional autonomy (Neave, 2009) that
created administrative structures to reinforce the power of institutional leadership to meet
external requirements. These weaknesses undermine the objectives of Bologna set by the
pays politique. Higher education institution, institutions surveyed developed regulative and
normative mechanisms to increase central administrative control, increasing administrative
and teaching workloads based on the premise that other routines are not foreseen to release
responsibilities.
Reading Bologna from the pays réel
From the standpoint of the pays réel, its reception of Bologna revealed a complex situation.
The perceptions of the universities surveyed vis-à-vis Bologna’s boarder agenda showed
that not only academic cultures but also the pressure of other explanatory factors that
developed within the Bologna process (e.g. introduction of liberal education, Evaluative
437
state, measurement and the introduction of performance indicators, evaluation and
accreditation and ranking systems), played their part. Could it be that the shift in policy
discourse extended the scale of Bologna, thereby making it more difficult to draw a clear
line in the perception of the pays réel what in effect Bologna policy was and what was not?
Respondents had no single vision of Bologna: rather, each university has its own priorities
for implementing reform. Policy contexts took on different shapes. Academic cultures and
professional self-constructs were increasingly important in moulding how Bologna is
variously perceived by different interests and constituencies in the individual university.
Thus, in this inquiry, different disciplinary cultures subscribed to a wide range of views
that made their way and sustained arguments in a discourse that renders understanding the
Bologna process, if anything, more complex still.
The stance taken by the constituencies in higher education linked primarily to their
responsibilities as professionals. The suspension of opinion over recurrent issues revealed
lack of trust by students. Yet, the very areas where large numbers of respondents withheld
judgment can give little consolation to the pays politique. Most of these areas constituted
Bologna’s core agenda: the EHEA, administrative reform, removal of barriers to the
mobility of citizens, of European students and staff, Bologna degree structure, credit
system, matters one might reasonably expect to have an impact on those affected and
involved. Such topics were however less relevant than expected.
The views of administrative and management staff illustrated considerable enthusiasm.
The ties between internationalization and both mobility of European students and staff,
recognition procedures of European and foreign degrees; between language if taught
different from the mother tongue and the significant European content of courses and
curricula, involving the Diploma Supplement as a means to increase the mobility of
European students and graduates, certainly corresponded to the goal of mobility as laid out
by the pays politique. The linkages established between the setting up of support structures
and the implementation of the credit system and Diploma Supplement, for instance, would
seem to reflect the increased control central administration exercised.
438
Such control
appears to have imparted a greater degree of relevance to operational tasks in improving
institutional performance.
This situation has considerable bearing on institutional change within the Bologna ambit.
For policy mechanisms grounded in policy as procedure to be effective required a broad
shift in conceptual framework, while mechanical aspects dictate changes. The
implementation of the credit system without an accurate scale to determine credits, though
automatic, is inadequate for the purposes of the EHEA. Nor does it make the mobility of
students any easier. The adoption of the Diploma Supplement without a corresponding
grasp of its value is equally futile. Thus, convergence that was required of degree
structures grounded in national and institutional priorities entailed change in form, rather
than in substance.
When the conditions by which Bologna aimed to establish the EHEA were involved, it was
clear that policy as procedure assumed increasing importance. The analysis of this policy
mode took in hand the existing conditions in the universities surveyed (e.g. new patterns of
institutional autonomy, increasing intervention of governance structures, academic status)
to develop or improve indispensable action that in principle advances the attainment of
Bologna’s objectives.
439
440
Conclusion
“What ought to be, is something whose time has yet to come”
(Neave, 2009: 51)
Conclusion
The coming of the deadline for establishing the EHEA does not indicate that
implementation of Bologna is institutionalising it. From the perspective of the pays réel it
was not possible to see Bologna as bringing about practices that would serve the purpose
of institutionalising the EHEA. According to Olsen (2001) (quoting March and Olsen,
1995 and Olsen, 1997) three indicators measure institutionalisation. These are setting in
place structure and routine, standards, uniformity and authority in codes of meaning that
bound resources to values and shared ideology.
The findings of this inquiry showed first that shifts which impacted on administrative
reorganisation and institutional capacity building reinforced the link between
competitiveness, attractiveness, mobility, legibility and comparability in such policy areas
as internationalisation, quality, degree structure and the credit system. They strengthened
institutional leadership and support structures, but had negative effects on the level of
satisfaction in academic work. The degree of routine achieved by constant action was not
clarified by the research.
Second, the degree of institutionalisation increased as standardisation or convergence in
ways of reasoning occurred; however, the likelihood of this happening, once the levels of
opinion suspended were taken into account with core issues together with the diversity of
opinions to be found in different disciplinary cultures and professional status, is slim.
441
Setting aside resources to support and establish the EHEA, the third path for its
institutionalisation, is difficult to unravel. The low level of awareness amongst respondents
about factors relating to implementing Bologna did not permit existing weaknesses – for
instance dependence on further changes – to be offset, even if additional change is
necessary for the Bologna process to advance further.
The verdict appears to be this: despite the prospects for institutionalising the EHEA seen
from the standpoint of the pays politique, the present implementation stage appears to be
dominated by the effort needed to bring about pedagogic reform without the EHEA’s
associated impedimenta. As the level of awareness about Bologna as a policy process is
low, taking the high levels of opinion suspended, its implementation follows the
preferences and interpretations of higher education institutions. Research findings point the
predominance of pedagogic reform within surveyed universities as a major implementation
result.
The lack of efficiency of the implementation of Bologna in serving the purposes of the
EHEA raises the question whether the Bologna process is the most appropriate instrument
for this purpose or if it needs to be revised to fulfil the aim of establishing the EHEA.
Fulfilling the aims of the research?
1. What are the perceptions of the actors involved in implementing Bologna within
higher education institutions?
This inquiry examined a range of perceptions entertained by different constituencies in
higher education institutions surveyed on those issues held to be relevant in assessing
Bologna. This, it has to be said, is only a partial view. The sample is not representative of
constituencies in all establishments of higher education in Europe. What is striking is the
low level of awareness about Bologna as a policy process. By comparison, a reasonable
level of awareness is present when attention turns to change and impact wrought on
specific areas – for example, pedagogic reform, internationalisation and quality policy.
442
Conclusion
This situation also extends to the perceived impact produced by European and national
initiatives; to the impact Bologna degree structures and credit system are perceived as
having, as well as recognition procedures for foreign and European degrees. However, at
the level of job satisfaction, the impact produced is seen as negative. Opinion suspended on
core dimensions of Bologna (e.g. administrative reform, implementation of the credit
system, implementing the Diploma Supplement, factors weakening and strengthening
policy implementation) were seen as lowering expectations in the pays politique to steer
key policy actors in the pays réel towards implementing a model of European higher
education to attain increasing mobility, employability, competitiveness and attractiveness.
The analysis shows that perceptions of the three Estates vis-à-vis the Bologna process
supported changes in the universities surveyed. However, there is no clear indication that
the European model was seen as a powerful legitimising framework to reforms driven by
national interests as was found in a previous study (Witte, 2006). Seen as global and
international influences affecting Bologna, European pressures lacked authority. The
analysis of the impact of European initiatives on policy implementation exposed the high
relevance of European programmes, while the analysis of change in institutional
reconfiguration revealed interplay between the European level and the organisational level,
as the perceived impact of the Bologna degree structure reflects on mobility, and the
negative effects of Bologna associated to administrative workload impacts on academic
work. Yet, pedagogic reform – one of the dimensions held to be changing in the wake of
Bologna – was associated with European programmes in the perceptions of administrative
and management staff. Interestingly the intervention of the European level in making
changes to curricula, by adopting a credit system based on student workload, resulted only
in opinion being suspended contributing to stun pays politique.
Within higher education institutions surveyed, what is happening to date is the selective
use of the Bologna framework to assert the pedagogic reform giving the impression that
academia is playing the game of the establishment of EHEA. However, the level of opinion
suspended together with the incongruence of responses reflects how Bologna puzzled the
pays réel. This finding suggests that the Bologna process and the establishment of the
443
EHEA is far from captivating higher education institutions. The awareness by the pays
politique about this aspect is extremely relevant to envisage the Bologna process
institutionalising the EHEA.
1.1 What is the level of awareness of Bologna as a policy process?
Views on issues related to influences affecting Bologna at national level were indistinct
and blurred. This might appear as a set back for institutionalising the EHEA. Measures
necessary for disseminating Bologna’s objectives do not appear to share a common vision
that comes from boosting the European dimension in national reforms. When the
influences affecting Bologna were examined, the drivers of reform (e.g. economic, cultural
or political) remained indistinct in the minds of those surveyed. Rather, the establishment
of the EHEA, implementation driven by progress achieved in other European countries,
and the national agenda itself, together with changes in the policy domains of
internationalisation and quality, were held at the national level to be the main impetus.
