bologna process for universities

7/29/2019 Bologna Process for Universities

1/40

19992010Achievements,

Chllengesnd Perspectives


2/40

Table of contents

03 Foreword rom Spain

04 Foreword rom Hungary

05 Foreword rom Austria

06 19992010: The making o Bologna

10 Who is involved in the Bologna Process?Bologn Secretrit 10

12 Contribution o the European Commission

13 Stakeholder ContributionsBUSINESSEUROPE 13Council of Europe 13

Eduction Interntionl 14

ENQA 14

ESU 14

EUA 15

EURASHE 15

UNESCO-CEPES 15

16 Social Dimension

19 Lielong Learning and Employability

22 Qualifications Frameworks

24 Recognition o Degrees

26 Doctoral Education

29 International Openness

31 Mobility

33 Data Collection

35 Quality Assurance

37 Editorial Inormation and Legal Notice

38 Stocktaking


3/40

3

Foreword

hen rereading the ew pages o the Bologna Declaration o and looking at the results of the Bologna Process Independent Assessment Report

we realise that never have so ew words generated such deep changes in

higher education in Europe.

Few European governments could have imagined, at the end at the th

century, that during the first decade o the present century thousands o institutions ohigher education, their staff and students, and 46 countries were going to work togetherso intensely and in a coordinated manner, to build a European Higher Education Area

(EHEA), as voluntarily agreed to in the oldest university o our continent.

Furthermore, ew universities had anticipated, more than a decade ago, the depth o thetransformations that were about to occur. These changes have allowedamong others for

the adoption o a common ramework o easily readable, compatible and comparable degrees along with the implementation of what was to become the European Credit Transfer

and Accumulation System (ECTS), the promotion o mobility and the drawing up o quali

fications rameworks. Some o these changes are now also debated in other parts o theworld and, in some cases, have even resulted in an imitation effect.

The Bologna Process, whose objectives and number o participants have increased in the

five ministerial conerences which have taken place biennially since , has certainlyachieved impressive results, especially i we consider where we started rom, the uneven

support which the implementation o reorms has received in each country, the diversityo the models o higher education and institutional rameworks in which it unolds.

Nevertheless, there are still aspects related to the Process which could and should be

improved, in order to achieve more impact and to increase participation and acceptanceon the part o European society and, particularly, our students. During the Spanish presi

dency o the European Union in the first semester o , our ocus will be on the socialdimension, on equal opportunities and on equity issues which have been progressivelyacquiring a greater prominence in higher education and are considered vital to ensure a

decisive improvement o higher education in Europe in the years to come.

ngel Gabilondo PujolMinister o Education, Spain

Wngel GabilondoPujol,Minister ofEducation,Spain

Foreword from SpainPresidency o the EU and Chair o the Bologna Process


4/40

4

Foreword

ore than a decade has already passed since Ministers responsible or higher education rom 29 countries held a meeting in Bologna and signed

the declaration launching the Bologna Process. At that time some o thesignatories were enthusiastic about the challenge ahead while others were

more sceptical about the uture o the process.

At the beginning, noone could oresee how long the road would be or the participatingcountries. Since then, much has been achieved: the European Higher Education Area

(EHEA) has been established in principle. However, the process has not been completedand, in the next decade, our mission will be to complement structural and legislative re

orms with the equally necessary changes in attitudes.

The uniqueness of the Bologna Process lies in the fact that it quickly transcended the politi-

cal sphere by becoming a joint venture o countries, the European Commission and repre

sentatives o important international organisations (the Council o Europe and UNESCO),and those of higher education institutions, students, teachers and researchers working in

higher education as well as employers. Thus higher education has become an issue with

a European dimension relevant or society at large.

The objectives and reforms of the Bologna Process have contributed to the enhancement of

European competitiveness and attractiveness. The essence of the process can probably be

defined most accurately as a common European answer to common European problems.

The Bologna Process is a model. The way in which this intergovernmental process em-

bracing as many as 46 countries operates is unprecedented in history: it works withoutinternational legal treaties, on a voluntary basis, integrating all the stakeholders, imple

menting a consensusbased decisionmaking system, which operates effi ciently.

I truly hope that not only the Bologna reorms but also the political and cultural modelunderpinnning it has raised global attention. I the considerable international interest in

the Second Bologna Policy Forum cohosted by Austria and Hungary on March , can be taken as an indication, this seems to be case.

The structural transformation of higher education was accompanied by debates in Hungary.

These debates were sparked by (a perceived threat to) cherished traditions, a number ochanges in the institutional system, long-cultivated conventions in education and the

accentuated peculiarities o individual disciplines.

However, we can already see how ar we have come in the Bologna Process, although we

can also see what still lies ahead. While the euphoria as well as the scepticism of the earlydays have disappeared, we have today a more realistic picture o the values and resultso the process, as well as the tasks to be accomplished.

This provides an excellent base or the concerted effort to continue our work in the nextdecade.

Istvn HillerMinister o Education and Culture, Hungary

M Istvn Hiller,Minister ofEducation andCulture,Hungary

Budapest: venue of the MinisterialAnniversary Conference

Foreword from HungaryCohost o the Bologna Ministerial Anniversary Conerence


5/40

5

Foreword

his publication will provide a glimpse into what in many respects canbe regarded as groundbreaking in European higher education cooperation.

Over a decade o the Bologna Process has brought about many reorms inhigher education across Europe both at the system and the institutionallevels. Differences in interpretation and in the speed of the implementation

o the agreed objectives have put high pressure on those directly impacted namely thehigher education institutions, staff and students. Still, a greater coherence in European

higher education has been achieved.

Now, at the date agreed by 29 countries in 1999 to mark the establishment of the European

Higher Education Area (EHEA), it is time to take note o the achievements but also or critical reflection. Much still needs to be done, as also shown by the recent student protests.

We have been painully reminded by the recent economic crisis, whose negative effects

on jobs and the economic output are ar rom being ully understood, that it is the leveland type of a persons qualifications which constitutes the decisive factor for employment.

Today, knowledge, skills and competences determine employability in increasingly com

petitive and more internationally oriented labour markets.

Even though almost years have passed, the sentiment o the Bologna Declaration still

holds true. Higher education and research systems need not only continuously to adaptto changing needs, societys demands and advances in scientific knowledge but they

also have an important role in contributing to stable, peaceul and democratic societies.

The instruments provided by the Bologna Process should enable autonomous highereducation institutions to ulfil their maniold missions not only in the European Higher

Education Area but also in an international context.

One o the core Bologna objectives has been the promotion o mobility. Apart rom purelyacademic benefits, mobility experiences also provide intercultural, linguistic, social and

other sot skills and contribute significantly to personal ulfilment. The addedvalue orhigher education institutions and systems is an increase in internationalisation and braincirculation. Societies at large profit rom an enhanced mutual understanding between

countries and regions.

Higher education and research have always been international. The engagement in policy

dialogue among different regions in the world interested in ostering mutual understanding and learning in higher education has been intensified with the development o the

European Higher Education Area.Let us and I mean all the stakeholders together jointly take on the uture challengesidentified by the contributions o all stakeholders at the Bologna Ministerial AnniversaryConference on March 11/12, 2010 and the Bologna Process Independent Assessment Report!

