THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AND THE MAKING OF ‘EUROPEAN’ HIGHER EDUCATION AREA: A EUROPEAN ANSWER TO THE FORCES OF

GLOBALISATION?

Master Thesis: European Master Programme in Lifelong Learning: Policy and Management, Danish School of Education, Aarhus University

Academic Years: 2007-2009

Number of Characters (With Space): 231751

By: Arundhati Bhattacharya

Student Number: 20075742

Supervisor: Thyge Winther-Jensen

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………................7

ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………….................8

1: INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY………………..............10

I: BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTION

1.1 Background and an Overview............................................................10

1.1.1 Background of the Bologna Process..........................................10

1.1.2 Brief Literature Review..............................................................11

1.2 Research Focus.....................................................................................13

1.2.1 Research Interest & Aim of the thesis.......................................13

1.2.2 Research Questions and Explanation.........................................14

II: METHODOLOGY AND CHAPTER ORGANISATION

1.3 Methodology.........................................................................................17

1.4 Chapter Organisation...........................................................................21

3

2. CHAPTER I:

GLOBALISATION, EUROPEANISATION

AND THE CHANGING HIGHER EDUCATION AREA.....................23

2.1 Globalisation and the Shifting Trends in Higher Education ….......23

2.1.1. Globalisation: definition and dimensions…………………........25

2.1.2. Coming up Knowledge Society…………………………...........25

2.1.3. Transnationalisation of Higher Education………………….......26

2.2 Europeanisation and the rebuilding of European Identity...............28

2.2.1 Europeanisation: Definition, Concept and Process……................28

2.2.2 European identity Perspective………............................................30

2.3: Entwining of Globalisation and Europeanisation………..................33

2.3.1 Europeanisation as a Reaction

and Expression of Globalisation.....................................................33

2.3.2 The ‘European Dimension In education……….........................35

3. CHAPTER II:

EUROPE: GENESIS AND THE

TRANSFORMATION OF THE UNIVERSITIES………………….37

3.1 Birth of First Modern Universities………………………………......37

4

3.2 Of Humboldt, Napoleon & Collegiality………………………………40

3.3 University and the changing time………………………………..........42

3.3.1 From the Perspective of ‘governance’ ………………………….....42

3.3.2 From the perspective of ‘ethos’………………………………........47

4. CHAPTER III:

THE BOLOGNA PROCESS………………………………………........50

4.1 Background of the Bologna Process…………………….......................50

4.1.1. From War to Integration……………………………...................50

4.1.2 Towards Europe of Knowledge

(University and HEI perspective)....................................................52

4.1.3 From the Big Four Powers

of Europe to a Pan- European endeavour.....................................54

4.2 The Essence and Elements of Bologna Process…………….................56

4.3 The Lisbon Agenda and the

Open Method of Co-ordination…………………………………..........60

4.4 The On-going Process (from Prague to London)……………………..64

5. CHAPTER IV:

BEHIND THE WORDS OF THE POLICY DOCUMENTS……….........68

5

5.1: The Bologna Process: From the ‘Supranational’ Perspective……....67

5.1.1 The Data:

The Policy documents......................................................................67

5.1.2 What the documents say...................................................................68

5.1.3 Discussion.........................................................................................74

5.2: The Bologna Process: From

the ‘Higher Education’ Perspective....................................................79

5.2.1 Defining the concepts………………...............................................79

5.2.2 What the documents says ………………………………….............81

5.2.3 Discussion……………………………….........................................82

6. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS............................................................85

6.1 Revisiting the arguments

………………………………….....................................................................85

6.2 Bologna Process from a new viewpoint………………………………..89

6.3 Avenues for Further Study…………………………………………….92

ANNEX…………………………………………...........................................93

Table I …………………………………………...........................................93

Table II……………………………………………........................................95

6

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………..................................................96

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe my greatest thankfulness towards my supervisor Professor Thyge Winther- Jensen who was always gentle, encouraging and supportive, making me believe in my endeavour. His knowledge and reflections facilitated my thinking and gave a route to this study.

This process was also abetted by Professor Lis Hemmingsen, who by creating a platform for experience sharing among our cohort alleviated the intellectual and emotional demands of the course. She has been a part of my journey, the highs and the lows of the process and has been a pillar of support.

I would like to thank our entire cohort for having utmost confidence in my abilities even at times when my own conviction wavered.

I am sincerely grateful to the Danish Pedagogic University (DPU) Library, which had every possible resource along with eager and helpful librarians assisting our study.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for bearing with me during this phase, particularly my Mother, an academic herself, who shared her own experiences of writing and could think aloud with me.

8

ABBREVIATIONS:

APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

BFUG Bologna Follow Up Group

CRE European Rectors Conference now EUA

ECSC European Coal and Steel Community

ECTS (Formerly) European Credit Transfer System

(Now)European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

EEA European Economic Area

EEC European Economic Community

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EHEA European Higher Education Area

ENQA European Network of Quality Assurance

ERA European Research Area

ESIB European Students Information Bureau (now ESU)

ESU European Students Union

EU European Union

EUA European University Association

GATS General Agreement on Trade and Services

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HE Higher Education

HEI Higher Education Institution

HEG Higher Education Governance

HEIGLO/ Heiglo Higher Education Institutions’ Responses to Europeanisation, Internationalisation and Globalisation: Developing International Activities in a Multi-Level Policy Context

IMF International Monetary Fund

KE/ Knowledge Economy

9

KS Knowledge Society

NAFTA North America Free Trade Agreement

OECD Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development

OMC Open Method of Coordination

QA Quality Assurance

RQ Research Question

UNESCO United Nations Economic Social and Cultural Organisation

WTO World Trade Organisation

10

1: INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 BACKGROUND AND AN OVERVIEW

1.1.1 Background of the Bologna Process:

Purpose of the section: This section endeavours to introduce the Bologna Process and

contextualises it within the macro-framework of transnationalisation of Higher Education

(henceforth, HE) and opens up the on-going debate on the various ‘forces’ that are working

in the background to produce this effect.

The last decade and a half has seen a sea change in the world order. Hitherto impermeable boundaries between the nation-states have become permeable due to globalisation which is at the same time a phenomenon as well as an on-going process. Globalisation, an umbrella term, has been used to understand and explain many new events around the world. Much of today’s theoretical debate is regarding the nation-state losing its sovereign base in terms of policy making in domestic matters, specifically education, thanks to the ubiquitous process of globalisation. Globalisation describes an ongoing process by which regional economies, societies and cultures have become integrated through globe-spanning networks of exchange. The phenomenon of nation-states losing their exclusive power in determining their national policies, particularly educational policies, which had always been a national domain, has been explained through globalisation and its various dimensions which created a new world-order where nation-states find them in new role incumbents. Since globalisation is “too broad and too ambiguous a term to be used unproblematically”, (Dale and Robertson, 2002, p 1) for the purpose of this thesis it is dealt chiefly in its economic and neoliberal dimensions and analysed how these effect national education policy making process.

Europe has reacted to this process in a unique manner. In order to survive in an economy which getting more and more global by the day and also is creating a need for revamped education system, it has realised it cannot combat as individual units of nation states. (Barosso, 2005) There is a discourse on how globalisation has triggered off a creation of regionalisation and many use Europeanisation as a prime example of the process. However, Europeanisation, no matter how it is defined, can be perceived both as a reaction and the ‘most advanced expression’ of globalisation. (Castells, 1998, p 318) To retain its identity as well for competitive edge Europe has taken recourse to both its hard and soft power. The hard power is exercised mainly by the European Union (henceforth, EU) through its legal and quasi -legal actions on the member. The soft power is exercised (also sometimes emanating from the EU) in the form of creating or reconfiguring the idea Europe of common history, ancestry, normative, culture and identity.(Shore Cris,2000) It is wielded in creating and reclaiming history. It is rather fascinating to see how the external forces of globalisation has

11

made Europe go through introspection and come up a renewed notion of identity which in itself is very political as the making of this identity involves some amount choice, thus this politics of identity again opens up a new form of debate (Pederson, T, 2008).

While the last decades have witnessed European integration in many spheres, particularly the economic sphere, it should be noted that education policy has, for a long time, largely remained the domain of nation states. European national governments categorically and effectively defended their education systems against any kind of influence from the EU, as well as against any attempt at ‘harmonisation’, as expressed in Article 126 (149) of the Maastricht (Amsterdam) treaty. The first prominent step towards integration or convergence in HE policy therefore was the Sorbonne Declaration of 1998 when Claude Allègre, the French Minister in charge of H.E., invited his colleagues from Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom to Paris to sign a joint declaration on what they called “harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system”. The very next year, following the lines of Sorbonne Declaration, saw the beginning of now enormous agenda in Bologna, Italy and this time with representation of Ministers from 29 nation-states across Europe. They signed the ‘Bologna declaration’, expressing their intention to build a “European area of higher education” and to achieve “greater compatibility and comparability of the systems of higher education” in order to “promote citizens’ mobility and employability” and increase “the international competitiveness of the European system of higher education” vis-à-vis the rest of the world (Bologna declaration, 1999). By 2007, 46 European countries inside and outside of the European Union (EU) have joined the process and reforms are in progress all over Europe that include the restructuring of HE systems in this context. The Bologna Process is a colossal reform agenda for reshaping European higher education system aspiring to create a European Higher Education Area (henceforth, EHEA) by 2010. This process involves shifts in the existing higher education (HE) systems in most European countries to come to a sort of convergence. The Bologna Process having been devised outside the purview of the EU draws its power from the voluntary participation of the signatory states. However, the Bologna Process may be beyond the realms of the EU but not without it. According to many Bologna upholds the EU schema of Europeanisation of education through, among other things the inclusion of EU coined phrase “the European of education”. More significantly the introduction of the Lisbon Agenda (later Lisbon Process) in 2000, under EU with rather similar premises of creating European Research Area made the amalgamation of EU and Bologna even palpable. 1.1.2 A Brief Literature Review: A focus on the key types of work on Bologna Process

Purpose of the section: The intention of this section is to review the critical points of the

current knowledge in this area and give an impartial and comprehensive view of the

preceding research made on this topic. This section attempts to make the basis for the

requirement of the research focus taken up in this thesis and briefly, this section discusses the

major types of academic work in this field.

12

The Bologna Process opens up many questions and issues, any of which can be a subject of an animated research.This is because Bologna Process concurrently influences and is influenced by multiple levels of European higher education so from the perspective of research, “it is not only interesting to analyse the changes taking place in a national higher education system but also theoretically challenging to analyse how international pressures manifest in local contexts” (Va¨limaa and Hoffman, 2008, p 276). This apart the Bologna Process can be studied from many perspectives, political, economic, social and educational. Much of the on-going debate regarding the Bologna Process revolves around two main areas, one being the proposed convergence of higher education policies in midst of the diversity existing in Europe in terms language, history, culture and also economy; the other being the question of national sovereignty and national identity being compromised in the process. The concern among academics and politicians alike has been, ‘is Bologna Process trying to create a ‘standardisation’ of higher education system disregarding the diversity and the unique role of nation-states in configuring their HE’? Much work has been done not only by Europeans but also by academics from other parts of the world (Seddon, T., 2002) Bologna Process, European integration has been a very intensely discussed issue. Many scholars have taken positions on the reform venture giving evaluative judgements or have challenged the outcomes (for eg. Neave, 2005, Adam S., 2001) and questioning the normative (Regent, S., 2002) of the Process. There have been some works on the issue of diversity (egs. Billing, David, 2004) taking normative positions. Bologna initiated some state-centric debates (Eg. Huisman, J., & Van Der Wende, 2004). Some experts have written on Bologna Process from a problem solving aspect (Haug, Guy, 2005), that is analysing how the process can be enhanced so as to meet its aim. There has been Project related work with the same aim (Van der Wende on Heiglo & Gonzalez, J., on Tuning project)

There has been ‘futuristic outlook’ on Bologna as to what will eventually come off the process (Bristwistle, Tim, 2009, Haug, Guy, 2003) and a lot of works on Europeanisation and European integration which are mainly EU centric. (Olsen, 2002 Radaelli, 2002) The concepts of convergence, standardisation and harmonisation have been dealt with in various degrees by academics (Witte, J, 2006). Why the Bologna Declaration does not contain the term ‘harmonisation’ has been discussed at great length by Joanna Witte, 2006 and Andres Fejes, 2008.

Many works on Bologna Process connects the concept of convergence of European HE with the forces of globalisation unproblematically taking the former as an outcome of the latter. This is a deterministic and essentialist outlook. for e.g. Tovar, Edmundo and Cardeñosa, Jesús (2003) Convergence in higher education: effects and risks present convergence as an effect of globalisation.

In the works during the initial phase of the process, the intra-European dimension of Bologna Process was focused in both the documents as well the academic works (Van der Wende, 2000, Radaelli, 2000, Kolokitha, 2006, Kelling, 2006) the external dimension and globalising

13

tendency of Bologna, the issue of EU imperialism has also come up in discussions (Susan Robertson, 2007, 2008 & Dale and Robertson, 2009).

In the present thesis, no normative or futuristic position has been taken. Rather there is an attempt to connect historically the trajectory taken by the European HE with the present analysis. The approach is not evaluative, instead it wants to understand and analyse the situation as it has unfolded or is unfolding. The thesis tries to understand the Bologna discourse and for that it looks in the document and also beyond. The thesis tries to analyse the background of the process, the circumstances and the forces behind the final emergence of the concept of European Higher Education Area.

1.2 RESEARCH FOCUS

1.2.1 Research Interest & Aim of the thesis

Purpose of the section: The preceding section on literature review opens up the case for the

present study of the thesis. This section elaborates the research focus further and also

combines the personal interest for the area of work.

The primary reading of the Bologna Declaration document triggered some reflections about the colossal reform agenda. It seemed like a bold and mammoth task being undertaken which if successful has the potential to trigger off change in the rest of the world. Bologna declaration acknowledges diversity in Europe and seeks to create a convergence of the national higher education systems into one European HE area while respecting that diversity. This creates an interesting surmise which is a paradox at the first sight. Being located outside the direct purview of EU, it has a fairly flexible and informal position. This makes it distinctly different from all other HE reform taking place under the direct tutelage of global organisations. It talks about European HEA but not necessarily from EU guidebooks (Ravinet, 2008). Bologna Process involves three levels: the supranational, national and institutional reveals that not all decisions are taken top down, there are bottom-up movement of thoughts (Antunes, F, 2006), ideas as well which makes the project dynamic. Intriguingly, though Bologna Process harps on diversity it does not mention the economic asymmetry in Europe. Certainly, diversity is defined as variety in language, culture, history, ethnicity but sharp contrasts in economy cannot be misrepresented as diversity, it is rather asymmetry or irregularity, yet Bologna discourse rarely mentions this. Presumably not to disturb the delicate consensus it intends to create between its “diverse” members. This is not all; the declaration engulfs some more odd inconsistencies. The “bare bones of Bologna” (Guy Neave, 2005) are simply some technicalities it also paradoxically mentions an indistinct and abstract concept of “European dimension in higher education”. This phrase culminates with possibilities of curricular and other convergences without emphasising on anything particular and remains an obscurity throughout the Bologna discourse. That the phrase was originally

14

used in EU documents opens up questions on Bologna Process being a tool of the greater course of Europeanisation. What is ‘European’ is also a concept not without debate and according to many Europe as a concept is being reinvented. It is therefore a matter of academic interest to disentangle the Process, to find out its roots, forces working behind the scenes which interact with the reform agenda to give its form. The aim of the thesis is not to take a normative position regarding Bologna Process, what it ought to do and ought not to do is not within the interest area. The thesis wants to unravel the ‘behind the scene forces’ of Bologna Process and how Bologna Process is endeavouring to interact, combine, negotiate with those forces. The thesis therefore aims to bring out the higher and larger perspective of the Bologna Process by going through it back in time, reading between the lines and behind the words of its documents. What emerges at the end will be a ‘higher awareness of the hidden motivations’ of the Process leading to better understanding of the latter.

1.2.2 Research Questions

Purpose of the section: This section introduces the research questions (RQ) and elaborates

their meaning and significance. This section is very vital as it explains and defines each of

the conceptual terms present in the research questions.

1. (i) Why and how has the Bologna Process sought to respond to the challenges

of globalisation by creating a convergence in European Higher Education?

(ii)How is the proposed ‘convergence’ towards EHEA correlated with the

process of Europeanisation?

2. What can be the expected influence of Bologna Process on the governance of

universities and other higher education institutions of Europe?

In most of the works on Bologna Process there is one familiar ring; the proposed convergence of the EHEA has been seen either as an effect of or reaction to the forces of globalisation. However, in this thesis, I take a critical approach to the assumed natural connection between convergence of national Higher Education systems and the challenges and threats of globalisation.

Bologna Declaration or the Communiqués does not use the term ‘convergence’ but it uses the phrase ‘European Higher Education Area’ as its aim which suggests creating a convergence

15

of higher educational systems. The Trends reports, which were meant as a contribution to the follow up work to the Sorbonne Declaration of May 1998, make use of the term. The main purposes of these reports are to map areas of convergence between these systems in Europe (mainly European Union/European Economic Area), to identify trends affecting them and to indicate ways towards greater convergence in the future. (Trends I, 1999, pg 3)

Convergence can be defined as “the act, degree, or a point of converging; concurrence of opinions, results etc.” It is the opposite of divergence, “the act or result of diverging or the amount by which something diverges; the condition of being divergent” (Witte, J, 2006). The concepts of convergence and divergence have a twofold meaning, one denoting a process and the other denoting a state. In the discourse of the Bologna Process however, the term ‘convergence’ is only used to denote the process and the other meaning of the term is disregarded. This is an important detail: there is far-reaching political consensus that HE systems should converge, but not about the endpoint of this movement (i.e., convergence as a state, or result). (ibid) The thesis, wants to unravel the nuances of the Bologna Process by focusing on the central theme of convergence. The attempt is not to gauge the degree the convergences but to analyse why the sense of convergence prevailed throughout the Bologna discourse. The Bologna Process moves towards a goal. However, it does not have a fixed destination and hence there is no defined design of the course of action to be taken. It is an ongoing process which moves towards the European Higher Education Area where the said target itself is also somewhat indeterminate. The process wants to respect the European diversity, and do not want to refurbish the national higher education systems unnecessarily. What it proposes is having a European dimension of education, more flexibility and transparency creating a European space but not doing away with the national. The term harmonisation used in Sorbonne Declaration was abandoned due to the perception that this would imply the standardisation of HE systems. Aiming at ‘convergence’ is widely seen as compatible with the simultaneous upholding of ‘diversity’—an agreed value of European HE—while ‘harmonisation’ is perceived as threatening this diversity.

“If convergence increases, diversity is reduced, but never eliminated unless full convergence is reached. The aim of convergence is thus semantically compatible with the maintenance of “diversity of cultures, languages, national education systems and University autonomy” stressed in the Bologna declaration as a goal and value unto itself. (Witte, J., 2006, p 14)

‘Convergence’ is not a complete concept in itself unless one specifies what is being converged. The Bologna Process, working on the higher education area has to dwell on systemic, structural and policy level. In order to create convergence there has to be compatibility on policy level as well as structural level so that shifts are made possible in the whole higher education system. The Bologna declaration talks about co-coordinating on the policy level.

16

“…….we engage in coordinating our policies to reach in the short term….…..the following objectives, which we consider to be of primary relevance in order to establish the European area of higher education and to promote the European system of higher education world-wide….” (P 2)

Thus, the Bologna Process calls for, at some level of convergence or concurrence of higher education policies to attain the goal of promoting European higher education system. Among the others, according to Rothblatt and Wittrock (Rothblatt and Wittrock ,1993, pp.3-4 quoted in Guena, 1996)

The level of convergence starts from structural to the systemic and policy in order to achieve the goal. The structural level is left mainly to universities, “Universities and other institutions of higher education can choose to be actors, rather than objects, of this essential process of change”. (The Bologna Declaration, an explanation, 1999, P 6) The University driven Tuning Project1 is meant to look into the structural level of the convergence.

Thus in order to create an EHEA the Bologna Process takes within its vortex a systemic congruence of the national higher educations and endeavours to make them protrude towards the ‘European’ arena. It is also worth reminding in this connection that the Bologna has three levels of functioning, namely supranational or European, national (policy, system) and institutional (structure).

The Bologna Process talks about EHEA and has the phrase European dimension in two of its action lines2; some think of it as a tool of Europeanisation. The thesis elaborates on a conceptual framework where Europeanisation like globalisation is portrayed as an on-going process as well as an ideology and concept. The question on how the ‘convergence’ (of national Higher educations towards EHEA) correlates with the process of Europeanisation tries to link the Bologna endeavour with the latter. The thesis examines if the Bologna Process is an instrument of Europeanisation as generally presumed or they are more intricately entwined. By connecting convergence with both globalisation and Europeanisation the study also explores if and how these two major forces influence each other.

The structural changes in Bologna Process take place on an institutional level and all the concurrence of policies and systems gets enacted in this level. Thus success of Bologna, despite its supranational clout depends to a larger extent on the institutions. The Bologna communiqués acknowledges this and assures complete autonomy to the institutions. The point of interest is to find out if through Bologna Process the HEIs get more autonomy or become more vulnerable to external forces. In the research question, I use both the terms ‘University’ and higher education an institution (HEI) as there is a binary division between universities and other HEIs in European higher education. Bologna discourse mainly employ the term HEIs but this thesis studies these two categories separately to understand the

1 Details in Chapter “Behind the Words of Policy Documents”

2 Details in Chapter on “The Bologna Process”

17

nuances of the binary division that existed in European higher education through history and studies if Bologna Process while bringing about convergences in higher education is also attempting to convergence the two. HE is composed of under graduation, graduation and later doctoral levels in Bologna discourse. This essay also uses the term of HE in the same sense.

1.3 METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the section: This section presents the methodology of the thesis, explains the

selection of certain analytical tools and how the study attempts to answer its Research

Questions.

The RQs open up dialogues on the ideas of convergence, globalisation and Europeanisation and how they configure the European higher education arena. To study these concepts analytically and to find out how they intermingle to give shape to the making of the Bologna Process, the thesis employs a three-fold method: (i) a theoretical framework which elaborates the above mentioned concepts as these need to be understood in their specific context so as to have a meaningful argument; (ii) as the thesis talks about a change in the higher education system of Europe, it takes a brief tour of the history of European University system and tries to trace the trajectory of University governance and relation with the state from its genesis till now and (iii) taking Bologna Process as a discourse the study goes into an in-depth discourse analysis of the Bologna documents to disentangle the meanings behind the words of the documents and bring out the oblique forces and the motivations working in the background.

(i) Theoretical framework to be used as analytical tools:

The theoretical framework endeavours to discuss, analyse and understand these concepts so that these can be used as analytical tools for the document analysis.

Globalisation is an umbrella term which has multidimensional connotation; however the thesis concerns itself with those specific dimensions which relate to the transnationalisation of H.E. The theoretical framework presents globalisation and its connection with Higher Education critically. It also tries to uphold the perceived ‘challenges of a globalised world’ as depicted by the Bologna Process. (London Communiqué, 2007, p1)

The concept of ‘Europe’ is even more critical than that of globalisation. It is constantly evolving like globalisation but is much more amorphous and ambivalent in implication. The Bologna documents are strewn with dialogues about ‘European’ Area of Higher Education, ‘European’ dimension of education and it asserts to be a European answer to the ‘threats of globalisation’ (ibid) Thus it is mandatory for the purpose of this study to have a conceptualisation of the process as well as the concept of a dynamic Europe, as it rightly said that Europe is a variable and not a fixed condition (Beck, U., 2007)

(ii) Brief Historical Overview

18

As this study deals with changes in the University and HEIs of Europe it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of the route that the universities have taken through the ages. Therefore a brief journey to the beginning of the emergence of University through the changes and reforms it went through till recent past has been taken as it allows better understanding of the present changes and shifts in the HE. In the course of this venture specific focus has been given to how the relation between the state and the University had evolved through times and how had that reflected on the overall governance and autonomy of the University.

(iii)Document and Discourse Analysis

The aim of the thesis is not to provide absolute answers to a specific problem, but to understand the conditions behind that specific "problem". The thesis problemtises the correlation between the ‘convergences’ of European Higher Education policies proposed in the Bologna Process with the forces of globalisation and Europeanisation. In doing so it also correlates the two dynamic processes of globalisation and Europeanisation through the prism of Bologna Process. It is commonly accepted that the Bologna Process is an answer to the ‘threats of globalisation’. The thesis challenges this position and assumes a more complex interrelation between the two. As the Process unfold through a span of a decade, the documents evolve, change and reconstruct their meanings as can seen from the policy texts. To cite an example, the term globalisation is not referred to in the Bologna Declaration (1999) but in an explanation to this declaration (1999) mentions “common solution to common problem” alluding to Europe’s moving towards the EHEA as the ‘common solution’ whereas the ‘common problems’ were emphasised as unemployment, moribund market etc. There was no mention of globalisation here, but it springs up later in Trends III (2003) and then in London Communiqué (2007) where it is presented as a self explanatory axiom as the impetus behind the Process. Thus this study deduces that the evolution of an on-going and dynamic process like Bologna can be traced from its official texts, their explanation and corollaries. The study looks at Bologna Process as a discourse which has evolved over the years through the interactions between its various levels, supranational, national and institutional and other dynamic forces which worked on it from the outside.

Given the primary aim of the study, Discourse Analysis is the appropriate method to analyse Bologna Process for the purpose of the thesis. Discourse Analysis can be characterised as a way of approaching and thinking about a problem. Discourse Analysis does not provide a concrete answer to problems based on scientific research. However it does enable access to the

“……ontological and epistemological assumptions behind a project, a statement, a method of research. In other words, Discourse Analysis will enable to reveal the hidden motivations behind a text or behind the choice of a particular method of research to interpret that text.” (School of Information, University of Texas website, 2009)

As,

19

“[P]ost-modern theories conceive of every interpretation of reality and, therefore, of reality itself as a text. Every text is conditioned and inscribes itself within a given discourse, thus the term Discourse Analysis” (School of information, University of Texas, Official Website retrieved May, 2010)

Here in my work, Bologna discourse is captured along with its background and history (both recent and far) and the analysis is done mainly on an intertexual context (that is how meaning has been constructed from Sorbonne,1998 to London, 2007); though single text(s) have also been analysed to see how meanings have been constructed throughout and at specific points.