Furthermore, given the fragile backing the legal framework provided, the apparent
relevance of regulative mechanisms was seen as weak, too. This finding reveals
illegitimate assumptions by the pays politique in perceiving policy implementation
grounded on passing of legislation.
High level of opinion suspended
Issues that featured Bologna as a policy process generated a higher level of opinion
suspended than those involving the procedural aspects of implementation. This suggests
that awareness about Bologna, either as a benefit or as a facilitator for domestic change,
though influential at national level (Witte, 2006), was not perceived by the three Estates in
the same way.
European and national institutions both failed to engage attention from the constituencies
of the universities surveyed. As for establishing the EHEA, it does not appear to reflect the
reforms clearly. Seen from within the universities surveyed, higher education institutions
were able to re-interpret Bologna in terms of pedagogic reform, which puts a very different
444
Conclusion
construct on the belief that European institutions determined the logic of action by bringing
pressure to bear on universities. In effect, such adjustment is a striking example of how
practice serves to modify the logic of appropriateness when the latter rests on normative
prescription. Thus, from the standpoint of the three Estates, pedagogic reform was itself a
‘social obligation’ and for that reason, formed the basis for compliance. Whether
pedagogies take shape with or without Bologna is an issue that deserves further scrutiny.
Whilst opinions were, relatively speaking, more forthcoming on issues dealing with the
primary functions of higher education institutions (e.g. teaching and learning) all
indications were that those surveyed found macro issues more difficult to judge. Although
this finding was foreseeable, it underlines the need to reinforce the engagement of the
constituencies of higher education institutions with European reforms.
1.2 What is the level of awareness of transformations, changes and impacts
Bologna has made?
The inquiry employed an institutional perspective to understand how perceptions of the
changes Bologna introduced had impact on universities (see chapter III, table III.5, p. 115).
Arguably, and in the light of the findings, structural changes are superficial.
When
organisational environments come under multiple pressures, organisations take on more
administrative capacity (Powell, 2007). Certainly, this gives rise to increased
organisational isomorphism, due mainly to the focus on proceduralism – that is, on good
practice, shared provision and common administrative techniques. In principle, when
structural change makes for better performance at administrative level, it becomes less
superficial by dint of the new pattern being taken up voluntarily and internally. Thus, it
may be expected that having recourse to agreed procedures brings about appropriate
performance in Bologna’s activities and, in the university level, leads to mimetic change.
445
Reasonable awareness about transformation, changes and impacts or reforms and the
rise of proceduralism
Perceptions of the effects of policy implementation by the pays réel which plotted the
degree of awareness applied to the transformations, changes and impacts of reforms
generated by the Bologna process were reasonable, in marked contrast with the views on
Bologna as a policy process. However, disciplinary cultures – history, law, medicine and
physics – generated several different interpretations, as indeed did the three Estates of
administration and management, academic staff and students. There are, in short, several
‘logics of action’ and a situation worth further pursuit by the pays politique to find
mechanisms to engage implementers in Bologna reforms.
Even so, in the eyes of the pays réel, the price of reform is not negligible. The rise in
administrative and academic workloads, the increase in the teaching load went hand in
hand with the lowering of job satisfaction. The latter was strongly connected with an
administrative reorganisation within the implementation of Bologna reinforcing the formal
dimension.
These findings convey the message that Bologna in the pays reél is not inducing key policy
actors to construct the EHEA. The emphasis on procedures contributed to blur the core of
EHEA grounded on shared identity and culture. Perceptions in the pays reél ascribe, then,
a new understanding of the Bologna process focusing on the development of procedures
not envisaging necessarily further integration of education policies.
Change is often incremental and unplanned. Understanding the role of institutions is
crucial if the significance of changes taking place in a more subtle way is to be grasped as
a result of interactions between the instruments of policy and the inmates of institutions.
Only from this perspective, will it be possible to envisage the institutionalisation of the
EHEA taking place precisely because Bologna brought about a shift towards the logic of
appropriateness based on practices that engage pedagogies. However, in the objectives for
establishing the EHEA, this effect was not mentioned. First, associating Bologna with the
446
Conclusion
pedagogic reform does not provide a clue about the European dimension of reforms.
Second, this shift provided no evidence that pedagogic reform embedded the European
dimension into the daily life of the higher education institutions surveyed. Additionally, a
pedagogic reform is not compatible with the establishment of the formal 2010 deadline
inherent to the political achievement of EHEA.
2. What is the role of policies and institutions located at different levels of analysis
(European, national and organisational field) for policy implementation?
Research findings are based on the processes through which policy implementation is
likely to occur. The theoretic-methodological framework generated in-depth insights about
the dynamics of policy-making with particular emphasis on the policy contexts (Ball,
2004; Bowe, et al., 1992) of Bologna with the setting of the pays réel. Policy instruments
are concomitant with institutional pillars. Institutional pillars (that is, regulative, normative,
cognitive-cultural dimensions) overlap with the concept of policy instruments in bringing
about the institutionalisation of the EHEA (see chapter III, table III.6, p. 126). Yet, they
also influence legal decisions and establish agreed principles both at national level and
within higher education institutions. Moving the Bologna process ahead involves the use of
policy instruments used at different levels of analysis (European, national and
organizational field) and bears upon the influence of a broader environment. The
complexity of Bologna implementation relies on the concurrent use of these instruments
steered at different levels of analysis
European policy instruments within the Bologna process include policies - the European
Union policies on education, for instance and steering mechanisms, which flow from the
outcomes of ministerial meetings, from the Bologna Follow-up Group and Bologna
working groups. They also extend to mechanisms of soft law, devised in the framework of
the Lisbon agenda. Essentially, these instruments are normative (and to the extent that
Bologna is held to be an intergovernmental process, are not regulative). The
intergovernmental approach is grounded in principles agreed between participating
countries, which effectively underline its normative dimension. Expectations at European
447
level of the pays politique towards the EHEA rely on the capacity of European institutions
to enforce compliance towards dominant values and practices agreed at European level.
National policy instruments taking shape within the Bologna process are in effect, the
policies and steering mechanisms of national higher education systems. These instruments
are essentially regulative. The bases of order at national level are rules legally enforced
(Scott, 2003). The behavioural logic that drives institutions is one of consequentiality
rather than appropriateness given the presence of penalty for lack of compliance (see
chapter III, p.108). Expectations at national level of the pays politique towards the EHEA
rely on the capacity of national institutions to enforce compliance towards national
legislation and dominant values and practices agreed at European level.
Within higher education institutions policies and steering mechanisms are set up within the
overall frame of the Bologna process. Policy instruments bring the three pillars together in
a mutually reinforcing way. Higher education institutions surveyed lay down internal rules,
which involve the regulative pillar – for example, in implementing recognition procedures
for foreign and European degrees.
Policy implementation and interaction within (and between) institutions
The 'policy cycle' approach (Ball, 2004; Bowe, et al., 1992) reflected the interaction within
institutions at different levels occurring in different phases of the 'policy cycle'. It showed
how interaction often obscures or may sometimes reveals different levels of analysis from
the perspective of those surveyed.
Research findings show there was an interaction within institutions involved in the
Bologna process implementation, with diverse effects depending on the level of analysis.
The European level was obscured by the very high level of opinion suspended on the
driving forces, strategic goals and focus of reform. Conversely, the European level was
revealed when the establishment of the EAHE was linked to the European higher education
market and to internationalisation policies associated with mobility, quality and
attractiveness. The analysis of factors influencing Bologna also emphasised the importance
448
Conclusion
of the national level in so far as the strategic goals of Bologna were in keeping with the
national agenda.
This finding is significant because from the standpoint of respondents surveyed, the
national level gained in importance due to the domestic nature of Bologna reforms,
whereas in the perspective of the pays politique European institutions were held more
influential in exerting their power. In the pays politique the European Commission
possesses both the status of additional member and the administrative and financial
capacity to induce institutional reconfiguration based on the capacity to enforce
compliance towards dominant values and practices.
In exploring the dimensions inherent to the production of policy texts research findings
focusing on interaction within institutions served to mask the national level.
Legal
frameworks were apparently less significant. In contrast, it showed the European level qua
European programmes impacted on policy implementation and on the universities
surveyed in creating recognition procedures for European and foreign degrees associated
with activity at international level.
Text production of policies brought together the
European level and the organisational field bypassing the legal basis of Bologna reforms.
Additionally, research findings highlighted the importance of European programmes and
less the relevance of those policy documents issued by stakeholders represented in the
Bologna process. Therefore, the importance of policy documents associated directly with
Bologna is restricted to those in the pays politique. Their significance in the pays réel is
worthless. These findings suggest that the implementers polled were not well acquainted
with both official texts and policy documents issued under the framework of Bologna
contributing to dilute the frames of reference
hampering further convergence of higher
education policies under the framework of Bologna.
