The Bologna Process: what does it really mean for the universities?

1. The Bologna Process:what does it really mean for the universities? EAIE Annual Conference 2004 Torino 16 September 2004 Dr. Sybille Reichert, ETH Zürich

2. The Bologna Process: from instruments to strategies? • Aims of the Bologna Process • Toward comparable structures and beyond • Autonomy and Quality Assurance • Lifelong learning • Bologna and the UK: Conclusions

3. The Bologna Process: from instruments to strategies?

4. Bologna Process: from intergovernmental commitments to institutional realities • originally intergovernmental • but the idea of creating a „European Higher Education Area“ will only become a reality if Higher Education Institutions subscribe to the aims, implement the operational objectives and fill with meaning what the Bologna Declaration and the Prague Communiqué sets out to achieve • to see what progress has been made we have to look not only at the national level legislation, policies and incentives but also at the institutional realisation of the central objectives: aims of Trends III and IV • to make sense, „Bologna“ has to be put into the context of the institutional strategies and developmental goals

5. Bologna and Prague objectives • common degree structures (Bachelor /Master) • establishment of transparency instruments: ECTS, Diploma Supplement • recognition of foreign degrees and study abroad periods • promotion of European and/or joint programmes • promotion of mobility • cooperation in quality assurance • promotion of LLL • social dimension, HE as a public good/ responsibility • significant role of HEIs and students in this process • link with European Research Area, doctoral studies

6. From instruments to strategies – from structural adaptation to curricular reflection System Graduate Instruments

7. Bologna: From commitment to reality It takes concerted action on all levels to make the European Higher Education Area a reality… awareness less as one „descends“ into the HE institutions national commitment national legislation national incentives/ support institutional leadership/ policy instit. communication deliberation decision instit. reality 46% of HEIs: nat.legisl. undermines auton. decision-making only half have provided some funding 75% of HEIs: clear financial incentives needed little more than a third have a Bol. coordinator • role of academics? (less than half „reasonably aware, 30% „not very aware“) • students not included enough at dep- level • stud., admin. less aware

8. 2. Aims of the Bologna Process

9. Which goals are the driving forces of Bologna? • enhancement of academic quality – reforms go beyond just a formally changed degree system • preparing graduates for the European labour market – 91% of heads of HEIs regard employability as important of very important when redesigning curricula (70% of HEIs track employment of some or all graduates) • how to make sustainable employability and academic quality compatible values is the core challenge of curricular reform • competitiveness/ attractiveness of national (not European) system of HE academic quality employability attractiveness

10. 2 conflicting agendas in European, national and institutional policies: • competitiveness agenda (international, global): • focussed on research and technology transfer • aiming at concentration of excellence, creating critical masses with optimal conditions • tough competition for funds: winners and losers • entailing selectivity to optimise potential of assembling the winners in these competitions • internationally oriented • social agenda (LLL, access etc.), often with a more regional focus • consensus: Higher Education is a public good and a public responsibility (continuing role for state support) • needs for enhanced support structures for students (and academics) : social conditions of studies and mobility, incl. tuition fees, portable grants but also transferable pension rights for mobile academics • the issue of addressing solidarity not only within but also between countries (Graz process) • regarding the related GATS discussion, trends 3 data reveal that awareness at national and institutional level leaves considerable room for improvement)

11. Promote attractiveness where?

12. Targeting Europe?

13. Marketing at HEIs

14. Mobility: Imbalances

15. Bologna‘s goals: what could they mean for a given European university‘s profile? • What are the primary values which act as driving forces? e.g. flexible access, pushing frontiers of science (selective/competitive research) • Are there different components with different sets of values? • Which community do I primarily serve? • Which communities do I want to target in addition? • Where and according to which criteria do I recruit my students, teachers, reserachers, partners? • Which qualities, skills, competences, attitudes do I want to promote in my students, professors, scientific and adminsitrative staff? • Which reference points do I want to use in the development of my offer (teaching curricula: qualification frameworks, learning outcomes according to disciplines, programmes, research: emphases and their effect on teaching)? How do I promote institutional thinking (beyond identification with disciplines) to allow for a will to coordinate thoughts and efforts? How and when do I include my partners in these sensitive already difficult deliberations? • How do I define success and progress in these processes? Which targets do I set and how do I defend these to the outside world (politicians, industrial partners)?

16. Diversification of institutional profiles In spite of the diversification of functions of HEI (including, in addition to research and teaching, flexible access and LLL, technology transfer, dialogue with public, fostering interest in S&T), the multiple calls for an elite in the midst of an increasingly flexible HE system ready to encounter 30-50% of any given age group,the European HE landscape remains relatively homogeneous. • There are unexploited opportunities for institutional positioning which • presuppose autonomy, non-mainstreaming funding mechanisms – common fight of HEIs and HE nat. admin. • could be greatly enhanced by positioning oneself with European partners on an international stage (strategic networking at European level is still underdeveloped, incl. joint degrees)

17. 3. Toward comparable structures and beyond

18. Ba/Ma systems according to Ministries

19. Implementation of ECTS at HEIs

20. Recognition

21. 4. Autonomy and Quality Assurance

22. Quality and Autonomy • legislative changes in many Bologna signatory countries but 46% of HEI rectors find that national legislation still undermines autonomous decision-making • autonomy = state intervention but also influence of other stakeholders • renegotiate system of outside influences rather than realise the dream of self-regulation

23. Quality external (aggregate index of QA in teaching, research, other)

24. Quality Assurance: future challenges • establishing improvement-oriented QA without disproportionate costs and administrative burden • creating transparency, exchange of good practice but also enough common criteria to allow for mutual recognition of each others‘ principles and procedures without undermining its positive forces of competition (why and where should we protect diversity, where is mainstreaming helpful) • build up coherent internal quality assurance which makes synergetic use of external QA procedures and reduces their extent in the long term

25. Trends IV Objectives Trends I – IV : gradual shift in emphasis • Trends I, II: analysis of structures at national level • Trends III: European comparison of progress on the Bologna Action Lines including the views of institutions for the first time: problems and issues at institutional level • Trends IV: analysis of institutional responses/ progress/ priorities -- a ‘stocktaking report’ from the sector, with an institutional approach, half way to 2010, looking ahead to 2007 & beyond • taking account of: • the European & the national context, • concentrating on the 3 Bologna mid-term priorities & research

26. Methodology: • Site Visits at the centre of the 2004/2005 exercise (+/- 60 visits) • Universities & other HEIs (where relevant) • For majority of 40 Bologna countries • Interviews with multiple institutional players • By teams of 2 persons (1 internat., 1 from national RC) • Same structure and questions for all visits Using other occasions for interviews as well • National level data: Setting the scene of changes since Trends III (concentrating on mid-term priorities +research), through questionnaire to be filled in by national RCs (Oct 2004)

27. The Bologna Process • is more worthwhile as a trigger for reforms if dealt with holistically, i.e. byputting its action lines into the context of its larger goals. • In order to make Bologna reforms innovative and sustainable they have to be integrated into other core functions and development processes of HEIs. • should be dealt with systemically, i.e. in its implications for other aspects of higher education such as research and management. • The Bologna reforms should not be pushed forward at the expense of other urgent innovations and reforms at HEIs. They have to be reflected in the funding and funding mechanisms. • will only lead to success if addressed in its ambivalent dimensions (competitiveness and social agenda). • will only lead to success if, given the complexity of the systems, the European-level interpretations and frameworks for reforms should be reference points and triggers for improvement-oriented reflections and reforms rather than prescriptions, additional regulation.