Beatrix KarlMinister o Science and Research, Austria

T Beatrix Karl,Minister of Scienceand Research,Austria

Vienna: venue of the MinisterialAnniversary Conference

Foreword from AustriaCohost o the Bologna Ministerial Anniversary Conerence


6/40

Introduction

THE MAKING OFBOLOGNABy Pvel Zgg


7/40

7

Introduction

Pavel Zgaga,Professor in Philo-sophy of Educationand Director of the

Centre for Educa-tion Policy Studiesat the University ofLjubljana, Facultyof Education,Slovenia

t the signing ceremony o the Bologna Declaration at the Aula Magna othe University o Bologna on 19 June, 1999, everyone could finally relax

as the arduous negotiations on the final wording o the Declaration were

concluded. Everyone knew the event was an important step towards bet

ter cooperation between higher education systems in Europe; neverthe-less, even in this atmosphere o expectation, ew realised that this moment marked the

beginning o a new era in European higher education aimed at improving quality acrossEurope. Eleven years later and Bologna has become a reality and has turned into a

European success story.

How did this happen and what does it mean? And what could it mean or the uture?In the 1990s, something was in the air. All national systems were deeply challenged

by massification o higher education and by new expectations regarding higher learning.There were also other challenges: rapid Europeanisation (e.g. Maastricht Treaty, 1992), the

turbulent political changes and opening o Central and Eastern Europe and, last but not

least, increasing global competition and/or cooperation in higher education. Already bythe end o the 8s, European academia had responded to the first waves o these challenges by looking orward to ar-reaching co-operation between all European nations

in the Magna Charta Universitatum, also signed in Bologna (88).

And yet, there were systemic barriers to be removed first. Europes national systems

have been traditionally different so much so that this posed a problem both within anenlarging Union as well as within reunifying Europe at large. Cooperation between coun-

tries and their institutions needed a mutual approach to solving these growing problems.The Convention on the Recognition o Qualifications concerning Higher Education

in the European Region (Lisbon Recognition Convention), initiated in the earlys and adopted at a UNESCO/Council o Europe conerence in 7, lookedto address the question o this diversity at the level o the recognition o high

er education qualifications by introducing the notion o substantial difference,which put the onus of demonstrating such substantial difference on the recognition

bodies. However, the problem also needed to be addressed rom yet another angle; as

system level incompatibilities between national rameworks existed.The Sorbonne Declaration in 8 was the first attempt to overcome this situation. Itcalled for harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system

and immediately received some angry responses. Should we reer to a System or systems? Harmonisation was a highly disputed term as it seemed to be in contradictionwith the subsidiarity principle, i.e. the (legal) fact that nation states remain responsible

or their educational systems. In act, it was clear already at the Sorbonne Meeting oour European Ministers that an open European area or higher learning should startrom the basis o respecting our diversities, but requires on the other hand continu-

ous efforts to remove barriers and to develop a ramework or teaching, and learning,which would enhance mobility and an ever closer cooperation. A dispute on harmoni

sation ollowing the Sorbonne invitation to consolidate Europes standing in the worldthrough continuously improved and updated education or its citizens was obviously

a clear sign o an enormously diffi cult task ahead. However, it did not block the initiative; on the contrary.

The Bologna Declaration o 1999 did not use the term harmonisation at all and soon

the dispute was orgotten. At the meeting, ater a long debate, it prevailed that harmonisation is not harmonisation as the UK Minister Baroness Tessa Blackstone articulatedduring the last session.

At the Sorbonne Meeting harmonisation signalled the guiding principle of the

orchestra composed o a number o different instruments (as argued later bythe French Minister of the time, Mr. Claude Allgre). Yet the Sorbonne

Declaration also instigated debate around potential controversies

A


8/40

8

Introduction

The processes o

conceptualisation and

implementation rest on

different loics but they

also need each other as

a mutual corrective.

encapsulated in the concept o harmonisation. It was claimed, or examp-le, that it undermined national responsibility or higher education systems and

threatened to erode the subsidiarity principle.

In keeping with the image used above, it could be argued that the complexity of harmoni-

sation was perceived as a dangerous music, reminiscent of the Ulysses epic. In time the

focus of attention gravitated ever closer to the orchestra and away from a perceived threat.

This was perhaps a stepping stone or later success. The 29 Bologna signatories agreed

to support the general principles laid down in the Sorbonne Declaration and promisedto engage in coordinating our policies to reach in the short term, and in any case within

the first decade o the first millennium a number o objectives later developed and todaywell known as the ten Bologna action lines. Not a uniormed and/or centralised European system but a development o easily readable, comparable and compatible na

tional systems was recognised as the key eature o the European Higher Education Area(EHEA) to be reached by means o convergent national reorms. As a cohesive system, theBologna reforms not only signal a European answer to specific European problems but also

a strategy to become attractive worldwide and to enhance international cooperation and

academic competition.The idea o the EHEA contained two dimensions rom the beginning: an internal andan external one. From the outset it was about internal European relations and coope-

ration in higher education and the potential o a cohesive European system but equallyabout external relations and competition/cooperation with other world regions. During

the development o the Bologna Process, the external dimension was developed intoa strategy on European Higher Education in a Global Setting adopted at the LondonConerence in 2007 while the development o the internal dimension has been

marked by more complex milestones. The latter has been mainly visible intwo documents adopted at the Bergen Conerence in 2005: A Frame-

work or Qualifications o the EHEA and Standards and Guidelines orQuality Assurance in the EHEA. This work had been particularly hard.Ater the Prague Conerence (), the old truth that the devil is in the

detail was confirmed but nevertheless the details were elaborated quite well and

agreed upon on by the middle o the decade.

A particular issue which had to be solved within this period was: which Europe

is (or should be) covered by the EHEA? An overwhelming majority o the originalBologna signatories came from the old EU and EU-associated countries and since 2004

new EU countries. The signal sent rom Bologna in sparked a surprisingly broadecho: by 2005 the Club had expanded to 45 members and its geographic eligibility

was shifted to signatories to the European Cultural Convention the large Europe. Thus,

it proved perhaps a little paradoxically what the Sorbonne Declaration stated: thatEurope is not only that o the Euro (or we could add a political union): it must be aEurope o knowledge as well. It must be universal and open; tied to its prominent acade

mic and cultural traditions. A decision rom the Berlin Conerence (3) on the enlar

gement o the Bologna Process beyond the initial limits was integral to urther success.By 2005 the concept o the emerging EHEA and most o the bedevilled details were

fixed and the process was beginning to move rom concept to implementation. Everyonewho has at least some experience with shiting rom policy development to implementation knows how complex and complicated this task can be. It is particularly diffi cult i it

involves 46 countries which closely cooperate in policy development but which still takeindependent policy decisions. The EUA Trends Report o 2005 already warned that the

experience of introducing new degree cycles into national systems has demonstrated that


9/40

Introduction

Success is a doubleeded

sword. It is inebriatin but it

is also bindin. Real success

cannot be measured in terms

o final implementation and

celebration but in searchinor new momentum and

reconceptualisation.

the Bologna Process leaves ample room or different and at times conflictinginterpretations regarding the duration and orientation of programmes. There

is Bologna but it would be short-sighted to neglect the variety of co-existing

Bolognas. We still have to test their eventual balance and level o integra

tion. Implementation never ollows genuine policy ideas in ull. This must notbe interpreted simplistically as a move away rom original ideas or even as a betrayal.