The analysis of the changes envisaged by the pays politique with impact on higher
education occur in the ‘context of practice’ where policy is interpreted, assessed and
disputed. The results of the analysis obscure the European level because the Diploma
Supplement had only an elusive relevance. The European dimension of quality assurance
mechanisms is not clear. However, research findings revealed the European level in so far
449
as implementing the Bologna degree structure was associated with mobility, attractiveness
and legibility of higher education systems and with the perceived impact of the credit
system on their comparability reflecting that there are some Bologna's concepts being
absorbed in the pays réel.
However, respondents' perceptions about mobility, attractiveness and comparability are
inconsistent revealing that the pays réel identifies those concepts as they were described by
the pays politique, but without ascribing a specific meaning bearing in mind the EAHE.
This finding should be considered if Bologna is adapted to facilitate the implementation of
the EHEA.
Accreditation is a theme that comes associated to the national level and the legal
framework, while pedagogic reform is associated with accepted formal parameters (credit
system, Diploma Supplement, Bologna degree structure, quality assurance mechanisms).
Implementing the credit system was associated with defining competences, qualification
profiles and learning objectives as they were with creating support structures, seen as an
element in success. Interpreting and re-adjusting policy brought both European and
national levels together. These perceptions show how far monitoring, evaluation and
assessments of Bologna are more complex than trying to impose sense on the pays réel by
giving priority to the passing of legislation. This finding reveals illegitimate assumptions
by the pays politique about the general theory of policy implementation.
Low awareness about weaknesses of policy implementation
What emerges from analysing the impact of Bologna on academic staff, students and
administrative and management staff is that the awareness about weaknesses of policy
implementation is low. Interactions within institutions at different levels of analysis play
down the European and national levels and entailed a very incomplete awareness of the
weaknesses associated with implementing Bologna.
Interestingly, a suitable level of
institutional autonomy was thought to be a success factor in moving reform onwards.
Respondents' perceptions stressed the importance of coping strategies set up by their
450
Conclusion
universities. The issue of institutional autonomy was important from another angle –
namely the emergence of managerialism that often accompanied increases in autonomy. It
was important to see how the emergence of managerialism associated to the increased
autonomy of institutions and the concentration of power at the level of central
administration was perceived. Certainly, administrative and management staff are those
more aware and more supportive of the different dimensions involved in advancing the
Bologna process as it conferred them a more visible role. They are more aware and more
supportive of the different dimensions involved in advancing the Bologna process.
Empirical evidence emerged on which factors were important in particular 'policy contexts'
how far interaction within institutions played down or highlighted different levels of
analysis in the eyes of those believed to be key in institutional analysis (Powell, 2007).
The instrumental vision of the university, expressed through Bologna’s economic rationale,
efficiency of national higher education systems and national priorities (e.g. implementation
in keeping with national agenda) were important constructs in policy discourse. They gave
support to the role assigned to European level (e.g. European programmes) and, especially
their cultural-cognitive dimension, operationalized by student mobility based on periods of
study abroad, an European landmark.
The changes envisaged by the pays politique with impact on higher education institutions
produced disjoint progress. The perceived impact of Bologna’s instruments was seen in
terms of mobility and comparability which underlined the significance of the European
level, though it has to be said that progress in the matter of accreditation was associated the
national level, whilst pedagogic reform was seen as being driven forward within the
universities surveyed. These elements were key issues with each respective level. Yet,
European, national and organisational field are increasingly differentiated. Each tries to
take on what at European level amount to distinctive priorities. Whilst Bologna’s
instrumentality advances towards Bologna’s objectives because it is easy to achieve
convergence on mechanical aspects, at national level – key issues involve progress towards
accreditation because dominant discourses at European level concerning quality assurance
impact the attainment of minimal requirements of national higher education systems; and
451
within the organisational field – pedagogic reform aims at coping with the massification on
higher education.
Examining the role of institutions served two purposes. It showed how in implementing
Bologna, interaction took place within (and between) institutions. It showed how the
constituencies inside higher education institutions interpreted Bologna on their own terms.
Bologna emerges rather as a legitimizing framework for national reforms (Witte 2006).
Sited with the universities surveyed, Bologna pushed higher education institutions into
adopting coping strategies creating opportunities for development of the pedagogic reform.
What is then the role of Bologna?
Principles that are often linked with ‘convergence’ in shaping the EHEA (Amaral,
Maassen, Musselin, & Neave, 2009; Maassen & Olsen, 2007) were difficult to tell apart,
not least because of the wide range of meanings attributed to Bologna. These meanings
revolve around the concepts of transparency, comparability, legibility, mobility,
attractiveness, etc.
Bologna as way of keeping with other European states
Awareness of the extent of structural convergence with other European degree structures
mustered a very high percentage of those expressing “no opinion”. Amongst other
possibilities, such a stance would appear to reflect at least an unwillingness to hazard an
opinion, or at worst, lack of understanding about convergence in degree structures. Either
way, such a lack of engagement contrasts markedly with the interest shown in
implementing Bologna as a way of keeping up with other European states reflecting a basic
concern of national level to be amongst the leading countries. This finding is important
because it gives a new understanding of the Bologna process as an instrument, rather than
as a shared collective decision about the objectives of the EAHE.
452
Conclusion
Bologna puzzling the pays réel
Opinion in the pays réel brought up interesting inconsistencies with strong implications for
the role of Bologna in institutionalising the EHEA by focusing the convergence in ways of
reasoning. The level of awareness of the change and impact on pedagogies was high,
largely because pedagogic reform is reckoned to be fully implemented. Yet, awareness
about implementing the credit system and responsiveness to the issue of student workload
are flaccid. Moreover, in the pays réel, the perceived impact of European programmes is
greater than the impact of the legal framework and likewise for the Bologna degree
structure on mobility. But the degree of opinion withheld on the issue of removing barriers
to mobility was striking. Certainly, the role of the credit system for helping comparability
is recognized, but when it came to its implementation, the level of opinion unexpressed
raises doubts as to its credibility. Again, these findings reflected how Bologna puzzled the
pays réel.
Bologna unable to provide common frames of reference
From the view of the constituencies in higher education institutions surveyed, Bologna
reinforced the link with competitiveness, attractiveness, mobility, legibility and
comparability in some areas (e.g. internationalisation, quality, adapting the degree structure
and credit system). However, lifelong learning and employability were dimensions lost in
translation as far as they not emerge associated to Bologna in the eyes of respondents
surveyed. Lifelong learning is a priority item in European policies. It took on a new
impetus with the Lisbon agenda because the EU's overarching programme focused on
growth and jobs. (European Commission, 2000) Lifelong learning was taken by the
Bologna process (Prague Communiqué, 2001) and employability is an specific objective
for Bologna (Bologna Declaration, 1999). Research findings suggest that the assumptions
of the pays politique connecting Bologna with employability and lifelong learning are not
born out in the pays réel, suggesting further adjustments of Bologna to meet these
objectives. Moreover, these dimensions being part of the Lisbon agenda are dealt
disjointedly by the pays politique suggesting lack of compatible measures between
453
Bologna and Lisbon agenda on these topics. Again, the lack or conflict between frames of
reference, at least, partially explains why these dimensions were lost. Additionally, the
character of Lisbon agenda anchored on European Union and the character of Bologna
resembling a pan-European project contributes to make difficult policy coordination.
For the three constituencies in the establishments of higher education covered in this study,
Bologna gave rise to 'no opinion' on the establishment of the EHEA, on removal of barriers
to the mobility of European students, on the convergence of degree structures, the
implementation of the credit system, and even more for the perceived impact of the
Diploma Supplement, or on bolstering the European dimension. What this series of views
suggests is that the capacity of Bologna to legitimize change and to establish the EHEA as
a European model is limited or, to be more precise, is limited in respect of the
establishments of higher education the study surveyed.
Nor did Bologna’s implementation, from the standpoint of those consulted, permit
recognized weaknesses to be offset. The absence of “any special budget, allowance and
allocation to sustain universities in their transition from their tried and tested study
programmes to the Bachelor/Master format” (Neave & Maassen, 2007: 139-140) was not
seen as a hindrance to policy implementation. This finding may reflect a lack of concern
about the effective implementation of Bologna, although as other studies from an earlier
time have made clear, adequate financial resources certainly affect implementation.
(Cerych & Sabatier, 1986). It was perceptible that academic staff tended to agree more
with the identification of weaknesses, than administrative and management staff. The latter
recognized more clearly the success factors, which denotes their positive attitude towards
the implementation of Bologna. This finding supports arguing in favour of lack of
institutionalisation of EHEA as it is not clear that resources to the establishment of EHEA
were provided in the universities surveyed.
