European Responses to Globalisation in Higher Education C onvergence and Diversity

1. European Responses to Globalisation in Higher EducationConvergence and Diversity Higher Education to 2030 What Futures for Quality Access in the Era of Globalisation Paris, 8-9 December 2008 Marijk van der Wende Professor of Higher Education, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Chair Governing Board IMHE-OECD

2. Closed national systems; regional cooperation and mobility within constant structures Increasing the range and level of action and the number of countries Convergence towards shared goals Global competition 1976: First action in the field of education on EU level: Action Programme & Joint Study Programmes 1987: Start of ERASMUS; also other programmes like LINGUA, COMETT, TEMPUS 1995: Start of SOCRATES. Framework for various EU education programmes 1998: Sorbonne Declaration 1999: Bologna Declaration 2000: Lisbon Strategy (EHEA & ERA, OMC) 2001: ERASMUS MUNDUS 2003-2006: EC consultations & communications on HE 2006-2008: Lifelong Learning Programme FP7 ERC EIT ….. European Policies in HE Bologna increasingly integrated into Lisbon

3. The Bologna Process (1) Aim: create a European space for higher education (by 2010) in order to enhance the employability and mobility of citizens and to increase the international attractiveness and competitiveness of European higher education. Trough: the adoption of a common framework of readable and comparable degrees (ba-ma-phd), IDS, ECTS, QA….. The Bologna process aims at creating convergence and, thus, is not a path towards the “standardisation” or “uniformisation” of European higher education. The fundamental principles of autonomy and diversity are respected. Source: Bologna Declaration, 1999

4. Degree cycles: Bachelor, master, doctorate Mobility & Recognition: ECTS IDS Quality Assurance EQF (and NQFs) Tuning Educational Structures: Competencies and Learning Outcomes Implementation of degree cycles: Implementation in almost all countries although in various modes and at a varying speed of introduction A basic model with many variations Variation in the degree of change following from the Bologna process Convergence & Divergence between countries within countries (parallel systems) The Bologna Process (2)

5. Bologna in the Global Context Europe adopting an internationally recognised two – three cycle degree system Latin america (2005): • “The Bologna process is considered a key conceptual background for change” • EULAC and Tuning Asia-Pacific [Australia] (2006) • “The European vision also introduces some urgency for this region to develop its own approach to collaboration and facilitation of student and academic mobility”. Africa (2007) • “Adapt to the architecture of studies organisation which has been promoted since 1999 by the Bologna process” Asia (2008) • “Achieving for Southeast Asia what the Europeans have accomplished with the Bologna process – USA • Growing appreciation of new European degree system (recognition of the bachelor) • Praising the achievements of “The Bologna Club”, especially in areas such as credit transfer and approaches to formulating learning outcomes / competencies

6. Convergence and Diversity • General frameworks: • System level / degrees • Qualification frameworks • Curriculum • TUNING Project: generic and discipline-specific competencies at the various degree levels • Intended learning outcomes. • AHELO: assessment of achieved learning outcomes.

7. Dimensions and Definitions of Diversity Birnbaum’s (1983) • external diversity: differences between higher education institutions, • internal diversity differences within higher education institutions. Huisman (1995) • systemic diversity: differences in institutional type, size and control found within a higher education system; • programmatic diversity: differences in degree level, degree area, comprehensiveness, mission and emphasis of programmes and services provided by institutions; Teichler (2007) • Vertical diversity: differences between higher education institutions in terms of (academic) prestige and reputation. • Horizontal diversity: differences in institutional missions and profiles.

8. Impact of Global rankings • Globalization leads to increasing competitive pressures on institutions, in particular related to their position on global university rankings (“reputation race”), for which their research performance is almost exclusively the measure. • Global rankings suggest that there is in fact only one model that can have global standing: the large comprehensive research university. • Adverse effects on diversity: academic and mission drift. • Jeopardize the status of activities that universities undertake in other areas, such as teaching, innovation, their contribution to regional development, to lifelong learning, etc. • Vertical stratification versus horizontal diversification. • Consequently, rankings should be multidimensional and to this end indicators for measuring performance in areas other than basic research.should be developed or improved.

9. Rankings and Classification • Rankings should be multidimensional • Because rankings only make sense within defined groups of comparable institutions, classification is a prerequisite (condition) for sensible rankings. • Classifications should be multi-dimensional, in order to get a better grip on diversity • Classifications should stimulate higher education institutions to develop distinct institutional profiles and to excel in a variety of domains rather than in one dominant area. • I.e. provide a tool for institutional development and strategic planning.

10. Next Steps and Challenges • Acknowledge the diversification in European higher education • Enhance transparency of diversity within a generally defined common framework. Conclusions from the French Presidency on Typology and Ranking of the Higher Education Institutions: the European Approach The French presidency calls for the mapping the different dimensions of excellence of the Higher Education and Research in Europe in an international context European ranking should follow several principles: • 1 – multi-dimensional approach • 2 – field based approach • .........(CHE approach) • Apply the Berlin Principles on ranking (IREG, 2006) In parallel a typology or classification (“Mapping Diversity” CHEPS) which aims at classifying (mapping) higher education institutions according to their respective missions Consequently, the French presidency invites the European Commission to launch a call for tender to explore and test the feasibility of a multi-dimensional mapping of Higher Education and Research in Europe in comparison with other relevant world regions and to provide the first results in 2010.