The processes o conceptualisation and implementation rest on different logics but theyalso need each other as a mutual corrective. However, i they diverge too dramatically

there could be a problem.

When discussing possibilities or uture higher education cooperation in , Guy Haug,

one o the Bologna architects, proposed our main avenues or combined action: (a)a generalised European credit system; (b) a common, but flexible rame o qualifications;(c) an enhanced European dimension in quality assurance and evaluation; (d) empowering

Europeans to use the new learning opportunities in Europe. In my view, this agenda hasbeen completed and this is what makes Bologna a European success story. Accordingto studies presented at the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Conerence in spring 2009, Euro-

pean Credit Transer and Accumulation System (ECTS) has been broadly accepted; an

overarching ramework o qualifications was approved and has started although withdiffi culties its national implementation phase; the European Quality Assurance Register

or Higher Education (EQAR) has been established. Last but not least and talking as anErasmus proessor rom my own experiences new learning opportunities have been

enormously enhanced: an open European area or higher learning is not an abstract

ideait really exists today.

Words of recognition are always more convincing if they come from outside. In our case in

particular i they come rom the United States. In spring , American Bologna resear

cher Clifford Adelman highlighted: While still a work in progress, parts o the BolognaProcess have already been imitated in Latin America, North Africa, and Australia. The core

eatures o the Bologna Process have suffi cient momentum to become the dominant glo

bal higher education model within the next two decades. What distinguishes Adelmansstatement from a cheap compliment is his metaphor of the Bologna accountability loop:

I, or example, student mobility is an objective [] one needs a recognition system []hence Qualification Frameworks, a common credit system, Quality Assurance, and comparable degree structures. All these, under Bologna, became supranational phenome

na, and all are glued together in what this monograph calls an accountability loop. Theyrequire combined action.

Indeed, this is what Europe can be proud o. Further contributions in the section Stakeholders at the heart o decision making in Bologna o this publication will shed more

light on ten specific aspects o a loop as they are discussed at the present stage o theBologna Process: rom Qualification Frameworks, Mobility and Data Collection, via Re-

cognition, Quality Assurance and the Social Dimension to the higher education and re-

search nexus: Doctoral education and the Bologna Process, Employability, International

Openness and, last but not least, the socalled Bologna Stocktaking. It is crucial or thesustainable success o the Bologna Process that these aspects have been firmly kept together, interlaced in a loop.

But success is a doubleedged sword. It is inebriating but it is also binding. Real successcannot be measured in terms of final implementation and celebration but in searching for

new momentum and re-conceptualisation. Beyond , the accountability loop

should not be stored in a glass case in a museum.


10/40

Introduction

Who is involved in the

When the Ministers met in Berlin in 3,they agreed to have the Bologna Process

ollow-up work supported by a Secreta-

riat, provided by the country hosting the

ollowing ministerial conerence. In 3,

Norway thus established the first Bologna

Secretariat, followed in 2005 by the UK and

in 7 by the Benelux countries Belgium,the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The 2010

Ministerial conerence brought an excep-

tion to this rule Austria and Hungary did

not take over the Secretariat but sent twoadvisers to the Benelux Secretariat, whichwas asked to continue or another year.

The Secretariat has two tasks: assisting

the host country in preparing the ministe

rial conference and, under the authority of

the chair o the Bologna Followup Group(BFUG), supporting the European follow-up

process. The Secretariat, thus, provides ad-

ministrative support to the BFUG, its Board

and its working groups. It also maintains

the Bologna website and archives, acts asexternal and internal contact point or the

Meeting o European Ministers responsible or Higher Education1st political level takesdecisions every two years

2nd political level,manages the Process

between the biennialministerial conferences

Bologna Followup Group (BFUG)

Chair:rotates with the EU Presidency,

Currently: Spain

Vicechairs:the host country of the next ministerial

meeting, Currently: Austria & Hungary

Members:Representatives of all countries participating in the Bologna Process, Currently: Albania,

Principality of Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, BelgiumFlemish Community,

BelgiumFrench Community, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Holy See,Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,

Moldova, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian

Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom. And a representative

of the European Commission.

Councilo Europe

BUSINESS-EUROPE

UNESCOCEPES

European

Centre for

HigherEducation

EURASHE

European

Associationof Institutions

in Higher

Education

EUA

European

UniversityAssociation

ESU

European

StudentsUnion

ENQA

European

Association forQuality Assurance

in Higher

Education

EI

Education

InternationalPan-European

Structure

Consultative Members

Bologna

Secretariat

Overview o the organisational structure


11/40

Introduction

Bologna Process ?

Troika countries(the previous and the two succeeding EU presidencies)

Currently: Sweden, Spain, Belgium

Also includes a representative of the European Commission

Representatives of three countries participating in the

Bologna Process, elected annually from the BFUGCurrently: Armenia, Cyprus, Romania

SecretariatCurrently: Benelux and experts

from Austria & Hungary

Board

The Board prepares

the BFUG meetings

Supportstructure

Chair:rotates with the EU Presidency,

Currently: Spain

Vicechairs:the host country of the next ministerial

meeting, Currently: Austria & Hungary

Consultative Members

EURASHE

European

Association ofInstitutions in

Higher Education

EUA

European University

Association

ESU

European

StudentsUnion

Councilo Europe

Process, and provides representation at various events.

In short, the Bologna Secretariat is there to serve the

Bologna Process, dedicated to making the European

Higher Education Area (EHEA) a reality.

The team of the Bologna Secretariat (from left toright, front row): Franoise Bourdon, French Communityof Belgium; Sabine Neyer, Austria; Magalie Soenen, Flemish Community of Belgium; Sra Demny, Hungary; Marie-Anne Persoons,Flemish Community of Belgium; (from left to right, back row): Marlies Leegwater, the Netherlands; Cornelia Rack, Luxembourg

March2010


12/40

Ministerial Conferences

Introduction

Contribution of the

European CommissionBy Androulla Vassiliou

or many years, the European Commission has been supporting the Bologna

Process. Its objectives are fully in line with the EUs modernisation agenda

for universities. The Bologna vision of a borderless European Higher Educa-

tion Area owes a great deal to the Erasmus mobility programme, launched

in 87, and to related EU initiatives and tools such as the European Credit

Transer and Accumulation System, while, in turn, Bologna inspires many o the policieswhich make up our modernisation agenda or universities.

Looking back at what has been achieved, we note that an impressive range o reorms

has been set in motion to make European higher education more comparable and morecompatible, more competitive and more attractive or Europes citizens as well as or

students and scholars rom other continents. However, a lot remains to be done in thesecond Bologna decade. Certain issues will require our particular attention, such as

mobility, student-centred learning, transparency, recognition and international openness.

The Commission is looking orward to continuing its contribution to this unique collective

effort o public authorities, universities, teachers, students, international organisationsand other stakeholders.

F AndroullaVassiliou,EU Commissionerfor Education,Culture, Multi-

lingualism andYouth

Bologna

Bergen

Prague

London

Berlin

Leuven/

Louvain-la-Neuve

Starting rom the meeting othe European Ministers oEducation in Bologna in

there have been biennial ollowup conerences where theprogress was assessed and

objectives or the next stagewere agreed upon.