454
Conclusion
Bologna reinforcing institutional leadership and raising tensions
Bologna strengthened the role of institutional leadership and support structures, both of
which are viewed as success factors. Administrative and management staff tended to
perceive more positively the reinforcement of institutional leadership, while academic staff
viewed more positively the latter. Within Bologna, enhancing institutional leadership tied
in with the rise of institutional management, which sought to move “higher education
towards greater economic effectiveness by increasing the entrepreneurial spirit of
institutions in a more competitive environment” (Amaral, 2002: 297). The agenda for
modernising higher education (see chapter V, p. 181), seeks to cut back direct government
interference in higher education and, by the same token to extend institutional autonomy
proportionately, the whole being accompanied by professionalisation of institutional
leadership and management, further elaboration of quality mechanisms and adaptation in
the funding base of higher education establishments (Maassen, 2006).
By playing up the role of institutional leadership as privileged interlocutor between the
pays politique and the pays réel, Bologna appears to be raising tensions between academic
staff and administrators: “Central administration tends to cling to power, and even when
they nominally decentralise responsibilities to operating units, they may still try to retrain
the ultimate control.” (Amaral, Fulton, & Larsen, 2003: 284). By seeing administrative and
management staff as providing an essentially professional contribution to implementing
Bologna, the tendency is to value results, rather than process. This is perceived by the pays
politique as the necessary condition for moving forward in establishing the EHEA whereas
the degree structure, the credit system, the Diploma Supplement are not valued, they are a
procedure. Setting support structures in place is both appropriate and germane to fulfilling
this end. As one specialist on higher education policy noted recently, there are certain
advantages to be had by attending to procedure rather than to process: “(…) it is easier (…)
to claim a pleasing convergence (…) around pragmatic operational procedures – good
practice, shared provision and common administrative techniques – than it is to
‘harmonize’ or to ‘create a common architecture’ to accommodate differing and often
deeply held values, visions and the priorities to which they give rise” (Neave,
455
Forthcoming: 16-17). Thus, alignment around procedure and common means of validating
performance accelerates mechanical change. As was noted earlier, our respondents were
certainly aware of the impact the credit system had on comparability but withheld
judgment about its implementation.
Embedding Bologna within higher education appears to increase control by central
administration and, from the governing boards in the universities surveyed, greater
intervention. These findings suggest the implementation of Bologna reinforces tensions
between academic staff and administrative staff slowing down the adherence to the idea of
EHEA and hampering the development of convergence of ways of reasoning. It remains,
for the moment, a moot point whether these developments bear, whether directly or
indirectly, any relationship with the negative effects on academic work, noted by academic
staff in this inquiry.
Possible explanations for the lack of effectiveness
Taking an institutional perspective, for the moment, one possible explanation for
Bologna’s lack of effectiveness in institutionalising the EHEA may be the unfeasibility of
having a standardised and uniform set of changes prescribed at supranational level to
enforce further progress in the field of education policies.
Understanding the establishment of EHEA as an integration process involving more
countries than the EU member states challenges the legitimacy of regulatory frameworks
used for other European integration processes. Even though expectations related to the
development of supranational institutions winning a key role in other integration processes
requires "detailed knowledge about institutional variations across sectors" (Olsen 2001:
340). In the case of higher education, for example, it is not clear that the activities of
ENQA as a supranational institution able to influence policies at national level and within
higher education institutions will increase the level of European integration. Research
findings of this study reflect that the trend towards accreditation bears on the national
level, and not necessarily on the European level.
456
Conclusion
On the other hand, if we accept that Bologna stimulates or legitimizes reforms at national
level (Witte 2006) and acts as an ‘icebreaker’ (Enders & De Boer, 2009), this study points
to the likelihood being remote at the base unit level. In effect, pedagogic reform scarcely
used the Bologna instruments amongst which, the credit system based on the student
workload, Diploma Supplement, or the Bologna degree structure, at all. Therefore, the task
of Bologna in institutionalising the EHEA could be an understandable failure.
Implications Arising
The limitations of New Institutionalism in explaining Bologna’s absence of relevance in
institutionalising the EHEA in turn arise from lack of effectiveness of soft law
mechanisms, inspired in the normative perspective, to make their way in face of multiple
value-sets “individuals may be able to pick and choose as well as to interpret” (Peters,
1999: 39).
Since European policies could not formally laid out a model or template for the EHEA,
policy formulators, acting at the European level opted for a soft law mechanism to urge
governments to coordinate their policies voluntarily around an issue that will yield
compliance. Falling in with the EHEA rests on non-binding arrangements in the hope they
will give rise to a shift in the logic of appropriateness sufficiently vague to avoid loss of
face, avoid retaliation or leave reciprocal non-compliance aside (Guzman & Meyer, 2009).
It is a change in approach sparing those subscribing to it “to be regarded as deviant or
inattentive or behind the times. Not to do so can result in loss of legitimacy and, perhaps,
attendant material resources” (Scott, 2003: 164). What Bologna ought to be bears a certain
kinship with a moving target (Neave & Maassen, 2007) to the extent that it ought to be
sufficiently adaptable to take full account of the organic and intrinsically evolutionary
nature in higher education.
This study showed without peradventure that Bologna’s capacity to create a common
procedural system based on the activity of administrative and management staff conflicts
with the embedded values of academic cultures, quite apart from fuelling tensions between
457
different professional values – those of academic staff versus administrative and
management personnel. It may well be that Bologna's lack of effectiveness in increasing
convergence in ways of reasoning arises in part at least from many of the frictions
associated with policy implementation, where as a leading student on the matter, noted
“there will be some opportunity in practice, if not in theory, to violate norms, or to
interpret institutional values differently, or otherwise to exercise individual judgment.”
(Peters, 1999: 39).
In the study of higher education, policy implementation extended its scope through using
the 'policy cycle' approach (Ball, 2004; Bowe, et al., 1992) This approach opened up new
vistas and very particularly because “policy making does indeed go through several stages
[policy contexts] and emerges from different sources” (Kogan, 2005: 63). It underlined the
fact that interaction within institutions gave a greater leverage for understanding
connections between different levels of analysis (European, national and the organisational
field) as they were perceived by the three constituencies in the establishments this study
covered.
Succinctly stated, Bologna and the establishment of the EHEA do not connect, at least in
the opinions of those this inquiry questioned. Yet, if Bologna legitimized changes at the
national level, does it also do so for the universities surveyed? It does to assert the
pedagogic reform and to reinforce administrative reorganisation and institutional-capacity
building.
One of the features of the current study lies in its ranging across different analytical levels
and very particularly in the way the universities surveyed took into account measures
launched at the European and national levels. Most of the assessments of Bologna done by
the pays politique have examined the European or the national perspective. With the
possible exceptions of reports filed by EUA and ESIB the implementation within higher
education institutions has remained rarely unexploited. For its part, the EUA focused on
the leadership of higher education institutions. As a result, it was no easy matter to filter
and to weigh up the views of the constituencies in higher education. The ESIB expressed
458
Conclusion
student opinion. Moreover, they stand on Bologna’s periphery, a position shared as much
by the students in ESIB as by those figuring in this inquiry.
Limitations of the research and Recommendations for Future Work
This work is an in depth study into specific dimensions involved in implementing Bologna.
Given awareness that Bologna was at different stages of its 'policy cycle' in different
higher education institutions, the dimensions covered by the questionnaire left aside such
topics as the qualifications framework or learning outcomes on grounds of their recent
inclusion in the Bologna process. Furthermore, the disappointing participation of certain
higher education institutions excluded any broader ranging perspective. Unwillingness of
some establishments to participate in the study reflected a certain malaise with Bologna.
Lack of time and because it was beyond the capabilities of a single researcher to combine
survey with fieldwork in the universities, the analysis of political strategies tackling the
effects of Bologna reforms in the universities surveyed did not figure in our study. From
this it follows, that to examine the unfolding of Bologna, using the 'policy cycle'
perspective with special attention paid to the coping strategies developed by universities
and polytechnics would be desirable. Furthermore, since the characteristics of the EHEA
are still taking shape, changes following from the Bologna process will always throw up
difference in the logic of action.
The Three Estates of higher education perceive Bologna very differently. And the
interlocutors of the Bologna process in the pays réel play roles that are dissimilar.