“Discourse analysts are as concerned mainly with the examination of the way in which meaning is constructed throughout the text, as with the way this is achieved at any one point in the text. Intertextuality is important too: that is to say, how language is used not only throughout a single text, but also across a set of different but related texts. Texts have histories, and so discourses created at different times stand as reference points for each other.” (University of Sussex, Official website, retrieved May 2010, emphasis original)

Since the thesis takes a critical look on the postulation that the Bologna Process is an effect of globalising forces, it uses Discourse Analysis as it enables a deconstructive reading and interpretation of a problem or text. The critical approach to discourse aims to challenge social orders and practices that we accept as ‘natural’, but which are, in fact, ‘naturalised’3; in other words, when one way of seeing and interpreting the world becomes so common (and so frequently constructed in discourses) that it is accepted as the only way. (Fairclough, 2001)

The policy documents reveal many facts about the process, from what and how they use terms and also from what is not said, they reflect the trends on consensus and argument. There is an inherent dialectics between texts of academic research and policy documents. The academic texts are written in order to make comprehensible meaning. Words are chosen to mean something specific; every term is selected in view of its connotation, significance for reasons of transparency. The aim is to convey a sense, knowledge which is non-ambiguous and clear. The purpose of policy documents is generating consensus between various diverse parties, stake holders with varied interests. Thus policy making process is persuasive and consensus is attained through negotiations where concepts are defined and sometimes presented through amorphous and ambiguous phrases, which can be interpreted by different parties differently. Thus,

“Discourse analysis of policy texts can be useful in tracing policy changes and describing them, but also in explaining and understanding some of the developments that lead up to the implementation of the policies and the (political) views which are embedded in the debates. Policy actors foreground problems, simultaneously narrowing

3 Fairclough uses this concept first in 1989 (Critical discourse as a method in Social Scientific Research) and this concept of naturalisation of discourse is a moot point in his analyses of discourses. He connects it with standardisation of language and also the concept of hegemony.

20

the space for alternative views. By doing so, they also perpetuate some political views of social reality.” (Saarinen, 2005 p 189)

In this study the data consists of the Bologna communiqués (from Sorbonne to London) in the main, the Trends Reports (I to V) and the Reports of the Tuning project (Phase I & II)4. In order to make the reading of the text more meaningful and suited to answer the RQs, I have selected three elements from the action lines of the Bologna Declaration for key focus: European Credit Transfer System, Quality Assurance and European dimension in education. Though all the aspects of Bologna Process are significant, yet, for matter of focus and so that the thesis does not lose the depth of analysis, I chose the three elements which were central to my questions.

(i) European Credit Transfer System (later European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) (ECTS) is an important tool for analysis as it was first introduced by the European Commission (henceforth, EC) which was later incorporated by the Bologna Process. It is an important driver for convergence and an important indicator in gauging the success of Bologna Process towards creating an EHEA. Meant for flexibility, student mobility, it is vital for the transnationalisation of HE. ECTS is to European HE what Euro is to their economy. As the thesis attempts to connect ‘convergence’ in national higher education in Europe with globalising and Europeanising forces, ECTS becomes an imperative vehicle to understand the pulse of the movement.

(ii) Quality Assurance was introduced in the national higher education scene around 1980s in the wake of massification of HE which started in the post World War era. The external assessment of HEIs and universities was in itself a neoliberal influence of globalisation which affected the HEIs around the world. The Bologna Declaration introduces a ‘European dimension of QA’, reconfiguring the neoliberal and global market forces in education into a pan-European one, thus making this element a critical ingredient for this study. (iii) The European dimension of education is the third element I choose for discussion, as this is perhaps the most indistinct phrase present in whole Bologna document. This phrase has been during the course of process been manoeuvred gradually to give more concrete meaning. Also, this phase kept alive the debate of Europeanisation of education seen as a tool of creating cultural dimension or European demos. The discourse analysis looks into this thought critically, connecting it with the greater concepts of European identity and Europeanisation to bring out the embedded meanings in it.

For analysing the Bologna-induced shifting trends in the universities and other HEIs, my chief data are the Bologna Communiqués as well as the Tuning project reports. Here, my focus is to find out the changes in the governance and autonomy of the universities and other HEIs and their relation with the nation states. I also pay heed to the long standing binary division between universities and non-University HEIs in Europe. In doing this analysis, I

4 (Details of the data in Chapter IV and Annex )

21

take recourse from history to identify the changing trends in European HE and to comprehend the implications that the Bologna Process is having on it.

1.4 CHAPTER ORGANISATION:

Purpose of the section: This section attempts to show the Chapter plan of the thesis, how

many chapters it has and how they are organised.

For the purpose of this study, the main body of the thesis has been divided into four chapters excluding the introduction and conclusion.

As the structure of the thesis is somewhat complex and involves multiple research questions and methods of analysis, the introduction plays an important part in categorising the views of the thesis and presenting the methodology.

The first chapter gives the conceptual framework of the thesis. Keeping in mind the terms and concepts used in RQs, the conceptual framework seeks to understand the concepts and processes of globalisation and Europeanisation. As a derivative of globalisation process, education policy particularly HE has gone through tremendous change and this chapter introduces these ideas which are central for the examination of the Bologna Process, the ideas of the Knowledge Society (henceforth, KS) and the neoliberal element in globalisation. In this connection, this chapter also looks at the concept of Network state (Castells, 1998) and Cosmopolitan Europe (Beck, 2007), so that in the ultimate analysis it can be tested from the premises of Bologna Process, if cosmopolitanism is what it is looking at, in its quest for convergence.

The second chapter takes a detour of European University history and tries to portray a trajectory of Europe’s University and HEIs through the times. It begins with their genesis and then tracing the history from this point to the aftermath of Napoleonic wars and how gradually there evolved a few major types of universities which engulfed more or less most of the mainland European Universities. The discussion then comes to birth of nation-states and the national role the universities are to play which is now challenged due to various global and regional forces. In this chapter I try to analyse how the role and governance of the universities change along with the changing time and circumstances and connect that with the present discourse.

The third chapter introduces the Bologna Process. In this thesis the process is seen as microcosm of the macro-phenomenon of Europe’s endeavour to increase mobility, create more innovative research and education structure to match up with the US and emerging Asian powers. This chapter tries to capture the background of Bologna Process and bring in the discussion of Lisbon Process which is significantly intertwined with the former. In this chapter I discuss the technical side of the Process emphasising the three main elements of Bologna Process the ECTS, quality assurance and the European dimension of education.

The fourth chapter is vital as it seeks to answer the research questions with the help of the discourse analysis of the policy documents with the analytical tools presented in the

22

conceptual framework, the historical trajectory sketched in Chapter II and with understanding of the Bologna Process’s background and genesis.

The conclusion summarises the entire thesis, revisits the arguments and lays down the new questions and angles that this thesis opens up.

23

2. GLOBALISATION, EUROPEANISATION AND THE CHANGING

HIGHER EDUCATION AREA

2.1 GLOBALISATION AND THE SHIFTING TRENDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

Purpose: The purpose of the section is to initiate the discussion on the concept and process of

globalisation.

2.1.1 Globalisation, definition and dimensions

Globalisation, an umbrella term, has been used to understand and explain many new events around the world. This multi dimensional phenomenon having cultural, economic and technological dimension among others has indeed made a huge difference to the world. Appadurai uses the terms ethnoscapic, technoscapic, mediascapic, ideoscapic and finanscapic to identify the different dimensions. The ethnoscapic dimension has opened up the real borders of the world making the movement of people around easily possible while the mediascapic dimension has done the same on a more virtual basis. The technoscapic dimension has global communication possible relying heavily on the networking that the new information technology has made possible; the ideoscapic dimension means the growth and flow of ideologies such as neoliberal ideas and welfare rights hovering over the world including countries once protected by the Iron curtain, like China. As financescapes it refers to the immense and free flow of financial capital all around the world. (Appadurai, A., 1990, pp 295-304) All these factors led to the weakening of states as instant cross border transactions makes their boundaries virtually porous. Alan Touraine argues, ‘there is an ideology of globalisation that considers it as a natural force, reducing societies to economies, economies to markets and markets to financial flows’. (Touraine quoted in Castells, 1998, p 319)

To begin with the most defining aspect of globalisation, that is its economic dimension which in Appadurai’s terminology is the financescapes, I take recourse to Castells’ now famous definition of global economy. According to him global economy is an economy,

“…whose core, strategic activities have the technological, organizational, and institutional capacity to work as a unit in real time, or in chosen time, on a planetary scale.” (Carnoy and Castells, 1999, p 3)

It is to be borne in mind that this new global economy is fundamentally different from the international economy that had existed previously. It is because it is only ‘at this point in history’ there was a ‘technological infrastructure’ to make it possible. This technological infrastructure consists of computer networking, advanced telecommunications, speedy mobility for people, goods and services thanks to fast communication system which has virtually a global reach and above all the information processing capacity to manage the

24

intricacy of the entire arrangement.(ibid) This technological dimension is central also to the ‘Knowledge Society’ discourse.

Globalisation is seen as having a strong neoliberal ideology. Neo-liberalism, to its passionate advocates, is seen as “potential antidote to threats to the capitalist social order and as a solution to capitalism’s ills.”(Harvey, D, 2005, p19) Harvey identifies two very fundamental aspect of neoliberalism in his work, ‘A brief History of Neoliberalism’

“The neoliberal label signalled their adherence to those free market principles of neoclassical economies that had emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century.....Neoliberal doctrine was ...deeply opposed to state interventionist theories.....” (Harvey, D., 2005, p 20)

The two concepts of ‘free market’ and ‘state non-intervention’ are interrelated as the former would only work if the state is non-interventionist. Thus the principles and demands of globalisation are neoliberal that is non-intervention of state and free play of (global) market.

The link with HE and globalisation is very full of meaning as globalisation, leading to the weakening of borders, has also transformed the nature of work, demanding more flexibility, high-skills and multitasking. This requires higher degrees and constant upgradation of skills making University and lifelong education necessary. As University education becomes further in demand more universities have to come up to meet the growing demand leading the government to invest more and more in education. But globalisation has a “private sector bias” and it wants investment not the public but private. This neoliberal ideology has led to privatization of higher education in developed and even developing world. (Carnoy, 1999, p 16)

Like the economy, the knowledge formation in the globalised world is also going out of control of the states. In order to nurture the technological infrastructure which is a medium of globalisation, the dominant capitalist values and norms are organised around knowledge and information which are being globally circulated to serve a globalised innovation and profit making structure. As the global values are rooted in global finance and production, knowledge has come under the vortex of the economy which has become predominantly global.

“There is a new concept both of knowledge and of its relation to those who create it, a truly secular concept. Knowledge should flow like money to wherever it can create advantage and profit. Indeed, knowledge is not just like money: it is money. Knowledge is divorced from persons, their commitments, their personal dedication, for these become impediments, restrictions on flow, and introduce deformations in the working of the market … Knowledge, after nearly a thousand years, is divorced from inwardness and is literally dehumanized. (Bernstein, 2000, p. 155)

25

2.1.2: Coming up of the Knowledge Society:

Purpose: While discussing how knowledge went out of the state territory to the global level, it

is important to understand the centrality of knowledge in today’s global economy by

conceptualising Knowledge Society at a greater depth.

“Contemporary society may be described as a knowledge society based on the penetration of all its spheres of life by scientific knowledge.” (Stehr, N., 1994, p8, emphasis added) proposes Nico Stehr, in his comprehensive work on Knowledge societies, in the book of the same name. Certain attributes of the ‘knowledge society’ (KS) comes into the picture from this definition, the type of knowledge that is in consideration here is scientific knowledge, it is ubiquitous and that this phenomenon, of having a society encircled completely by such scientific knowledge, is recent. To contextualise KS more specifically, one may borrow from Daniel Bell, to whom “Post industrial society, it is clear, is a knowledge society” (Bell, 1973, p212) as according to him knowledge is a fundamental resource of post industrial society.

Knowledge has always had a function in social life; one can justifiably speak of anthropological constant: human action is knowledge based. However, the emergence of today’s KS signals first and foremost a radical transformation in the structure of economy.

“The most common denominator of the changes of the structure of economy seems to a shift from economy driven and governed, in large measures, by material inputs into the productive process and its organisation to an economy in which transformations in productive and distributive process are determined much more by symbolic or knowledge based inputs.” (Stehr, N, 1994, p 10)

It is important to make a contradistinction of the concept of KS with that of Knowledge Economy (KE). The concept of KE can be traced back to the works of Hayek (1937) who emphasized the importance of knowledge for economic growth. In his critique against socialism and state planning he asserted the best way to organise modern society was market logic. The crux of his idea of liberal democracy was that science and markets as self-organising systems. (Hayek quoted in Va¨limaa and Hoffman, 2008, p 269) In many academic discourses the two concepts are used interchangeably. However, the present study makes a difference between the two as the KS concept emanate from a sociological theory while KE from economic theory and some times due to the difference in perspectives can be contending ideas in higher education policy making5. (ibid) As discussed in the previous sub-section Knowledge society discourse occurs in the context of globalisation debates which assume ‘‘the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness’’ (Held et al., 1999). As the post-globalised world economy is

5 An interesting detail is that Lisbon Process discourse makes use of the term Knowledge- based economy while Bologna discourse uses KS.

26

essentially neo-liberal therefore mode of production of KS is essentially capitalist rather than statist and more of symbolic-analytical nature. (Reich, R., 1991)

Knowledge society discourse also is rooted in the fact that higher education institutions are more important than ever as mediums in global knowledge economies. In the age of globalization, higher education institutions are integral to the continuous flows of people, knowledge, information, technologies, products and financial capital.

Impact of KS on higher education:

The new connotation of knowledge leaves a natural impact on how education is perceived, and is given in KS. Access to education has become progressively universal. More importantly the function of knowledge as the generator of innovativeness and competitiveness has made the linkage between education and production much stronger.

The biggest impact of KS on HE is perhaps the shift in knowledge providers and the location of knowledge disbursement from the state to the market. As seen from the complicacies of technoscapic globalisation which makes states somewhat redundant as knowledge providers that higher education changes its location from the state to the market. Thus there is a policy shift in HE to increase externally funded research and production of applicable knowledge. In KS, research has pervaded the boundaries of universities and now many researches are undertaken not exclusively within University framework but in corporate and industrial set up too. Knowledge is now a tool for competitiveness and innovation. As the University programmes are getting more and more linked with labour market demands, Vocational and skills-based curriculum content in secondary education and there is a plethora of Adult education for job-related purposes. Most expansion of Higher Education also concerns the vocational/technological sector in order to feed the technological infrastruce to maintain the KS. (Castells, 1998)

In European higher education, one of the most interesting processes related to knowledge society discourse is the Bologna Process. This is because the Bologna Process provides an empirical window into the globalization of higher education, as it is playing out in Europe. (Tomusk, 2006 quoted in Va¨limaa and Hoffman, 2008)

2.1.3. Transnationalisation of Higher Education

Purpose of this section is to portray the impact of globalisation on HE with a focus on the EU

Globalisation has not only weakened the state borders but has put greater freedom of cross- border mobility of capital, products, services, information. This is due to the wider range of global financial markets which can operate in real time on a planetary basis. Some of the big corporations today have GDP more than some smaller states thereby nullifying state’s unique role in production mechanism and control of its economy and fiscal policies. This has been possible due to, as discussed earlier, two main reasons, primarily because of the continuous spread of the new telecommunication technologies and the establishment of a global media system which have de-territorialised information and knowledge transmission. Secondly the

27

liberalisation of trade regulations to accommodate the new neoliberal mandate of global economy.

The globalisation of economy and of technology has been followed by the globalisation of policy making. (Moutsios, 2008) Ulrich Beck formulates the concept of ‘meta-power game of politics’. This meta- game according to him is ‘transnational’, as national borders are eliminated and mixed up and power flows from the global sphere into nation states’ arenas of power. As he remarks, transnational politics contain nation-state politics whereas nation-state politics is becoming the arena where transnational politics is elaborated. (Beck, 2005, p 8)

The main international organisations operating today in the world are a clear expression of this new global power regime; they are institutions of transnational policy making which takes place outside of the nation-states but sustained and worked out by them. The role of these institutions has been strengthened remarkably since the end of the 20th century and they have become the main context were policies are formulated, through processes of unequal distribution of power. (Beck, 2005, Moutsios, 2007b & 2008)

EU, among the organisations, is unique in the sense that they are more than an international organisation. It has an anthem and flag to uphold its identity and a Parliament and Court of Justice making it a proto-state. (Shore, C., 2000; Moutsios, 2008) EU thus looms large on the monopoly of the European nation-state in territoriality, sovereignty and also policy making including Education. The EU, legally speaking6 can only interfere in policy matters where its Member State does not have a definite policy. To bypass this shortcoming EU’s policy making in education was initially focused on vocational training (where, members do not have any well defined policy), on students’ mobility or on the, amorphous concept of, ‘European dimension in education’ that later found its way into Bologna Declaration. Through these channels the EU has slithered into the education arena and now has much more say in education and by its own admission acknowledges the great role by education and training in the economic and social strategy as well as the future of the Union. (EC, 2003) The education systems in Europe are gradually being brought under the auspices of the EU. This makes the European education systems subservient to the common goals which are features of the KS and disseminated through transnational organisations like the EU. The production of skilled individuals to feed up the new transnational European economy is the ruling ideology revealed from most EU documents on education. Thus in Europe and the rest of the world alike, knowledge production and transmission are largely defined in terms of their economic value. This is emphasised by the European states through their collective education policy making at the EU level. Collective policy making on the EU level is sometimes used by the Members to legitimise back home the education policies which otherwise are difficult to initiate on the national level. (Bache, 2004)

6 The Maastricht Treaty (1992) specifies EU’s purlieu of command over Members and education; particularly HE was kept out of its domain. More discussion on this aspect is in the chapter on Bologna Process.

28

2.2 EUROPEANISATION AND THE REBUILDING OF EUROPEAN IDENTITY:

2.2.1 Europeanisation definition, concept and process (2)

“Europe matters, but how? The political systems of the European Union (EU) member states

are penetrated by European policies, but what is the effect of this process? Is

Europeanisation7 making the member states more similar? Or do different domestic political

structures ‘refract’ Europeanisation in different directions?” (Radaelli, 2000, p 2) Europeanisation, as introduced in the onset of the thesis, is both a concept and process and the thesis intends to capture both its aspects. As a process it is historically rooted and is in progress and can be unfolded through empirical research though the last word in the process of Europeanisation cannot be spoken yet. The same holds for its concept as that revolves around the process. The concept cannot for long disregard what is empirically meaningful and thereby is also dynamic by nature. In this sub-section emphasis is given to the understanding of the concept as it is one of the analytical apparatus for the final analysis. Defining Europeanisation is not easy as there as many definitions as its experts though it is mostly conceptualised as a phenomenon emanating mainly from the EU. Because "Europeanisation" has no single precise or stable meaning, it has been argued that the term is so unwieldy that it is futile to use it as an organising concept (Kassim, 2000 p 238) According to Olsen,

“While conceptual clarity is of great importance also in the European context…., the research challenge is not primarily one of inventing definitions. Questions of the properties, mechanisms and explanation of European transformations should not be turned into definitional issues. The challenge is to model the dynamics of change in ways that make the simplifying assumptions behind various definitions accessible to empirical tests.” (Olsen, J., 2002, p 948)

This study does not try to focus on a specific definition of Europeanisation but bring out the gamut of ideas that it opens up. The issue raised is not what Europeanisation "really is", but whether and how the term can be useful for understanding the dynamics of the evolving European polity. The intention of this study is to problematise the mechanism and explanation of the mammoth transformation in European Higher Education and its connectivity to the greater phenomenon of Europeanisation, to study if and how Europeanisation is unfolding in Bologna Process and also to reconceptualise Europeanisation through the prism of Bologna Process. Europeanisation can be broadly defined as ‘process by which domestic policy areas become increasingly subject to European policy-making’. (Börzel, 1999, p 574) This gives an outline

7 This thesis uses British English spellings. I have changed the original American English spellings from some quotes to maintain continuity.

29

of the process though the complex process needs to be conceptualised different vantage points, what in the domestic or national arena is changing, how and why. Olsen contends,

Europeanisation is often confused with some related but not identical concepts. According to Radaelli ‘convergence’ can be a consequence of Europeanisation but he distinguishes between the process and consequence and to him convergence may be the consequence and should be understood separately from the process that is Europeanisation. He also brings in the position that convergence though is the usual (and also expected) outcome of Europeanisation; the latter can also produce ‘divergence’. Empirical studies of policy have detected considerable variability in certain fields. Europeanisation is not identifiable with harmonisation8 either. Europeanisation does not necessarily accord with harmonisation as it does not necessarily induce harmony but can stimulate diversity. Radaelli contends that if Europeanisation increases the problem- solving capacity though the member-states produce divergent solutions. Thus there remains the possibility of “competitive distortions in the common market” (Petit forthcoming, p 23 Quoted in Radaelli, 2001). Harmonisation is supposed to induce similar situation for and not bring about distortion. Olsen and Radaelli’s position vary on Europeanisation and political integration though both assert ‘Europeanisation would not exist without European integration.’ (Radaelli, 2001) To the latter Europeanisation is not the process by which countries pool sovereignty. Olsen talk poltical integration as category in Europeanisation. The difference between Europeanisation and political integration is also shown by Börzel (Börzel, 1999, pp 576-577) as theories of integration focus on the issue whether “European integration strengthens the state (inter-governmentalism), weakens it, or triggers ‘multi-level governance’ dynamics”. The focus of Europeanisation is post-ontological and brings into the picture, the ‘domestic institutions’ and problematises their role in the process of adaptation to Europe. How the domestic institutions adapts to the process is conditional thus, in the final analysis the narrative of Europeanisation will remain conditional. (Radaelli, 2001) While trying to grasp the full meaning of Europeanisation, consideration must also be given to its methodological specificity. Lawton (1999), for example, suggests that Europeanisation is the de jure transfer of sovereignty to the EU level, and distinguishes this concept from ‘Europeification’, that is, the de facto sharing of power between national governments and the EU. Thus, Europeanisation and ‘Europeification’9 are identified with the emergence of EU competencies and the pooling of power.” (Lawton, 1999)

8 (Convergence and harmonisation are sometimes categorised into one bracket by some scholars, however, this thesis makes a distinction between the two as much of the debate in the initial years of Bologna Process revolved around this two similar but non-identical concepts)

9 Fatima Antinues, 2006 also Lawn and Lingaard, 2002, among others use the concept and term Europeification

30

In her work on the impact of globalisation on European education process, Fatima Antunes uses the concept of ‘Europeification’ and asserts the process should possess:

(i) the definition, at a European level, of a matrix of policies to be developed by the states in the fields of education and training and the ex-post control of the whole process; (ii) the setting up of intergovernmental platforms, where decisions regarding measures to be implemented by the states in the field of education are made; (iii) The development of a Community agenda and policy (i.e. defined and developed under the auspices of Community institutions) for education and training (Antunes, F., 2006, p 50)

Both Olsen and Antunes emphasise on the dynamism of Europeanisation. Referring to it as a process and therefore its empiricism would affect its concept, Olsen feels that at the current stage of Europeanisation studies (i.e. in 2002) it pragmatic to keep the definitions minimal as the process is still evolving. He pushes the point further by giving the instance that Ladrech changes his definition from 1994 to 2001, Ladrech defines Europeanisation as an "incremental process" in Ladrech 1994 but in 2001 he drops that aspect from the definition. (Olsen, 2002, p 35) This thesis also considers that the exact nature of the processes of change and their end results should be determined by empirical studies rather than by definition. (Olsen, 2002) and just like Antunes remarks keeps an eye “on the innovations and dynamics underway.” (Antunes, 2006, p 50)

2.2.2 European Identity Perspective

“The city of Venice, the paintings of Rembrandt, the music of Beethoven or the plays of

Shakespeare are an integral part of a common cultural heritage and are regarded as

common property by the citizens of Europe." (Borchardt 1995 p 73)

(i) European Identity: An Introduction

Throughout the entire debate between supranational and national levels of power, there is one aspect of the supranational level which garners maximum interest. Where do the supranational draw its legitimacy from? Unlike a national state which has its people, the supranational has no special ‘people’ in the same sense that states have. Nation can be defined as a ‘sense of belongingness’ shared between a common group of people. This sense comes from common language, history, culture and way of life. Following a certain way of life, having shared beliefs which are unique to it in many senses, gives nation its identity. Is there such a sense of belongingness on a supranational level too? If so, what is the basis of this belongingness which eventually leads to a supranational identity? (Balibar, 1996, p 86) These are questions which resonate throughout the discussions of European integration and creating of European demos and will be tackled in the coming section.

Tracing the rudiments of European integration, one goes back to the ravages of the two World Wars which devastated Europe’s economy and destroyed countless lives. To have control over this disordered situation the quest for peace in Europe began. Thus the foundations of European Coal and Steel and Community (ECSC), 1951 and then in the Treaty of Rome (1957) came about and one can deduce that the cause for this crusade, is to

31

build peace and prosperity in Europe. The integration continued steadily and in 1993 came the Maastricht Treaty creating a European Union and thus ‘building’ Europe found a whole new genre. However the creation of European Union did not create European people. What the Union did however build was a European economy which was meant to breed peace, harmony and prosperity. The opulence of economy needs the support of a well running market. Europe had become one economy in 1993 but for Europe to sustain its growth and acquire an edge in competitiveness with USA and Japan it needed a flourishing market. Most big economies have a captured their home markets in addition to having created a niche in the global market and thus European economy needs a ‘European market’ to survive in the aggressive global economy. However that has not been the case and it is perceived that the lack of European identity has caused this lacuna. (Shore, C., 2000 pp 20-21)

The absence of widespread sense of European identity is not merely a disappointment for the europhiles and the eurofederalists and the “technocratic zealots of Maastricht”; it actively corrupts the evolution of the integration essential to Europe’s long term competitiveness (ibid).

(ii) Dilemmas of European identity:

“Europe is postulated, and being constructed as a supranational community, members of

which are bonded and bounded with a culture that is rooted in the past of Europe and which

is naturally evolving, albeit with unfortunate and at times catastrophic breaks. The projected

collectivity of Europe is encompassing and culture is its constitutive seal. ” (Soysal, 2002, p55)

Like Europeanisation, what constructs the concept or identity of Europe is not a static concept. Europe like any entity is not one dimensional and therefore which aspect of it resurfaces depends on the time and need.

One of the sources of identity projects Europeans as a community who share a common heritage, myths, history and cultural values. Thereby the project has to draw upon generic assumptions as to Europe’s common past, civilisational heritage, and distinct cultural value. Greek and Roman legacy, Renaissance’s humanism and Enlightenment, parliamentary democracy, and the Christian past are readily offered as the common European patrimony. This patrimony is presumed to be what naturally unites and Europeans and what distinguishes them from others. (Soysal, Y., 2002) The other source is of Europe of subjectivity or rather when people think they are subjects of Europe. (ibid) The identity emanate from individuals who thinks as Europeans and reacts to signs and ideals of Europe. Euro barometer surveys and analyses of electoral behaviour are useful as the most common and taken for granted, methods of measuring subject positions and degrees of Europeanness. This is akin to political fidelity one expects to bear towards their nation. (Shore, C., 2000)

Here, one does get interested to know what would be the content of Europe. To begin, I would revert to a term coined by Therborn, “Europe as normativity.” (Therborn, 2001) That is Europe as a series of norms and ethics. As Europe does have a heritage- ‘glory of Greece

32

and grandeur of Rome’ to fall back on and thus ideals of Renaissance, Modernism, democracy, secularism can all be seen as European normative and thus the content of its identity. However, as Soysal would argue that these ‘ethos’ have long become universalised to be regained back by Europe10

The EU endeavoured to construct European identity and tried to in define what European is and what is not. The Bologna Process also carries the expression “European dimension”; however, this concept has not been free from debates and disagreement. As Yasmin Soysal affirms, there is a European Institutional Unity where EU stands tall in ‘fabricating’ European identity. Many fear the EU identity to be encroaching the national domain. However the transnational and the national are not separate domains. To reiterate to what Beck called the “meta game of power” between transnational and the national, the same can be said in regards to EU and its Member States. In this ‘meta’ game one must perceive the “transnational as integral to the very structuralisation of the national.” (Soysal, 2002) Transnational and national, as will be unravelled through the course of this thesis, are not necessarily independent of each other.