13/40

3

Stakeholder Contributions

Stakeholders at the heart of

decision making in Bologna

The Bologna Process has led to a modernisation of European higher education by

building upon and strengthening Europes

intellectual, scientific and cultural dimen-

sion. This change process is essential toface the challenges of globalisation, tech-

nological change and population ageing,

and to address the expectations o the

European societies.

In many countries, companies cannot find

much needed highly skilled employees,

such as engineers and IT-specialists. To fill

this need, the Bologna Process has defined

the importance of lifelong learning policies

and practices because they are the key to

raising the employability o those who arealready in the workforce by refreshing and

updating their skills and competences ona continuous basis. Student numbers may

well start to decrease or demographic reasons in the near uture. Striving or an

expansion o student numbers in the higher education system, better accessibility

and higher completion rates are our most

crucial challenges.

We believe prooundly that the overall

goals o the Bologna Process, impro-

ving comparability and compatibility

throughout Europe, are the right answers

to these uture challenges.

BUSINESS-

EUROPE

Philippe de Buck, Director Generalof BUSINESSEUROPE

The European Higher Education Area

(EHEA) is an incarnation o the ideal that

the Council o Europe embodies: a Europe or individuals; one characterised bydemocracy, human rights and the rule o

law; and a Europe fluent in interculturaldialogue.

The structural reorms that have cha-

racterised the first decade o the Bolo-

gna Process serve broader purposes:they make it easier or all Europeans tomove across borders with the value o

their qualifications intact and they helpensure that our higher education is o

high quality. Based on the European Cultural Convention, the European Higher

Education Area deserves its name and

is not just a regional phenomenon in a

part o Europe only.

As we look toward the second decade othe European Higher Education Area, wemust make sure it ulfils all major purpo

ses o higher education: preparation oremployment; preparation for life as active

citizens in democratic societies; perso-

nal development; and the development

of a broad and advanced knowledge base,rom Reykjavk to Vladivostok and rom

Valetta to Spitzbergen.

Council

of Europe

Sjur Bergan, Head, Department ofHigher Education and History TeachingCouncil of Europe


14/40

4


The Bologna Process has drawn increasing

attention to quality assurance in European

higher education and has assisted ENQAin developing its role as a key promoter of

the European quality assurance dimen-

sion. ENQA offi cially joined the Bologna

Follow-up Group (BFUG) as a consulta-

tive member in Bergen in 5. Throughthe Bologna Process, the collaboration

and dialogue between the different sta-

keholders in quality assurance has intensi-

fied, which has made it possible to launch

common projects and to ormulate sha-

red standpoints. ENQA has participated

in important projects, such as drating

the Standards and Guidelines or QualityAssurance in the European Higher Edu-

cation Area (ENQA, Helsinki, 2005) and

launching the European Quality Assurance

Register or Higher Education (EQAR), together with its E4 group partners EUA,ESU and EURASHE. The work of ENQA, and

o the E4 group, has become more visiblethrough having been actively involved inthe BFUG. Most importantly, the BolognaProcess has made it possible or ENQA

to make the voices o its members heardthroughout the EHEA.

ENQA

Achim Hopbach, President of ENQA

By now, no one doubts the importance omeasuring Europes progress in establi-

shing a European Higher Education Area.

ESUs Bologna with Student Eyes (BWSE)does not portray an institutional or go-

vernmental vision o the Bologna Process

and this makes the survey unique. Rather,

the publication reflects the perception oESU-affi liated national unions of students

on how concretely the changes reportedby institutions and governments have

been implemented. As one of the students

who filled in our BWSE survey said: Theproblem is that when you are the beneficiary o all these measures you might get

a fairly different feel than the intended one.

It might be a problem o communication,it might be a problem o delay between

legislative action and on-the-ground im-

plementation, but at the roads end, what

is elt at grassroots level is not always the

same to what it is supposed to eel like.

The Bologna Process, in the students

enthusiastic eyes, is not about ticking

structural boxes. It is an unprecedentedchance or reorm towards student-cen-

tered learning and it requires a joint effort

between all partners, an effort in which we,

the students, are an equal partner able to

shape our educational experience.

ESU

Ligia Deca, Chairperson EuropeanStudents Union (ESU)

Education International (EI) is the worlds

largest global union ederation repre-

senting teachers worldwide, including

c.7, higher education staff members across the European Higher Educa

tion Area (EHEA).

EI became a consultative member o the

Bologna Process well into the Bologna developments at the Bergen ministerial mee-

ting in 2005. Since then, EI has made signi-

ficant contributions, particularly workingtowards the ulfilment o the action lineson mobility and the external dimension

o the EHEA. This has helped EI empowerstaff unions to tackle Bologna issues andto become more involved in their natio-

nal contexts. Beyond 2010, more efforts

need to be made at the European level in

order to tackle the divide between EU and

nonEU countries in the EHEA. In turn, atthe national level, governments and institutions need to provide more support to

staff members or the implementation othe Bologna reorms. They also need to in

volve staff at all levels o decisionmakingregarding the Bologna Process. Without

concerted effort in these two areas, we will

not succeed in having an EHEA as envisaged in the Bologna Declaration.

Education International

Monique Fouilhoux,Deputy General Secretary ofEducation International


15/40

5


The Bologna Process has brought about

a number o important and necessary

changes. These achievements are main-

ly in the three areas o quality assurance,the stakeholders model and learning out-

comes. Convergence in quality assurance

is an essential ingredient of an EHEA that

wants to play a role in a global sphere.

Higher education institutions develop and

implement in all their activities a common

European culture o quality, a quality assurance system and transparent quality

control mechanisms, consistent with their

profile and mission. No party can claim to

have exclusive ownership of an European

Higher Education Area (EHEA) dedicated

to the overall development o society sothe commitment and involvement o all

stakeholders concerning the sustainabi-

lity and impact o higher education on

society is essential. Finally, the shit in

ocus in the education process rom te-

achers input to students learning out-

comes constitutes the oundation o therecognition of the competences achieved,

both in a ormal context and in lielong

learning and personal development processes. They are the cornerstone or a

broader societal contract between all

stakeholders.

EURASHE

Lars Lynge Nielsen,President of EURASHE

The European University Association (EUA)

has been closely involved in the BolognaProcess since the beginning, with the

aim o ensuring the ull involvement o

universities at each step in the process.

EUA believes that the support of Europes

5, plus higher education institutionsis essential to achieving the objectives of

the Bologna Process. These ambitious reorms were designed not only to supportmobility within Europe but also to answer

some o Europes social and economic

challenges by enhancing the quality o

university education, research capacity

and graduate employability. Ten years

down the line ew could have imagined

the momentum the Bologna Process hascreated in undamentally transorming

European higher education with almost

all European universities now having a

common degree structure. O course,

there is still much unfinished business tobe completed, not least in terms o rea-

ching some of the more qualitative goals

set such as improving significantly em-

ployability o graduates, and reorming

outdated curricula. But what is important

is that there is now a real opportunity oruniversities and their staff and students to

build on the immense success of Bologna

as we move into a new decade o inter-

national higher education cooperation.

EUA

Jean-Marc Rapp, President of EUA

The world may have changed on 9/11

(2001), yet arguably Europes world chan-

ged on / ( November) 8 with theall o the Berlin Wall the sparking o asocial and geo-political revolution across

the region. Ten years later, another revolution was ignited by the Bologna Declaration, only this time in the context of the

world o higher education.