Academic staff is the privileged interlocutor of the national level. Their views on Bologna
reflected a passive attitude, resisting change. Academic staff has an opinion, but fails to
put in hand the action necessary to establish the EHEA, probably because EHEA is not
palpable or that creating the conditions required, takes place mainly at the administrative
level. Students are but partial interlocutors of the European and national levels, despite
their formal participation in the Bologna Follow-up Group. In this study, time and again
the students’ suspension of judgment reinforced that role. Administrative and management
459
staff forms the main channel of exchange with the European level institutions. As such,
their logic of appropriateness emerges by asking - what is expected of me in this situation,
given my role? (Scott, 2003). Administrative and management staff surveyed showed an
enthusiastic approach while maintaining a defensive posture to minimize negative sideeffects within their own establishment.
These stances make sense of “the institutional dynamics of the European University”
(Olsen & Maassen, 2007: 19). These dynamics build on the perceptions of academic staff,
students and administrative and management staff each of whom wield its own logics of
appropriate behaviour depending on their status, positions and roles. How these different
forms of logic define a specific idea of University is worth exploring further.
Taking the four visions outlined by Olsen (2007) (the University is a rule-governed
community of scholars, the University is an instrument for national political agendas, the
University is a representative democracy, the University is a service enterprise embedded
in competitive markets 399 )
based on autonomy and conflict dimensions, empirical
evidence of this study suggests that academic staff’s opinions build on distinctive cultures
of disciplines and portray both conflicting views and objectives about Bologna. Historians
tend to be more positive whereas medical doctors persistently suspended their judgment.
Opinions amongst administrative and management staff and amongst students diverge as
well. The former are persistently enthusiastic. The latter withhold giving an opinion.
Policy actors perceived norms and objectives, differently.
Academic staff inclined towards seeing the University as a representative democracy
whereas the perceived relevance of administrative and management staff “is justified by
their contributions to the performance of the University” (Olsen, 2007: 32), as, for
instance, setting up support structures to deal with Bologna. How far these perceptions
entail effective empowerment of administrative and management staff in informal power
structures will determine representative influence “in the hands of the new breed of
university leaders” (De Boer & Stensaker, 2007: 116).
399
See chapter III, p. 123.
460
Conclusion
Administrative and management staff are closer to the vision of the University as a service
enterprise, embedded in competitive markets since their defensive stance also emphasized
responsiveness to stakeholders and to external agencies. Their positive and enthusiastic
opinions about Bologna, however, are broadly in keeping with the expectations and
requirements of the pays politique. Institutional change is viewed as adaptation to
circumstances.
European institutions, for example, the European Commission view the University as
service enterprise driven by competitive markets. The Lisbon agenda which sought to
create the most competitive knowledge economy, on the one hand and the linkages
established with the Bologna process, on the other, strengthened the vision of service
enterprise “as standardise education product over universities’ preferences for providing
what they see as necessary and/or appropriate” (Salerno, 2007: 128). Competition,
efficiency, responsiveness to stakeholders will stimulate the stratification of higher
education systems based on perceived quality and creating a ranking system that
will demand student selectivity mechanisms that will impinge on access, the accumulation of wealth
will create a system of rich and poor institutions and a set of universities capable of doing worldclass research will inevitably force some universities that are the pinnacle in their own country’s
system today to lose some of their prominence in the broader European Research Area of tomorrow
(Salerno, 2007: 129)
This instrumental view is broadly in keeping with the views of administrative and
management personnel surveyed but are at odds with the vision academic staff upheld. The
idea of enhancement the attractiveness of EHEA aligns with this vision as much as the
increased influence of rankings in higher education institutions.
How far will institutional dynamics drive towards the vision of the University representing
democracy or the vision of the University as a service enterprise working in competitive
markets? Either way will determine those changes that, in turn, will mould the level of
integration in education policies if Europe and within the European Union. In such
account, not only professional roles but also academic cultures will remain important to
grasping the real significance of EHEA in the pays réel.
461
462
References
REFERENCES
Alesi, B., Burger, S., Kehm, B., & Teichler, U. (2005). Status of the Introduction of
Bachelor and Master Study Programmes in the Bologna Process and in Selected European
Countries Compared with Germany Kassel. Centre for Research on Higher Education and
Work - University of Kassel.
Allais, S. (2007). Why the South African NQF failed: lessons for countries wanting to
introduce national qualifications frameworks. European Journal of Education, 42(4), 523547.
Allen, D. K. (2003). Organisational climate and strategic change in higher education:
organisational insecurity. Higher Education (46), 61-92.
Amaral, A., & Magalhães, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders. In A.
Amaral, A. J. Glen & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing Higher Education: National
Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. 1-21). Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Amaral, A., & Neave, G. (2009). On Bologna, Weasels and Creeping Competence. In A.
Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration and the
Governance of Higher Education and Research (pp. 281-299). Dordrecht: Springer.
Amaral, A., Fulton, O., & Larsen, I. M. (2003). A managerial revolution? In A. Amaral, V.
L. Meek & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? (pp. 275296). Dordrecth: Kluwers Academic Publishers.
463
Amaral, A., Jones, G. A., & Karseth, B. (2002). Governing Higher Education: Comparing
National Perspectives. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing Higher
Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. 279-298). Dorderecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Amaral, A., Neave, G., Musselin, C., & Maassen, P., (Eds.). (2009). European Integration
and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Amaral, A., Veiga, A., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Inquérito às instituições de ensino superior
sobre adequação de cursos no âmbito do processo de Bolonha. Lisbon: Ministério da
Ciência e do Ensino Superior.
Ball, S. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: explorations in policy sociology.
London: Routledge.
Ball, S. (1998). Big Policies/Small World: an introduction to international perspectives in
education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119-130.
Ball, S. (2004). Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural Approach Buckingham.
Open University Press.
Barblan, A., & Teichler, U. (2000). Implementing European Policies in Universities: The
SOCRATES experience. In A. Barblan, S. Reichert, M. Schotte-Kmoch & U. Teichler
(Eds.), Implementing European Policies in Higher Education Institutions (Vol.
Werkstattberichte - Band 57). Kassel: Verlag Jenior & Pressler.
Barblan, A., Kehm, B., Reichert, S., & Teichler, U. (1998). Emerging European Profiles of
Higher Education Institutions. Kassel: Centre for Higher Education and Work, University
of Kassel.
464
References
Barnett, R. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education Philosophy. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education Volume 3 - Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1896-1907). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a Definition of Disciplinary Cultures. Studies in Higher
Education, 6(2), 109-122.
Becher, T. (1992). Section V - Perspectives on Higher Education - Introduction. In R. B.
Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education - Volume 3 - Analytical
Perspectives (pp. 1763-1776). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992). Process and Structure in Higher Education. London:
Routledge.
Becher, T., & Parry, S. (2005). The Endurance of the Disciplines. In I. Bleiklie & M.
Henkel (Eds.), Governing Knowledge (pp. 133-144). Dordrecth: Springer.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories (2nd edition ed.).
Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education.
Benelux Bologna Secretariat. (2009). Bologna beyond 2010 - Report on the development of
the European Higher Education Area. Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Ministerial Conference.
Bergen Communiqué. (2005). The European Higher Education Area - Achieving the
Goals. Bergen.
Berlin Communiqué. (2003). Realizing the European Higher Education Area. Berlin.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagoy, symbolic control and identity (Revised Edition ed.).
Oxford: Rowman Littlefield.
465
Beukel, E. (2001). Educational policy: Institutionalization and multi-level governance. In
S. S. Andersson & A. K. Eliassen (Eds.), Making Policy in Europe (pp. 124-139). London:
Sage.
Bezes, P. (2007). The Hidden Politics of Administrative Reform: Cutting French Civil
Service Wages with a Low-Profile Instrument. Governance, 20(1), 23-56.
Birkland, T. A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process - Theories, Concepts, and
Models of Public Policy Making. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Blackmur, D. (2004). A Critique of the Concept of a National Qualifications Framework.
Quality in Higher Education, 10(3), 267-284.
Bleiklie, I. (2001). Towards European Convergence of higher Education Policy. Higher
Education Management, 13(3), 9-28.
Bleiklie, I., & Kogan, M. (2000). Comparison and Theories. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I.
Bleiklie & M. Henkel (Eds.), Transforming Higher Education (pp. 11-34). London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Bleiklie, I., Høstaker, R., & Vabø, A. (2000). Policy and Practice in Higher Education.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Blom-Hansen, J. (1999). Avoiding the 'joint-decision trap': Lessons from intergovernmental relations in Scandinavia. European Journal of Political Research, 35, 35-67.
Bologna Declaration. (1999). The European Higher Education Area. Bologna.
Bologna Follow-up Group. (2003). Bologna process between Prague and Berlin. Berlin.
Bologna Follow-up Group. (2005). Bologna process stocktaking report. Bergen.
466
References
Bologna Follow-up Group. (2007). Bologna process stocktaking report. London.
Bologna Follow-up Group. (2009). Bologna process stocktaking report. Leuven/Louvainla-Neuve.
