A European reform for US higher education? The limits of the Bologna process

1. A European reform for US higher education? The limits of the Bologna process Dr Cecile Hoareau Berkeley CSHE & Maastricht School of Governance Presentation for 13th February 2012 CHEER Sussex

2. Introduction • Comparison between two higher education reform processes in Europe and the US • The Bologna process (Europe) • Degree profile experiment (US) • Why did the Bologna process lead to major changes in Europe but similar attempts have been more limited in the US? • An example of theoretical adjustment (from Hoareau, 2011) • For Comparative Journal of Education

3. Outline • European HE reforms: the Bologna process • The Bologna process as ‘deliberative governance’ • Research questions • Multiple methodologies • Widespread changes in Europe • A European style of reforms for US HE? • Explaining differences: the limits of deliberative governance • Conclusion

4. European higher education reforms: the Bologna process • Who? • 46 member states • What does it seek to achieve? • European HE becoming more like the UK system? • Facilitate comparability • Accessible Higher education • Consistent measurement of credits • Define and measure learning outcomes for all disciplines • Tackle more sensitive questions e.g. role of the Government in higher education management, financing etc. Member states of the Bologna process

5. European higher education reforms: the Bologna process • Why is it important? • In economic terms, higher education a major ‘export industry’ • 1st in terms of output generation in the UK (UUK, 2006) • Top third before the entertainment industry in the US (Douglass, Edelstein and Hoareau, 2011) • For Europe • Facilitate movements across borders • Start a European-wide debate on learning and its value

6. European higher education reforms: the Bologna process • Why? • Concern about the quality of European higher education (Attali, 1998: annex 8). • In perspective of international competition • Growing influence of India, China, Brazil and Australia in the economy and higher education (Allègre, 1993; interviews FF1, 02 May 2007, FCM1 28 April 2007) • ‘Prepare […] for the brain competition that the 21st century will constitute’ (Allègre, 1997)

7. European higher education reforms: the Bologna process From…

8. European higher education reforms: the Bologna process To…

9. European higher education reforms: the Bologna process • No coercion • A set of ministerial declarations • A complex network of agencies, programs, evaluations • Eg. Tuning Europe produces ‘reference points’ on what is being learnt Tuning programme Deliberative governance (Hoareau, 2011)

10. Deliberative governance • A mode of governance relying on: • Deliberation • Justify positions with reasoned arguments • Open to each other’s arguments • Reciprocity • Resulting in • Problem solving, ‘framing’, learning, incremental policy change • Gehring, 2003; Habermas, 1984; Risse, 2000; Teague, 2001

11. Resarch questions • Is it possible to obtain significant policy change without coercion? • A ‘talking shop’ or a consequential policy tool? • Does it change participants’ opinions? • Does it lead to policy reforms?

12. Multiple methodologies • Unit of measurement: individual opinions and subsequent domestic reforms • Multiple methodologies • 72 interviews in Europe & 40 in US • Cases of deliberations Archival work & secondary sources • Analysis of reforms from 1999 • Online survey of 160 participants (25% response rate) • Retrospectively measure to which extent participants have changed their opinions and how much weight they give to participations to deliberations • Various dimensions of relevant to the Bologna process (institutional management, qualifications, quality assurance) • Objective: triangulation

13. Widespread changes in Europe Logistic and multinomial regression results

14. Widespread changes in Europe ‘Minds matured and mentalities changed and everyone was aware over all the territory that if we do not agree on what we should do, in any case we cannot leave the system like this.’ (Interview FCM 3, 15 June 2007)

15. Widespread changes in Europe

16. Widespread changes in Europe Other reforms as riders, e.g. France 2003 and 2007

17. Widespread changes in Europe • Interpretation • Deliberative governance can lead to a significant change of opinions and coordinated policy change in Europe (Hoareau, 2010)

18. 7. A European style of reform for US higher education? • Increasing attention to the Bologna process (Adelman, 2008 and 2009; Gaston, 2010; Lumina, 2011) • ‘The world has changed. The borders between the US and European higher education are now somewhat leaky […]. A European in America is now somehowthinkable!’ (Robertson, 2009) • ‘Three states […] examine the Bologna process to determine the forms and extent of its potential in U.S. contexts. Scarcely a year ago, such an effort would have been unthinkable’ (Adelman, 2009: 8)’.

19. 7. A European style of reform for US higher education? • Why does the US care? • Accountability debate • So far limited to general skills (AAC&U; 2007; Gaston, 2010) • Especially around for-profits (Douglass, forthcoming) • Threat to international supremacy • Relationship with intellectual supremacy and attracting talents (Gaston, 2010: 11)

20. 7. A European style of reforms for US higher education? • Tuning USA by Lumina foundation (2008) • Indiana, Minnesota, Utah and Texas establish study groups • Deliberation between administrators, labour market representatives and students • Document • Degree qualifications profile (2011) • But : Low take-up rate • No major reform • widespread skepticism • No further state support

21. Explaining differences: the limits of deliberative governance

22. Explaining differences • US efforts do not meet the same impact or popularity as the Bologna process • 4 years after its launch, the Bologna process had already led to major domestic reforms in France, Germany and Italy. • Tuning USA has not had such impact • Why is there no Bologna process of the US?

23. Explaining differences • Deliberative governance • Needs-based argument • Incentive-based argument

24. Explaining differences • Deliberative governance • Led to some agreement in the US (degree profile) • But does not account for differences in • Reforms undertaken • Differences in the number of participants between Europe and the US

25. Explaining differences • Needs-based argument should be dismissed US = 15th out of 34 OECD countries Source: OECD (2010)

26. 8. Explaining differences • Concerns on overall quality of US higher education • 45% of undergraduates show no learning gain after two years in higher education • 35% of undergraduates show no learning gain after four years in higher education (Arum and Roksa, 2011)

27. 8. Explaining differences ‘We’ve had a good run - as the saying goes, but we are no longer at the cutting edge. US higher education can no longer sail on the assumption of world dominance, oblivious to the creative energies, natural intelligence, and hard work of other nations’(Adelman, 2009: 9)

28. Explaining differences • Incentive-based argument • The paradox of autonomy • European universities have more incentive to convert to reform processes than US ones due to heavy Government steering • Examples • Funding structure • Block grant vs performance based funding (Salmi and Hauptmann, 2006) • Evaluation • quality assurance in Europe broader than US accreditation schemes

29. 8. Explaining difference • In Europe: difference between de jure and de facto autonomy • US universities do not have these constraints, so do not have the same incentive to enlist in a widespread reform process • A paradox • Government steering in Europe is meant to illicit university ‘autonomy’ (Bologna declaration, 1999; Vernon, 2011)

30. Conclusion • Explain why higher education reform processes are different in the US and Europe • ‘Need’ for reform exists • But the incentive structures for higher education differ between Europe and the US • Paradox of autonomy in higher education in Europe • An example of theoretical adjustment • Illustrates the limits of deliberative governance and the importance of incentive mechanisms for change

31. Conclusion • Further research • Have more comparable data for US/Europe • How do these change processes in higher education relate to broader socio-economic change?