Where 1989 reed the spirit and aspira-

tions of generations, 1999 freed the minds

of a new generation to be truly global lea-

ders; learners and educators ree to en-

joy an unprecedented diversity o new

opportunities or the exchange o ideas,research, skills, cultures and traditions,

thus breaking-down barriers o prejudi-

ce and ignorance that had so marred thetwentieth century.

For the UNESCO European Centre or

Higher Education, charged with promo-

ting peace, tolerance and development

through higher education, the Bologna

Process could scarcely be a more crucialcontemporary commitment. The Bologna

Process is more than a technical exercise;

it speaks to a moral obligation to pro-

mote and support reedom o thought

and opinion between different peoples

and cultures. This remains at the heart of

UNESCOs mission and must also be for all

institutions o higher learning.

UNESCO-

CEPES

Peter Wells, Director a.i.of UNESCO-CEPES


16/40

6

Social Dimension


17/40

7

Social Dimension

he concept o the social dimension in the Bologna Process has been appearing in ministerial communiqus since 2001. However, only in 2007 did

the European Ministers agree on a common definition or the objective othe social dimension, as proposed by the working group led by Sweden:

We share the societal aspiration that the student body entering, parti-

cipating in and completing higher education at all levels should reflect the diversity o

our populations.

The first working group on social dimension (20052007) recommended this broad

approach given the considerable differences and challenges in relation to the social di

mension o higher education between the participating countries. The Ministers urtheragreed to report on their national strategies and policies or the social dimension, including action plans and measures to evaluate their effectiveness. Thereore it called upon

each country to develop a strategy, including national action plans, to ensure a country

specific approach. Furthermore, it was recommended to work towards comparable andreliable data on the social dimension.

The national strategies or the social dimension, including action plans and measures

illustrating their impact were presented to the Ministers in . These national reports

showed a great variety in national policies regarding the social dimension and bridgingthe differences between the Bologna countries was deemed quite diffi cult. Most coun-

tries have taken some action in order to enhance participative equity, but only a ew have

set up monitoring systems or measuring progress on this issue. Even ewer have madeefforts to create an integrated strategy by considering synergies between government

actions and institutional practices, unding arrangements, lielong learning strategies,

recognition o prior learning, cultural and linguistic minority issues, student guidance

and counselling services, communication policy, social policy, anti-discrimination pro-

tection, tax system etc.During the Leuven/LouvainlaNeuve, the Ministers identified the social dimension as akey issue regarding priorities or the decade to come. They agreed upon the goal that:

Each participating country will set measurable targets or widening overall participati-

on and increasing participation o underrepresented groups in higher education, to bereached by the end o the next decade. For the first time, it was also noted that effortsto achieve equity in higher education should be complemented by actions in other parts

o the educational system. There still seems to be a long way to go beore the studentbody entering, participating in, and completing higher education at all levels reflects thediversity o our populations.

T Efstathios Michael,Cyprus, Chair ofthe Social Dimen-sion CoordinationGroup (7)first Working Groupon Social Dimension(57)

Widening access and

participation to European

higher educationBy Estathios Michael


18/40

8

Social Dimension

In order to achieve the ministerial aspirations set out in 7 and , and given the diferences between the Bologna countries, national level initiatives have to be supported at

the European level by the sharing of good practices on the one hand and the development

o comparable and reliable social dimension data on the other hand. It is only through

political commitment in combination with the tools or measuring and comparing achievements that progress can be reached.

The National Plan or Equity o Access

to Higher Education 83o Ireland is one example where progress has been achieved.

In its report on the social dimensiono the Bologna Process Ireland statesthat Ireland has achieved an un

precedented expansion in educational opportunities over the last ourdecades and has now reached entry

rates to higher education in excesso 55 per cent. Assessment o utu

re skills needs in the National SkillsStrategy predict that entry rates tohigher education should reach 7 per

cent by . The overarching singlegoal o the Widening Access strandis to develop initiatives to underpin

the concept o lielong learning andto improve access rates to third levelrom designated underrepresented

groups, in order to achieve the envisaged rates o participation in higher

education.

Examples o these are the Offi ce o

Fair Access in the United Kingdom,the National Offi ce or Equity o Access to Higher Education in Ireland

and the Wider Access Regional Forain Scotland. These agencies approve and monitor agreements in

which individual institutions set outthe measures they will put in placeto saeguard air access to higher

education or low income and otherunderrepresented groups. They

also encourage flexible deliveryopportunities. Similar individual access plans, ormulating measurable

objectives on widening participationin higher education, also exist inSweden.

In Hungary, students with special

needs are awarded additional pointsin the competition or admission tohigher education. Higher education

institutions also receive supplementary unding or each student witha disability they admit. This unding

has to be used or special equipmentand services or these students.In Sweden higher education insti

tutions have to spend a minimumproportion o government unding

on disabled students. In Norway allhigher education institutions arerequired to have action plans to en

sure equal access or students witha disability. Other countries reserve a specific number o places or

candidates with a disability. Severalcountries have taken legislative initiatives to approve laws orbidding

any discrimination o persons with adisability.

Several countries offer special learning assistance or disabled students, and make special examinationprovisions. Some countries, like e.g.

the Netherlands, support a nationalExpertise Centre, which offers adviceto students and higher education

institutions on specific issues andpractical problems.

National Strategies: Ireland Students with special needs Measures for under-represented groups


19/40

Lielong Learning and Employability

ince the signing of the Bologna Declaration a decade ago, it has been clear

that higher education systems must continue to adapt to ensure that theEuropean Higher Education Area (EHEA) remains attractive and can re-

spond effectively to the challenges o globalisation. This need or adap-tation, building on existing achievements and effective practice, can be

clearly seen in the related areas of lifelong learning and employability. Both are central to

building a Europe of knowledge that benefits individuals, employers and society in general.

Lielong learning: having been recognised as an essential element o the EHEA as early

as , the Prague Communiqu signalled that, in a Europe built on a knowledgebasedsociety and economy, lielong learning strategies would be necessary to ace the challenges o competitiveness and the use o new technology, and to improve social cohesion,

equal opportunities and quality o lie.

Over the last decade, lielong learning has come to be seen as a crosscutting issue, in

herent in all Bologna action lines. Through Bologna seminars and other events, we nowhave a better understanding of what lifelong learning means in a higher education context.

Particularly over the last two years, we have gained an appreciation of how Bologna toolscan support lielong learning: tools such as learning outcomes; creditbased curricula;national qualifications rameworks; recognition o prior learning, including inormal andnon-formal learning; and flexible learning paths. This is very timely. The growing demogra-

phic challenges facing Europe mean it is ever more pressing for us to overcome the barriers

to lielong learning, such as those that can arise rom binary higher education systems.

The publication in July 2008 o the European University Associations (EUA) Charter or

Lielong Learning marked a significant step orward. As well as calling or Government

support, the Charter commits universities to:

S

Creating a

Europe of Knowledge By Rachel Greenand Ann McVie

Rachel Green, UK, Head of the WorkingGroup on Employability (7)

Ann McVie, UK/Scotland, Head of theLifelong Learning Coordination Group(7)


20/40


embed concepts o widening access and lielong learning in their

institutional strategies, provide education and learning to a diversified student population,

adapt study programmes to ensure that they are designed to widen

participation and attract returning adult learners, provide appropriate guidance and counselling services,

recognise prior learning, embrace lielong learning in quality culture,

strengthen the relationship between research, teaching and innova

tion in a perspective o lielong learning, consolidate reorms to promote a flexible and creative learning en-

vironment or all students,

develop partnerships at local, regional, national and international

level to provide attractive and relevant programmes, and act as role models o lielong learning institutions.