Borrás, S., & Jacobsson, K. (2004). The open method of co-ordination and new
governance patterns in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2), 185-208.
Bowe, R., Ball, S., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming Education and Changing Schools: case
studies in policy sociology. London: Routledge.
Carapinha, B. (2008). Editorial - Bologna Beyond 2010. The Student Voice.
Cardoso, S. (2009). Representações estudantis da avaliação das instituições de ensino
superior. Grau de Doutor: Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro.
Cerych, L., & Sabatier, P. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: the
implementation of higher education reforms in Europe. Trentham: European Institute of
Education and Social Policy.
Christensen, T., & Røvik, K. A. (1999). The ambiguity of appropriateness. In M. Egeberg
& P. Laegreid (Eds.), Organizing Political Institutions: Essays for Johan P. Olsen (2nd
ed., pp. 159-180). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System. California: University of California Press.
Corbett, A. (2005). Universities and the Europe of Knowledge: Ideas, Institutions and
Policy Entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education, 1955-2005. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
467
Cram, L. (2001). Whither the Commission? Reform, renewal and the issue-attention cycle.
Journal of European Public Policy, 8(5), 770-786.
Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). Trends V: Universities shaping the European
Higher Education Area. Belgium: European Universities Association.
Dale, R. (2003). The Lisbon declaration, the reconceptualisation of governance and the
reconfiguration of European educational space. Paper presented at the Governance,
Regulation and Equity in European Education Systems.
Dale, R. (2007). Globalization and the Rescaling of Educational governance: a case of
sociological ectopia. In C. A. Torres & A. Teodoro (Eds.), Critique and Utopia: New
Developments in the Sociology of Education in the twenty-first century (pp. 25-42). New
York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Dale, R. (2008). Repairing the deficits of modernity - The emergence of parallel discourses
in higher education in Europe. In D. Epstein, R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi & S. Wright
(Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2008 (pp. 14-31). London: Routledge.
De Boer, H., & Stensaker, B. (2007). An Internal Representative System: The Democratic
Vision. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration
(pp. 99-117). Dordrecht: Springer.
de la Porte, C. (2002). Is the Open Method of Coordination appropriate for organising
activities at European level in sensitive policy areas? European Law Journal, 8(1), 38-58.
de la Porte, C. and Pochet, P. (2004). The European Employment Strategy: existing
research and remaining questions. Journal of European Social Policy, 14, pp. 71-78.
468
References
de la Porte, C., & Nanz, P. (2004). The OMC - a deliberative-democratic mode of
governance? The cases of employment and pensions. Journal of European Public Policy,
11, 267-288.
de la Porte, C., Pochet, P. and Room, G. (2001), "Social Benchmarking, Policy-making and
the
Instruments
of
New
Governance
in
the
EU"
http://eucenter.wisc.edu/
OMC/Papers/delaporteetal.pdf
de Wit, K. d., & Verhoeven, J. C. (2001). The Higher Education Policy of the European
Union: With or Against the Member States? In J. Huisman, P. Maassen & G. Neave (Eds.),
Higher Education and the Nation State: The International Dimension of Higher Education
(pp. 171-231). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Deane, C., & Watters, E. (2004). Towards 2010 - Common Themes and Approaches across
Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training in Europe (Background
research paper): National Qualifications Authority's of Ireland.
Dehousse, R. (2002). The Open Method of Coordination: a new policy paradigm? Paper
presented at the First Pan-European Conference on European Union Politics.
Delanty, G., & Rumford, C. (2005). Rethinking Europe. Oxford: Routledge.
Dimaggio, & Powell. (1983). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
Dougherty, J., & Pfaltzgraff, R. (2001). Contending Theories in International Relations - a
comprehensive survey. New York: Longman.
469
El-Khawas, E. (2008). Emerging Academic Identities: A new Research and Policy Agenda.
In A. Amaral, I. Bleiklie & C. Musselin (Eds.), From Governance to Identity (pp. 31-44).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Elzinga, A., & Jamison, A. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher
Education - Science Studies. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of
Higher Education - Volume 3 - Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1943-1956). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Enders, J., & De Boer, H. (2009). The mission impossible of the European University. In
A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration and the
Enders, J., File, J., Huisman, J., & Westerheijden, D. (2005). A response to the CHEPS
Scnarios on Higher Education and Research in 2020. Enschede: CHEPS.
Enders, J., Kaiser, F., Theisens, H., & Vossensteyen, H. (2005). Octavia, the Spider-WebCity. In J. Enders, J. File, J. Huisman & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), The European Higher
Educationa and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates (pp. 75-83).
Enschede: CHEPS.
Ertl, H. (2006). European Union policies in education and training: the Lisbon agenda as
a turning point? Comparative Education, 42(1), 5-27.
ESIB. (2005a). The Black Book of the Bologna Process. Bergen.
ESIB. (2005b). Bologna with students eyes. Bergen.
ESIB. (2007). Bologna with students eyes. London.
ESIB. (2009). Bologna with students eyes. Leuven.
470
References
European Commission. (2000). A memorandum on Lifelong Learning. SEC (2000) 1832.
Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2001a). Communication from the Commission - The Future of the
European Union - European Governance Renewing the Community Method. COM (2001)
727 final. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2001b). European Governance - a White Paper. COM (2001) 428
final. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2002a). Communication from the Commission - Investing
efficiently in education and training: an imperative for Europe. COM (2002) 779 final.
Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2002b). Detailed Work Programme on the Follow-Up of the
Objectives of Education and Training Systems in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2003). Communication from the Commission - The Role of
Universities in the Europe of Knowledge. COM (2003) 58 final. Brussels: European
Commission.
European Commission. (2005a). Communication to the Spring council - Working together
for growth and jobs: a new start for the Lisbon strategy. COM (2005) 24 final. Brussels:
European Commission.
European Commission. (2005b). Communication from the Commission - Modernising
education and training systems: a vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in
Europe. COM (2005) 549 final/2. Brussels: European Commission.
471
European Commission. (2006). Progress Towards the Lisbon objectives in education and
training. SEC (2006) 639. Brussels: European Commission.
European Council. (2000). Conclusions of Lisbon European Council. Lisbon: European
Council.
European Council. (2005). Conclusions of Brussels European Council. Brussels: European
Council.
European Union Committee. (2008). The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment. London:
House of Lords.
European University Association. (2005a). 3rd Convention of European Higher Education.
Paper presented at the 3rd Convention of European Higher Education.
European University Association. (2005b). Developing an internal quality culture in
European universities. Brussels.
Eurydice. (2000). Two Decades of Reform in Higher Education in Europe: 1980 onwards.
Brussels.
File, J., Beerkens, E., Leišytė, L., & Salerno, C. (2005). Vitis Vinifera, the City of Traders
and Micro-Climates. In J. Enders, J. File, J. Huisman & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), The
European Higher Educationa and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic
Debates (pp. 75-83). Enschede: CHEPS.
Fulton, O. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education - Higher
Education Studies. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher
Education - Volume 3 - Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1810-1821). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
472
References
Fulton, O., Amaral, A., & Veiga, A. (2004). Report of site visits of an external monitoring
team to the University Ca’ Foscari (Venice) and the University of Urbino. UNIMON
project - Monitoring the harmonisation process of tertiary education systems in some
countries of the European Union (follow up of the Bologna and Prague Conferences) with
specific reference to the Italian reform.
Goetschy, J. (2004). The Open Method of Coordination and the Lisbon Strategy: the
difficult road from potentials results. Paper presented at the IRA 7th European Congress.
Gornitzka, A. (2006). What is the use of Bologna in national reform? In V. Tomusk (Ed.),
Creating the European Area of Higher Education - Voices from the periphery (pp. 19-41).
Dordrechet: Springer.
Gornitzka, A. (2007). The Lisbon process: a supranational policy perspective institutionalizing the Open Method of Coordination. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.),
University Dynamics and European Integration (pp. 3-22). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gornitzka, A., & Langfeldt, L. (2005). The Role of Academics in the Bologna Process:
Education International. Working Paper nº 15.
Gornitzka, A., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). Making sense of change in university governance.
Arena. Centre for European Studies.
Gornitzka, A., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A., (Eds.). (2005). Reform and change in Higher
Education: analysing policy implementation (Vol. 8). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gornitzka, A., Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2005). Implementation Analysis in Higher
Education. In A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan & A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in Higher
Education (pp. 35-56). Dordrecht: Springer.
473
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change:
bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review,
21, 1022-1054.
Guzman, A. T., & Meyer, T. (2009). Explaining Soft Law, Research Paper nº 1353444.
UC Berkeley Public Law.
Hackl, E. (2001). The Intrusion and Expansion of Community Policies in Higher
Education. Higher Education Management, 13(3), 99-117.