(iii) Europe as a variable:

“……Europe is not a fixed condition. Europe is another word for variable geometry, variable

national interest, variable involvement, variable internal-external relations, variable

statehood and variable identity…” (Beck, U., 2007, p 6)

In comprehending European identity it important to have a grasp of what Europe stands for as that constructs the major part of the former. To Soysal, Shore, Lawn et al the concept of Europe is being fabricated as Europe is subjective rather than an objective reality. It can thus be perceived from several perspectives. One such is Beck’s standpoint, who regards Europe as an amorphous entity. According to him, “Europe as such does not exist, only Europeanisation in the sense of an institutionalised process of permanent change.” (Beck, U., 2007, p 6) Thus putting Europe in a dynamic position where it is constantly reconstructing itself. Thus what Europe “includes and excludes the location and direction of its territorial boundaries, its institutional form, and what institutional architecture” (ibid) is constantly altering along with its identity. In fact, the European identity and what builds Europe and interlinked as the former takes its cue from the latter.

In its variability and fluidity, Europe does not employ an ‘either-or’ logic to its apparent contending multiplicities of nationality, supranationality and the other variables. How does Europe deal with so much divergence? Beck proposes it is through a way of living thinking called Cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is the recognition of difference becomes maxim of thought, social life and practice both internally and towards other socialites. It neither order differences hierarchically nor dissolves them but accepts them as such indeed invests

10

However, the process of Europeanisation attempts to reclaim the universalised normatives and cultural symbols. A case in point is Borchradt identification of paintings of Rembrandt and music of Beetoven which as European treasure.

33

them with a positive value. Cosmopolitanism affirms what is excluded both by hierarchical difference and by universal equality, namely perceiving others as different and at the same time as equal. Whereas universalism and nationalism are based on the principle either/or, cosmopolitanism rests on both/and principle.

Beck contends that the concept of Cosmopolitanism has both a very old meaning and one that points to the future. It is both pre national and post national11. It can be traced back to the Greek antiquity. “Cosmopolitanism combines appreciation of difference and alterity with attempts to conceive of new democratic forms of political rule beyond the nation-state.” (Beck, U., 2007, 12)

2.3: ENTWINING OF GLOBALISATION AND EUROPEANISATION

Purpose of the section: In most discussions on globalisation and Europeanisation, the latter

is assumed to be the effect of the former. This thesis challenges the one-dimensional outlook.

2.3.1: Europeanisation as a ‘Reaction and Expression of Globalisation’: European

Network State

“European integration is, at the same time, a reaction to the process of globalisation and its most advanced expression.” (Castells, 1998, p 319) Thus runs the ‘Castells Paradox’ which emphasises that “the global economy is not an undifferentiated system made up of funds and capital flows, but a regionalised structure” where both nations, regions and new supranational entities still play a major role in organising economic competition and in “reaping, or spoiling, the benefits of it.” (Castells, 1998, p 319) Castells’ argument that Europe is the highest expression of globalisation, thus assumes that the relationship between them as non-hierarchical. Dale and Robertson (2009), in their discussion on globalisation and Europeanisation, conceives of the former “as a level of abstraction” where as Europe is an entity which contains, and “seeks to order economic, political, cultural (etc.) activities”. (Dale and Roberson, 2009, p 25) Thus the comparison of ideas should be with concepts like global economy, or institutions of global governance and Europe. Conceiving of the relationship in this way removes the possibility of a hierarchical relationship between two levels, “because in a sense they are not two levels but different instances of the same level.” (ibid)

According to Rosamund Europe can be seen as realisation of globalisation in two ways. First, Europe embraces a liberal market order which is visible in the Lisbon Agenda’s (2000) master discourse as competitiveness. (Rosamund, 2005 quoted in Dale and Robertson, 2009 p 24) The second way in which Europe may be seen as a realisation of globalisation is the materialisation of a ‘hybrid form of multi-level polity’ and along with an emergence of hybrid forms of governance that depart from the ‘models most associated with twentieth-century European political economy’ (ibid). By way of example, Lisbon Process specifies Europe, and not member states, as the level at which competitiveness is to be achieved. It indicates an incipient shift from ‘national government’ to ‘European governance’ in the

11 Just like Universities which is from a pre-national era now moving towards post or supranationality.

34

Lisbon Agenda. (Dale and Robertson, 2009 P. 26) The other element of Castell’s paradox, European integration as a reaction to globalisation has featured more prominently in discussions of the consequences for education policy.

The global economy facilitates the mobility of capital and the networking of production creates the conditions for investment to move around the world to areas of lower social costs. In the search for flexibility in the labour markets and lowering cost of production, Europe went through a process of disinvestment reducing the employment basis in the continent. This led to the evaporation of legitimacy for the welfare state as employment generation is a vital function of the welfare states. Thus it is necessary to even out social costs in the ‘internationally networked system’ as without it maintaining an inclusive welfare state is impossible. (Castells, M., 1998, p 318) Therefore an inherent dialectics between the forces of globalisation and the status quo in Europe is that, welfare system enabling citizens, are now somewhat incapacitated due to global economic flows and are constricted to plunge into a neoliberal dialogue to save their systems. Globalisation thus activated ‘defensive’ reactions around the world which are often organised around the principles of national and territorial identity. Castells contends that “in Europe this perceived threat is materialised in the expanding powers of the EU.” (ibid)

Intriguingly EU was fashioning itself for a defence against globalisation, there was a defensive reaction towards this process of unification. “EU was perceived not as a defence of but an adaptation of globalisation.” (Castells, M., 1998, p 326) The EU in its turn did have also neoliberal nuance as membership in it needed economic adjustment, flexibility of economic labour market, and above all the shrinkage of the welfare state (Touraine, A, 1996 quoted in Castells, 1998).

The EU has its mechanism of not disturbing the delicate nation-state balance but in order to draw its legitimacy, without jeopardising its policy making capacity, it endeavours to link up its institutions with substantial levels of government- regional and local- with the clever use of the subsidiarity principle, under which the Union institutions only take charge of decisions that lower levels of government in nation-states, cannot assume effectively. (Castells, 1998) According to Borja,

“The real process of relegitimisation of Europe appears to be taking place in the burgeoning of local and regional initiatives, in economic development as well as in cultural expressions, and social rights, which link up horizontally with each other, while also linking up with European programmes directly or through their respective national governments.” (Borja, 1992 quoted in Castells, p 326)

In the same vein Keohane and Hoffman propose the notion that the EU “is essentially organised as a network that involves the pooling and sharing of sovereignty rather than transfer of sovereignty to a higher level. (Keohane and Hoffman, 1991, p 13 quoted in Castells, 1998) European complex political process revolves around a network rather than a top-down mechanism. “A network, by definition, has nodes, not a centre.” (Castells, 1998, p 326) In that case a node that is different nation-states, regions and institutions, “may be of different sizes, and may be linked by asymmetrical relationships in the network, so that the

35

network state does not preclude the existence of political inequalities among its members.” However despite these inequalities there is no power centre, at least according to Castells12. Indeed all governmental institutions are not equal in the European network. This ‘network state’ in the EU is therefore the response of Europe’s political systems to the “challenges of globalisation”. (ibid)

2.3.2 ‘European Dimension’ in education

The notion of developing a ‘European dimension in education’ first appears as part of the European Community's policy in the context of "Action Programme on Education" (1976) The Action Programme on Education was Community’s first such programme on Education and owes its origin partly to the publication of Janne Report (1973). Much later, in 1986, the survey was conducted by the European Commission among its 12 member countries on the current state of development of the European dimension in education. The major objective of this survey, which was to be completed a year later, was to assess the progress that had been made in the implementation of Community policy in this area. The surveyors hoped that its results would both provide a picture of what was being achieved and help to lay a useful foundation for the program's future development. The evaluators had to keep in mind that Europe since the French Revolution has shown variations in types of University systems in relation to state- University interaction, governance and the aim of the institution. The differences have grown with the genesis and prominence of the nation-states, each state having its own type of education system which varies from each other both in general and detail. Therefore, no comparison of responses can ignore the very substantial differences among the educational systems of the Member States. Some systems are very state-centric with a centralised control over which policies are to be adopted like in the case of Germany. While in its neighbouring state, Denmark, direct state intervention will be unsuitable. The inclusion of the concept of European dimension in the education thus varies. (Ryba, R, 1992) All countries attached prime importance to the role of modern language teaching and the teaching of geography for the development of the European dimension. Teaching history, economics, civics, and social studies were also crucial by many countries. The diffusion of European dimension was seen crucial by all countries and was substantiated to a large extent the above mentioned subjects were the selected areas in more or less most countries. (ibid) In general terms, the main emphasis in almost all the countries was on the provision of ‘European content’ within traditional subject areas: “learning about Europe rather than learning to be Europeans.” (Ryba, 1992, pg 15) Though a certain amount of ‘European content’ existed in national curricula before the institution of the European Community's program it is difficult to gauge how much difference the EC programme made on the institutions implementation of European dimension in curricula . The 'dimension' notion has clearly been taken to imply something additive to what already exists rather than something that provides a wholesale replacement. Gone too, at least for the most part, are traditional notions of a new subject to be added to the curriculum, either alongside existing subjects or

12 The Sorbonne Declaration, 1998 showed though that at times it is possible for one or a few handful of power lobbies to put forward a discerning momentum to this intricate process. (Chapter III)

36

within one or two particular subjects. What is now generally understood by the European 'dimension' in the curriculum is an element that needs to be added 'across the curriculum', i.e. 'transversally', wherever it can usefully be introduced, rather than simply in those subjects, like history, geography and modern languages, where it can most obviously be seen to play a part. (Ryba, 1995)Hence, the Commission is intent on generating more support for its understanding that "to a greater extent than before, promoting the European dimension in education and training has become a necessity for efficiency in the face of internationalisation" (CEC, 1995, p. 29 quoted in Hansen, 1998 p 7).

As much as the EU discussion on education is penetrated by the value of neo-liberal economism and its requirements of a tighter fit between school curriculum and the demands of a Euro-global business sector eager to create a flexible labour market for a multi-skilled and mobile work-force (Kairamo, 1989), the Commission has been fast to point out that its argument for greater educational convergence is not premised on economic considerations alone. Unlike the Western European nation-states, arguably, the EU has also been hard at work to carve out a cultural role for education in the Community. Answering the alleged criticism against the Commission's White Paper on Education and Training (CEC, 1995 quoted in Hansen, 1998, p 7) "for putting too much emphasis on purely economic issues" (CEC, 1996, p. 6, in Hansen, 1998, p 7), the Commissioner in charge of education, Edith Cresson, thus contends that the issue of education at the EU level "is as much cultural as industrial. Not only must Europe defend its interests, it also has an identity to preserve.... 'Europe is a cultural ideal which should be promoted,'.... That is the real issue" (Cresson, 1996, p. 3) In this process of creating a cultural community and "European" identity formation—where “Community measures in the cultural sector is also an economic necessity" (CEC, 1987, p. 1)—the argument continues, education has a pivotal role to play. Indeed, as the White Paper

on Education and Training puts it: "Education and training provide the reference points needed to affirm collective identity" (CEC, 1995, p. 51 quoted in Hansen, 1996). During the second half of the 1980s, major changes occurred at the Community level that would spur the articulation of, if not an altogether new, then at least a considerably more defined role for education. Animated by the push towards the adoption of the Single European Act and the objectives behind the launching of "A people's Europe", the field of education experienced a renewed and increased activity. Thus, “pressures began to build for a reinvigoration of the Commission's European Dimension in Education Program”. (Ryba, 1992, pp. 12-13)Bologna Process European Dimension in Education is thus restating European Commission objective.

37

3: EUROPE: GENESIS AND TRANSFORMATION OF UNIVERSITIES

The historical development of the University testifies to, “….its protean capacity to change

its shape and function to suit its temporal and socio-political environment while retaining

enough continuity to deserve its unchanging name" (Perkin 1984, pg 18 quoted in Guena,

1994, p3)

The universities of Europe are going through a change in structure, functioning, governance and curriculum. The thesis wants to capture the various forces which are at play in this dynamic reconfiguration. In order to understand the on-going change it is important to see how the universities of Europe were, prior to these shifting trends. This chapter looks into the erstwhile phases of European universities, the various themes and patterns that were the past scenario. In doing so, this chapter travels back in time to understand and analyse the Humboldtian, Napoleonic and the Anglo-Saxon models and to see if that has any bearing in today’s Bologna Process proposed convergent European model. The chapter endeavours to outline the changing structure, governance of European Universities and how had the universities reacted to the external stimuli in the past or through these years? This section provides fodder for understanding and analysing the response of the universities to the most recent stimuli that concerns this thesis. The chapter also makes a brief prelude which presents the European attempt of integration which began since the end of the Second World War. It is this endeavour that has crystallised into the full bloomed vision of EHEA which is the present dominant force influencing the University mechanism all over the continent.

For the purpose of better understanding and to have a defined structure, the chapter is divided into the following sections: The first section, “The Birth of Universities” captures the European trajectory of integration. The next, “On Humboldt, Napoleon and Collegiality” makes a short journey of the three major types of European universities, the various patterns, themes etc. The third section, “The University and the changing society and governance” provides the vital link between the European Universities in general and their changing dynamics in response to the changing society. This section tries to understand how the universities have responded to external stimuli with changing normative, governance and role in the society over the years has changed to comprehend its present actions better. The final section initiates the debate of University ethos.

3.1 Birth of Universities

As European Universities have evolved for about 800 years, a historical approach is required

to fully understand the characteristics of this unique institution. This section is dedicated to

develop an interpretive history of European universities focusing on the genesis of

University, its social purpose, governance and relation with the other external forces of the

society.

38

The idea of ‘University’ originated in Europe in the Middle Ages. It should be borne in mind that all ancient societies (like India, China) had institutes for training their elites and the ruling class, high culture, values and superior doctrines of religion and metaphysics. However these institutions though known as universities13 did not the have the salient features of the medieval universities of Europe. Here in this section I look into the prominent features of the pioneering institutions of Europe which retained their fundamentals through the ages so as to be identifiable as universities yet went through genesis over time to survive and function in the changing world. According to most historians, the first universities grew out of the cathedral and municipal schools in some cities in 12th century Europe (Cobban, 1975) to meet the demand for trained elites to serve the bureaucracies of church and state and the emerging professions of the clergy, law, and medicine. These new urban schools were called the ‘studia’ and taught the basic skills needed for the literate professions: the seven liberal arts14. Two names were most commonly used to define the University. They were: ‘Universitas Magistrorum et Scholarium’ and ‘Studium Generale’15. In the early period the term universitas (meaning the totality or the whole in Latin) was applied to corporate bodies (guilds) of the varied sorts and was more commonly used than ‘studium generale’. The term ‘studium generale’ become the legal definition of the University only after the second half of the 13th Century. During the first half of the century, studium generale was used with descriptive intent, where ‘studium’ indicated a school ... and ‘generale’ referred to the ability of the school to attract students from beyond the local region. (Cobban, 1975, p.23) The concept of studium generale acquired a legal connotation during the end of the 13th Century. The status of studium generale was derived from three rights that they uniquely enjoyed. First, was that the higher education institutions which were given legal connotation of a ‘studium generale’ was entitled to award degrees (master or doctoral), recognised everywhere in the Christendom16. The holder of such degree had the ‘jus ubique docendi’ that is the right "to teach in any other University without undergoing further examination" (ibid, p.27) Second, the institution was to a large extent immune from the action of the local, religious

13 (For e.g. the Nalanda University, in India arguably founded around early 9th Century AD)

14 The several liberal Arts being: grammar, logic and rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music

15 A lot of scholarly work has been dedicated to the discussion of the meaning of the terms universitas

and studium generale to cite an example Chapter II of Cobban (1975).

16 The term Christendom (instead of Europe) has been used most authors of European University History, may be as the genesis and growth of the University generated in the Christian world and in around religion.

39

and secular, authority as it was under papal or imperial protection. Third, clergy studying at a ‘studium generale’ were entitled to receive the all rights17 even if they were non-resident. The title of studium generale was granted in most cases by papal bull to new institutions or to pre-existing ones that were asking for the official recognition. In those days the society and polity was helmed by the Papacy. Up to the end of the 15th and early 16th Century the norm in the whole Europe, was to use of the term studium generale, and acquire the grant of papal bull to have proper recognition18. Later, due to religious and political changes, both the terminology and the need for papal charter disappeared, with few exceptions in the catholic countries. (Ruegg, 1992, Guena, 1996)

There was a similarity in the pattern of financing the independent medieval universities despite their heterogeneous organisational structure. University generated its incomes from both internal and external sources. The former consisted of (i) fees for matriculation and graduation; (ii) dispensations from the statutory conditions for degree; (iii) money collected from the students once or twice a year (known as collectae); and iv) fines for violation of University statutes and discipline. The external sources consisted of (i) ecclesiastical benefices; (ii) salaries paid by Church, King, Duke, or town; (iii) gift and legacies; and (iv) grant and endowments given for the permanent support of the University. In the initial years the University expenses were moderate. However, slowly the expenses increased particularly the teachers’ salary and due to the expansion of universities with more number of teachers (mainly from the clergy) and more master courses, the independent universities of the late Middle Ages could no longer be self supporting. Teachers’ salaries and costs of acquisition and maintenance of academic buildings were too high to be covered by own resources. As education was considered gift of God and thus the hike in expenses could not be garnered from students, external support became necessary. Kings, Dukes, and towns, in return for their support became more and more involved in the control and management of University finance. (Guena, 1996, p 21-22)

The medieval University was organised in the fashion of a unique kind of guild. This unique guild and its community of magistres and scholares (masters and students) generated and disseminated ‘knowledge’. In this dissemination of knowledge and organisation of a voluntary community with internal cohesion and ‘corporate personality’ (ibid), the University had a certain level of moral and legal status and enjoyed a degree of independence from external powers like the Pope, Emperor, Princes, towns’ rulers, etc.

Binary division that characterises the European higher education scene today can be traced back to the commencement and the genesis of European University. From this time there

17

The achievement of a certain degree of independence for the studium generale was the result of conflicts with both the local authority and the universal authorities -i.e. the Pope and the Emperor.

18 A glorious exception to the norm of recondition through Papal Bulls was Oxford University which acquired no such recognition.

40

existed two types of higher education institutions- the stadium generale and the stadium and particolarein. The raison d’etre of the medieval University (stadium generale) was the preparation for the educational, ecclesiastical, governmental and professional career. The primary function of this community of practitioners was thus the transmission of knowledge from the masters to the students. The common curriculum (which consisted of the seven liberal arts and emerging professional courses like medicine, law etc) was often taught ‘side by side in the same institution’ (Perkin, 2007) making it the predecessor of the later day multidisciplinary universities. The differences between the University, the studium generale, and other professional training schools came from the former’s unique rights and organisation. The universities were universal in nature compared to the other professional schools (called ‘studium particolarein’ contrast to the ‘stadium generale’), ranging from elementary to higher education schools, were under the control of the local authority (religious or secular) and served the need of a town or a limited region, and they offered only courses in few of the liberal arts and not advanced professional courses. The University of Middle Ages spread throughout the entirety of Christendom cutting across many political systems and engulfing students from outside the local periphery. They also had the reach which transcended the local borders. This facilitated them to evolve as a “cosmopolitan, ‘super-national’ institution.” (ibid) A common language, Latin, a common course of education and a common organisation enabled the creation of an international community of masters and scholars that travelled from one institution to another enjoying in the different places the same privileges and duties. The various medieval universities were not only a particular kind of teaching institutions, but they all were members of a supranational intellectual unity devoted to the cultivation of knowledge, enjoying a certain degree of independence from the papacy, the empire and the municipal authority.

3.2: Of Humboldt, Napoleon and Collegiality19

“Today there are no French, German, Spanish or even English, in spite of what they say:

there are only Europeans. They all have the same tastes, the same passions, the same morals,

because none of them has received a national moulding from a particular institution.” (Ruegg, W., 2004, p 4)

The universities from their genesis had created a supranational space for themselves superseding the local-national sphere. Thus, in the pre- Rousseau era were not meant to inculcate national consciousness in the students, which Rousseau disapproved. Rousseau’s lamentations unmistakably depicts the fact that prior to the present drive in engineering

19

However, this mediaeval order of the universities declined with the evolutionary events in Europe like the Great Schism (1378- 1417) which witnessed the battle within the papacy, which resulted in the universities becoming a separate intellectual estate between the Church and the state. The University went through a moribund and somewhat ambivalent phase during the Reformation and Enlightenment. (Perkin, 2007, p 169)

41

Europe of Knowledge, the knowledge generation through University level took place not on a nationalistic but on a European level. Very ironically, the Bologna vision (1999) pledges to create a Europe of knowledge and research, in order to create European demos which borrow from the same cultural milieu. Between these two phases (genesis of universities to Bologna Process) universities reconstructed themselves in national moulds begetting national identities and values, and having distinct national curriculum driving them. The detour of the history from this point gives scope for discussion, the elements which led to various restructurings of the European University. In this section, I attempt to make a connection between the past and present and analyse the forces that are at play even today, understand the relation between the nation-state and the University and find out if there were any dominant pattern of University functioning and whether those trends have any bearing in the present analysis. I would also like to state that this section deals only with European universities while the main analysis is on a larger connotation of higher education institutions (HEI) which encompasses universities as well as other non-University higher education institutions.

Before the French Revolution, 1789, the universities of Europe were rather convergent having a similar institutional moulding which was common to entire Europe rather than specific to any of its nations as can be noted from Rousseau’s remark. This changed with the French Revolution (1789) and the political upheavals and Napoleonic conquests that followed leading to the devastation of European University landscape. The number of universities went down to 83 from 143. The aftermath of French revolution saw an introduction of new kind of University structure which was a microcosm of the macrocosm of the French state. This French model of special colleges were subjected to severe, often military, discipline, strictly organised and controlled by an enlightened despotism that governed to the last detail the curriculum, the awarding of the degrees, the conformity of views held concerning official doctrines.20

The German model bears the name of the Humboldt University. The credit must indeed go to the scholar and statesman Wilhelm Von Humboldt to found a University in Berlin 1810 built on the liberal ideals of the theologian and philosopher Scheiermacher. According to the latter, the function of the University was not to pass on recognised and directly usable knowledge as schools and colleges did, but rather to demonstrate how this knowledge is discovered, to stimulate the idea of science in the minds of the students, to encourage them to take account of the fundamental laws of science in all their thinking. (Ruegg, W., 1992)

The manner of study, the content of the teaching, and the relations of the University with the authorities were to be characterised by freedom. According to Humboldt, the state only had two tasks to fulfil with regard to the universities: to protect their freedom and to appoint professors. He felt that the State should always remember that it cannot and must not do the University's work for it and that it hinders that work whenever it intervenes. This is in sharp

20

The French special colleges monitored even personal habits such as the ban on the wearing beards in 1852.

42

contrast to the French Napoleonic model in which the state was interventionist. Humboldt’s model was difficult to implement and some of ideas were abandoned by his successors. However slowly and steadily this liberal model started to carve a niche for itself and slowly became a Mecca for higher studies and research. To speak of British Universities as model is only possible in a metaphorical sense. For most of the characteristics of both the English and the Scottish universities were less the result of state policy than a compromise between centuries of tradition and long-overdue partial reforms. In addition, as the survey of British universities showed, there were new institutions which tried to make up the deficiencies of the traditional universities through private or municipal initiatives. As a result there was a variety of types of higher educational institutes, which in contrast to the French and German models had few internal connections. British University system was originally heterogeneous but was condensed into a model partly due to the influence of the Germanic model and partly to replicate the successes of Oxbridge universities.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Scottish universities stood alone with the two ancient English Universities. They were more like their continental counterparts, but were largely financed by the state and were frequented by the more modest classes. They did not require students to live in or to have tutors, and for their teaching they relied much more than the English colleges on lectures by the professors. There was in addition a generous system of grants, flexible programmes of study and admissions procedures which made it possible even for those in employment to study.

The Anglo-Saxon model embodied the Humboldtian ideology and had collegial values. Incidentally Scottish Universities also had a research base. The Anglo-Saxon Universities in addition to this also retained their monastery heritage giving them a typical blend.

Peter Scott argues that it is futile to attempt divide European Universities into three models as there were hybrid models as sometimes some Universities of a particular would emulate pert of one model creating a superimposed, hybrid model.

3.3 University and the Changing Time

3.3.1: University and the changing time: From the perspective of governance

This section talks about the changing governance in the University and other higher

institutions in Europe. The aim of this section is to analyse the circumstances which account

for the changing governance.

Governance, generally speaking, “is perceived as the exercise of authority, control or direction.” (Zgaga, P., 2006, p35) Governance is, in the main, associated with political authority and also with broader issues in society and politics which demand institutions and control. It is also linked with economy and organisations. Governance is the certainly about processes and systems by which a society, an organisation, etc., operates and is understood in

43

relation to administrative and managerial issues there is more to governance than just that (ibid).