It goes without saying that these commitments apply equally to all higher education institutions, polytechnics, universities of applied science, university colleges, or colleges of

urther and higher education. EUA and others will be working to take this agenda orwardover the coming years, building on work continuing at national level across the Europeanhigher Education Area (EHEA) to:

develop credit-based curricula and the widespread use of learning outcomes,

implement shortcycle qualifications, increase the use o distance learning and offer more parttime provision,

develop national guidelines or the recognition o prior learning and the

accreditation o nonormal learning, develop a national quality code or the recognition o prior learning,

explore the links between using learning outcomes, the recognition o priorlearning and the development o national qualifications rameworks,

set up lielong learning networks,

create staff development packs, and share good practice.

While progress has been made over the last decade, much remains to be done beore

lielong learning becomes ully integrated within all higher education systems across theEHEA. The benefits will however be considerable. As recognised in the Prague and sub

sequent Communiqus, lielong learning benefits society, the economy and individuals.It enables more students, rom a broader range o backgrounds, to enter and re-enter

higher education, thereby enabling them to upskill, reskill and maximise their personal

as well as economic potential.

Employbility

The original Bologna Declaration said that the creation o the European higher EducationArea (EHEA) was a key way to promote citizens employability. This has been echoed in

the Prague and subsequent Communiqus. As we move towards a more knowledge-basedsociety, employability and the contribution higher education can make towards makinglifelong learning a reality for all will become increasingly important. It will be an essential

ingredient in creating a learning society where citizens can update their skills and know

ledge, acquire new qualifications, and improve their economic prosperity. Increasing theemployability o our people is also key to improving the effi ciency o our economies andthe prospects or economic growth.The 2007 London Communiqu said that improving employability in relation to Bologna

reorms to the three cycle degree structure and in the context o lielong learning wasimportant. Since then world economic conditions have deteriorated although there

After finishing my first year of the pro-

gramme, my boss asked me already

for a job on a higher level. He trusted

me - and the fact that you are able to

combine work and study, is a perfect

way to show your capabilities and

potential competences

Wim Broeks, then 36 years old, part-

time student rom The Netherlands

Part-time study


21/40


are now encouraging signs that the worst o the recession may be over. Indications

are that some sectors in some labour markets will ace significant challenges and maywell undergo undamental change in the short term. Employability skills are now more

important than ever: this has placed increased emphasis on the need or higher education systems to adapt i students leaving higher education are to take advantage othe growth and job creation associated with economic recovery.

In recent years progress has been made in strengthening the employability o gradu-

ates. Key to this has been improved dialogue and co-operation between employers

and institutions: this allows institutions to be more responsive to employer needs andallows employers to understand the educational perspective. There have been tangi-

ble benefits. For example, some countries higher education institutions have begun todefine their mission as more employer-facing; some have started to seek a closer match

between curricula and the needs o employers; some have improved the opportunitiesor work placements with employers; andothers have begun embedding an entre-

preneurial/enterprise strand more securely

within their curricula.

But these have not become widespread ordeeply embedded. Greater dialogue bet-

ween higher education institutions and

employers; improving employability skills;

and strengthening the provision of informa-

tion, advice and guidance to prospective

students as well as to those graduating, are

all areas where more remains to be done.

This is a shared responsibility between

governments, government agencies, hig-

her education institutions, employers and

students. The rewards for success are great:

a European Higher Education Area which

maximises the talents o all its citizens and

which contributes to the realisation o theEurope o knowledge.

Frank left school with no educational qua-

lifications. For the next ten years he worked in a variety o low paid, low skill jobs.

On successul completion o an Accessprogramme, Frank went on to completea BA in Communication Studies and subsequently gained postgraduate qualifica-

tions in Computer Studies and Corporate

Administration.

Since completing his studies, he has been

working in a variety o roles in higher ed

ucation and is currently the Coordinatoror a mentoring programme in the area

o college to university transition.

Having the opportunity to return to ed-

ucation after a decade not only allowed

me to gain qualifications, it also gave

me a new set of choices, an increasedlevel of confidence, and increased ear-

ning potential. Possibly more importantly,

it allowed me to see things in new and

different ways and to realise that you are

never too old to learn something new.

Return to education

Frank Brown, Men-toring Coordinatoron The CollegeArticulation Projectbased at GlasgowCaledonian Uni-

versity, Scotland


22/40

Qualifications Frameworks

ualifications frameworks have been described as instruments with a vision.

Whereas terms like qualifications or diplomas easily make us think o a

specific degree or the document that certifies this degree, the number

o years it took to get it or the procedure we ollowed to get there qualifications rameworks describe all the different degrees that make up an

education system. Qualifications frameworks are not primarily about procedures they areabout what is at the end of the procedures: about what learners know, understand and are

able to do on the basis o a given qualification. The new emphasis on qualifications rameworks goes hand in hand with a new emphasis on learning outcomes. Were the expression

not tainted by management speak, might we even talk about resultsocused education?

The Bologna Process has taken the idea o qualifications rameworks, which originated

in Australia, New Zealand and South Arica, one step urther. The overarching Qualifications Framework or the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is made up o almost 5education systems. Even i they all have much in common, each system also has its own

specificities. The overarching qualifications ramework or the EHEA, which Ministers adopted in 2005, allows each country to develop a national framework that takes account of

its experience and traditions but at the same time ensures that national specificities arecompatible with the overall European developments. The national framework is what the

individual learner and curriculum developer relates to most easily, whereas

the overarching ramework acilitates movement rom one education system to another. Thus, qualifications frame-

works help make sense o the diversity

that is one o the strengths oEuropean higher education.

They help make this diversity

manageable, and they help

learners move between qualifications within a single sy-

stem, as well as between edu-

cation systems all over Europe.

All EHEA countries have now

launched work on their qualifications frameworks. Six have al-

ready completed this work, and

the rest have pledged they will

have their national rameworks

in place and ready or sel certi-

fication by .

Q Sjur Bergan,Council of Europe,Chair of theCoordination Groupon Qualifications

Frameworks(7)

Facilitating mobility

between national systemsBy Sjur Bergan


23/40

3

Qualifications Frameworks

The establishment o the National Qua

lifications Framework (NQF) or higher

education (HE) in Turkey was launchedby the Council o Higher Education in

6, and has now been approved. Leveldescriptors or the first, second and thirdcycles were prepared taking the Europe

an Qualifications Framework or lielonglearning (EQFLLL) as a reerence point.Studies or vocational and art education

qualifications rameworks are high on theagenda. The above work accelerated thequality assurance studies in higher edu

cation. The drat law or the Turkish quality assurance Agency has been prepared

and is under consideration.This work brought together different stakeholders o higher education so that allbodies had the opportunity to discuss

the situation, inorm the others abouttheir activities, concerns, data, needsand possible solutions. A Bologna Pro

moters Project was used as an effective

tool or the dissemination o studies.