Hall, P., & Taylor, R. (1996). Political Science and the Three Institutionalisms. Political
Studies (XLIV), 936-957.
Halsey, A. H. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education Political Economy. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher
Hammack, F. M., & Heyns, B. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher
Education - Microsociology. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of
Higher Education - Volume 3 - Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1871-1884). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Haug, G., Kirstein, J., & Knudsen, I. (1999). Trends in Learning Structures in Higher
Education. Belgium: Confederation of European Union Rectors’ Conferences and the
Association of European Universities.
Henkel, M., & Vabø, A. (2000). Academic Identities. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie &
M. Henkel (Eds.), Transforming Higher Education (pp. 159-196). London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
474
References
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations - Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration.
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Howard, A. (1999). Organizations Evolving. London: Sage.
Huisman, J., & Van der Wende, M., eds.,. (2004). On Cooperation and Competition:
National and European policies for the internationalisation of higher education.
Lemmens: ACA.
JØrgensen, K. (1999). The Social Construction of the Acquis Communautaire: A
Conerstone of the European Edifice. European Integration online Papers, 3(5), 1-22.
Kehm, B. (2009). The implementation of the Bologna process reforms into physics
programmes in Europe. Mulhouse: European Physical Society.
Kehm, B., Huisman, J., & Stensaker, B., (Eds.). (2009). The European Higher Education
Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Knill, C., & Lehmkhul, D. (1999). How Europe Matters. Different Mechanisms of
Europeanization. European Integration online papers (EioP), eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999007a.htm., 3(7).
Kogan, M. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education - Political
Science. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education Volume 3 - Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1926-1932). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kogan, M. (2005). The implementation game. In A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan & A. Amaral
(Eds.), Reform and change in higher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
475
Kok, W. (2004). Facing the challenge - The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment.
Luxembourg: European Communities.
Laffan, B. (2001). The European Union polity, a union of regulative, normative and
cognitive pillars. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(5), 709-727.
Lascoumes, P., & Galès, P. L. (2007). Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through
Its Instruments - From the Nature of Instruments to Sociologiy of Public Policy
Instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and
Institutions, 20(1), 1-21.
Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué. (2009). The Bologna Process 2020 - The
European Higher Education Area in the new decade. Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve.
London Communiqué. (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding
to challenges in a globalised world. London.
Luijten-Lub, A., Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, G., van der Wende, M., & Williams, G.
(2004). International comparative analysis. In J. Huisman & M. van der Wende (Eds.), On
Cooperation and Competition (pp. 249-275). Bonn: Lemmens Verlags.
Luzzato, G., & Moscati, R. (2005). University Reform in Italy. In A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan
& A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in Higher Education: analysing policy
implementation (pp. 153-168). Dordrecht: Springer.
Maassen, P. (1996). Governmental steering and the academic culture - the intangibility of
the human factor in Dutch and German universities. Twente: CHEPS.
476
References
Maassen, P. (2006). The Modernisation of European Higher Education: a multi-level
analysis. Paper presented at the Directors General for Higher Education Meeting, Helsinki,
Finland.
Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. P., (Eds.). (2007). University Dynamics and European
Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.
Majone, G. (2002). The European Commission: The Limits of Centralization and the Perils
of Parliamentarization. Governance, 15(3), 375-392.
Marçal Grilo, E. (2003). European Higher Education Society. Tertiary Education and
Management (9), 3-11.
March, G. J., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions - The organizational basis
of politics. New York: The Free Press.
March, G. J., & Olsen, J. P. (2004). The logic of appropriateness. Arena. Centre for
European Studies - University of Oslo.
March, G. J., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). Elaborating "The New Institutionalism". In R. A. W.
Rhodes, S. A. Binder & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Science
(pp. 3-20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
March, J. G. (2002). A Learning Perspective on the Network Dynamics of Institutional
Integration. In M. Egeberg & P. Laegreid (Eds.), Organizing Political Institutions (2nd
March, J. G. (2002). A Learning Perspective on the Network Dynamics of Institutional
Integration. In M. Egeberg & P. Laegreid (Eds.), Organizing Political Institutions (2nd
477
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The Institutional Dynamics of International Political
Orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943-969.
Marks, G. (1993). Structrural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC. In A. Cafruny
& G. Rosenthal (Eds.), The State of the European Community (pp. 391-410). New York:
Lynne Rienner.
Martens, K., & Wolf, K. D. (2009). Boomerangs and Trojan Horses: The Unintended
Consequences of Internationalising Education Policy Through EU and the OECD. In A.
Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration and the
Martin, E. (1999). Changing Academic Work - Developing the Learning University.
Oxford. The Society for Research into Higher Education.
Mitter, W. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education Comparative Education. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher
Moscati, R. (2006). University change: Italy and Europe. Milan: University of MilanoBiccoca.
Moscati, R. (2009). The implementation of Bologna process in Italy. In A. Amaral, G.
Neave, C. Musselin & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration and the Governance of
Higher Education and Research (pp. 207-225). Dordrecht: Springer.
Musselin, C. (2009). The side effects of the Bologna process on national institutional
settings. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration
and the Governance of Higher Education and Research (pp. 281-299). Dordrecht:
Springer.
478
References
Neave, G. (1984). The EEC and Education. Staffordshire: European Institute of Education
and Social Policy: Trentham Books.
Neave, G. (1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: an overview of
recent trends in higher education in Western Europe, 1986-1988. European Journal of
Education, 23(1/2), 7-23.
Neave, G. (1995). The stirring of the Prince and the Silence of the Lambs: Changing
Assumptions Beneath Higher Education Policy, Reform, and Society. In D. D. Dill & B.
Sporn (Eds.), Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through a
Glass Darkly (pp. 54-71). Oxford: Elsevier.
Neave, G. (2002). Vale Tudo – ou como a adaptação das universidades à integração
europeia encerra contradições afinal inspiradoras. Boletim da Universidade do Porto,
10.35, 9-18.
Neave, G. (2005a). On Prophets and Metaphors: Devices for Coping Times of Change. In
J. Enders, J. File, J. Huisman & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), The European Higher Education
and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates (pp. 103-115). Enschede:
CHEPS.
Neave, G. (2005b). On snowballs, slopes and the process of Bologna: some testy
reflections on the advance of higher education in Europe. ARENA - Centre for European
Studies, University of Oslo.
Neave, G. (2009). The Bologna Process as Alpha or Omega Or, an Interpreting History
and Context as Inputs to Bologna, Prague, Berlin and Beyond. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C.
Musselin & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher
Education (pp. 17-58). Dordrecht: Springer.
479
Neave, G. (Forthcoming). The Prince and His Pleasure Institutional Autonomy, the
Evaluative State and Re-engineering Higher Education in Western Europe. Matosinhos:
CIPES.
Neave, G., & Maassen, P. (2007). The Bologna process: an intergovernmental policy
perspective. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University Dynamics and European
Integration (pp. 3-22). Dordrecht: Springer.
Neave, G., & Van Vught, H. (1991). Introduction. In G. Neave & H. Van Vught (Eds.),
Prometeus Bound - The Changing Relationships Between Government and Higher
Education in Western Europe (pp. ix-xvi). Exeter: Pergamon Press.
Nee, V. (1998). Sources of the new institutionalism. In M. Brinton, V. Nee, (Ed.), The New
Institutionalism in Sociology (pp. 1- 16). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Nóvoa, A. (2002) Ways of thinking about education in Europe. In A. Nóvoa & M. Lawn
(Eds.), Fabricating Europe (pp. 131-155). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nóvoa, A., & deJong-Lambert, W. (2003). Educating Europe: An Analysis of EU
Educational Policies. In D. Phillips & H. Ertl (Eds.), Implementing European Union
Education and Training Policy - A comparative study of issues in four Member States (pp.
41-72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nóvoa, A., & Lawn, M. (2002). Introduction. In A. Nóvoa & M. Lawn (Eds.), Fabricating
Europe (pp. 1-13). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
OECD. (2006). Four Future Scenarios for Higher Education. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30
/5/36960598.pdf Retrieved 31-03-2007, 2007
480
References
Olsen, J. P. (2001). Organizing European Institutions of Governance... A Prelude to an
Institutional Account of Political Integration. In H. Wallace (Ed.), Interlocking Dimensions
of European Integration (pp. 323-353). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Olsen, J. P. (2002). The Many Faces of Europeanization. Journal of Common Market
Studies, 40(5), 921 - 952.
Olsen, J. P. (2005). Unity and diversity - European style. Arena - Centre for European
Studies - University of Oslo.
Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European University. In P. Maassen
& J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration (pp. 25-53).
