Memorandum submitted by the Centre for
Higher Education Studies (CHES) of the Institute of Education,
University of London
1. The Institute of Education welcomes the
intention of the Committee to investigate the implications of
the Bologna Process for UK higher education. The broad convergence
which, in our view, is taking place across European higher education,
allied with the rapid expansion which has taken place in the Bologna
Process membership, makes this review timely.
2. This submission is from the Institute's
Centre for Higher Education Studies (CHES), which has contributed
to research and development in the field since 1985. The Co-Directors
of the Centre are Professor Ronald Barnett and Professor Sir David
Watson.
3. CHES is making a separate submission
to the Committee's parallel inquiry into the future sustainability
of the higher education sector.
4. There are several areas in which CHES
believes it can assist the Committee by drawing on research conducted
by members and others in order either to confirm or challenge
commonly-accepted ideas. CHES members have, over the last few
years, been involved in a number of research projects focusing
on various aspects of European higher education and the internationalisation
of higher education more generally, including a large-scale multinational
project under each of Framework Programmes 5 and 6. More such
work is planned under the forthcoming FP7. This work has provided
us, we believe, with a strong conceptual and empirical basis from
which we can assist the Committee.
5. The terms of reference for the inquiry
identify most of the key issues arising from the Bologna Process
for UK higher education. From the standpoint of higher education
and policy studies, Bologna offers a fascinating case study. What
began as a limited exercise in cooperation among a handful of
Western European countries has become an almost defining feature
of higher education organisation across a large number of states
with widely differing histories, political and economic circumstances,
and current policies. Bologna has, in a sense, become the only
game in town.
6. However, as Guy Neave, of our sister
research centre, CHEPS, at the University of Twente in the Netherlands,
has remarked, "Bologna, because it is a process and therefore
`on-going', has no end either. It merely adds to itself `new areas'
of activity in the curious belief that the dynamism of the `process'
is the same thing as the spiralling length of its agenda [...]
[this] has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of higher
education" (Neave 2005). We share this concern about the
political and (particularly) the bureaucratic momentum behind
Bologna: as well as the biennial Ministerial summits, the structure
now includes the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG), the Bologna Board,
and the Bologna Secretariat. The European Commission, the Council
of Europe and UNESCO are also involved in various ways. This top-down
approach, involving a range of international bodies with their
own agendas, may mean that certain realities of European higher
education, at the institutional level, become overlooked. We draw
attention to some of them below.
VARIATION AMONG
BOLOGNA MEMBERS
7. UK higher education has, historically,
had a strong international dimension, reflecting Britain's imperial
past and links with (particularly) other English-speaking countries.
The quality of UK university research (as objectively assessed
through international citation rankings, for example) has also
indicated the existence of strong international networks and a
competitive outlook. By contrast, many continental university
systems have, again historically, been more inward-looking, some
having been key participants in 19th and 20th century nation-building
projects, for example. For them, there is the sense that Bologna
offers an international standard of comparison that UK universities
have for long tended to take for granted.
8. This applies particularly to the newer
members of the Bologna Process. The universities of countries
such as Albania and Georgia badly wish to obtain international
recognition, despite having serious problems about, for example,
academic standards, curriculum content, physical facilities and
(importantly in this context) corruption. There is a belief in
these and other similarly-placed countries that Bologna offers
the key to the international recognition of their degrees and
of their academic standards generally; actually, it does not.
9. There seems to be a parallel here with
the "widening versus deepening" debate around EU enlargement.
The harmonisation proposed between the universities of the four
signatory countries of the original 1998 Sorbonne Declaration
(France, Germany, Italy and the UK) raised one set of arguably
manageable issues; harmonisation among universities spread between
Reykjavik and Vladivostok is a very different matter.
10. The Committee may therefore wish to
probe how the expansion of membership of the Bologna Process has
affected the likelihood of achieving the original goals of enhanced
comparability and cooperation between universities.
UNDERSTANDINGS OF
QUALITY
11. UK higher education was a European leader
in introducing quality assurance systems within institutions,
allied with external inspection of these systems—as
distinct from the accreditation model involving detailed state
control of university curricula, student admissions, finance,
staffing and other matters, which is to be found in many other
Bologna member states. The UK's arm's-length model of state control
(often referred to in the literature as "state steering")
is often held to be an important contributor to the relative effectiveness
and efficiency of its universities.
12. The role of the Bologna Process in quality
issues has therefore always been a matter of concern for UK universities.
The 2003 Berlin Communiqué considered quality issues, and
called on members "to develop an agreed set of standards,
procedures and guidelines [...] to ensure an adequate peer review
system [...]" It is not clear what this actually means, nor
what benefits might follow from it. Perhaps the important point
from a UK perspective is that a Bologna area-wide external quality
or accreditation system was resisted. Such a system would impose
the costs of a further bureaucratic layer, without, we may be
reasonably confident, leading to significant improvements in the
quality of teaching or research.
13. It seems likely that there is a continuing
confusion in this debate about the meaning of "quality assurance"
in higher education. The usual UK view is that it means an external
review of institutional systems—so that it can say nothing
about academic standards, as institutions with very different
standards can have equally effective quality assurance systems.
This reflects the UK situation in which a diverse group of institutions
teach a more diverse student body than is often the case elsewhere.