Turkish universities are now more sensi

tive to learning outcomes, competencesand qualifications. They state that they

may use the NQF to develop new andflexible programmes to provide learnerswith generic and subject specific com

petencies to use in a ast changing, global working environment.The establishment o the NQF will lead

to the clarification o qualifications byusing the learning outcomes approach.It will acilitate the transparency, com

parability, portability and transer oqualifications both internationally and

intranationally. The NQF will also contribute to the development o progressive routes between qualifications at alllevels o the Turkish education system.

It is planned to be used as a tool orthe recognition o prior and experiential learning with flexible learning paths.

What is needed now is the integration o

studies in order to include and make use

o the results o various related projects.

This will be achieved by the accumulation o inormation on studentcentred

learning, learning outcomes, consistency within different rameworks in theTurkish NQF, the building o consensus

between institutions, and the initiationo necessary organisational changes.Besides its main goal o implementing

a NQF or HE in Turkey, it will result inmore flexible graduates, a quality workorce or the economy and highly quali

fied citizens or the country.

Selda nderolu,Bologna Expert andMember of TurkishNQF Working Group,Turkey

It is not easy to encapsulate in a ewlines the complex nature and signifi

cance o something that appears at firstsight as mundane, soporific and tediousas qualifications rameworks. Indeed,

they are abstruse, unexciting educational devices that can never capturethe imagination. Despite this they have

the potential or having an enormouslypositive impact helping to reorient stcentury education rom its current ocus

on teaching to learning.According to Socrates: I cannot teach

anybody anything, I can only makethem think. Albert Einstein held similarviews: I never teach my pupils; I onlyattempt to provide the conditions in

which they can learn. The modern proessor should be regarded more o a acilitator than the ont o all wisdom and

students are never just empty vesselsto be filled with inormation. Learning

is not a spectator sport!These sentiments are at the heart o the

newstyle qualifications rameworks thatseek to inspire studentcentred learning,ocused on learning outcomes what

a successul student can know, do andunderstand. This achievement is provedby appropriate assessment rooted in

commonly understood standards linkedto cycle/level descriptors that orm qualifications rameworks.

Qualifications rameworks are just tools.They are a means to an end improved

education or all, which is given duenational and international recognition.They are certainly diffi cult to implementand arguably the biggest challenge or

the European Higher Education Area(EHEA) in the next decade. However,when done well they orm part o a new

transparent educational inrastructure,helping to establish consistent stan

dards and acilitate air recognition andmobility between autonomous states

and institutions. They are part o a neweducational paradigm that encapsulates a particular methodological ap

proach to quality assurance or autonomous responsible institutions. Aboveall, qualifications rameworks lead to

better qualifications. I this does nothappen we must remember the late 3thcentury French proverb mauvs ovriersne trovera ja bon hostill, bad workmenwill never find a good tool.

Developing a National Qualifications Framework (NQF): The example of Turkey

Qualifications frameworks helping to reorient st-century education

Stephen Adam,Former BolognaPromoter, HigherEducationalConsultant,United Kingdom


24/40

4

Recognition o Degrees

ound and air recognition o qualifications is an instrument or attainingimportant policy goals, like ostering mobility or providing opportunitiesor lielong learning. It also contributes to policy goals beyond the realm

o higher education, such as promoting social cohesion and making thebest possible use o the competences and talents o our societies.

Fair recognition, as one o the main goals o the Bologna Process, is urthered by toolspromoted by the Process, such as more widespread and consistent use o credits andthe Diploma Supplement. In addition, at least two other important policy areas qualityassurance and reorm o the degree structure, together with the qualifications rame-

works also have the potential to help improve recognition.

The number o countries who have ratified the Convention on the Recognition o Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (better known as the Lisbon

Recognition Convention), the only legally binding intergovernmental treaty that is a partof the Process, has grown to 49. All but two members of the Bologna Process have ratified,

and the parties and signatories include countries outside the European Higher EducationArea (EHEA), thus enhancing the global dimension o the Bologna Process. Also the worko the European Network o National Inormation Centres on Academic Recognition and

Mobility (ENIC Network) in developing recognition practice goes beyond Europe, as doesthe daily work o many credentials evaluators.

The Bologna Process Stocktaking and other reports show that despite significant progress

there is also room or improvements in implementing the tools provided by the BolognaProcess in actual recognition practice throughout the European Higher Education Area(EHEA). Recognition needs to be seen as an effort to assist mobile learners combined

with an effort to urther the quality o European higher education. The legalframework is largely in place, but considerable effort is still

needed to improve practice at Europeanlevel as well as in many member states.

SCarita Blomqvist,Chair of theLisbon RecognitionCommittee

Fostering mobility

for lifelong learningBy Carita Blomqvist


25/40

5

Recognition o Degrees

The Bologna Process is almost certainlythe most important multinational reorm

o higher education undertaken sincethe teaching guilds and the studentnations established the revolutionary

concepts o the studium generale anduniversitas in the th and th Centuries.With the Bologna reorms, the structure

o European higher education startedto resemble the original meaning o thebaccalaureus, magister and doctor, al

beit with a different lingua ranca andinspired by modern challenges. The

need to promote mobility, ensure portability o credits, and create the basis orEuropean academic and research cooperation are goals as relevant today as

they were in the days o the ius ubiquedocendi.The action lines adopted by the Bologna

ministerial conerence are important toimproving recognition across systems,but equally so are the subtle changes

accompanying Bologna: nontraditionalmodes o delivery; accreditation; allow

ing private education to provide a publicservice; decentralising control; empowering institutions; and emphasising

educational breadth as well as depth inorder to serve citizens and economiesin a rapidly changing postindustrial

world. Such reorms would make senseto the original university corporations omasters and students; they seem radical

today only because o the more recentlegacy o nationalism, statism, and the

industrial organisation o society.The Bologna Process is transormingEurope in more ways than were envisioned in . It is influencing changes in

work, migration, social policy and diplomacy as well as higher education, andwill have an effect on school and vocatio

nal education as well. Globally, Bolognais improving European/NonEuropeancooperation and is inspiring reormers

in other parts o the world. O course,there is much work let to do, not least

o which are to improve student servicesand access and eliminate obsolete bureaucratic practices. To this American ob

server, the successes o the first Bolognadecade leave no doubt that reorm willcontinue, working toward an internati

onal community o study and researchand aiming or the ideals first promulgated by the Constitutio Habita o Emperor

Frederick II in 58 when academic reedom was established in European law or

the international students and scholarso Bologna who sought that right.

Improving recognition across systems

E. Stephen Hunt,U.S. Network forEducation Infor-mation Manager,U.S Department ofEducation,United States

Nuffi c is the organisation or internati

onal cooperation in higher education

and a member o the ENIC (EuropeanNetwork o Inormation Centres)/NARIC

(National Academic Recognition Inormation Centres) network. Nuffi c haswitnessed major changes in the higher

education system, due to the BolognaProcess. In , a Big Bang took place,with the transormation o the traditi

onal long academic programmes intoBachelors and Masters and the introduction o a new accreditation system.

All o this has had huge consequenceson our daily recognition practice.

It has become easier or us to compareoreign qualifications to Dutch ones,because o a greater variety in the Netherlands o matching Bachelors and

Masters programmes and degrees andbecause the diversity in the names ooreign degrees has significantly de

creased. In some countries however, itseems that only the names and not the

underlying structure has been changed.