Governance is a new concept in the discussions of higher education but that does not mean those traditional higher education institutions were without any sort of governance. The need to regulate the internal organisations of the University as well manoeuvre its association with the external authorities and environment was felt since the birth of universities, therefore making some or other form of governance mandatory. However the term ‘governance’ is not found in connection with higher education until recently. “It has not been used in any well-known international higher education documents including the Magna Charta Universitatum (1988), the Lisbon Convention (1997), nor in the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations (1998, 1999) etc.” (Zgaga, P., 2006) The term makes its first appearance in the Bologna Trends II report (2001) and is found in subsequent Trends reports. It is interesting to note that the concept of governance seems to be more frequently used within the institutional context than at the system level. (Trends II, III, IV, Scott, P., 2006) In the context of Bologna Process the term was first used EUA’s Message from Salamanca (March 2001), where it states,

“The European Higher Education Area needs to build on academic core values while meeting stakeholders' expectations, i.e., demonstrating quality…..It encompasses teaching and research as well as governance and administration….. Inherent quality does not suffice, it needs to be demonstrated and guaranteed in order to be acknowledged and trusted by students, partners and society at home, in Europe and in the world.”(EUA, 2003, p 38, emphasis added)

This expression comes under the heading “quality” which is considered one of five the key issues of the EUA, Graz Convention 2003. The EUA clearly takes into consideration the stakeholders, partners who exist outside the realm of the higher education and talks about their expectations. It also clearly states that quality has to be demonstrated in home (nation-state), Europe and the in the world opening up the dialogue on “Europeanisation” of higher education as such. The concept of governance is thus evidently related to how the University performs in relation to external parameters of stakeholders and market in and out of Europe. The manifest inclusion of students in the Graz convention was taken forward in the Bologna Seminar in Oslo on a special Bologna seminar on ‘Student participation in governance in Higher Education’ (2003) broadened the meaning of ‘higher education governance’ from merely a quality issue and later the same year in Berlin it stated,

“Students are full partners in higher education governance. Ministers note that national legal measures for ensuring student participation are largely in place throughout the EHEA. They also call on institutions and students organisations to identify ways of increasing actual involvement in higher education governance” (Berlin Communiqué, 2003, p 5)

Higher education governance is a multidimensional concept. It on one hand is directly connected with governments, no matter what the degree of autonomy the University enjoyed, the governments always played a role University functioning notwithstanding the various levels of autonomy the University enjoyed and this became particularly true in the latter half of 20th Century. On the other hand governance means the administration or managements of

44

the institutions or organisations. Zgaga makes three categories of higher education governance (HEG):

(i)Internal or institutional HEG: governance of higher education institutions (ii) External or systemic HEG: governance of higher education systems. (iii.) International or global HEG: governance of higher education systems within an international (global) perspective, for example the Bologna Process. (Zgaga,P.,2006, p 39)

The conceptual origins of HEG can be understood only in the context of societal complexity that occurred in the last few decades which led to the universities turning into mass institutions from an elite and exclusive one. This phenomenon created a metamorphosis of sorts in the structure of the universities in more ways than one. Mass higher education not only challenged the traditional University functioning but also the relationship it held with the state. The higher education system saw massive expansion worldwide since the 1960s. This logically led to cut down of per unit budget of the universities while the states also rolling back in its financial liaison with the universities. This questioned the till now assumed efficiency of the higher education institutions. This is why Guy Neave and Van Vaught describe the process as the nation state transforming into a facilitatory state from an interventionary role. (Neave & Van Vught, 1991) A further arguably neoliberal shift took place around 1980s when governments across Europe and the globe started withdrawing from direct institutional governance. However this withdrawal did not deter the state from putting objectives in front of the HEIs. That was also clearly neoliberal. The HE from now on had to be seen as output and a process. There was a strange dialectics now between the state and the universities as the former which withdrew from direct governance allegedly gave the universities more autonomy it also made it more accountable as now with more complex structure the universities no longer guaranteed efficiency but had to prove it. Thus the more autonomous University also became more accountable. Historically speaking, the first sharp turn in the higher education development in Europe happened in the 19th century with two new developments, industrialisation and birth of modern nation-states. Due to the reconfiguration of the economy, society faced the requirement of new knowledge and for the first time, the University was directly connected with the needs of the economy. Traditionally, particularly in the Humboldtian form which had influenced the University structure and governance in most parts of Europe, the mission of universities was defined as pursuit of truth and disinterested research. This revolutionised the University’s position in the society, as for the first time universities faced with competition with another type of higher education institutions, the ones which prioritised professional training directly in tune with the needs of economy. The new found nation-states believed in,

45

“….the protection and acceleration of economic development in terms of the national market as the most important issue on its political agenda. The dissemination of knowledge and skills and organisation of research as the means for strengthening ‘productive powers’ simply became an integral part of this agenda” (Zgaga, P.,2006, p 41)

Thus it can be concluded that until the 19th century there was no visible direct connection between the economic development of countries and their University systems. The twin forces of nationalisation of University curriculum and the forces of economy placed European universities in the vortex a new dialectics, which is preserving University autonomy concerning the state as well keeping to its role of generating disinterested knowledge rather than producing labour force for the economy. It is worthwhile to bear in mind that though the economic situation was different in different countries of Europe, as was the levels of protective measures taken to nurture the national economy, placing the universities in variegated circumstances, the ‘common denominator’ of linking the former with the productive needs of the nation state was ubiquitous.

As seen in the historical journey through the Universities of Europe, the traditional University stood for two norms: universality and autonomy. Though the latter has gone through various dynamics the former norm has always been University’s pride as well as its ‘differentia specifica.’ However, this changed in the 20th century which saw a period of growing regulation of national systems of education with an increasing need of systemic governance. This phase has particular importance in connection to this thesis as it was during this time nationalisation of universities took place. The specific features of particular countries and/ or regions which developed originally as cultural traditions were gradually transformed into sophisticated legal systems and reinforced by political action. (ibid) The nationalisation of education happened systematically through the curriculum, examinations and this created the emergence extremely divergent sets of national higher education in Europe. This then is perhaps one of the biggest challenges of the agenda of Bologna Process (as well other similar political agendas) which encompasses mobility, employability, attractiveness and co-operation of education (and other aspects of the society) on a supranational level.

The advent of knowledge society has made the growing bond between economy and education even stronger.(Moutsios, 2007a) Together with the globalisation of economies and the felt need for international cooperation brings new challenge of higher education governance in an international context. The three structural dimensions of governance- institutional, systemic and international construct a triangle constituting an interdependent totality.

Among the external forces that the University is needed to combat is certainly the pressure of the economy leading to the ultimate commercialisation of higher education itself. The budget cuts of the 1980s forced universities to reinvent other ways of financing. This naturally creates an impact on the governance of the universities.

As noted earlier, the withdrawal of the state from giving University from the financial affairs has not debarred them from making demands of high efficiency. The universities today are

46

thus under the pressure both financial constraints and pressure to perform. The efficiency is demanded not only by the state but also from the new stakeholders: the labour market, students who are now also consumers and the corporate partners. This leads to serious questions to the scientific point of view as none of the stake holders are in a position to evaluate quality of education and research. “The students cannot adequately evaluate the options available to them” (Bok, 2003, p 179) and the commercially profitable researches may be trivial to the scientific perspective and conversely the fundamental inquiries of science may be looked down upon as futile from the commercial perspective. Thus the marriage of commercial enterprise with higher education somewhat defies the ethical standards of higher education.

The intention of this thesis is however not to look into ethics as it endeavours to take a very normative standpoint this point is raised however to show the governance dilemma that higher education institutions of Europe is facing today21. The increasing stakeholders made the universities more susceptible to public scrutiny as universities today are more situated within the economy than the pre-knowledge society days when universities were to nurture national economies. The knowledge society has made universities literally cater to market needs and is expected to make important contributions to the environment, health and other major aspects of life. These increasing external demands naturally need internal adjustments: universities need to reorganise themselves, find new modes of operating and answer the challenges of how to carry out their new roles without making much intrinsic changes to their fundamental values of academic and intellectual integrity. (Zgaga, P., 2006)

Finally the universities have to cope with the international and the global pressures. Responsibility of higher education remains with the nation state however due to global pressure there many problems that today’s higher education faces which exceed the national level. This kind of difficulty can be only solved in the platforms like that of Bologna Process which tough not exactly a supranational political authority but is a venture which is witnessing growing cooperation precisely for the above mentioned reason.

The higher education governance is still in a state of flux and is constantly reinventing itself to cope with the growing complexities, be it market forces, democratisation, global pressure etc. The Bologna Process has come up with supranational governance endeavouring to solve these intricacies of the higher education governance taking recourse to soft governance as in Open Method of Coordination (OMC).

21 Incidentally the North American higher education system had gone through these same crises earlier on leading Derek Bok, formerly president of Harvard University make a comment, “if there is an intellectual confusion in the academy that encourages commercialisation, it is confusion over means rather ends. To keep profit seeking within reasonable bounds, a University must have clear sense of the values needed to pursue its goals with a high degree of quality and integrity. When values become blurred and begin to lose their hold, the urge to make money quickly spreads throughout the institution.” (Bok, 2003 p 6) This is the same ethical dilemma that European universities are faced with today.

47

3.3.2: University and the changing time: From the perspective of University ethos

This section looks into changing times which had profound impact on the European

universities and how that changed the Universities. Taking recourse to Peter Scott’s

interpretation of University and its changing role in society, I try to trace the trajectory the

changing ethos of European Universities.

The European universities changed over the years to keep pace with the changing society although it also retained most its traditional features. The transformation of the universities has thus been a case of both continuity and movement. Nevertheless, the forces of movement have substantially modified the ethos, and organisation, of the European University. Peter Scott has identified four major forces of movement. (Guena, A., 1996)

The first of these forces was the arrival of new kind of universities and non-University institutions which directly respond to the needs of economy22. Though these new institutions and the traditional institutions were not unlike in academic structure and management cultures from the traditional universities, the former were more wedded with nation-state than the latter. This was because these in responding to the needs of national economy were more closely playing a part which the nation-states needed, in other words, they were part of the state’s endeavour to protect and nurture the national economy. There was thus a convergence of culture, organisational and normative, between the traditional University and the new type of institutions both of which went through certain changes and reconfigurations in order to co-exist within the broader umbrella of higher education institution.

Second changing force is also much related, and lies in the changing role of universities. The advent of Knowledge Societies had narrowed the gap between economy and education and the latter has in some ways become subservient to the former. Thus one sees universities collaborating with public as well private actors in giving work-based learning programmes to professionals already in the labour force. In addition to these, to nurture scientific research, universities have “developed Science Parks to serve as incubators for high technology enterprises” thus commercialising their intellectual property. (Scott, P., 1998, p 447)

The third transformation of universities came from the impact of new forms of accountability. As higher education has expanded, the strain on public finances has increased which resulted in the reduction of per-unit budget and also more emphasis have been put economising the input. Also due to the massification of education, and universities taking in novel roles, academic self-regulation is not enough. (Guri-Rosenblit, Sebkova and Teichler, 2007) Thus the higher education institutions are now in need of managing their academic quality which was previously assumed. It has also percolated into audit culture whereby HEI finances are now regulated closely which was previously insulated from such inspection, thanks to their autonomous claims. This shift is also due to the changing face of welfare states. With global

22 There was a binary division between university and non-university institutions in the Middle Ages but that was on the on the level of autonomy they enjoyed. The university had reach beyond the local level while the studium Particolare was subservient to the local authority.

48

economy coming into play ever since 1980s, the state has rolled back as global economic forces are essentially neoliberal and can thrive with deregulation of trade policies. The snowball effect of this is that the states since 1980s in most European countries have put more control on budgetary allowances of educational institutions and put emphasis on value for money approach.

The fourth changing force according to Scott is the endogenous changes of the universities that are growing student number and growing scope in terms of teaching and research programmes. “The idea of Knowledge Society that emphasises the centrality of knowledge production in the post industrial economy has tended to underline their economic significance.” (Scott, P., 1998, 449) Because of universities closer ties with the market and state’s withdrawal from University management, the universities were left with more stressful management oriented functions.

The cumulative effect of these changes has led into new type of University. This change has not been only in the organisational culture but also in the value system of the University. Looking back into the major stereotypes one can say all the dominant characters of the models has gone through metamorphosis. The collegiality of the Anglo- Saxon model has taken a beating due to the massification. The academic intimacy that was possible between an exclusive group, cannot be found in a massified structure. (Scott, 1998) The global economy and its undermining of national control on economy have as a consequence led to the rolling back of the state from all matters of public welfare including higher education. Thus Napoleonic state control is also no more to be found which was once a feature some European universities. Finally, the Humboldtian austerity of the intellectual pursuit of the University has taken a strong beating with the coming up of the market forces in controlling and influencing the University functioning.

The European universities in its earlier form were quite simple in organisation structure, however, to cope with the complexities of modern society the universities have been developing a planning and control systems in order to establish and review academic priorities. This lead to the necessity for better managerial structures and management discourses also as the universities has now an increased social base devaluing its earlier symbolic and normative influence as an elite and primarily an intellectual structure. Moreover being more wedded with economy universities today have more stakeholders than earlier who are based outside the University architecture adding an external dimension to the universities making its structure all the more complex.

To keep in pace with this very major external dimension, the economy, labour market and the competences that are in demand, the universities of Europe as well as the rest of the world are in grave dilemma. The need of the knowledge economy to have constantly upgrading labour force have already led to the rise in University run courses for mid career workers. According to Scott, “This diversification of higher education systems is now proceeding at such a pace that the very category ‘higher education’ is in danger of becoming redundant and being replaced by an even more expansive category such as ‘lifelong learning’.” (Scott, P. 1998, p 452)

49

However, no matter what the external stimulus is, the universities in Europe have always adapted to the changing times be it massification of the 1960s, privatisation of the 1980s or the advent of knowledge economies of the new millennium. (Scott, P., 1998, Guena, 1996) There are two ways of perceiving the impact of knowledge economies which emphasises the centrality of the knowledge, ‘as functionalist and as a dislocation of the previous society’ by the social theorists. The functionalist view considers KS as a linear extension of the modern industrial society. This functionalist view of the new society leads to the ideological analogue of a democratic capitalism. (Scottt, P., 1998) However, by the other account the new society is a dismantling of the older version industrial society not only with its physical and bureaucratic structures as well as the reduction of ‘dignified workers’ of yore into mere consumers who are manipulated by not the nation-state and national economy but the global forces.

If society is perceived in a functionalist light, University can be seen as a primary provider of the scientific and technical knowledge and professional skills which is the mainstay of the advanced economies. Universities from this account are then conceived as providers of future growth in wealth and improvement in the quality of individual and social life. The functionalist view of society thus epitomises the University as an agent which can create an alternative for fairer and more rational principals of social stratification. Also, as in knowledge societies, knowledge is the capital; universities have become key agencies of national esteem and global competiveness. However, there is another more pessimistic explanation which does not look at the new KS as a progression of the prior society. If the nature of KS is considered to be amorphous which assigns no definition to knowledge itself and the University can be seen as an agent stabilisation than progress and change. However, history seldom travels in circular motions which mean the University should not be vying for bringing back the erstwhile elite culture but they can try to create meanings and links between the agents of rapid change on both local and global levels. (ibid)

In these two opposed perceptions of universities, its role vacillates from that of an agent of stability and movement. It is rather interesting to note that in this changing dynamics of European universities, the concept of Europe is also evolving and changing. Europe stands for certain normative ethos which has now become universal, through colonialism and trade making the adjective for the universities rather dilute. (Soysal, 2002) When one talks of European universities, it does not denote merely universities within a geographical space but rather stands for specific normative. With rapidly changing times with huge global impact, and Europe itself being absorbed into the global, there is a double undermining of European universities. However, this transformation was inevitable and in a way laudable as universities in Europe had always been an imperative institution which can hardly distance itself from the societal forces.

50

4. THE BOLOGNA PROCESS

4.1: FROM EUROPE OF ECONOMIES TO EUROPE OF KNOWLEDGE

4.1.1. From War to Integration (A European Community Perspective)

Purpose: This section traces the rudiments of European integration process from the end of

the World Wars. It tries to show in brief the journey of European integration from the Coal

and Steal Treaty (1951) to the Maastricht Treaty (1992) from the European Community

viewpoint.

“It is precisely the creative opposition between the diversity of national systems and the

growing similarity of our problems that provides one of the main raisons d’être of European

cooperation.” Jacques Delors. (1994)

The scourge of the two world wars and the subsequent emergence of the USA taught Europe one profound truth, that it cannot survive as a disunited and fragmented force. Waking up to the challenges created by the new world war, the evaporation of the territorial colonialism, advent of a new superpower across the Atlantic, Europe for the first time in its history worked on integration among the various European powers which had for most of its history remain warring and disharmonious. However, the hopes of a unified Europe did not materialise into a reality that easily. Countries set up intergovernmental bodies in aspiration of leading Europe to integration. The first major step towards such endeavour was arguably that of Jean Monnet and the decisive political support of Robert Schumann, among others to launch integration, which was essential for and capable of creating an environment of lasting peace. (EC, 2006) It was decided to build the European Community gradually. Priority was naturally given to the economy, a sector that was considered to be capable of bringing together former enemies in a supranational undertaking. It was also the sector which experienced the maximum brunt of the wars. It was therefore decided to start by pooling the war industries of coal and steel (ECSC Treaty signed in 1951); this was followed by the treaties signed in Rome in 1957: the establishment of the common market, the customs union and the common agricultural policy (EEC Treaty), and atomic energy (Euratom Treaty). It was around this time that employment generation came into the European agenda and thus to undertake the task was to tackle the consequences for employment of the application of a common market and the principles of freedom of movement and establishment of a common market the Treaty of Rome (EEC) foresaw a common vocational training policy (Article 128). (Corbett, 2005; EC, 2006) These goals persist even today and is reflected in the Bologna (1999) and Lisbon (2000) Declaration. This was the rudiments of the process and phenomenon which later became crystallised as Europeanisation.

51

In the initial activities of European integration mainly van guarded by the Community, saw intonation being given to economy, there was so far no reference to Education. At that time, which is during the 50s, the member states (of EEC) did not want the Community to intervene in this area, which is bound up with the development of national sovereignty. (EC, 2006) Education remained a national domain and thus not an issue to b taken up to EEC. “The many years of negotiation (from 1955 to 1972) that was needed in order to set up a European University (The European University Institute in Florence) show the extreme sensitivity that there was at the time about the idea of extending Community action to cover this area.” (EC, 2006, p 22)

The situation changed gradually towards the end of the 1960s. The field of education went through expansion and democratisation in many parts of Europe, higher education experienced a period of confusion and reform. Owing to the post-war demographic explosion, education underwent significant expansion and democratisation. The nation states ventured to cater for the constantly increasing numbers and an increasingly diverse school population. “The student protests of 1968 upset the established order, and the first oil crisis (1973-74) dragged the world into economic doldrums, resulting in public spending cutbacks and growing unemployment which has since been a constant source of concern for the countries of Europe.”23 (EC, 2006, p 61) From then on, education systems, accounting for a significant proportion of public expenditure, were subject pressure and tension. “Social and egalitarian concerns increasingly came second to issues of resources.” (ibid)

The vision of European Community concerned primarily with Europe of economy which began to be considered to be no longer enough. The crisis of the changing times called for the area of education to be taken into account as a necessary addition to community action in economic and social matters and in particular, as requested by the European Parliament in October 1969, for the Europeanisation of Universities as the foundation for a genuine cultural community. The Hague Summit, 1969, stressed the importance of preserving an exceptional centre of development, progress and culture in Europe and of ensuring that young people were closely involved in it. “The Europeanisation of universities is essential, as it is the foundation for a true cultural Community.” (European Parliament, 1969 quoted in EC, 2006, p 55) Thus education which was till then a national agenda came in the vortex of the supranational arena.

The next important shift came in the second half of the 1980s, with the launch of programmes in the field of education and training like the Comett, followed by the Erasmus, PETRA, Lingua etc. The launching of these first generation European level education programmes disclosed some basic problems open for negotiations like the legal and the financial basis. The member states though now open to education programmes feared interference in the national education systems. Gradually these fears were relieved as the programmes

23 It is point to be borne in mind that the Bologna Declaration, 1999 makes a much underlined reference to this unemployment of Europe calling it a common problem, unique to all Europe and in its entirety seeks solve this among other concerns.

52

themselves started gaining ground opening up avenues mutual sharing and cooperation though at this initial stage did not cover all the areas of cooperation. A major venture towards increased cooperation happened through the use of ECTS credit transfer system in the Erasmus programme that made it possible for the University of Origin to recognise the period of study completed in an establishment in another member state. This system subsequently expanded under the Socrates programme and became a key reference instrument for the implementation of Bologna Process. (EC, 2006)

From 1993 onwards, the first year in which single market was implemented; cooperation on education and training entered a new phase. With the incorporation of education and training in the Maastricht treaty (1992) the new found Union was faced with new challenges and that meant more internal adjustments and changes. The advent of knowledge society gave Europe reasons to pull up its strength and coping with such major global forces was only possible on a supranational level. The end of this decade saw coming up of Bologna and Lisbon declaration which made the case for complete cooperation and convergence of the European higher education area and European labour market respectively.

4.1.2 Towards Europe of Knowledge (University and HEI perspective):

The Purpose of this section is to show the forward march of Europeanisation of HE which

culminates in the Bologna Process.

The march towards Europeanisation of higher education, though began with the EU the latter is to some extent legally tied up to take direct actions on education one because of the reservations of the Member States to EU involvement in higher education and second due to the 1957 and 1992 Treaties. The Treaty of Rome,1957 disallows the EU to venture into education and the Subsidiarity Principle of the Maastricht Treaty, 1992 allows EU to intervene in only those educational areas where the nation-states does not have a specific policy. Higher Education thus does not come within the purlieu of EU. The EU however had the authority to mediate in vocational education as no states had a defined policy on that. The Union’s executive arm, the EC, in 1984 identified HE essentially as a training for a career. In this way, by bringing in H.E. into the economic arena and picturing all education in a vocational standpoint, the EC had a clearer say on higher education. However the Member states did not see this constricted connotation of education with much ease. The EC nonetheless smoothed the process for novel programmes like COMETT (1982), cross-frontier staff and student exchange between higher education and industry. Few years later came the ERASMUS programme which opened the door for mass student exchange. The EC induction into education was with the justification that without a cultural dimension the EC cannot flourish and education begets that cultural dimension. Paradoxically, no matter what the excuse, EU’s stand on education was rather different. Education was defined in a way by an economic frame of reference that it is necessarily vocational. (Neave, 2005)

Though mobility did increase but it also proved that European HE is a “metaphysical abstract” (Neave, 2005, p 8).Everything starting from learning standards, to study duration

53

was so different that studying abroad was a stumbling block. The EC sought to seek solution to this problem. Study abroad had to count towards the completion of first degree otherwise there is no incentive for the students. But it was difficult as to devise such an instrument as it risked challenging the national communities “in those essential functions of certification, qualification, and accreditation, which many defended ferociously as an inalienable part of national sovereignty.” (Neave, 2005, p 8) The European degrees were no solution as nation states would have to give up some of their power to the EC and also feared devaluing of national degree.

The EC decided to circumvent the states and relate straight to the universities in order to deal with these challenges.24 It empowered the University with the authority of recognising periods spent abroad as counting toward the final qualification at first degree level. The principle of recognition was agreeably flexible and extendable. Individual universities recognized each other's diplomas, thus opening the way for the award of so-called “dual degrees” (Neave, 2005, 9) This opened a new vista for the universities, in terms of their autonomy as it was it was up to them to pave the way for mobility schemes like ERASMUS and get funding from EU etc. This empowered the universities in a two-way basis, one by giving them the chance to recognise degrees of a foreign University and thereby bypass national authority to an extent and secondly by generating funds. “Clearly, the direct channels of funding and linkage between the institutional level and the emerging superordinate level in the European higher education community were far from being unproblematic.” (ibid)

Though the EC was enabling for the universities, the latter challenged the ‘vocational thesis’ of the EU very strongly and united in a cross-national campaign of protest that gathered impetus throughout 1993 and 1994. It was all the more telling precisely because organized between individual establishments. This constricted interpretation of the University's basic mission plus the Commission’s concept of higher education solely as a strategy were confronted by some of academia’s best as demonstrating the European Community’s fixation with economic viability to the exclusion of all else. (Neave, 2005) The protest from academia primarily reinforced the historic role of higher education –which is more than simply training for a career as the EU proclaimed to get induction into HE. It also vouched for the oft ignored fact that the cultural dimension and social cohesion deserved a greater weight in the formulation of higher education policy at a European level. Again more importantly, the protest puts a challenge on the neo-liberal wave that European higher education had since globalisation.

Another phenomenon which had a telling impact on how the Bologna agenda was configured was the inclusion of higher education in GATS agreement and the global negotiations and political discussions on a transnational regulatory regime on higher education. (Henckel 2008) In the initial agenda setting phase academia were withdrawn from the process as they were more oriented towards what was taking place in the WTO. They

24 This explains why the Bologna Communiqués were so emphatic in delegating the autonomy and discretion of the reforms to the universities and HEIs.

54

were apprehensive about the issue of marketisation of education. In fact the Trends III (2003) voices the concern of the academia.

“….the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations – the emergence of for-profit providers, the growing presence of institutions of higher education working across national borders, as well as the partial retreat of governments from higher education funding, have raised questions as to the role and responsibilities which higher education institutions should have in society…..” (Trends III, 2003, p 40)

It cautions about the ‘tiger of globalisation’ and talks about ‘riding the tiger’ rather than imagining it will go away. (Trends III, 2003 p 43) and underlines a very crucial of Bologna Process,

“And yet, the fact that governments have initiated the Bologna Process clearly has to do with a sense of threatened competitiveness vis-à-vis prime competitors like the US, rather than from sheer enthusiasm for the increasing intensity of cooperation within European higher education. Thus, the basic fabric of the Bologna Process is woven from two co-existing threads, cooperation and competition.” (ibid)

The conflicting visions of the EU and the academia regarding the role of education and the contrariety between the aims of cooperation and competition are the dynamic forces that run through the length and breadth of Bologna Process. The pressures from contradictory directions contour it, making the process change its moorings giving rise to a dynamic discourse.

4.1.3 From the Big Four Powers of Europe to a Pan- European endeavour

“.....in trying to understand the impact of European cooperation on domestic politics, two-

way pressures operate: Member States seek to ‘upload’ preferences to the European level, as

well as ‘downloading’ European level decisions.” (Bache, 2004, p 4)

On May 25th, 1998, at the occasion of the 800th anniversary of the Sorbonne, the Ministers in charge of HE in France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom signed a common declaration called “Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher Education system”, in which they recognised the necessity to build a Europe of universities and to favour mobility and international recognition; more precisely to do it around the two cycle structure. There are two rather significant points in this venture: one, it happened outside the realm of European Union and the other was that only four countries planned and started off this Europe wide agenda.

The Sorbonne declaration was not pre-planned but rather a spur of the moment decision of the French Minister of Education, Claude Allegre, who used the 800th anniversary of Sorbonne, as a platform for inviting representatives of three major powers of Europe to

55

discuss a draft of European declaration on Higher Education.25 In the organisation of Sorbonne meeting, “the form in reality preceded the content”. (Ravinet, 2005, p 3) The policy prescriptions were grafted on the event, and were not premeditated. (Witte, 2006)

Though the title of the declaration claims European Higher Education system, it is somewhat euphemistically used, muses Witte. The title of the Sorbonne declaration, “Joint declaration on the harmonisation of the European HE system”, was used somewhat loosely, as the content of the declaration did not specifically define its aim being the creation of a common a “European HE system”. The text uses the expression “European area of higher education” like the Bologna Declaration and implies it to be a space where national identities and common interests can meet, interact and strengthen each other. It thus introduced the concept of the ‘European HE Area’ before the Bologna Declaration, and “clarified from the outset that the use of the term did not mean to call into question the diversity of national traditions.” (Witte, J, 2006, p 128)

The very next year after the Sorbonne meet, the Ministers of 29 European countries were present in Bologna, to sign the now famous Bologna Declaration on the “European Higher Education Area”. Therefore the Sorbonne Declaration can be rightly considered as the prelude to the Bologna Process. Thus it becomes rather mandatory for the proper understanding of the Bologna Process to unravel the motivations and the intentions of the Sorbonne Declaration where the “big four” powers of Europe came together. (Ravinet, P., 2005, p 2)

The Sorbonne Declaration is perhaps the best example of uploading of one state’s vision on a higher European level (Bache, 2004). As the details of Declaration would reveal any conjecture about pre-existing shared visions is impracticable. Therefore the content of the Declaration contained ‘mutually shared visions’ that were conjured up during the event itself. The first element was a proposed step towards two cycle structure. The background of this two degree cycle was a recommendation given for French HE system in connection to resolving their problem of the dualism between universities and ‘grandes ecoles’. The empirical fact discloses that in 1997 Allegre had endeavoured to gather some solutions to resolve the said problem of French HE and asked political advisor of immense repute, Jacques Attali to prepare a Commission and the report of the Attali Commission outlined a proposition of two cycle structure as a solution towards convergence of universities and grandes ecoles.26 (Attali et al, 1998 quoted in Ravinet, 2005) By the skilful manoeuvring of

25 The interesting point to be noted here is that it is a French special advisor of Higher Education to Minister of Education who had prepared this draft of European Declaration. This in itself makes a strong case for the argument that the French problems were catapulted to the European level giving it a European look to make the case for ensuing French reforms or reconfigurations stronger.