In many other Bologna states, however, external review of universities
is taken to mean ensuring that certain prescribed standards are
being achieved everywhere (defined, say, in terms of teaching
staff qualifications, student contact hours, or library and laboratory
provision), or that externally-defined curricula are being followed.
These two quite different models are not always distinguished
sufficiently; and the possibilities for confusion explain the
sensitivity of UK universities in this area.
14. It seems to us, from our work with universities
across Europe (and beyond), that the UK model of publicly-accountable
universities, but operating with a high degree of autonomy from
the central state, is becoming increasingly attractive to many
countries. As they seek to expand participation in higher education
while containing its costs, and at the same time improving the
quality of teaching and research, the limitations of the state-control
model become increasingly apparent. A transnational agenda of
convergence is emerging. It would thus be paradoxical if Bologna
appeared to be imposing restrictions on the freedom of manoeuvre
of individual universities at a time when national governments
were moving in the opposite direction.
15. The Committee may therefore wish to
examine the views of Member States on common quality processes,
and to reaffirm the importance of the Bologna Process not introducing
an area-wide quality assurance or accreditation process.
THE BOLOGNA
TWO-CYCLE
PATTERN
16. The basis of the Bologna approach is
the two-cycle (or three, counting doctoral degrees separately)
degree pattern; the undergraduate (three to four years) programme,
leading to a master's or subsequent doctoral programme. UK universities,
which of course in any case broadly conformed to this pattern,
have been anxious to maintain the one-year full-time master's
degree, which is possible under the Bologna wordings, but which
is out of line with offerings elsewhere. Similar problems arise
with UK "undergraduate master's" degrees, where four
years of study leads directly to a master's degree such as an
MEng. UK universities argue that the intensity of their one-year
(or four-year) master's courses contrasts with the more relaxed
approach found in some other European universities—where,
for example, the definition of "contact hours" can be
variable.
17. This raises questions about the "readability"
of degrees in Action Line 1 of Bologna. The assumption here is
that all universities covered by Bologna are essentially the same,
and that comparisons between them of contact hours can lead to
meaningful conclusions about learning, quality and standards.
We think that this view is misguided.
18. It is important to note that even in
other European countries with what (to British eyes) seem efficient
and high-quality higher education systems—the Netherlands,
for example—the Bologna Process has been seen as influencing
organisational change and encouraging developments in the direction
of greater flexibility and openness. It seems to have been the
case that education ministries in many countries have used Bologna
as, in effect, an excuse to drive through what they considered
to be overdue changes in university policy and management. The
very large amount of organisational change that UK higher education
has experienced since the 1980s, particularly through the development
of reasonably effective, and certainly competitive, markets in
teaching and research, has, in contrast, meant that here Bologna-related
change has already been implemented.
19. The Committee may wish to consider stating
that the Bologna Process must not of itself become a driver of
future change in UK higher education, unrelated to national (arguably,
international) needs in learning and research.
CREDIT TRANSFER
20. A credit transfer system, based on the
ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) model, is the basis of
Bologna Action Line 3. Most UK universities operate some form
of credit accumulation and transfer system internally, and are
usually open to the import of credits from recognised universities
in the UK and elsewhere. But as ECTS deals only with the volume
of work undertaken by a student, and can say nothing about its
standard or quality, ECTS credits on their own are of limited
value. Again, a mistaken view has grown up in some countries that
simply adhering to ECTS protocols will allow the free international
movement of students without further ado—often, ironically,
in places where movement of students between faculties in the
same university is often virtually impossible.
21. While credit transfer systems and enhanced
student mobility are important, and are generally welcomed by
UK universities, it should be emphasised that such systems cannot
over-ride institutional decisions about student admissions. Given
the range of university systems now covered by Bologna, bi-lateral
understandings between universities are likely to offer the best
way forward in this area. It will be important to ensure that
any European "qualifications framework", designed to
enhance mobility, does not place procedural obstacles in the way
of creative and flexible developments in teaching and learning.
22. In considering credit transfer issues,
the Committee will wish to be aware of the practical limitations
of these approaches.
SELECTED REFERENCES Dow,
E (2006). Britannia meets Bologna: still making waves? Perspectives:
Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 10(1), 9-14.
Huisman, J and van der Wende, M (Eds) (2004).
On co-operation and competition: national and European policies
for the internationalisation of higher education. Bonn: Lemmens.
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,
41(2), 203-223.
Kettunen, J and Kantola, M (2006). The implementation
of the Bologna Process. Tertiary Education and Management,
12(3), 257-267.
Morgan, A (2006). Pushing through Bologna reforms:
the Hungarian case. International Higher Education, 42,
12-14.
Neave, G (2005). Euro-philiacs, Euro-sceptics
and Europhobics: higher education policy, values and institutional
research. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(2), 113-129.
Reichert, S and Tauch, C (2005). Trends IV:
European universities implementing Bologna. Brussels: EUA
(European University Association) Available at www.eua.be
Scott, P (Ed) (1998). The globalization of
higher education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
van der Wende, M and Huisman, J (2004). The
EU and Bologna: are supra- and international initiatives threatening
domestic agendas? European Journal of Education, 39(3),
349-357.
Wachter, B (2004). The Bologna Process: developments
and prospects. European Journal of Education, 39(3), 265-273.
Witte, J (2004). The introduction of two-tiered
study structures in the context of the Bologna Process:
a theoretical framework for an international comparative study
of change in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy,
17(4), 405-425.
December 2006
| 