Olsen, J. P., & Maassen, P. (2007). European Debates on the Knowledge Institution: The
Modernization of the University at the European Level. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.),
University Dynamics and European Integration (pp. 3-22). Dordrecht: Springer.
Peters, G. (1999). Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism.
London: Continuum.
Phillips, L., & JØrgensen, M. W. (2004). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method.
London: Sage.
Pollack, M. (2000). The End of Creeping Competence? EU Policy-Making Since
Maastricht. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(3), 519-538.
Powell, W. (2007). The New Institutionalism. In S. Clegg & J. R. Bayley (Eds.), The
International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies. London: Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage
Publishers.
481
Prague Communiqué. (2001). Towards the European Higher Education Area. Prague.
Premfors, R. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education - Policy
Analysis. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education Volume 3 - Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1907-1915). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Pressman, L. J., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation - How great expectations in
Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, Why It's amazing that Federal Programs Work at
All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration (3rd ed.). California:
University of California Press.
Ravinet, P. (2008). From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: why
European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna process.
European Journal of Education, 43(3), 353-367.
Reichert, S., & Tauch, C. (2005). Trends IV: European Universities Implementing
Bologna. Belgium: European University Association.
Rhodes, G. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education Organization theory. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political
Studies, XLIV, 652-667.
Richter, I. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education - Law. In R.
B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education - Volume 3 Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1834-1847). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
482
References
Rothblatt, S. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education - History.
In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education - Volume 3 Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1821-1834). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Sabatier, P. (2005). From policy implementation to policy change. In A. Gornitzka, M.
Kogan & A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in Higher Education: analysing policy
implementation (pp. 17-34). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The Advocacy Coallition Framework: An
Assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117-166). Colorado:
Westview Press.
Sabel, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2006). Learning from difference: the new architecture of
experimentalist governance in the European Union. Paper presented at the Arena Seminar,
Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Norway, June 13.
Salerno, C. (2007). A service enterprise: the market vision. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen
(Eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration (pp. 119-131). Dordrecht: Springer.
Scharpf, F. (1997). Games Real Actors Play. Actor Centred Institutionalism in Policy
Research. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Sharpf, F. (1988). The Joint-decision trap: Lessons from German Federalism and
European Integration. Public Administration, 66, 168-192.
Sharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe - effective and democratic. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Scharpf, F. (2001). Notes Toward a Theory of Multilevel Governing in Europe.
Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1-26.
483
Schwarz-Hahn, S., & Rehburg, M. (2004). Bachelor and Master degrees in Germany: a
true reform or just partial changes? Centre for Research on Higher Education and Work University of Kassel.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The Adolescence of Institutional Theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32, 493-511.
Scott, W. R. (2003). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). London Sage.
Sorbonne Declaration. (1998). Harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher
education system. Paris.
Soysal, Y. (2002). Locating European Identity in Education. In A. Nóvoa & M. Lawn
(Eds.), Fabricating Europe (pp. 55-66). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stimpson, C. R. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education Women's Studies. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher
Stoer, S., & Magalhães, A. (2005). Scenarios and Metaphors for (un)thinking change in
higher education. In J. Enders, J. File, J. Huisman & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), The
European Higher Educationa and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic
Debates (pp. 153-168). Enschede: CHEPS.
Sverdrup, U. (2006). Implementation and European integration: a review essay. In P.
Graziano & M. Vink (Eds.), Handbook on Europeanization - A new research agenda (pp.
197-210): Palgrave Macmillan.
484
References
Sweet Stone, A., Fligstein, N., & Sandholtz, W. (2000). The Institutionalization of
European Sapce. In A. Sweet Stone, W. Sandholtz & N. Fligstein (Eds.), The
Institutionalization of Europe (pp. 1-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teichler, U., & Maiworn, F. (2002). The policies of Higher Education Institutions. In U.
Teichler (Ed.), Erasmus in Socrates Programme - Findings of an Evaluation Study. Bonn:
Lemmens.
Teixeira, P. (2009). Economic Imperialism and The Ivory Tower: Some Reflections upon
the Funding of Higher Education in the EHEA (2010-2020). In B. Kehm, J. Huisman & B.
Stensaker (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target
(pp. 43-61). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, J., Dill, D., & Amaral, A. (2004). Markets in Higher Education:
Rhetoric or reality? Dordrecht: Springer.
Tomusk, V. (2004). The Open World and Closed Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Tomusk, V. (2006a). Creating the European Area of Higher Education - Voices from the
periphery. Dordrechet: Springer.
Tomusk, V. (2006b). Pizza Bolognese à la Russe: The Promise and Peril of the Bologna
Process in Russia. In V. Tomusk (Ed.), Creating the European Area of Higher Education Voices from the periphery (pp. 227-249). Dordrechet: Springer.
Trow, M. (1991). The Exceptionalism of American Higher Education. In M. Trow & T.
Nybom (Eds.), University and Society - Essays on the Social Role of Research and Higher
Education (pp.156-172). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd.
485
Trowler, P. R. (1998). Academics Responding to Change - New Higher Education
Frameworks and Academic Cultures. Oxford: The Societyfor Research into Higher
Education.
Universidade do Minho. (2008). Relatório de Concretização do Processo de Bolonha na
Universidade do Minho. Braga: Universidade do Minho.
Välimaa, J., & Ylijoki, O.-H., (Eds.). (2008). Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education.
Vällima, J., Hoffman, D., & Huusko, M. (2006). The Bologna process in Finland:
Perspectives from the Basic Units. In V. Tomusk (Ed.), Creating the European Area of
Higher Education - Voices from the periphery (pp. 43-67). Dordrechet: Springer.
van der Wende, M., Coate, K., Kontgiannopoulou-Poydorides, G., Luijten-Lub, A.,
Stamelos, G., Papadiamantaki, Y., Williams, G. (2005). International comparative
analysis. In J. Huisman & M. van der Wende (Eds.), On competition and cooperation II:
Institutional responses to Europeanisation, internationalisation and globalisation (pp.
201-233). Bonn: Lemmens Verlags.
Van Vught, F. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education - Public
Administration. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education Volume 3 - Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1932-1943). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Veiga, A. (2003). Oportunidades e ameaças de Bolonha (um processo em curso) e a
universidade europeia (um projecto em discurso) num contexto de globalização. Grau de
Mestre – Universidade do Porto, Porto.
Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2006). The open method of coordination and the implementation
of the Bologna process. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(4), 283-295.
486
References
Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2009a). Policy Implementation Tools and European Governance.
In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration and the
Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2009b). Survey on the implementation of the Bologna process in
Portugal. Higher Education, 57(1), 57-69.
Veiga, A., Amaral, A., & Mendes, A. (2008). Implementing Bologna in Southern
European countries: Comparative analysis of some research findings. [doi: DOI:
10.1016/j.ece.2008.01.004]. Education for Chemical Engineers, 3(1), e47-e56.
Veiga, A., Rosa, M., & Amaral, A. (2005). Institutional internationalisation strategies in a
context of state inefficiency. In J. Huisman & M. Van der Wende (Eds.), On Cooperation
and Competition II: Institutional Responses to Internationalisation, Europeanisation and
Globalisation (pp. 95-115). Bonn: Lemmens Verlags.
Veiga, A., Rosa, M., & Amaral, A. (2006). The internationalisation of Portuguese higher
education: how are higher education institutions facing this challenge? Higher Education
Management, 18(1), 113-128.
Westerheijden, D. (2007). States and Europe and Quality of Higher Education. In D.
Westerheijden, B. Stensaker & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(pp. 73-95). Dordrecht: Springer.
Westerheijden, D., Beverwijk, J., de Boer, H., & Kaulisch, M. (2005). Centralia de City of
the Sun. In J. Enders, J. File, J. Huisman & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), The European Higher
Educationa and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates (pp. 63-73).
Enschede: CHEPS.
487
Whitchurch, C. (2006). Professional Managers in UK Higher Education: Preparing for
Complex Futures (interim report). London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
Witte, J. (2006). Change of degrees and degrees of change: comparing adaptations of
European Higher Education Systems in the Context of the Bologna Process. Doctoral
Thesis: University of Twente, Enschede.
Wolthuis, J. (1992). Section V - Disciplinary Perspectives on Higher Education Macrosociology. In R. B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education
- Volume 3 - Analytical Perspectives (pp. 1858-1870). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
488

Bologna and the Institutionalisation of the European Higher

Transcription

Similar documents

Social Media Evaluation For Joe Bologna`s Restaurant

the old apennines by luigi fantini

a Leaflet - Italian Design Summer School

Photo Album - Keystrokes Transcription Service

Mappare la città attraverso l`agricoltura urbana: New York City

Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694) - Journal of the Association of

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

"lesson" on Structural plan of Bologna

how to screw a city