26 This has to be borne in mind that this particular report that the Commission prepared (Autumn 1997 and Winter 1998) was for French HE system in the context of European integration and globalisation and not for European HE in general.

56

the French Minister this French concern was tabled as the first element of a “common”27 problem that Europe as a whole was facing, that is of different degree cycles and therefore the ‘French solution’ got translated as the common solution of a two cycle system for all. Apart from Attali’s report the other incentive of French interest in two degree cycles came from another report by Adrien Schmitt, which also made a case for two cycle system but for ‘international competitiveness’28 and not for creating the convergence within the French system. (Ravinet, P., 2005)

Apart from the two-degree cycle the Sorbonne Declaration made specific recommendations on the undergraduate phase. It says “undergraduates should have access to a diversity of programmes, including opportunities for multidisciplinary studies, development of a proficiency in languages and the ability to use new information technologies” (Sorbonne Declaration, 1998). This also interestingly ‘resonate’ the attempt that French HE was making at that particular time. Though Sorbonne talks about opportunities of undergraduate studies it does not connect it directly with the labour market. Though along the lines of the contemporary ERASMUS and other mobility moves it does specify “international recognition of the first cycle degree as an appropriate level of qualification” (Sorbonne Declaration, 1998). Regarding graduate studies, the declaration took up another idea from the French policy context, that “there would be the choice between a shorter master’s degree and a longer doctor’s degree, with possibilities to transfer from one to the other” (Sorbonne declaration, 1998).Although it was formulated outside of the EU context, it embraced the EU policy instrument ECTS at least by way of an example for its potential to improve the flexibility of the system. (Witte, 2006, Ravinet, 2005) The Bologna Declaration retains ECTS as vehicle of transparency and convergence, talks about a two degree cycle of undergraduate and masters (later from Prague onwards a three degree cycle including doctoral level too) The major difference between the two meets was perhaps that Bologna became more pan European (29 signatories, beyond EU members) and the EC became a part of, albeit somewhat covertly, of the Process.

4.2 THE ESSENCE AND THE ELEMENTS OF BOLOGNA PROCESS:

Purpose of the section: This section introduces the Bologna Declaration (1999) which sets

the tone for the Process (1999- 2010) and what it stands for. For this study three of its action

lines have been selected for detailed discussion.

27 The Sorbonne and later Bologna Declarations allude to a common problem that entire Europe is facing and seeks to furnish with common solutions for those problems (Bologna Declaration: An Explanation )

28 This is another phrase which gained currency in the later discourses of the Process.

57

The Bologna Process does not begin from a specific point but sets off as a crystallisation of an already ongoing process of building European education into a cohesive entity. The Bologna Declaration itself begins by granting the success and immense proportions of the “European process” (Bologna Declaration, 1999, p 1, emphasis added) and professes to, “......establish a more complete and far-reaching Europe, in particular building upon and strengthening its intellectual, cultural, social and scientific and technological dimensions” (ibid) Under the EU guided education and mobility programmes the role of higher education was seen merely as vocational. Remarkably the Bologna Declaration does not ignore the cultural and social dimensions like it was done previously under the aegis of the EU. A reason behind this may be the protests that emerged from the academia on the constricting function of higher education. By giving higher education more dimensions than merely employment related the Declaration also perceives education and educational cooperation as a solution to many European problems.

“The importance of education and educational co-operation in the development and strengthening of stable, peaceful and democratic societies is universally acknowledged as paramount…..” (ibid)

The Bologna Declaration sets the theme of the entire the process by putting accent on the universities’ role and relates EHEA with citizen’s mobility and employability.

The journey from Sorbonne (1998) to Bologna (1999) towards 2010 has seen an expansion of the number of signatory states (from 4 to 29 to 46) and a broadening of the objectives, whilst at the same time not losing sight of the original focus.” (Birtwistle, Tim, 2009, p 1)

Bologna Process constitutes of some elements which marks a major reform movement in the European Higher Education arena. It aspires to create a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) which would enable Europe to respond the needs of the global challenges. The process talks about competitiveness, mobility and building the entire Europe into a Knowledge Society. The focus of Bologna Process as expressed in the declaration, would read as, “...achieve greater compatibility and comparability in the systems of higher education” and also to “ensure that the European higher education system acquires a worldwide degree of attractiveness equal to Europe’s extraordinary cultural and scientific traditions.” (1999) The first part where greater compatibility is being talked about is certainly an intra European issue while the latter part talks about a more universal appeal of Bologna Process. Clearly these are two dimensions of the process the endogamous or intra European and the exogenous or the global.

In creating this intra European compatibility and attractiveness world wide the process lays down an action programme which by the declaration itself is binding. Three of these action lines will be discussed in this thesis.

58

They are29,

“- Establishment of a system of credits - such as in the ECTS system – - Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance - Promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education…” (The Bologna Declaration, 1999, p 2, emphasis added)

With the biannual follow up meetings more action lines were added and these included Lifelong Learning and inclusion of doctoral level into the degree cycles (Prague, Berlin) and saw growth and concretisation of the main fundamental ideas of Bologna Process like cooperation and competition, competiveness and transparency & flexibility inducing mobility and the creation of a European Higher Education Area.

(i) The European Credit Transfer (and Accumulation) System

The European Credit Transfer System30 (ECTS) is a tool which enables students to collect credits for learning achieved through higher education. ECTS is a learner-centred system which aims to increase transparency of learning outcomes and learning processes. ECTS

credits are based on the workload students need in order to achieve expected learning outcomes. Learning outcomes describe what a learner is expected to know, understand and be able to do after successful completion of a process of learning. They relate to level descriptors in national and European qualifications frameworks. Workload indicates the time students typically need to complete all learning activities (such as lectures, seminars, projects, practical work, self-study and examinations) required to achieve the expected learning outcomes. Though a major element of the Bologna ECTS existed before the Process and was masterminded by EC. ECTS was created and refined by the European Commission in a pilot project involving 145 institutions that ran from 1988–1995. It is ‘an instrument to create transparency, to build bridges between institutions and widen the choice available to students. The system makes it easier for institutions to recognise the learning achievements of students through the use of commonly understood measurements - credits and grades - and it also provides a means to interpret national systems of higher education. (Adams, S., 2001) The concept of ECTS has been developed further by the ‘Tuning Educational structures in Europe’ (henceforth Tuning) which is a University driven project to offer a concrete approach to implement Bologna Process at the level of educational institutions and subject areas. Tuning has linked learning outcome, competences with ECTS. In the new concept that

29 The other action lines taken on 1999 were - “Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees (...); - Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate - Promotion of mobility by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of free movement : 30

Full information about ECTS can be found at the European Commission web site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/ects.html

59

Tuning developed ECTS has been advanced into not only a credit transfer but credit transfer and accumulation system which makes ECTS not a relative but an absolute value. (Tuning) The ECTS aims to facilitate planning, delivery, evaluation, recognition and validation of qualifications and units of learning as well as student mobility. ECTS is widely used in formal higher education and can be applied to other lifelong learning activities. (EC official website)

According to the OECD there has been rapid growth in number of students studying abroad (OECD, 2000). To facilitate this movement “global currency for higher education qualifications” (Randall, 2002) is necessary. Therefore the universities need to be proficient in understanding this new form credit transfer if they want to keep up the student mobility and therefore student market both from home and abroad. “Credits for qualifications are the currency of the emerging borderless higher education market place, and credit transfer systems like ECTS define the rate of exchange.” (Karran, T, 2004) Therefore, the Berlin Communiqué stresses on “the important role played by the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) in facilitating student mobility and international curriculum development....” (2003, p. 4). Moreover,

“At a strategic level, the inability of universities to align their credit systems to others will limit the possibility of building critical mass in the global borderless education market by collaboration, not only with other universities, but with other major knowledge-centred corporate players.” (Karran, T., 2004)

(ii) A European dimension in quality assurance:

The concept quality assessment of HEIs is a development of the 1980s and as such had no significant existence before that. Though quality consciousness existed internally in every institution it was not necessary to flaunt it externally and through the assessments of external agencies. However, to state briefly due to massification of HE and involvement of too many external stakeholders necessitate the quality assessments of HEIs and therefore in order to have a pan European HE system it is necessary to have a pan- European quality assessment system. Nevertheless, the quality criterion puts emphasis on the already much underlined economy- education nexus. As emphasising the quality dimension of education on a European level is a mere acknowledgement of education as a commodity outlook where among other things its “quality” needs to be standardised to be acceptable. It is however difficult to define quality.

“When talking about quality and quality assurance, it is important to speak the same language. We must understand each other and we must have a shared idea about quality…There is no general consensus on the concept of quality. An absolute definition of quality does not exist.” (Vroeijenstijn, Ton, 2008, P 3)

If the general concept of quality is a convoluted, conceptualising quality in higher education is even more confusing. According to Ton Vroeijenstijn it is difficult to discern who the "product" is and who the "client". If the students are the "product" then the client becomes labour market? But if the student is the "client" in HE then the program offered becomes the

60

"product" Thus QA in Higher Education is more complicated than QA in industry as the latter does not have multiple stakeholders. Higher Education has several stakeholders namely the state (main policy makers), the labour market/ economy, the academia/ faculties, students, parents (if they are paying the course) and most certainly the society at large. Each of these stakeholders looks at quality in HE from their own vantage points making it tricky to find a definition for quality. Quality is thus

“a matter of negotiating between the academic institution and the stakeholders. In this negotiation process, each stakeholder needs to formulate, as clearly as possible, his/her requirements.” (ibid)

However, the European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA)31 in Higher Education has been entrusted with the vital task of drawing up criteria for quality in negotiation of the universities and HEIs. (iii) European dimensions in higher education

The phrase “promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education” is perhaps the most ambiguous of all. It is also the most interesting for me as it opens up the maximum questions and the liveliest of debates regarding the Process and its hidden agenda of using education as a tool for enhancing Europeanisation and creating a European demos. This phrase is not original to Bologna Process and interestingly has been used by the EU policy papers way before Bologna Process. The Bologna declaration states,

“Promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education, particularly with regards to curricular development, inter-institutional co-operation, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research.” (BD, 1999, pg 2)

The Bologna Process does not directly say anything regarding curriculum as that would initiate talk of standardisation and signatory members will not be too open to that. The documents tactfully avoid such controversy but keep many options open by mentioning necessary European dimensions in HE. 4.3 THE LISBON PROCESS AND THE OPEN METHOD OF COORDINATION:

Purpose of the section: This section introduces the Lisbon Process which is directly

concerned with the Union’s economic welfare and tries to unravel their linkages and points

31

ENQA is among the first of the regional networks. The Association is closely associated with the reform of European Higher Education and the creation of the European Higher Education Area which has grown from the Bologna Declaration of European Education Ministers in 1999. ENQA is a consultative member of the Bologna Process and responding to mandates from the European Education Ministers.

61

of dissociation between the two reform processes and verifies if the Lisbon Process indeed

had any impact on the Bologna Process.

Lisbon Strategy: Phase I

The background of Lisbon Process can be traced in the need that was felt in Europe to create “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge based economy in the world, capable of sustained economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment” (Lisbon Council, 2000) where students have mobility to pursue education in any part of Europe and prepare themselves for new jobs and production is shifted towards more knowledge intensive goods customised to the need of Europe and the global market. Lisbon process falls under the same continual course that Europe was running for decades in rejuvenating a moribund economy develop more skilled jobs and evolve as an equal in competition with the USA and Japan.

In March 2000, the European Council met in Lisbon and tried to develop a stratagem to “find a European way to evolve to the new innovation-and knowledge-based economy using distinctive attributes ranging from the preservation of social cohesion and cultural diversity to the very technological options” (Rodrigues, 2003, p 14). Pondering on these words one can see that the Lisbon Process endeavoured to combine the pressing economic need of the time with elements of social cohesion and cultural diversity. According to Robertson,

“The main strategic orientations of Lisbon 2000 were to combine supply side economics with macro-economic and social concerns; to develop…. macro-economic policies that focused on employment and structural change along with education and training, a renewed social model…” (Robertson, 2007, p 5)

Lisbon Strategy, as it was then called, consolidated the earlier years’ emergent discourses of the employment strategy, the knowledge economy and lifelong learning and led the way for the further development of all three. The key statement of intent was that ‘the Union must become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ (Lisbon Strategy, 2000, p. 3). It is interesting to note that “despite repetition within this and subsequent documents, the knowledge-based economy is not defined within the discourse of Lisbon Strategy” (Brine, J, 2008, p 344).Lisbon also introduced the concept of the knowledge society, again with no definition but simply an assertion that ‘lifelong learning is necessary for the transition to a knowledge based economy and society’

Open Method of Coordination:

However noble and visionary Lisbon’s aim may be the stumbling block materialises in the form of the Member’s states’ guarding of their national priorities. Delegating more power to the EU in order to undertake the tasks outlined by the Agenda—particularly in areas like education which has traditionally been a national sphere of influence, is a highly political issue. However when the de-jure procedure of delegating more power to the EU may

62

seemingly fail, the de-facto process of power- sharing between the Member states can be acceptable as that does not directly encroach upon the state’s realm. Thus the basis of Lisbon was not through treaty-based legislation but through a process of benchmarking linked to collective goals known as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). It is because of this that the OMC was used as a methodology to implement the Lisbon Process. The OMC32 is an open intergovernmental process of policy coordination to enhance integration with the means of soft governance. Governments are urged to commit themselves to common policy objectives while implementation is left to them. To ensure the direction of implementation, a series of structural indicators or benchmarks were developed which enabled Member States to see their progress in relation to each other (benchmarking) backed up by peer learning, peer review and the exchange of good practice. (Robertson, S, 2007) According to Regent, OMC is gaining ground in the European polity. Since its introduction, many areas that, until then, were considered falling under the sovereignty of Member States are now tackled at a European level. OMC shapes a form of supranational governance by mean of ‘soft regulation’, “providing a dynamic that is interesting to look at, not only from a European perspective but also from an international one.” (Regent, S, 2002, p 1) The Open Method of Co-ordination is composed of different phases, each one deeply marked by a common feature: co-ordination. The very structure of OMC relies on the presence of a supranational actor able to co-ordinate. (ibid) Gornitzka further elaborates on the lack of formal constraints, of legal sanctions and of formal policy coordination and argues that it is the normative pressure which makes the Members act according to the whip,

“The normative pressure stemming from a desire to look good or fear of being embarrassed may be a strong mechanism for converging with the European definition of good policies and striving for performing well on the indicators in cases where it is considered important to keep up with the ‘European Jones’s’..”(Gornitzka, 2005, p. 7)

However, despite these very acceptable norms OMC has its limitations. As Veiga and Amaral (2006) point out, the coordination capacity relies on the expected capacity of convergence of ideas, being this movement towards convergence the main driver for change. Therefore there is a fear that with increasingly participation, all stakeholders may not be aware that they share same goals. In that case OMC fails to deliver the goods. The open method of coordination (OMC) adopted to implement both the Lisbon strategy and the Bologna Process assumes policy implementation as a logical and rational top–down linear process from the Commission to States, institutions and citizens. The implementation of the Bologna Process

32 According to Sabrina Regent by proposing OMC in Lisbon, 2000 The European Council had proposed nothing new as the strategy existed prior to 2000. (Regent, Sabrina, 2005) According to her the concept of OMC comes from labour market policy of 1992.

63

follows the OMC, which although being a top–down method assumes aspects of implementation as an evolutionary development in the sense of a learning process. (Veiga and Amaral, 2006, p 284) The Phase II of Lisbon (From Social Cohesion to more economic emphasis)

Though the Lisbon Process had begun with a lot of flourish and ambitious plan of creating a European Research Area with enabling social cohesion etc, it was in many ways a cause of discontent. On February 2005, the European Council had a meeting concerning the process of the Lisbon Agenda. The Commission concluded that the expected results had not been fulfilled. The European economy had not reached the wanted level in terms of productivity, growth, or employment, and the creation rate of new jobs was slowing down. Nor were the investments in R&D sufficient. The base for the evaluation of the first years was the Wim Kok report: “Facing the Challenge- the Lisbon Agenda for growth and employment” (2004). The “Kok Report” was, an evaluation of the first five years of the Lisbon Agenda, and was commissioned by the European Commission. The report points out several reasons behind the lack of results that the Lisbon Agenda has experienced. The main reasons were an “overloaded agenda, poor co-ordination, conflicting priorities, and the lack of determined political action” (Kok et al., 2004).

The Lisbon Agenda was redefined to focus primarily on two main goals: growth and jobs. The critical role of the higher education sector in achieving the desired outcome was highlighted. Although the broader social and ecological objectives of the original Lisbon commitment were relegated to a back seat in the new Lisbon ‘Integrated Guidelines’, the Work Programme 2010 objectives for education were retained in parallel. The EU/EC tried to rejuvenate the Process by doubling funds available for research at the European level under the 7th Research Framework Programme as Lisbon — and, ironically, its lack of progress — has strongly confirmed the Commission’s mandate for further action relating to research. Thus, the higher education sector remains drawn in through several different policy channels in the implementation of the streamlined Lisbon agenda. For many universities, however, the Commission’s targeted financial support for research under its ‘Framework Programmes’ is more significant in practice than the broad educational objectives of the Work Programme 2010 (Keeling, R., 2006).

“The growing significance of the research elements of the Lisbon Strategy has provided the Commission with a critical opening to advocate substantial reform of institutional and research management in Europe’s universities.” (Keeling, R., 2006, 206)

Bologna and Lisbon:

While the Bologna reform agenda endeavours to improve European HE, the Lisbon has an economic and social agenda with a smaller Europe (27 EU states). The Lisbon is directly under the aegis of EU/EC unlike the Bologna Process which is an informal process of coordination and includes the academia and student apart from the relevant Ministries. The Bologna promotes rethinking and reform jointly while Lisbon pushes for excellence in

64

research and innovation, concentration of resources and global competitiveness. Bologna promotes the adoption of some common structures and tools while Lisbon tries to improve employment and skills for the work force. Bologna focuses on adopting a HE with the needs of European society at large while Lisbon starts from economic needs of KS and tries to build HE for achieving this goal. Bologna can be described as open process looking for cooperation and diversity and as flexibility while Lisbon is driven more by demands of economy and is about competition, research excellence, ranking and technological innovation. (Froment, E., 2007)

4.4 ‘FROM INFORMAL PROCESS TO INCREASED INSTITUTIONALISATION’

Purpose of the section: This section attempts to show how the Bologna Process which began

as a voluntary process of coordination among the signatory states slowly changed its

moorings to become more and more centralised under the EC/EU.

The uniqueness of the Bologna Process, as underlines Ravinet,

“…lies in the fact that it is a process of flexible European intergovernmental cooperation, created and developed outside the institutional framework of the European Union (EU). It is based neither upon an EU text, nor multilateral convention. The texts that make up the Bologna Process are not in and of themselves binding in any way.” (Ravinet, P., 2008, p 353)

The texts are appropriately called ‘declarations’ as they are not binding and voice the intentions of the signatory States to coordinate their policies with certain common objectives in mind. The signatory States therefore are not under any coercion to achieve any goals but voluntarily come to discuss and find solutions of ‘common problems.’ (ibid) However, what makes the Bologna Process engrossing is that despite this, 46 countries across Europe have signed this non-obligatory text and more riveting is the fact that no country in Europe today, would like to have a national HE which is ‘anti-Bologna’. Its extent is way beyond the EU countries. By signing though, these States are not obligated to follow the Bologna objectives. They become legally binding only when ratified by the national parliament. Thus it is an interesting to find out how and why Bologna objectives (particularly the ECTS and degree cycles) become so binding. According to many Bologna experts the sense of obligation to the Bologna Process comes automatically from the ‘common problems’ outlined in the documents for example, unemployment, demands of the new economic Knowledge and economic structure, threats of globalisation etc. However, one look at the Kok Report, while assessing the Lisbon Process nullifies this hypothesis of common problem. The report highlights the economic divide between Western and other parts Europe and specifies the common problem of competitiveness with USA is chiefly a West European problem. (Kok Report, 2004) It does

65

put an accent to the hyped common problems that entire Europe is facing. Thus the obligation to Bologna does not necessarily come from this “uncommon” common problem. However, there is another perspective to the understanding of this so-called voluntary process of Bologna. This perspective takes shape from looking at how the Bologna Process unfolds, one from the documents and other is that is the procedural point of view that is how the Process take profile from 1998 to 2007.

Follow-up Structure:

The Sorbonne Declaration, as noted earlier was a rather informal process between four countries and had a ‘hastily drawn up’ convention. (Ravinet, 2005) This process was hugely controversial as the greater Europe felt sidelined by a process involving only an exclusive group. (Henckel, 2008) This error was rectified in Bologna, which was a different ball game with 29 signatories. Immediately after the Bologna Meeting of July 1999, the Ministers met informally in Tampere and decided to create a two-group structure in order to take into account the change in opus of the Bologna Process (29 countries had signed at that point). This structure consisted of a small group and a larger group. The larger group was composed of representatives from Bologna signatory countries, the European Commission, the Confederation of European Rectors’ Conferences (CRE). The smaller group (or steering

group) is composed of representatives from the enlarged Troika (the current EU presidency, the previous presidency, and the two following presidencies), a representative from the host country of the next Ministerial conference, a representative from the European Commission, the Confederation and the EUA. (Ravinet, P., 2008) Regarding follow-up, the declaration announced to pursue “the ways of intergovernmental co-operation, together with those of nongovernmental European organisations with competence on H.E.” (ibid), hinting at the intention to closely cooperate with the representative bodies of European HEIs. The Ministers in charge of HE agreed to meet again in Prague in May 2001, thereby stressing that they were serious about the full participation of non-EU countries from Central and Eastern Europe in the process. (Witte, J., 2006) The follow-up mechanism was formalised between 2001 and 2003 in the Prague (2001). There was a change in stance from Prague to Berlin as in Prague, the preparatory group (former steering group), as it was defined in Prague (2001), seemed to represent a desire to be autonomous from the EU. However, the Board was not made autonomous from the EU. Post Berlin (2003) countries that had previously hosted Ministerial conferences are no longer represented on the Board, while the EU Troika countries are automatically members, and the chair of the Board is the representative from the country hosting the EU presidency at the time (the following host country of the EU presidency holds the position of vice-chair). In other words, since Berlin, a country which is a signatory to the Bologna Process, but not a member of the EU, cannot chair the Board.

66

Secondly, the Berlin Communiqué officially takes note of the secretariat which had been created in 2001 in preparation for the Berlin Conference, and states that the host country of the following conference is the seat of the secretariat. Since Bergen (2005), this structure of the follow-up mechanism has been stabilised: it has not changed significantly and has not been an issue for the participants. In sum, this follow-up arrangement was elaborated and formalised between 1999 and 2005, and at the same time it became increasingly binding. The initial lack of structure and formal constraints was, without doubt, one of the factors which encouraged players to participate in the Bologna Conference and sign the Declaration (Ravinet, 2008). Apart from a stringent follow group and a follow up procedure, there were certainly the peer pressure accentuated by national reports33, Trends reports, general reports from the follow-up group, stocktaking reports, reports from consultative members, all showing the how the Bologna implementation is taking place in a particular country. There were also the Bologna thematic seminars etc which increased Bologna socialisation. In conclusion it can be deduced that the Journey of the Bologna Process shows increased integration with the EU (Keeling, R, 2006) and increased institutionalisation (Witte, 2006 & Ravinet, 2008). What started off as a voluntary participation of Ministers trying to share and bring out best solutions for common problems increasingly became monitored by various tools of soft governance like the OMC, BFUG, and ENQA. However, to keep records straight, though the Bologna Process began outside the purlieu of EU it was never opposed to the ideas of EU. Bologna Process began a process which the EU would have been happy to begin if had the legal means to do so. Though Bologna gradually come into the vortex of EUit had a scope (entire HE and not only vocational) and dimension (46 and not 27 countries) much beyond EU.

33

Initially these national reports were not impartial analyses of the national implementation of the Bologna objectives but projections those implementations. However, as these reports were publicised, where they had to co-exist among the Bologna follow-up mechanism’s other means of producing information (Trends report, the BFUG general report, or other reports such as the Eurydice report, or the ESU report Bologna with students eyes), and were accessible on the official website of the Bologna Process, it was imprudent for participating countries to produce false reports. (Ravinet, 2008 )

67

5. BEHIND THE WORDS OF THE POLICY DOCUMENTS

Purpose of the Chapter: This chapter attempts to answer the RQs of the study by formulating

the arguments on the questions of globalisation, Europeanisation and convergence of the

European Higher Education policies through a discourse analysis of the Bologna Process

documents. Unravelling the hidden motivations behind the words of the documents this

chapter tries to find out the forces behind the process and what effect it may have on the

general trend of University governance in Europe.

5.1 BOLOGNA PROCESS FROM A SUPRANATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

5.1.1 The Policy Documents as Data:

The primary data34 of my study is the policy documents which configure the Bologna Process. I start with the Sorbonne Declaration (1998) which is unanimously considered as the prelude to the Bologna Declaration. The Bologna Declaration and the action lines etched out in that is the mainstay of this study. The process was given a concrete shape by creating the Bologna Follow Up Group (henceforth, BFUG) and planning bi-annual meets where signatories come together to jointly discuss and deliberate upon how the arrangement is proceeding and to find out ‘common solutions’ to ‘common problems’. This gave rise to follow up meets in Prague (2001), Berlin (2003), Bergen (2005), London (2007) and finally Leuven (2009). For the purpose of this study I take the Communiqués of all these meetings (with an exception to Leuven, which just took place when I had begun this study and had not much ready resources to work on).

I also attempt to study the Lisbon Declaration which is considered by many as having a twin agenda with Bologna. It was important to review it and reassess the Lisbon agenda for a few reasons. Firstly it is directly under the aegis of EU unlike the Bologna Process which goes beyond the Bologna Process. Secondly, the Lisbon with an overt economic agenda talks about competitiveness and converting the whole of Europe as a Knowledge Society and how Research and Innovativeness can help Europe achieve the goals (Lisbon Agenda, 2000). It is important then to connect and compare European Higher Education Area and the proposed European Research Area as one would be incomplete without the other. This apart I also studied the Trends35 (I to V) which are also integrally intertwined with the process giving the overview and the detailed explanations of the Process along with the reports of the process.

34 (The data has been presented in a tabular form for better comprehension in the annex).

35 Trends Reports are EUA venture.Trends I Report was only for EU/EEA countries. From Trends II all the Bologna signatories were analysed. I have earmarked the Trends only by their series numbers and not years.

68

This study uses the findings and analysis of two projects, the Tuning and the Heiglo. Tuning Educational structures in Europe started in 2000 as a project to link the political objectives of the Bologna Process and at a later stage the Lisbon strategy to the higher educational sector. Heiglo (which stands for Higher Education Institutions’ Responses to Europeanisation, Internationalisation and Globalisation: Developing International Activities in a Multi-Level Policy Context) project analysed how higher education institutions respond to the challenges of internationalisation, Europeanisation and globalisation trends.

This constitutes my data which I endeavour to analyse with the help of Discourse Analysis. For the purpose of my study, I also look into other documents apart from the basic data, like the Bologna Declaration Explanation by the EUA36 and the Zgaga Report.

5.1.2 What the Documents Say: Analysing the Bologna Discourse

On European Credit Transfer (and Accumulation) System (ECTS)

The ECTS was mentioned in the Sorbonne Declaration where it was seen as the vehicle of harmonisation which would create the much needed mobility of staff and student across Europe. It says, “Much of the originality and flexibility in this

37 system will be achieved through the use of credits (such as in the ECTS scheme) and semesters.” (Sorbonne Declaration, 98, p 2) In the same vein Bologna Process talks about a system of credits which would promote student mobility and ECTS was mentioned only as an example in the Bologna Declaration, “Establishment of a system of credits - such as in the ECTS system - as a proper means of promoting the most widespread student mobility…” (Bologna Declaration, 1999, p 2) In both the Communiqués ECTS is mentioned as a suggestion or an example for a tool for convergence. Nonetheless ECTS became the inevitable choice for creating a convergence towards an EHEA. As Trends I emphasises, “all existing credit systems are seen as compatible with ECTS....” (Trends I, p14) though with some reservations. It was important to have a credit system which was compatible with the existing national credit systems rather than introduce another new system and it appeared that ECTS met that criterion. The ECTS slowly gained ground as the Process advanced in time and sphere. In the Prague Follow Up Meeting, the Ministers felt,

“.....for greater flexibility in learning and qualification processes the adoption of common cornerstones of qualifications, supported by a credit system such as the ECTS or one that is ECTS-compatible, providing both transferability and accumulation functions, is necessary. (Prague Communiqué, 2001, p)

36

It was prepared by the Confederation of EU’s Rectors’ Conferences and the Association of European Universities (CRE) later known as EUA.

37 This new pan European system

69

The signatory states were furthermore obliged to have an ECTS compatible credit system which can be translated into ECTS or to adopt ECTS itself as University rectors or Ministers set in motion such changes. (Trends II, p 4) Nonetheless, the ECTS had its share of dilemmas. The initial apprehension was from the universities and also states of losing autonomy or ownership of their education system as ECTS seemed as an imposition and also too standardising in nature. This anxiety slowly started to lessen when the process started off. As Trends II states

“....the fears that the introduction of credits would deprive universities of the possibility to organise their curricula and oblige them to recognise all imported credits seem to be diminishing.” (Trends II, p, 4)

Trends II uses the word ‘fears’ to describe the initial apprehensions of the University management and faculties towards this shift which recreates the atmosphere in which the ECTS were introduced or suggested. Fear and apprehension among the national higher education system for losing their autonomy and ownership over their educational systems was a challenge for Bologna. This is precisely why the Bologna Communiqués (Bologna, Prague) talk about ECTS as an example, all the initial Communiqués use the words ‘such as the ECTS’ (Communiqués of Sorbonne 1998, p 2, Bologna 1999 p 1 & Prague 2001, p) emphasising the fact that ECTS is not the defined the goal but just a mere example of a vehicle which will lead to the desired goals of flexibility, transferability (Bologna, Prague) of higher education. By highlighting the higher goals (flexibility, transparency) and understating the actual means (ECTS) for reaching those goals, the Communiqués lessened the chances of friction while widening the course for consensus. The selection of the term ‘imported’ also is fairly laden with meaning as Trends II make a distinction between credits of the given University and those of another University from the same or another state.

When the process started to move forward it was seen that many terms and concepts used in the Bologna Communiqués were not reaching out to the intended target in the institutional level.

“It is important to highlight, however, that the mention of much of the terminology of the Bologna Process– whether qualifications frameworks and learning outcomes, or to a lesser extent diploma supplements and ECTS – often met rather blank reactions.” (Trends V, p 22)

The term ‘blank reactions’ brings out the concern of the experts that concepts emanating from the supranational level was not being properly comprehended and there was also apprehension over some concepts being misconstrued. There remained anxiety over the interpretation of terms ‘student workload’ and ‘learning outcomes’. So though the use of ECTS is widespread, “problems remain, in particular concerning how to assign credits to courses by assessing properly student workload.” (Trends IV, p 28) The concepts of learning outcome and student workload have been elucidated in the Tuning Project Reports (Phase I & II). It was noted that those who were conversant in the Tuning language could comprehend

70

the terms in the European perspective. The European dimension of the concept of learning outcomes was perceived only by those academics that had some knowledge of the Tuning project. (Tuning, 2003) Thus there was a gap in comprehension of Bologna language and it was circulating within an overly restricted circle of “European specialists”, with not enough attention being paid to the process of proper dissemination of ideas. (Trends V, p 22) Making the matters even more confusing, the ECTS has been “superimposed on a model of teaching and learning” instead of implementing it after a thorough re-thinking and re-organisation through a “more deep-rooted reform” (Trends V, p 73) By “more deep rooted reform”, it is meant that there is intense need for curriculum reform which remains rather neglected obstructing the success of Bologna reform. Use of the term ‘superimposition’ expounds the need for proper understanding of the Bologna terminologies and appropriate adaptation and not emulation of the same. Lack of this makes the real intention of ECTS elusive even after the take off of Bologna Process and “…..implementation of what appears to be a single European process is thus altered by the variety of national contexts in which the reforms are taking place.” (Trends V, p 22) The term what ‘appears’ to be a single European process points out the on-going discrepancy between the expected convergence into a European system and the superficial changes that the national higher education is making due to the Bologna stimulus. Conversely, sometimes the changes in the HE system would come in the exact way as is explained in the Bologna documents but by putting local terminology to it. (ibid) The London Communiqué says,

“Efforts should concentrate in future on removing barriers to access and progression between cycles and on proper implementation of ECTS based on learning outcomes and student workload.”(London Communiqué, 2007, p 2)

As late as in 2007 there still was a need to be ‘concentrated’ ‘on proper implementation of ECTS’. This means though apparently being ubiquitously implemented among the Bologna signatories; ECTS perhaps needed more “proper” implementation. Crystallising the concerns that run throughout the documents such as ‘superimposition of ECTS on national HE system(s)’, ‘lack of penetration of Bologna terminologies’, the London Meet again puts emphasis on the correct conceptualisation and execution of the ECTS based on learning outcome and student workload.

“While diversity in thinking and culture is a great strength of European higher education, diversity in understanding and implementation of structures is likely to prove an obstacle to an effective European Higher Education Area.” (Trends V p 23)

On Quality and Quality Assurance:

There was no mention of quality in the Sorbonne Declaration but Bologna Declaration introduced the quality aspect as one of the important tools of convergence of EHEA.

71

Bologna initiates the discussion on quality assurance (henceforth, QA) as a means for comparability and convergence in methodologies for HE matters in Europe. The declaration does not elucidate any further on what QA connotes. “....Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies. (Bologna Declaration, 1999, p) the initial stages, QA was seen as a facilitator of comparability of criteria and methodologies of HE in various European countries. Just before the Bologna declaration, the Trends I had presented QA as one of the tools for enhancing learning opportunities in Europe. “……..increased quality assurance and a more European labour market are structural improvements which would create a whole new range of

learning opportunities for all ....”(Trends I) Here, QA is seen a facilitator for creating a ‘new range of learning opportunities for all’. Post Bologna declaration, Guy Haug revised Trends I where he made an important observation on QA in education, “It (QA) reflects the shift in focus from inputs (programmes, teaching) to outputs (knowledge and competencies, learning)” (Trends I. p. 20) Haug puts forward a very vital shift in HE that has come in the wake of transnationalisation of HE that is the shifting focus from inputs to outputs. He also commented that quality control is vital for transnationalisation of HE, for both within Europe and outside it. (Trends I, p. 22)

Close European cooperation on the QA issue was underlined in Prague too.

“They (Ministers) also encouraged closer cooperation between recognition and quality assurance networks. They emphasised the necessity of close European cooperation and mutual trust in and acceptance of national quality assurance systems.” (Prague Communiqué, p 2)

The use of such words as ‘mutual trust’ and ‘acceptance’ is not a typical policy doctrine language. These are rather sentiment inducing words used for persuasive motives. (Fairclough, 2001, Saarinen, 2005) The chief aim behind these persuasions was also underlined which was the need for European dimension of QA for a ‘European labour market’,

“Together with mutually recognised quality assurance systems such arrangements will facilitate students’ access to the European labour market and enhance the compatibility, attractiveness and competitiveness of European higher education. (Prague Communiqué, 2001, p 2)

Till Berlin (2003) the conceptualisation of QA remained fairly amorphous and the communiqués prepared the ground for ‘European dimension of QA’ by employing expressions like ‘closer cooperation’ and that more European QA would mean ‘new range of learning opportunities for all’. In Berlin it was stated that quality is in the “heart” of the setting up of a European Higher Education Area. Thus Ministers commit themselves to supporting further development of quality assurance at institutional, national and European level. They also stressed the need to develop mutually shared criteria and methodologies on quality assurance. (Berlin Communiqué, 2003) In Berlin, the Ministers go one step further in clarifying the institutional autonomy and accentuated the point that accountability inherently lies within the national quality framework.

72

“....the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself and this provides the basis for real accountability of the academic system within the national quality framework.” (Berlin Communiqué, 2005, p 3)

By use of expressions ‘primary responsibility’ emphasis is made on the fact that it is the responsibility of the institutions to ensure their QA as their credibility comes from it. The point to be noted is that ‘national quality framework’ is underlined not ignored. Berlin Communiqué noted down the mutually shared idea on what national quality assurance systems should include38 and lays down how quality assurance will be achieved at the European level. This interestingly creates two levels of quality perception one on the national and the other on European level. This Meet also saw the inclusion of ENQA for standardising QA on a European level. The communiqué uses the expression “to develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance”,

“Ministers call upon ENQA through its members…..to develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance, to explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies, and to report back through the Follow-up Group to Ministers in 2005. (ibid)

In the next Meet in Bergen, the importance of the national level was again highlighted by saying “we welcome the principle of a European register of quality assurance agencies based on national review.” (Bergen Communiqué) Here again national review is welcomed and the European consensus is seen as based on the national. QA on any level, national or supranational is highly subjective and in HE perspective due to the presence of many stakeholders with diverse expectations make the chances of a convergent conception even lesser. The Bologna Process has multiple stakeholders in the labour market, students, HEIs and certainly the states. The Trend IV particularly makes the correlation between quality and student participation quite clear, by pointing “.....student

participation… have a very direct impact on quality improvement.” (Trend IV) This adds fuel to the already rife speculation that students in the EHEA are customers and therefore would demand for quality in HE. The London Meet a bit euphemistically, “acknowledges the progress” made in QA decisions and “encourages” international cooperation, not among HEIs but among QA agencies. (London Communiqué, 2007, p 4)

On European dimension

The Bologna Declaration emphasises the need for “Promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education” in relation to “curricular development, inter-institutional co-

38 Berlin Communiqué specifies the following mutually arrived at elements for national level QA. (I) A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved.(II) Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the publication of results.(III) A system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures.(IV) International participation, co-operation and networking. (p)

73

operation, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research.” (Bologna Declaration, p2) The mention of ‘European dimension in HE’ has instigated speculations of HE being used as a tool for cultural homogenisation and Europeanisation in Europe. The ‘European dimension’ is an ambivalent concept as it does not denote anything specific and the Bologna declaration is not explicit as to what specifically is a European dimension of curricular development. In Trends I European dimension is spoken to in relation to curriculum,

“New forms of mobility for teachers and administrative staff at higher education institutions could develop if encouraged and supported by authorities - especially for the development of the European dimension of new curricula as they are designed, and for the collaborative work within subject-based networks. (Trends I, 1999, p 22)

An outline of European dimension emerges as the document accentuates the fact that with this tool of ‘European dimension of studying and working’ the Bologna Process wants to create a certain type of convergence far beyond previously existed or envisaged in Europe.

“...a concerted plan to train and equip student counsellors and career officers, in order to allow them to cope more fully and proactively with the new European dimension of studying and working (far beyond the promotion of E.U. programmes like ERASMUS or LEONARDO to which they have contributed). (Trends I p 23)

At the Prague Communiqué, in 2001, promotion of the European dimensions in higher education was again highlighted along with the idea of European content in education and joint degrees being given by universities from different states within Europe.

“In order to further strengthen the important European dimensions of higher education and graduate employability Ministers called upon the higher education sector to increase the development of modules, courses and curricula at all levels with “European” content, orientation or organisation.” (Prague Communiqué, 2001, p 3)

Prague Communiqué specifies,

“This concerns particularly modules, courses and degree curricula offered in partnership by institutions from different countries and leading to a recognized joint degree.” (ibid)

This was developed further and in Berlin it was noted that “additional modules, courses and curricula with European content, orientation or organisation are being developed.” (Berlin Communiqué, 2003, p 6) Furthermore initiatives were taken by Higher Education Institutions in various European countries to “pool their academic resources and cultural traditions in order to promote the development of integrated study programmes and joint degrees at first, second and third level.” (ibid) It can be noted from the communiqués and the Trends reports that ‘European dimension’ does not have a fixed context. It is either spoken of in context of studying and learning, or curriculum; sometimes the phrase ‘European content’ is being used. ‘European dimension’ is used as an adjective of teaching, curriculum, quality etc. but is never defined, clarified. It is thus difficult to understand in a textual or intertexual context.

74

5.1.3 Discussion:

This study takes the Bologna Process as a discourse which reveals through its documents an attempt to create a ‘convergence’ of various European HE systems into a European Higher Education Area. The process embodies within its fold various dynamic forces interacting with each other to give Bologna Process its configuration. To understand the Process one needs to look into the documents from the context of the ongoing forces of globalisation and Europeanisation which drives the Process. The Process does not begin in Bologna 1999, not even in a year earlier in Sorbonne. This study looks at Bologna Process as a part of the already unfolding drama of European integration in (higher) education. The Bologna Declaration itself opens with the words, “The European process, thanks to the extraordinary achievements of the last few years, has become an increasingly concrete and relevant reality for the Union and its citizens.” (p 1) The various components that make up the entire Process have been incorporated into the process from a range of previous policy dimensions. To give an example, the addition of the phrase ‘European dimension’ comes from prior EU policy document while the method used for implementation of the Bologna Process, that is the OMC, has been taken from labour market policy. To understand the dimensions which have been discussed in this thesis, they need to be studied in their range of perspectives.

The Bologna Declaration (1999) though a mainstay of this study is often not considered as a policy document per se as it is too vague and ambiguous to render itself to implementation unlike usual policy documents which have a concrete achievable plan which can be executed. The lack of such precision in the document implies that the ambiguity is owing to an attempt made to come to a consensus.

(i) Convergence: Meaning, Tools and Forces behind it:

While deconstructing the meaning and connotation of the term convergence in Bologna documents two usages come to light. One is as an ‘action word’ which means to ‘create convergence’ and another in noun form which talks about areas of convergences. In the former action- form it means to bring together, to bridge gaps and the latter denotes points of convergences or semblance that are already present and are needed to be highlight. Both the levels of convergences fall within the purlieu of Bologna Process though the initial discourse talked mainly about areas of convergences (noun form) whereas the in the later discourses the meaning is crystallised around the active nuance and stronger accent is put on the ‘creating’ of convergence. By way of an example,

“The objective of the project has been ……offering a tool to identify possible divergences and convergences in the national and institutional policies.” (Trends I, p 1, original emphasis removed)

Here convergence is identifiable, that is it already existent and needs to be recognised. The other use as more action-oriented,

“……impressive progress is being made in terms of structural convergence, greater transparency, portability of grants etc.” (Trends III, p 108)

75

Here convergence is associated as a tangible goal where the Process is making progress that is convergence is growing and is not a static concept like the former example. It is important to borne in mind these two conceptualisations of convergence. More interestingly, in the later phases documents use convergence as a progression, or as an aim which needs to be attained. It is no longer merely identification of already existing points of convergences. The Trends Reports use the term convergence in differing nuances, and as discussed earlier, there was a consensus on this term and not harmonisation as used in Sorbonne as convergence gives an impression of progress and not finality. If the tools of convergences and how it is implemented are studied, one can say there is an element of ‘supranational cooption’ which goes on to make the signatory states embody what is proposed to them. The states on their part do what is felt contextual to their need but that distorts the European picture. The documents analysis shows that ECTS, one of the main drivers of ECTS though being implemented does not bring out the desired convergence of the HEI structures and the European form is superimposed on the national form leading to difference which “confuse the picture”.

“While diversity in thinking and culture is a great strength of European higher education, diversity in understanding and implementation of structures is likely to prove an obstacle to an effective European Higher Education Area.” (Trends V, p 23)

This statement in the Trends report justifies the claim that structural convergences are persuasive in nature which is why ‘diversity in structure’ of HE is seen as an ‘obstacle’ rather than an exception which can be ignored. Here is an important detail is put forward which is of vital importance some of the debates that occur surrounding the EHEA. For all the fears that Bologna Process arouses of doing away European diversity in culture etc Trends V devises a very crucial answer by differentiating diversity in thinking and culture from diversity in understanding and implementation of tools of structural convergence. However, structural convergence to the extent that is desirable for the Process requires a certain amount adjustment in culture and thinking. It talks about stumbling blocks little differences can cause, however these differences are of understanding of vital elements of Bologna Process. National education system after all are rooted in national context, as has been through time.

The main force behind the ‘creating’ this convergence came from, as the documents claim, is the ‘threats of globalisation’ though the Bologna Declaration itself does not mention globalisation as such. The threats of globalisation became crystallised as the main motivation as the process moved forward in fact only after the GATS-WTO negotiations and cautions the HEIs to “prepare themselves to ride the tiger of globalisation rather than to hope it will disappear.” (Trends III, pg 44)

In the initial documents it was claimed that the Bologna is looking for common solutions to common problem where common problems were inflation, stagnant economy, joblessness, and challenges in the welfare framework if the European states etc. (Bologna Declaration: an explanation, 1999) HE was seen as a respite for problems where HE will create a KS in Europe. It is precisely from here that the dialects of Bologna starts, KS is a feature of the

76

globalised economy where knowledge is fed into the economy, here knowledge is like capital. Ironically, to combat globalisation Bologna wants to create a KS. It is not only the urge to convert Europe into a KS; the Bologna discourse is also strewn with concerns for transnationalisation of education, which it is also a derivative of globalisation. EHEA is the best example of transnationalisation of education which is a supposed reaction of globalisation. Looking at the impact of globalisation on education, HE in particular, one can trace the tendency of transnationalisation of HE the world over. HE a primarily national agenda has been increasing coming into the vortex of transnational agencies. Bologna Process is itself an example of this. In fact the entire endeavour for creating an EHEA has a market rationale. So when London Communiqué says Bologna Process is ‘responding to the challenges of globalisation’ does it in reality mean it an embodiment of globalisation itself?

(ii) Dialectics and Dilemmas of Bologna Process:

The Bologna documents embody fair amount dialectical ideas which run through the entire gamut of the discourse. I begin with the primary goal of the Process that is creating convergence towards an EHEA by examining its meaning and implementation of its tools (here ECTS and QA). From the analysis of document (some of which has been presented in the previous section) a number of dilemmas and contrariety has been observed.

(1)The coexistence of concepts and expressions of: ‘national level’, ‘institutional autonomy’,

‘structural convergence’ and ‘respecting the diversity’:

The Bologna Process operating on the national, institutional as well as the supranational levels has to be congruent with all the levels. The success of the process lies in delegating some of the national authority from the national to the supranational level. In doing so, the process takes recourse in the HEIs and thus the University and HEI autonomy appears in the discourse as a refrain. The dialectics lie in the fact Bologna by definition is a voluntary process where none of the changes are forcefully improvised. The changes only take place when the national parliament makes necessary amendments in the HE policy. Bologna thus technically cannot bypass the national level though it does at least in the document instil the autonomy and the major role in the institutions and not Parliaments. Also, the structural tools of convergence like ECTS are quite standardising it requires complete semblance comprehension and implementation. As argued previously, HE system embodies a certain culture (local, regional, national) which must be compromised in order to reach at a structural level. Here, Bologna makes a theoretical bifurcation between the structural and the cultural however, in reality this poses problem thereby challenging the convergence.

(2).The coexistence of concepts and expressions of: ‘Competitiveness’ and ‘cooperation’

‘social cohesion’ and ‘market’

The discussion on QA in Bologna Process shows a certain concern of social cohesion (e.g. use of expressions ‘learning opportunities for all’ ‘quality education for all’) Though the accent on social cohesion is more post- Lisbon (2000) it is interesting to see the point of social cohesion as a moot point in the Bologna discourse. Also, interestingly it comes with the discussion of QA which is perhaps the most starkly neoliberal element in Bologna. It

77

takes students as clients or stakeholders, converts HEIs into mere agencies which produce “education” and to be authenticated through quality control and above all commercialises and objectifies HE itself. The QA also has to grapple with “broad range of stakeholders” (Trends II, p 16) ranging from the states to markets and students. Though there was an element of market in Bologna Process from the beginning as it talks about ‘competitiveness’ within Europe and also outside it also always upheld the cooperation element. “Increased competition and commercialisation to secure market advantage might undermine the Bologna Process which depends on cooperation and exchange of good practice.” (Trends III, 43) It was the GATS negotiations made the signatories particularly nervous of total marketisation of education.

Generally, these discussions on GATS and the social dimension of higher education have continuously reaffirmed that the main objective driving the creation of a European Higher Education Area and the internationalisation of higher education on a global level should first and foremost be based on academic values and cooperation between different institutions, countries, and regions of the world. (ibid)

Contrarily,

The three core objectives of the Bologna Declaration for the European higher education area are free mobility, employability on the European labour market, and international competitiveness/attractiveness of European higher education. The survey reveals an amazingly strong consensus on these objectives. (Trends II, p 21, emphasis added)

Thus, competiveness is also an element in Bologna Process and the fact that ‘funding’ was an issue never discussed in Bologna Meets shows education as public or private good has been a problematic issue. The connection between Bologna Process and the labour market is clear from Bologna underlining of QA. QA on a European level leads to a more ‘European labour market’. For mutual recognition of QA, ENQA was entrusted the recognition of QA on European level. Quality as discussed earlier is an extremely subjective issue which is difficult to converge. Nonetheless European dimension to quality is an important driver of convergence. Thus to ease matters it is said in the Bologna documents that European register of QA agencies based on national review is welcome.(Bergen Communiqué) Like in the case of ECTS in QA also along with the supranational the national and institutional level is highlighted. More so students emerge as the biggest stakeholders where QA is concerned and their participation has a very direct impact on quality improvement (Trends IV) 3. The coexistence of concepts and expressions of ‘diverse stakeholders’ like ‘labour’

‘market’, ‘student’ and QA

The other paradox is perhaps the role of the HE. This runs through the entire body of Bologna Discourse is the role of HE; if it simply for labour market or it has a wider basis. Here, the question of stakeholders becomes inevitable. If the stakeholder is ‘economy’ or ‘the labour market’ then HE is about making ‘high-skilled labour’ out of the students so that they can incorporate their technical skills to feed the “knowledge” economy. If the stakeholders are

78

however the grater society as well as academics this narrow treatise will be challenged. Thus throughout the discussion on QA the Bologna Communiqués tread slowly and cautiously not disturbing the balance. The oft repeated phrases are “students as stakeholders” again “objective of EHEA is employment in European labour market” (here accent is on European), students as partners. And while transferring the QA on the European level, it uses persuasive euphuisms like ‘trust’, ‘cooperation’ etc. Amidst the talk of labour market, academic quality and academic values needs to be upheld in all appropriate fora. The Berlin Communiqué (2003) also highlighted that by including of social and economic partners in such fora. The mention of ‘social and economic partners’ hints towards an influence of Lisbon Agenda (2000) which talk about European Research Area connecting it to the labour market and economy conversely also opening up a vista for social cohesion.

(iii) A single European system & An European answer to global challenge?

Due to lack of penetration of Bologna terminology throughout the entire gamut of the HEIs of signatory states, what is being implemented is not a ‘single European process’ but a process of an altered variety of national context. This leads to low level student mobility and in absence of proper conceptualisation of the reform what takes place is superficial change. Also Bologna Process’ eagerness with University autonomy opens up scope for a lot of differences in implementation of structures. While diversity in thinking and culture is a great strength of EHEA, diversity in understanding and implementation of structures is certainly an impediment.

It seems as difficult in 2007 as in 1999 to find evidence that the “European dimension” of higher education is becoming a tangible aspect of institutional reality. While the process may seem to be providing the same structural conditions for all, closer inspection reveals that some “little differences” may confuse the picture.” (Trends V p 23)

Also through the implementation of ECTS another very serious concern is highlighted which is creation of the European elites who understand the ‘Euro speak’ of Bologna documents. ECTS which belongs to the pre Bologna Process era though probably beyond all doubts is the best possible tool for coming to a consensus in measuring the magnitude of students learning, but as there is a want of understanding of learning outcome and student’s workload this tool is somewhat blunt. For transnationalisation of HE a consensus of quality is also very important.

Thus the ‘European dimension’ was used in Bologna Process to Europeanise the Process in the entirety and so QA is to be achieved on a European level, curriculum, teaching learning etc all is correlated with the main agenda of European. Bologna had been touted as a European answer to globalisation, and ironically it embraces all globalised features. It also entwines with the forces of Europeanisation espousing intra-European cooperation, creating a European level of perceiving concepts like QA, curricular content. The concept of European dimension in education was primarily used by the EU to cross the threshold of HE as it directly cannot come in HE policy making. It was as vague in the EU treatises as it is in the Bologna Discourse. What is interesting is however the use of it. It signifies in both cases the creation of a European demos who would ‘think European’ rather than national thereby

79

legitimising Europeanisation (Balibar, 1996) and also becoming labours and buyers of the European market (Shore, 2000).

5.2 THE UNIVERSITY AND HEI PERSPECTIVE:

5.2.1 Defining the Concepts:

(i)Universities and other HEIs (bridging the binary division): The binary division between universities and other HEIs existed since the birth of universities. Universities were by definition autonomous whereas the non-University institutions, giving professional education operating under the local-national authority, had no claim towards autonomy. The first pronounced move towards bridging this gap happened in Sorbonne, 1998 where the French Minister of Education sought to bring an equivalence between grandes ecoles & French universities and placed it as an European agenda (Ravinet, 2005) This had a Butterfly Effect initiating a Europe-wide reform movement in HE.

According to the Bologna Declaration, the European HEIs have accepted the challenge and taken up a main role in constructing EHEA.

European higher education institutions, for their part, have accepted the challenge and taken up a main role in constructing the European area of higher education, also in the wake of the fundamental principles laid down in the Bologna Magna Charta Universitatum of 1988. (BD pg 1)

While introducing the concept of EHEA Bologna uses the term HEIs to signify the main actors. The Declaration goes on,

This is of the highest importance, given that Universities' independence and autonomy ensure that higher education and research systems continuously adapt to changing needs, society's demands and advances in scientific knowledge. (ibid)

Here the declaration uses the term ‘University’. Thus in the same theme both terms HEIs and University are used. Bologna reminds the University of their ‘Protean Capacity’ while engulfing the non-University institutions within its vortex. Also note the declaration reinforces the principles Magna Charta Universitatum (1988) as a reference point for HEI autonomy. The Magna Charta Universitatum says,

“The University is an autonomous institution at the heart of societies differently organised because of geography and historical heritage; it produces, examines, appraises and hands down culture by research and teaching. To meet the needs of the world around it, its research and teaching must be morally and intellectually independent of all political authority and intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power”.( Magna Charta Universitatum,1988)

Magna Charta talks about University autonomy explicitly and does not use the term ‘Higher Education Institutions’. The Bologna Declaration makes a clever use of this to treatise to employ it on all types of HEIs envisioning them in the same light.

80

It is interesting to note how Bologna related European level HE projects also endorses and blurs this binarity to cite an example two very major projects (EU funded) are Tuning and Heiglo. “Tuning educational structures in Europe is a University driven project which aims to offer a concrete approach to implement the Bologna Process at the level of higher education

institutions and subject areas.” (Tuning, I) while Heiglo Project employs the category of HEIs.

(ii) Governance & Autonomy: Governance, generally speaking, is perceived as the exercise of authority, control or direction. Usually understood in relation to administrative and managerial issues, governance comprises the processes and systems by which a society, an organisation etc. operates although it cannot be reduced solely to this dimension. (Zgaga, P, 2006) It is however an error to typify governance in a narrow connotation in which only formal institutions at the national and international levels are considered relevant (Rosenau, 2000 p 181 quoted in Witte, J., 2006, p 26) Thus, the concept of governance should not be restricted to the national and international systems but should be used in relation to regional, provincial and local governments as well as to others social systems such as education”.

According to Peters & Pierre (2001, pp 131-132 quoted in Witte, J., 2006, p 26),

“a baseline definition of multi-level governance is that it refers to negotiated, non-hierarchical exchanges between institutions at the transnational, national, regional and local levels. […] Although we tend to think of these institutional levels as vertically ordered, institutional relationships do not have to operate through intermediary levels but can take place directly between, say, the transnational and regional levels, thus bypassing the state level.”

In the same vein, Bologna Declaration39 refers to the European universities as partners in the process, underlining their autonomy. As the Bologna Process operates on three levels the supranational, national and the institutional, its successful implementation depends on three levels. The Bologna reforms, the can be implemented if the laws and regulations and other necessary changes are done in the national parliaments while it is the universities and other HEIs are the level where all the reforms initiated by Bologna Process actually take shape. In order to incorporate these changes the universities and the other HEIs of Europe has to readjust their prevalent system. This readjustment, the Bologna documents promise to be the prerogative of the HEIs/universities themselves. Interestingly, in 1999 the Bologna Meeting was of the Ministers of the signatory countries where the HEI management (not the faculty) were invited 39 Governance of higher education institutions has not been a separate theme for discussion in the Bologna Process (students’ participation has been discussed in institutional governance). Governance has, however, been a theme at meetings and seminars organised by partner organisations in the Process, in particular by the Council of Europe and the European University Association (EUA).

81

but did not participate in the goings on the meet as such. Thus back in 1999 when this declaration was framed the HEIs had no role to play let alone a main role.

In the initial phases, the signatory states, universities and HEIs were apprehensive about losing their autonomy. The fear of losing autonomy was probably the greatest challenge towards creating convergence towards an EHEA. This is very evident from the choice of words that Bologna Declaration uses to assure the signatories: full respect of University autonomy and within the framework of institutional competencies. To cite one example the Bologna declaration urges the reforms to be “…within the framework of our institutional competencies” (BD pg 2) thus acknowledging the limitations and will of the institutions.

5.2.2 What the Documents Say:

The term governance, as already discussed, is a relatively new concept is HE. The earliest use of ‘governance’ can be found in the EUA’s Message from Salamanca (March 2001), this time in relation to ‘quality’. Here quality is shown as encompassing “teaching and research as well as governance and administration, responsiveness to students’ needs and the provision of non-educational services” (EUA, 2003, p 64). The Message from Salamanca was addressed to the Prague Ministerial meeting but the concept of governance as such did not find any echo in the Prague Communiqué. Nevertheless, an important change in accent did occur: the social dimension of higher education was recognised in Prague and thus a new context was also provided for the emerging concept of ‘higher education governance’. (Zgaga, P, 2006) As may be already be seen from checking the Trends reports, the frequency of the concept’s use increased during the period between the Prague and Berlin Conferences (2001-2003). Thus, in May 2003 the EUA Graz Convention put the topic of “improving institutional governance and management” firmly among its five key themes and a special Bologna Seminar was organised only a few days later in Oslo on student participation in governance in higher education. This seminar broadened the meaning of higher education governance to encompass an important dimension. (ibid) Berlin reflected this new vision and post Berlin higher education governance as a category is not in the Bologna Communiqués.

"Students are full partners in higher education governance. Ministers note that national legal measures for ensuring student participation are largely in place throughout the European Higher Education Area. They also call on institutions and student organisations to identify ways of increasing actual student involvement in higher education governance" (Berlin Communiqué, 2003, p 5)

The Bologna Process began with an assertion for the universities and HEIs that it in

no way infringes upon the autonomy of the HEIs. “Universities and other institutions of higher education can choose to be actors, rather than objects, of this essential process of change.” (Bologna declaration explanation, 1999, p. 6) the process has given the liberty and choice of change to the institutions as they can “...activate their networks in key areas such as joint curriculum development, joint ventures overseas or worldwide mobility schemes.”

82

(ibid) Thus in the Bologna Process context, the concept of governance seems to be more frequently used within the institutional context than at the system level. The Bologna Process from the onset has underlined the importance of HEI as in the making on the proposed HEA thereby giving the HEIs a shot their arms in increasing autonomy in relation to the states. Even before the process began, HEI had started getting more autonomous thanks to ‘recognition’ procedure introduced by the EC to make the mobility programmes like ERASMUS possible. Like recognition and joint degrees, in case ECTS also the HEIs have all the say. In all systems the transfer of credits remains the responsibility of the institution to which the student applies. (Trends I) In understanding the link between autonomy and the various elements of Bologna Process like accountability and QA, Trends III starts with definition of autonomy. They define autonomy as the ability to

• make independent decisions on the limits of institutional commitment in certain topics and areas; • decide on the criteria of access to the institutions, both at the level of academics and students; • define strategic tasks and set institutional aims; • determine the links to other fields in society which are seen as crucial for further development (e.g. politics, economics etc.); • assume responsibility for the decisions taken and their possible effects on society” (Stichweh, 1994 quoted in Trends III, p 74)

The Bologna Process as we can see from the documents has always delegated the power of fixing the criteria for quality, implementing ECTS to the institution.

“Notably, there is clear evidence that success in improving quality within institutions is directly correlated with the degree of institutional autonomy. Institutions which display the greatest ownership for internal quality processes are also those with the most functional autonomy.” (Trends IV, p 7)

However, ‘autonomy’ of the HEIs from the states does not make it autonomous in relation the other stakeholders of the society.

“Increasing autonomy normally means greater independence from state intervention, but it is generally accompanied by a growing influence of other stakeholders in

society, as well as by extended external quality assurance procedures and outcome-based funding mechanisms (management by results)” (Trends III, p 13,bracket and emphasis in original )

5.2.3 Discussion:

This study takes the University and other HEIs as a separate category for academic clarity as the binary division between the existed from since the birth of the universities. With the advent of KS there is a blurring between economy and education where the latter is becoming

83

increasing subservient to the former. Thus this trend culminates in the blurring of differences vocational and general education. This is an important detail as the Bologna Process opens up the debate on the role of the HE and has academics challenge the EU thesis of taking all education as vocational. In fact, this led to Bologna Declaration including the cultural role of education as paramount. However, from the study of history one can say that this greater role was played by the universities not professional colleges. Nonetheless, Bologna Process pronouncedly bridges the gap between the universities and other HEIs calling them all HEIs. The University was autonomous from its inception but the other HEIs were not. They were under the local-national authority. But Bologna Process endeavours to grant autonomy to all HEIs. The universities since the World War was fairly brought under the national domain thus Bologna gives them respite by giving back some of its authority from the national parliaments but for the other HEIs it is a precedent to have autonomy and control over its functioning.

Concept of autonomy in HE institutions is connected with the discussion on binary system that existed in European HE from a very long time. The University which is ‘universal’ in vision was autonomous by definition. This was not the case for the institutions which provided vocational education like ‘grandes ecoles’ of France and other polytechniques which created professionals. Today’s KE blurs this boundary between vocational and general education as on more macro level the boundary economy and education itself has diminished. Tracing the trajectory of University governance it can be witnessed that the University since its birth has travelled through changing times constantly reconstructing itself. Thus when the demand of economy is more towards vocational education the traditional University of Europe was deemed dying. But that was not so. As the universities of Europe was once again redeemed and reconstructed, this time under the aegis of Bologna Process. The Bologna Process clearly gives a lot of space and control to the HEI which includes the universities as well other HEIs.

Tracing the overview of change in governance and autonomy of universities historically it can be concluded that finance was at the heart of governance and autonomy. Whoever had the whip hand on the financial aspect of the universities took away at least some of its autonomy. In medieval era it may have been the Church or the King, later the nation-sate. Thus Wilhelm Humboldt had conceived of the idea of making the universities financially self sufficient by having land charters.

This brings back the debate of HE as public or private good and this issue is not raised in the Bologna dialogues as this sparks too much debate. The issue of funding is left to the institutions or national parliaments. (Henckel, 2008) However, the trend post-globalisation is a degree of withdrawal of states from the financing and in its place the private sector coming in to fill the gap. Thus the concern of Trends III when seen from light makes a lot of sense as autonomy will now have to be negotiated with other stakeholders. The Bologna Process has indeed enhanced the student participation and included the student as part of the governance and decision making. However, whether that comes from the intention of student empowerment or because student are seen as stakeholders and clients of HE in the new educational paradigm is an open question. This opens up an interesting argument on how the

84

governance of the HEIs may change due to the Bologna Process as the new form governance that is now becoming common in H.E. is the supranational governance (OMC). As noted the idea of HEI governance is slowly taking root but is not very prevalent in the Bologna discourse and the only mention is in connection with student participation.

85

6. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

Purpose of the Chapter: The purpose of the chapter is to present the final concluding

reflections that evolve from the journey that this thesis makes. This chapter sums up the entire

thesis, revisits the arguments of the thesis and also identifies the new questions that this study

opens up.

6.1 REVISITING THE ARGUMENTS

From the appraisal of the documents it is clear that the Bologna attempt of creating convergences is leading to some divergent reactions. This is due to, misconstruction of meanings of certain concepts like student workload and learning outcome which are crucial in creating the convergence. While the process may seem to be providing the same structural conditions for all, closer inspection reveals that some ‘little differences’ may confuse the picture. (Trends V) What was intended to be congruence of an inclusive European level inadvertently led to the creation of European elites as only these so-called group of academics and politicians perceived the meaning of the concepts projected in the agenda. The documents also reflect a certain concern which is termed as the superimposition of the proposed European model on the national model. This does not suggest a single European model but a collage of various national systems wearing a European garb. However, it should not be deduced that the proposed convergence into a single EHEA has failed as the Bologna Process and its agenda has been accepted in 46 countries and there is not a single country in

RQs repeated

1. (i) Why and how has the Bologna Process sought to respond to the challenges of globalisation by creating a ‘convergence’ in European Higher Education?

(ii)How is the proposed ‘convergence’ towards EHEA correlated with the process of Europeanisation? 2. What can be the expected influence of Bologna Process on the governance of universities and other HEIs of Europe?

86

Europe that has HE policy which is anti-Bologna. Secondly, Bologna has induced shifts in the national HE of all the signatories. The change has not always been convergent but nevertheless, the signatory states have imbued those features which they felt were most applicable in their context. Thus the Bologna features get contextualised instead of getting Europeanised but these changes are certainly encouraged by the Process. From the change in the usage of the term convergence from the initial years to the later phase in the Trends documents (from identifying areas of convergence to creating, making progress on the area of convergence) it can be assumed that despite some obstructions, taken as a whole, the process was a success which emboldened the policy-framers and the EHEA visionaries to take stronger strokes.

The various Communiqués of Bologna Process do not use the term ‘convergence’. Though there is a consensus among Bologna experts that it is the goal of the process and the Trends reports also use the term. The concept of convergence needs contextualisation leading to obvious questions on ‘convergence of what’ and ‘convergence into what’? The Bologna mentions “co-ordination of policies” of HE (Bologna Declaration, 1999, p 1) which means the convergence is mainly aimed at the policy level and its clear goal is to create an EHEA in other words the convergence is towards being ‘European’. It is chiefly with these motivations that Bologna lays down the set of specified objectives constituting of ‘establishment of ECTS system’, - ‘Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance’ and – ‘Promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education’ among others.

The answer of the question ‘how this convergence is created’ is many-fold. The procedure begins from the agenda-setting phase where through persuasion (by subtle use of language) some issues are highlighted and certain were obscured. This policy making phase in Bologna Process is very interesting as it also witnessed the uploading of national interest on the European arena (the French cause, 1998 which was conveniently uploaded on the supranational area is just one case in point.) and the obvious downloading of the supranational agenda on the national level. The subsequent methods are not strictly speaking voluntary or informal. The ‘naming and shaming’ strategy apart from the BFUG meetings required each signatory to present national reports. As these reports were obligatory and were publicised they became a powerful tool for keeping the signatories in line. These reports became standardised after some years of collective labour which gave them considerable impact. “Through them, it becomes simpler to find out about national implementations of the Bologna Objectives, and with the standardisation of the reports, it becomes easy to compare the performance of different countries”. (Ravinet, P., 2008, p 362) These apart there were other reports like the Trends and BFUG which showed how a particular country was performing. The OMC which was used by both Lisbon and Bologna Process shows two things: one through benchmarking HE was being treated as any economic output and it was also an attempt of standardisation. Second benchmarking opened up the process to cooption. (Henckel, 2008) Cooption makes the stronger states have the decisive say over the process. The Bologna Process in principal is a voluntary process thus excluding any question of imposition of the stronger voices over the weaker ones. Nonetheless, OMC has opened up dialogues, on how open the process is. It has to be borne in mind that this European Process

87

did begin with only four countries and intriguingly history shows these four countries were the trendsetters of the three major models in the early Modern Age.40 Thus the method of implementation is critical as this decides to a certain degree and how the question of European identity reflected in ‘European dimension’ is improvised.

Coming back to the main question, that is ‘what’ stimulated the entire process, it is interesting to see that the stimulus behind the process got crystallised at a later phase of the process. The call for EHEA began with finding ‘common solution’ to ‘common problems’ which in itself was a rather persuasive call. Europe is as asymmetrical economically as it is diverse, making the plea for common problem untenable. The problems were not common but the solution needed to be on a European level. Thus to produce this common solution the commonness of problems were fabricated. The ‘threats of globalisation’ was presented as the main motivating force in the documents particularly after the GATS negotiations. Globalisation plays a role in the shifting trends of HE all over the world but it does not bring out the entire logic or analytical linkage between globalisation and EHEA as looking at the Bologna Process as a discourse shows it is more of an expression of globalisation than combat vehicle for it. From the documents it can be seen that Bologna Process upholds neoliberalism. QA is neoliberal, competitiveness, student as stake holders even the attempt for convergence and creation of EHEA has a market rationale. Thus EHEA was meant to create an intra-European as well world wide market (Shore, 2000 Balibar, 1996) as well to fabricate European demos, through incorporation of European dimension of education, for that market. The market logic can be seen from two vantage points: converting students into skilled labours for labour market (where the labour market is ‘European’), marketising of the HE itself.

Bologna and its connection with the European economy can also be understood from its partial equivalence with Lisbon Agenda (2000). Lisbon is overtly an economic agenda which sees education as a tool feeding the economy. Bologna on the other hand is more covert in the economic aspect. Lisbon initially embraced the dialectical forces of market and social cohesion; however, when it failed to deliver the desired goal and was revamped into a more pronounced economic agenda. The later phase of Lisbon (2005) witnesses accent on economy and not social aspect. For two reasons the interrelation between Lisbon and Bologna is critical, one as it is drawn more into the vortex of EU and second there is a tendency of espousing the market logic by denouncing the dialectical force of social cohesion. The Bologna documents show traces of Lisbon parlance (KS, social cohesion, employability) which makes it vulnerable to KS-neoliberal ethos of blurring the gap between economy and education and the

The process in its entirety cannot however be understood only from the market logic as that is deterministic. The process witnesses the dynamics between the economic and more holistic

40 The four countries were the UK, France, Germany and Italy. The three models were Napoleonic model (created by France, Italy had improvised a South-European model drawing from the Napoleonic one); Anglo-Saxon and Humboldtian (German)

88

role of the HE where teachers’ protests resulted in Bologna’s incorporating ‘cultural and social aspects of education’ in its agenda (Neave, 2005). Also funding is an issue which is not discussed in the Bologna Meetings and this debate is left to the national parliaments to decide highlighting the fact that the neoliberal ethos of education as private good has not been incorporated as a policy on the European level. Thus though market logic still remains Bologna discourse is apprehensive about changing role of education post WTO/GATS. This conflict between globalising trend of neoliberalism and European concept of welfare makes the Process enigmatic.

Among many enigmas, one aspect in Bologna discourse saw hardly any ambivalence and that was its stance on HEIs governance. Bologna clearly invests the autonomy and discretion of employing the tools of convergences on the HEIs. Also, it attempts the bridge the binary division that existed from the birth of the universities. Bologna is a reform project for all HEIs and it uses the terms, University and HEIs equivocally. In Bologna parlance HEIs mean both universities and other HEIs and they all are promised autonomy. Blurring of the gap between general and vocational education is a feature of KS which the Process wants to embrace. However HEI governance coming out of national domain does not guarantee HEI more autonomy. Historically the autonomy of universities are aligned with its financing and the whip hand over governance lies with the financing authority (over the years they were the Papacy, King, state) If the education is marketised then the external force over its matters will be economy. Thus more autonomy in respect to the national parliament may mean its transfer on another level to other stakeholders like students, market, or even the supranational level.

Thus the universities now have multiple stakeholders on national and supranational level and in addition there is the prominence of the other HEIs. Universities reciprocate this challenge both by embracing and combating (I propose that Tuning University structure Project is one way for the universities to assert their separate identity from other HEIs.) It takes up the accountability for protecting the rich diversity of European education and in a way adapts to Bologna mould to “ride the tiger” of Bologna Process rather than take in the reactions in passivity. The Tuning thus takes the active role that Bologna itself bestowed on it and its intentions are revealed in the introduction of their project. It says,

“The name tuning was chosen for the project to reflect the idea that universities do not look for uniformity in their degree programmes or any sort of unified, prescriptive or definite European curricula but simply for points of reference, convergence and common understanding. The protection of the rich diversity of European education has been paramount in tuning project from the very start and the project in no way seeks to restrict the independence of academic and subject specialists or undermine local and national academic authority.” (Tuning I -Pg 1)

This allows the universities to assert their uniqueness in relation to the Process and also other HEIs.

89

6.2 BOLOGNA PROCESS FROM A NEW VANTAGE POINT:

Bologna Process has generated an enormous interest (which is evident from the vastness of literature that has been written on Bologna over the world; some of which has been presented in the literature review) and witnessed a huge growth (from 4 to 29 to 46 signatories.) on the other hand as the analysis shows it also its share failings. The desired convergence has not been attained, though a lot of progress has been made on that area. The Bologna Process endeavours the convergence of European HE systems into a pan-European level without doing away with the national systems. The idea is to create a European space without distorting the national milieu. The thesis contextualises Bologna Process within the perceptions of globalisation and Europeanisation and tries to locate how these two immense on-going processes interweave among themselves empirically through the Bologna discourse. The thesis begins by challenging the oft repeated arguments, one that Bologna Process and the ensuing regionalism that it erects is necessarily a combat measure from the forces of globalisation and second, Europeanisation as being mostly seen as an effect of or reaction to globalisation. The thesis challenges that position and tries to extricate the different nuances of the other half of Castells’ paradox, ‘Europeanisation as the most advanced expression of globalisation’. Through the thesis, I try to trace the rudiments of the concept of Europeanisation from the end of the World War when Europeans realised the futility of intra-European war. The first move towards the process of Europeanisation therefore began prior to the concept or the process of globalisation, if we agree on the commencement of globalisation by the late 70s at the earliest. Europeanisation, thus from historical perspective had a birth irrespective of globalisation. Nevertheless the two mammoth processes did not operate within water-tight compartments and did intermingle. The thesis attempted to capture intermingling from the prism of Bologna Process.

The thesis endeavoured to find out the critical link between apprehended globalised threats and the convergence of EHEA which was proposed by the Bologna Process. Challenging this, the thesis first delves into analysing the concept of convergence and why it is ‘convergence’ that Bologna Process document has adhered to. The thesis was a journey which saw the concretisation of the various ideas from whether it wants to harmonise or converge41, why it wants the EHEA. The study traces the journey from ambivalence on QA to a more blended understanding of it (ENQA and division of QA between HEIs and European level) though certain areas like the ‘European dimension of education’ remained fairly tentative throughout. The inherent dialectics of Bologna, discussed in the thesis comes from the fact that it embodies two giant forces globalisation and Europeanisation which have some similar edges (imperialism, neoliberalism, supra-nationalism) but are also divergent as Europe stands for welfare state (even today most European countries have a pronounced welfare system)..

41

Though Bologna prefers the use of ‘convergence’ some experts favour the word congruence

90

However, one aspect that is clear here is that Bologna is certainly not a mere answer of global challenges. It is imperialistic to a certain extent as it creates a European space over and above the national frames and also places itself in the global arena. Thus the process is a non-hierarchical intermingling of two similar but distinct forces.

The convergence of the various national HEs of Europe into one EHEA is to give a European answer to a global problem (Barosso, 2005). The global problem or globalisation if reduced to its bare elements shows certain worldwide shifts in the education system since the late 80s starting with the massification of HE, to the neoliberalisation of education (and the all other elements of society and life) trivialising the role of the nation-state in matters of education, are all products of globalisation. Convergence of HE would not have been possible without globalisation. HE was zealously guarded by nation states even in the EU till Maastricht treaty (1992) Thus transnational influence on HE was tantamount to trespassing. However the platform for transnationalisation HE came from globalisation and its derivatives, mobility, global economy creating the necessary ground for conceptualisation of European HE space.

The journey of the thesis from Sorbonne to London saw Bologna getting closer to the EU (through its entwining with Lisbon and strict Follow Up mechanism). According to most Europeanists this would mean Bologna losing its voluntary appeal and its non-hierarchical viewpoint. However it can also be looked at from another perspective. The EU is a network state with nodes but no centre however some nodes are stronger than the others (Castells, 2000) Bologna journey begins with France and three big powers Germany, Italy and the UK. In London Meet (2007) it adds Montenegro the 46th signatory which is in no way similar in stature, power or economy with the Sorbonne ‘big four’. As benchmarking makes cooption easier thus allowing imposition of some voices over others it can be assumed that given the asymmetry in status of the signatories some would render powerless. However, keeping the networking rationale in mind it can be seen as a network of 46 signatory with no centre but some powerful lobbies who try to steer the process along their lines. Network State erases the hierarchical outlook between EU and the signatory states but nonetheless does not wipe out the power dialects.

Whatever its success and failure in terms of statistics and Trends reports; the greatest success of Bologna is in the fact that it opened up many crucial debates on HE. Located in the European domain but with a global reach the Bologna initiates dialogues of HE issues which are crucial not only for Europe but for all HE systems. Bologna underlined the need for reform in European HE and has put the university in the centre stage empowering it to take decisions. This does not bring back the Humboldtian era but allows the University to ‘reconstruct’ itself. The other HEIs also are enabled as vocational education finds more emphasis in a KS but Bologna instills an amount autonomy in them which is unprecedented in case of non- university HEIs. Bologna gives a platform for the HEIs to have a voice in the disarray of ‘glocal’ politico-economic forces playing in the field. An empirical example of this may be cited from the Heiglo project which intends to find out the impact of globalisation, Europeanisation and internationalisation on HEIs. It found that the main drivers of internationalisation activities are global, regional and national aspirations of HEIs. Some

91

institutions want to raise their profile and reputation, whereas others focus on sharing knowledge with international partners. Nonetheless, other HEIs are managed with the objective to generate income from international activities, and this economic rationale is becoming more common. (Heiglo website) Bologna opens a vista for the European Universities in which they can connect their institutional needs with the goings on in the supranational arena and vice versa. It also highlights the importance of the voice of the academics.

“….. if the enormous potential of using the Bologna objectives as a trigger for long needed, fundamental and sustainable reforms of higher education in Europe is not to be wasted, the voice of the academics, within the institutions, will need to be heard and listened to more directly in the Bologna Process.” (Trends III, p 108)

Though market, student and other stakeholders has more prominence in the discourse, but it does emphasise the vital need for hearing the voice which envision and configure the role of education as broader than mere skill inducing.

The Bologna Process as it is called is a process not a defined destination.

“While 2010 was originally stated as being the end point for the creation of the European Higher Education Area through the Bologna Process, it is in fact a point along the way. (Birtwistle, Tim, 2009, p 1)

The Bologna Process is indeed a point along the way, it is not the end. As the thesis is about the Bologna Process and the making of ‘European’ Higher Education Area it does not take 2010 as the journeys end. What it does however is open up the dialectics and the ambivalent areas that the Process has, through the revelation of hidden forces and agendas behind the process. The thesis looks at the process with a new perspective, challenging the assumptions and trying to recreate the picture from an objective perspective. The Process is more of an empirical example of expression of globalisation which is not the same as ‘an answer to the challenges of globalisation’. An answer to the ‘challenges’ would have had a more prominent stance on the ‘role of HE’ and ‘if the HE is a public or private good’. Ambivalence on these two critical angles makes Bologna Process imprecise with contradictory forces tends to blur any concrete vision on the Process but we have to be open to ‘changes and innovations on the way.’

Among the many perceptions of its amorphous identity, Europe stands for cosmopolitanism, which perhaps explains the process best. The concept of cosmopolitan enables the coexistence of contrary views, different levels of existence. Cosmopolitanism engulfs ‘both-and’ principle (Beck, 2007) and not either-or logic. Thus Bologna is not about either national or supranational or institutional it is about all the levels. It can contextualise both cooperation and competition as its aim. Interestingly, Cosmopolitanism (from the Greek word ‘cosmos’ which means the entirety) is pre-national as it originated in Greek antiquity and is post-national as it helps to collate and integrate the modern day order of supranationality and external forces like global economy. The idea of Cosmopolitanism helps one contextualise complex movements like Bologna.

92

6.3 Avenues for Further Study:

The intention of this study was to understand the underlying forces of the Bologna Process, and in doing so the thesis attempted to unravel the entwining of major forces like globalisation and Europeanisation. Globalisation and Europeanisation are both comprehensive forces which engulf many more forces within their whirlpool and thus fabrication of EHEA becomes a plinth for intermingling of many forces like neoliberalism, marketisation and their counter forces, convergences and divergences of policy and implementation. It is impossible to capture even one element of this dynamic process in a thesis as each element can be explored from a plethora of perspectives.

The focus of the thesis and my study revolved in and around my key words of globalisation, Europeanisation, HEI and convergence. However while working on these key areas, the thesis brushed across important aspects like the binary division of the European HEIs and how it can be traced back to the early days of the genesis of University (12th Century). The trajectory of the European HEIs and how they change their role and ethos over the time while retaining certain fundamentals is very intriguing and is a voyage in itself. Though a lot of work has been done on European universities this study looked at it from a perspective of changing ethos and opened up the theme on how it played a role identity formation, from Christian- European identity of Middle Ages to secular-national identity of early Modern to Modern era to the European identity again in the proposed Bologna and post- Bologna era. Studying European University as an engineer of identity and how the role and function of the universities have been different from the non University HEIs would make an interesting study. Now that the binary division is being blurred the open question would be if the University would still have its tradition role in ‘identity building’ and if that would be shared by the non-University professional institutions as well.

This thesis had concentrated on the intra-European angle of the Bologna Process however; the study revealed Bologna is reaching out to the world having impact on HEs of countries like India, China and Brazil. The next step of the study can therefore be to venture into the arena where the RQ will be ‘How Europe changes the configuration of the HE systems of the greater world?” The Indian Ministry of Human Resource and Development (HRD)42 recently made a press declaration where it voiced the intention of centralising the diverse and federal structure of Indian HE to enhance the labour market and create a semblance of qualifications within the country, citing the example of Bologna. It would make another very intriguing journey to travel into the heart of the debate that this reform agenda will initiate.

42 The Indian Minister of HRD Mr. Kapil Sibal spoke about this new venture in a Press Meet in India in May, 2009

93

ANNEX

Table 1: Documents used as Text data

Date Title Source and other information

5/98 Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system, Paris, the Sorbonne, May 25, 1998 (‘Sorbonne declaration’)

Signed by education ministers of four

European countries (Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy)

6/99 Trends in learning structures in higher

education (‘Trends 1’)

Authors: Guy Haug (part I) & Jette Kirstein (part II). Financed by CRE and the Commission. Background paper for the Bologna meeting of 1999.

6/99

‘The European Higher Education Area’.

Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education Convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999

(‘Bologna Declaration’)

29 signatories. The meeting took place in connection with a CRE meeting.

/00 Lisbon Declaration EU endeavour

4/01 Trends in Learning Structures in Higher

Education (II). Follow-up Report prepared for the Salamanca and Prague Conferences of

Authors: Guy Haug & Christian Tauch.

Financial support from the European

94

March/May 2001 (‘Trends II’)

Commission. Covers countries not covered in the so-called Trends report.

5/01

Towards the European higher education area. Communiqué of the meeting of European Ministers in charge of

Higher Education in Prague on May 19th 2001 (‘Prague Communiqué’)

32 signatories

7/03 Trends 2003. Progress towards the European Higher Education Area.

Bologna two years after: steps towards sustainable reform of higher education in Europe (‘Trends 3’)

Authors: Sybille Reichert & Christian

Tauch. Funded by the Commission/

Socrates Programme

9/03 Realizing the European Higher Education Area: Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for higher education in Berlin 19.9.2003.(‘Berlin Communiqué’)

33 signatories later extended to 40

05 Trends IV (2004)

/05 Bergen Communiqué 45 countries

/07 Trends V (2005) David Crosier, Lewis Purser & Hanne Smidt

/07 Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world, 18.05.200 (London Communiqué )

Addition of Montenegro making 46 countries in all

95

Table II: Mention of ‘governance’ in Bologna & related documents Document Mention of governance Context Berlin Once Zgaga Report (2003) 29 times In connection to social

dimension of BP, more specifically student participation. Student participation is seen as wholly positive by most HEIs.

Trends I Trends II 2 In connection to specific

country context Trends III 4 In connection to HEIs’

changing spectrum, management, need co-ordination etc.

Trends IV 8 In specific country context Trends V 2 In connection to intricacies

of governance. Tuning I 1 Specifying what is included

within its overview. Tuning II In connection to research

ethics.

96

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, S., (2001) A Pan-European Credit Accumulation Framework –Dream or Disaster?

Higher Education Quarterly, Volume 55, No. 3, pp 292–305

Adam, S. (2003), Qualification Structures in European Higher Education, Paper presented at the Danish Bologna Seminar, March 27-28.

Altbach, P. (1999), The logic of mass higher education, Tertiary Education and Management, 5(2), pp. 107-124. Amaral, Alberto & Magalhaes, Antonio (2004), Epidemiology and the Bologna Saga, Higher

Education Vol. 48 pp 79-100

Amaral & Veiga (2006) The open method of coordination and the implementation of the

Bologna process, Tertiary Education Management, Vol 12, pp 283-295

Antunes, Fatima (2006), Globalisation and Europeification of Education Policies: routes,

processes and metamorphoses in European Educational Research Journal, Volume 5, No. 1

Appadurai, A. (1990), Disjuncture and difference in the global culture economy in Theory, Culture, and Society. Vol.7 pp 295-310 Bache, Ian (2004), Europeanisation and Higher Education: Towards a Core Curriculum in

European Studies? Paper presented to the ESRC/UACES Study Group and Seminar Series on The Europeanisation of British Politics and Policy-Making, Sheffield Ball, S. (1998), Big policies/Small world: an introduction to international perspectives in

educational policy, Comparative Education, Vol 34, pp. 119–130.

Barosso, J-M. (2005) Strong Universities for Europe, Speech given to the European Universities Association Convention, Glasgow on 2.04.2005

Balibar, E., (1996) The National Form: History and Ideology, Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, pp 86-105, London: Verso Beach, Dennis (2008), The Changing Relations between Education Professionals, the State

and Citizen Consumers in Europe: Rethinking Restructuring as Capitalisation, European Educational Research Journal Volume 7 Number 2 pp195-207 Beck, U. (2005), Power in the Global Age, Cambridge: Polity Press

97

Beck, Ulrich, Grande, Edgar, (2007) (Translated by Cronin, Ciaran), Cosmopolitan Europe, Polity Press

Bell, D. (1976) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.

Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique (London: Taylor & Francis)

Billing, David (2004), International comparisons and trends in external quality assurance of

higher education: Commonality or diversity? Higher Education, Vol 47, pp113–137

Birtwistle, Tim, (2009), Towards 2010 (and then beyond) – the context of the Bologna

Process in Assessment , Education: Principles, Policy & Practice Vol. 16, No. 1

Börzel, T. (1999), 'Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to

Europeanisation in German and Spain', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 37 no. 4, pp 573-596. Borchardt, K D (1995), European Integration: The origins and growth of

the European Union, Official Publication of the European Union Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher

Education, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Brown, P., Lauder, H. & Ashton, D. (2007), Towards a high skills economy: Higher education and the new realities of global capitalism. in Epstein, D., Boden, R., Deem, R., Rizvi, F. and Wright, S. (Eds.) World Year Book of Education 2008. Geographies of

Knowledge, Geometries of Power: Framing the Future of Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Burnett, John (2007), Tilling the Soil of the European Higher Education Area, Educational Action Research Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 283–293.

Burton-Jones, A. (1999) Knowledge Capitalism: Business, Work, and Learning in the New

Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castells, Manuel, 1998, The information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Volume III End

of Millennium Blackwell publishers

Castells, M (2000) The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell.

Carnoy, M. & Castells, M. (1999) ‘Globalisation, the Knowledge Society, and the Network

State: Poulantzas at the Millennium’. Paper presented at the University of Athens’s International Conference on Nicos Poulantzas, September 30 – October 2, 1999.

Carnoy, M (1999), Globalisation And Educational Reform What Planners Need To Know, UNESCO International Institute For Educational Planning, Downloaded From http://www.unesco.org/iiep

Cobban, A.B., 1975, The Medieval Universities: Their Development and

Organization, Methuen & Co Ltd, London.

98

Corbett, Anne, ( 2003), Ideas, Institutions and policy entrepreneurs: Towards a new History

of HE in European Community, European Journal of Education, Vol. 38. No. 3

Corbett, A. (2005) Universities and the Europe of Knowledge – Ideas, Institutions and Policy

Entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education Policy, 1955–2005, Palgrave MacMillan.

Cresson, E (1996) Information Technology: Devil or saviour? Le Magazine, No.5

Dale, R., (2007) Changing Meanings of Europe of Knowledge and Modernising the

University from Bologna To New Lisbon, European Education, Vol 39, pp 27- 42

Dale, R. (2005), Globalisation, Knowledge Economy and Comparative Education, Comparative Education, Vol. 41, No.2, pp. 117-149.

Dale, R. & Robertson, S. (2002), The Varying Effects of Regional Organisations as Subjects

of Globalisation of Education. Comparative Education Review, Vol. 46, No.1, pp. 10 -36.

Dale, R. & Robertson, S, (2009) Globalisation and Europeanisation in Education, Symposium Books

Delor, Jacques, (1994), Magazine of the European Union, No.2, Publication of European Commission: Human resources, education, training and youth task force.

De Vijlder, F. J., (2001), Globalisation of higher education. What roles for nation states? European Journal for Education Law and Policy, Vol 5 pp 159–162

Delanty, Gerard, Rumford, Chris (2005) Rethinking Europe: social theory and the

implications of Europeanization, Routledge

European Commission (2006) The history of European cooperation in education and

training: Europe in the making- an example, EC Publication

Fairclough, N., (1992) Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge, Polity Press. Fairclough, Norman (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research. In Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage.

Fejes, Andreas, (2008), European Citizens Under Construction: The Bologna Process

Analysed From A Governmentality Perspective in Education Philosophy and Theory, Vol 40, no.4

Foucault, Michel, Burchell, Graham, Gordon Colin Miller Peter (1991) The Foucault effect:

studies in governmentality, University of Chicago Press Froment, Eric, (2007) Perspectives about the EHEA construction: Past and Future. Paper Presented in Complutense University Seminar on EHEA: Update and Perspectives in Europe,

99

March 1st, 2007. Retrieved on May 2009 from http://www.uam.es/europea/archivos/oceespana/documento12881ericfroment.pdf

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C. Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. Trow, M. (1994) The

New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary

Societies. London: SAGE Publications.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the late Modern Age. London: Polity Press

Gornitzka, Å. (2005), Coordinating policies for a "Europe of knowledge": Emerging

practices of the "Open Method of Coordination" in education and research, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Vol. No. 16. Guri-Rosenblit, Sarah, Sebkova, Helena ´and Teichler, Ulrich, (2007 ) Massification and

Diversity of Higher Education Systems: Interplay of Complex Dimensions, Higher Education Policy, 20, pp 373–389

Guena, A, (1996) European Universities: An Interpretive History, MERIT Research Memorandum, 2/96-012

Harvey, D. (2005), A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press

Harvey, L. & Green, D., (1993) Defining quality, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education, 18, pp. 9–34 Halpin, D. & Troyna, B., (1995) The Politics of education Policy Borrowing, Comparative Education Volume 31 No. 3

Haug, Guy, (2003) Quality Assurance/Accreditation in the Emerging European Higher

Education Area: a possible scenario for the future, European Journal of Education, Vol. 38, No. 3

Hansen, Peo (1998) 'Schooling a European Identity: ethno-cultural exclusion and nationalist

resonance within the EU policy of “The European dimension of education” in Intercultural Education, Vol 9 No. 1, pp 5- 23

Herman, E. & McChesney, R (2000) “The Global Media” in Held, D. & McGrew, A., The

Global Transformations Reader, Cambridge: Polity

Henry, M., Lingard, B., & Rizvi, F., Taylor, S. (2001), The OECD, Globalisation, and

Education Policy. Oxford: Pergamon.

Hendel, Darwin D., Lewis, Darrell R., (2005) Quality Assurance of Higher Education in

Transition Countries: Accreditation –Accountability and Assessment, Tertiary Education and Management 11, pp 239–258

100

Henckel, Ole, (2008) The Bologna Process: A voluntary Process of coordination and

marketisation, Ole Henckel interviewed by Susan Wright on 28th Jan, 2008, Learning and Teaching, Vol 1 Issue 2

Heiglo, Heiglo Official Website at www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/heigloupdate.doc

Huisman, J., & van der Wende, M., (2004) The EU and Bologna: are supra- and

international initiatives threatening domestic agendas? European Journal of Education, Vol. 39, No. 3

Jakobi, Anja P. and Rusconi, Alessandra, , (2009) Lifelong learning in the Bologna process:

European developments in higher education, Compare Vol. 39, No. 1, pp 51–65

Johansson, Börje, Karlsson, Charlie, Backman, Mikaela and Juusola, Pia (2007) in The

Lisbon Agenda from 2000 to 2010, CESIS, Electronic Working Paper Series, Paper No.106, Sweden

Kassim, H. (1994), Policy Networks, Networks and EU Policy Making. A Sceptical View, West European Politics, Vol 17 No (4) Kassim, H. (2000), Conclusion. In H. Kassim, B.G. Peters and V. Wright (eds.): The National

Co-ordination of EU Policy, pp 235-264. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karran, Terence (2004) Achieving Bologna Convergence: Is ECTS Failing To Make The

Grade? Higher Education in Europe, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 411 – 421 Kairamo, K. (Ed.) (1989) Education For Life: A European Strategy. London: Butterworths, In Collaboration with The Round Table Of European Industrialists, Brussels. Keeling, R., (2006), The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European

Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse, European Journal of Education, Vol. 41, No. 2,

Khanal, Peshal (2008) How has the European Commission Sought to Promote a European

Interest in Education?, A Course Assignment for European MA in Lifelong Learning: Policy and Management, Department of Lifelong and Comparative Education, Institute of Education, University of London

King, Conrad (2008) Convergence Cooperation And Coordination Higher Education

Governance And The Bologna Process, A Master Thesis for Graduation in Institute of European Studies, University of British Columbia Kohler, Jürgen and Huber, Josef (eds.) Bergan, Sjur, Series editor (2006), Higher education

governance between democratic culture, academic aspirations and market forces, Council of Europe Publishing

Kolokitha, Magdalini, (2006) Governmentality in a context of governance without government: The case of the Bologna Process, 3rd Euredocs Conference, Kassel 16th-18th June 2006

Ladrech, R. (1994) ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of

France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32(1), pp. 69-88

101

Lawton, T. (1999), ‘Governing the skies: Conditions for the Europeanisation of Airline

Policy', Journal of Public Policy, 19(1): 91-112. Medina, Adriana, (2007), The Impact of Globalization on Higher Education, LLC Review, downloaded from http://www.umbc.edu/llc/PDFfiles/theimpactofglobalization.pdf.

Moutsios, Stavros, (2007a), ‘KS and LLL an Introduction’ Class presentation for European Masters in Lifelong Learning course delivered on 12.09.07, University of Aarhus

Moutsios, S., (2007 b) The European Union and its Education Policy, in Moutsios, Stavros & Kotthoff (eds) Educational Politics in Europe: Economy, Citizenship and Diversity, Waxmann, Germany pp 15-26

Moutsios, S. (forthcoming, 2008) ‘The transnationalisation of education policy making:

dominant institutions and policies’. Unpublished paper. Copenhagen: DPU.

Moutsios, Stavros(2009) 'International organisations and transnational education policy', Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39: 4, 469 — 481 Mottis, Nicolas, (2006) Bologna: Far from a Model, Just a Process for a While…, ESSEC Working Papers.

Neave, Guy (2002), Anything goes or how the accommodation of Europe’s Universities to

European Integration Integrates an Inspiring number of Contradictions in Tertiary Education and Management , 8, 3, pp. 181-197.

Neave, Guy (2003), The Bologna Declaration: Some of the Historic Dilemmas Posed by the

Reconstruction of the Community in Europe’s Systems of Higher Education, Educational Policy, Vol. 17 No. 1

Neave, Guy, (2005), On snowballs, slopes and the process of Bologna: Some testy reflections

on the advance of higher education in Europe, Background paper for presentation at ARENA 31 May 2005

Neave, G. and Van Vught, F. (1991), Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship

between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Olsen, J. (2002), 'The Many Faces of Europeanization', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 40 no 5, pp 921-952.

Papadopoulos, G. (1994), Education 1960-1990: The OECD Perspective. Paris: OECD.

Pederson, T., (2008), When Culture becomes Politics: European Identity in Perspective, Aarhus University Press.

Perkin, Harold, (2007) ‘History of Universities’ in James J.F. Forest and Philip G. Altbach (eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education, 159–205 Springer. Perotti, Loris, (2007) Institutional Change in the Spanish Higher Education System, European Journal of Education, Vol. 42, No. 3

Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003) Processes of Policy Borrowing in Education: some

explanatory and analytical devices, Comparative Education Volume 39 No. 4 pp. 451–461

102

Potter J., (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction, London, Sage

Ravinet, Pauline,(2005) The Sorbonne Meeting and Declaration: Actors, Shared vision and

Europeanisation, Second Euredocs International Conference, Stein Rokkan Center for Social Studies, Bergen 19th-21st of May 2005

Ravinet, P. (2006) When constraining links emerge from loose cooperation: mechanisms of

involvement and building of a follow-up structure in the Bologna Process. Paper presented at the third international Euredocs Conference, Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel, 16–18 June.

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, Vol. 43, No. 3

Radaelli, C. (2000) 'Whither Europeanization? Concept Stretching and Substantive Change', European Integration Online Papers, Vol 4 No.8, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-008a.htm, Retrieved on 12. 02. 2010 Ryba, Raymond (1992) Toward a European Dimension in Education: Intention and Reality

in European Community Policy and Practice, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, Special Issue on Education in a Changing Europe (Feb ‘92), pp. 10-24 Ryba, R., (1995) Unity In Diversity The Enigma Of The European Dimension In Education, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 25-36

Reich, R. (1991) The Work of Nations: A Blueprint for the Future. New York: Vintage

Regent, Sabrina, (2002) The Open Method of Co-ordination: A supranational form of

governance? International Labour Organization (International Institute for Labour Studies), Geneva

Rodrigues, M-J (2003) European Policies for a Knowledge Economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK Robertson, Susan L., (2007) Embracing the Global: Crisis and the Creation of a New

Semiotic, Draft, downloaded from http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/research/centres/ges/news-and-events/12slr.pdf retrieved on Oct, 2008 Robertson, Susan L. (2008 ), The Bologna Process Goes Global: A Model, Market, Mobility,

Brain Power or State Building Strategy? Presented as Invitational paper to ANPED’s Annual Conference, October 2008, Brazil

Rüegg, W. & (ed.), (1992), A History of the University in Europe, .Vol. I Universities in the

Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Ruegg, W, (2004) A History of the University in Europe, Vol. III, Universities in the 19

th and

the early 20th

centuries

103

Saarinen, T., (2005) ‘Quality’ in the Bologna Process: from ‘competitive edge’ to quality

assurance techniques, European Journal of Education, Vol. 40, No. 2

School of information, University of Texas, Austin, Discourse Analysis Website http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/discourse.htm, Austin retrieved on 19th Dec, 2009

Scott, P., (1984), The Crisis of the University, Croom Helm, London

Scott, P., (1998), “End of European Universities?” European Review (1998), Vol. 6 pp 441-457 Shore, C., (2000) Building Europe The cultural Politics of European integration, Routledge

Soysal Y, (2002), Locating European identity in Education, Novoa, A. and Lawn, M. (Eds.) Fabricating Europe: The Formation of an Education Space. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Stehr, N. (1994) Knowledge Societies: The Transformation of Labour, Property and

Knowledge in Contemporary Society. London, Sage.

Tauch, Christian (2004), Almost half-time in the Bologna Process — Where Do We Stand? European Journal of Education, Vol. 39, No. 3 Therborn, G. (2001), Europe – super power or a Scandinavia of the world? In M Tèlo (ed.), European Union and New Regionalism. Regional Actors and Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era: 227-243 Aldershot: Ashgate. Tovar, Edmundo and Cardeñosa, Jesús (2003) Convergence in higher education: effects and

risks. Paper presented in International Conference on the Convergence of Knowledge, Culture, Language and Information Technologies, December 2 - 6, 2003, Alexandria, Egypt University of Sussex, Official Website, Discourse Analysis, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/806q1_lecture_01.pdf) retrieved May, 2010

Van der Wende, Marijk C. (2000), The Bologna Declaration: Enhancing the Transparency

and Competitiveness of European Higher Education, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. XXV, No. 3

Van der Wende, Marijk C., (2003) Globalisation and Access to Higher Education, Journal of Studies in International Education; 7; 193

Van der Wende, M. C. & Westerheijden, D. F. (2001) International aspects of quality

Fhigher education

assurance with a special focus on European higher education, Quality in Higher Education, 7, pp. 233–245. Vassiliki, Papatsiba (2006), Making higher education more European through student

mobility? Revisiting EU initiatives in the context of the Bologna Process, Comparative Education Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 93–111

104

Valimaa, Jussi & Hoffman, David, (2008) Knowledge society discourse and higher

education, Higher Education, Vol 56 pp 265–285

Waever, (1995), Identity, Integration and Security: Solving the Sovereignty Puzzle in E.U.

Studies, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 48 Winther-Jensen, Thyge, (2009), The Enlightenment and Religion, Knowledge and pedagogies in Europe, in Cowen, R., and Kazamias, Andreas, International Handbook of

Comparative Education, Springer

Witte, J. (2006), Change of Degrees and Degrees of Change, PhD Thesis (CHEPS, University of Twente). Yang, Rui, (2003) Globalisation and Higher Education Development: A Critical Analysis,

International Review of Education

Zgaga, Pavel (2006) Higher education governance between democratic culture, academic

aspirations and market forces, Council of Europe

Documents & Reports:

Berlin Communiqué (2003) Realising the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of The Conference Of Ministers Responsible For Higher Education In Berlin On 19 September 2003. Bergen Communiqué (2005) The European Higher Education Area- Achieving the goals Communiqué of the conference of European Ministers res for HE, May 20, Bergen, Norway

BFUG, (2005) From Berlin to Bergen: General Report of the Bologna Follow-up Group to

the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. Oslo, 3 May 2005

Bologna Declaration (1999) The European Higher Education Area. Joint Declaration of The European Ministers Of Education. Convened In Bologna On The 19th Of June 1999.

Confederation of EU Rectors’ Conference & the Association of Eurpean Universities, (1999),The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education: an

Explanation

European Commission (EC) 2003: Education and Training 2010: The success of the Lisbon Stargy hinges on urgent reforms. Brussels, COM (2003) 685 Final. EC (2006) Progress Towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training. Commission Staff Working document. Reprts based on indicators and benchmarks, Brussels, 16. 05. 2006 SEC (2006) 639 ENQA (2005). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher

Education Area, European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Helsinki: .

105

ENQA (2007), Report to the London Conference of Ministers on a European Register of

Quality Assurance Agencies, ENQA Occasional Papers, No. 13, Helsinki.

ESIB (2005), Bologna with Student Eyes, ESIB Bologna Analysis 2005. Bergen: ESIB.

EUA, (2003), Graz Declaration, EUA, Brussel González, J., Wagenaar, R. (eds) (2003). Tuning educational Structures in Europe. Final

Report. Phase One. University of Deusto / University of Groningen. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto. http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/index.php?option=content&task=v iew&id=7&Itemid=30 González, J., Wagenaar, R. (eds) (2005). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. II.

Universities’ Contribution to the Bologna Process. Bilbao/Groningen: University Deusto /University Groningen. http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=30

Guy HAUG and Christian TAUCH, (2001) Towards the European Higher Education Area: Survey of Main Reforms from Bologna to Prague, Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education, Follow-up Report prepared for the Salamanca and Prague Conferences of March/ May, 2001

Kok, W. (2004). Facing the Challenge. The Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment.

Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok. November 2004. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [The Maastricht Treaty] (1992). Provisions amending the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community with a view to establishing the European Community.

Maastricht, 7 February 1992.

London Communiqué (2007), Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world, Communiqué of The Conference Of Ministers Responsible For Higher Education In London on 18. 05. 2007 Magna Charta Universitatum (1991) Signed in Bologna, Italy on September 18, 1988

OECD (2001) The New Economy: Beyond the Hype – Final Report on the OECD Growth

Project, Executive Summary. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2003) Beyond Rhetoric: Adult Learning Policies and Practices. Paris: OECD.

Prague Communiqué (2001) Towards the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué Of The Meeting Of European Ministers In Charge Of Higher Education In Prague On May 19th 2001.

Sorbonne Declaration (1998) Joint Declaration On Harmonisation Of The Architecture Of The European Higher Education Systems By The Four Ministers In Charge For France, Germany, Italy And The United Kingdom.

106

Trends I (1999) Trends In Learning Structures In Higher Education by Haug, G. (Part I) & Kirstein, J. (Part II). Project Report, June 1999. Trends II (2001) Towards the European Higher Education Area. Survey of Main Reforms From Bologna To Prague. Summary and Conclusions by Haug, G. & Tauch, C. April 2001. Trends III (2003), Progress towards the European Higher Education Area. Bologna four

years after: Steps toward sustainable reform. A report prepared for the European University Association by Reichert, Sybille and Tauch, Christian, July 2003 Trends IV (2005) European Universities Implementing Bologna By Sybille Reichert and Christian Tauch, EUA publications downloaded from http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/Bergen_conf/Reports/050425_EUA_TrendsIV.pdf Trends V (2007) Univers Ities Shaping The European Higher Education Area By David Crosier, Lewis Purser & Hanne Smidt, EUA Publication

Tuning project (2002), Tuning Educational Structures in Europe: Proceedings of the Closing Conference, May 31, Brussels.

UNESCO (2005) Towards Knowledge Societies, UNESCO: Paris

Zgaga, P. (2003) Bologna Process between Prague and Berlin, Report to the Ministers of Education of the signatory countries, Berlin, September 2003.

107