Another contribution to air recognition

due to the Bologna Process is the rapiddevelopment o quality assurance and

accreditation systems. It has becomeclearer what the status o higher education programmes is, and it has become

easier or us to provide reliable inormation on this topic.Very promising in this respect is the de

velopment o qualifications rameworks,linked to the overarching QualificationsFramework or the European Higher Ed

ucation Area. These rameworks will urther advance the readability and reco

gnition o qualifications, in particular atsystem level. Together with the FlemishCommunity o Belgium, the Netherlandswas one o the first whose ramework

was assessed by an international committee and certified.As an active member o the ENIC and

NARIC networks, we appreciate thatthe importance o recognition has been

recognised within the Bologna Pro

cess. This has led to our involvement

in projects with the aim o adapting itsmethodology to the changing needs o

the Bologna world. The Lisbon Recognition Convention plays a pivotal role inthis respect. Also crucial is the shiting

emphasis rom an inputdriven approachprogrammes to the outputbased evaluation o learning outcomes, the ormer

ocussing on what a student has beentaught, the latter what a student is ableto do. In our view the Bologna Process

really has urthered recognition, in thefirst place among the Bologna countries,

but increasingly and inevitably also in aglobal setting.

Nuffi c The Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education

Lucie de Bruin,Nuffi c, Head ofInternational Reco-gnition Department,Dutch ENIC/NARIC,Netherlands


26/40

6

Doctoral Education

n 7, Education Ministers rom the 46 countries in the Bologna processasked the European University Association (EUA) to support higher educa-

tion institutions in sharing experiences on the range of innovative doctoral

programmes that were emerging across Europe. This is the next phase inthe major transformation of doctoral education that is taking place across

Europe, driven, among other things by the reorm momentum o the Bologna Process.Considered as a crucial tool for Europe to increase its research capacity, doctoral education

became an integral part o the Bologna Process in 3 when Ministers meeting in Berlin,

based upon a strong recommendation made by EUA, included doctoral education as thethird cycle o European higher education. The driving orce behind this was the recognition, in particular by Europes universities, that doctoral education is the bridge linking

the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA), andthat, as the first stage o a research career, excellent conditions or doctoral level workwill be crucial in determining the attractiveness of Europe for bright young research talent.

EUA has taken this process orward in the years that ollowed through a series o majorprojects and studies involving member universities rom across Europe. This led to the

adoption o the Salzburg principles in a crucial Bologna Seminar in February 2005 and

ed into the policy recommendations o the 5 Bergen Communiqu. At the Ministersrequest EUA continued its work, gathering considerable evidence on Europes changingdoctoral landscape; in particular the rapid growth o structured doctoral

programmes and schools seeking to offer greater critical mass, enhanced

supervision and widened employment opportunities or doctoral holders in

both public and private sectors.

It is no exaggeration to say that Bologna has provoked quiet revolution indoctoral education in Europes universities, highlighted by the results of EUAs

Trends reports which reveal the extent to which changes in doctoral trainingare taking place. By 7 only % o the surveys respondents had maintained the traditional master-apprentice model, while 49% had a mixture o individual tutoring and

taught courses and % had established doctoral schools (Trends V (7), p. 6). Andthis reorm process continues to gather momentum, as highlighted by the success o the

new EUA Council or Doctoral Education the new body created by EUA to take orwardthe doctoral agenda in Europe, as requested by Ministers in 7.

Structured doctoral programmes are being developed all over Europe. While some programmes are already well established, many other institutions are only now embarking on

setting up the structures that meet the needs o their own specific situations: these varygreatly; rom doctoral schools spanning across several large institutions, as or example

in Denmark, to specialised units within one institution, like many places in Germany. It isair to say that across Europe political declarations have given way to a practical phase

I

The bridge between European

higher education and researchBy Lesley Wilson

Lesley Wilson,SecretaryGeneral, EuropeanUniversityAssociation (EUA)

It is no exaeration to saythat Bolona has provoked quietrevolution in doctoral educationin Europes universities.


27/40

7

Doctoral Education

o implementation. However, there is no trend towards a uniorm model o doctoral pro

grammes in Europe; diversity will continue to be a European hallmark.

Doctoral programmes are also offering new career opportunities or students,with over 50% o doctoral holders now moving into careers beyond the

academic sector. As result, it is clear that collaborative doctoral pro-

grammes organised between universities and industry are becoming

increasingly important across Europe. A recent EUA study, involving

33 universities, 31 companies and 18 stakeholder organisations rom 20 European

countries, highlighted that both universities and industry consider collaborative doc-

toral programmes as key channels for supporting innovation and recruiting efforts.

Collaborative doctoral programmes are real working models o the knowledgetriangle in which education, research and innovation are brought together in a

common ramework o high skills and knowledge development by universityand industry partners. Their success is built from the bottom-up, based upon

mutual trust and the recognition that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions.

Doctoral education is also becoming increasingly international and it is clearthat joint programmes between institutions in different countries are likely to become more

popular. An impressive 85% o the European respondents on a recent survey on joint anddouble degrees said they planned to establish more international degrees (Matthias Kuder

Daniel Obst (2009), Joint and Double Degree Programs in the Transatlantic Context, p. 32).

The inclusion o doctoral programmes in the European Commissions Erasmus Mundus

unding scheme with a significant increase in resources should also strengthen this trend.

Is clear to see that the Bologna Process has given valuable support to universities acrossEurope to reorm and modernise their doctoral programmes. This has been crucial or

universities and will help develop Europes research base in the years to come. Perhapswhen we look back in ten years time, we will even say that Europe has taken the place o

the US in terms o the gold standard or worldwide doctoral education.

The Croatian higher education system

first switched to a Bologna (3++3)structure in 4. While the first generation o Bachelor students enrolled

in 4, newly structured doctoralstudies started a year later in 5. Inparticular, the University o Zagreb, as

the largest national university with asignificant number o doctoral students,

decided to launch new threeyear structured doctoral studies.Requirements or such new programmes have been defined both at

national and institutional level. Programmes had to include research,teaching and other orms o student

activities related to their researchwork. Although courses, workshops,

seminars etc. were an integral part o

programmes, research had to remainthe central ocus. Equally, the role osupervisors has been reshaped. All the

new doctoral programmes had to beevaluated first at institutional level beore being evaluated at national level

in order to receive accreditation. At themoment, the University o Zagreb has

more than 5 accredited programmesthat bring together more than 5doctoral candidates.The newly introduced process o docto

ral education at the University o Zagrebis now acing its first revision. Followingeedback rom the first generations o

enrolled doctoral candidates, we havebeen considering different issues such

as: decreasing the overall number o

programmes; the possibility o establishing doctoral schools; better definingthe role o doctoral candidates, the

supervisor, and the institution. The rulebook or doctoral studies and doctoralschools is still under preparation and

it is expected to provide a solid groundor urther improvements o doctoral

education.

Doctoral studies within the Bologna process: University of Zagreb case study

Melita Kovaevi,Vice-Rector forScience and Tech-nology, Universityof Zagreb, Croatia


28/40

International Openness

8



29/40


The Bologna Process and the developing European Higher Eduation Area (EHEA) have

raised growing interest in many parts o the world. The ollowing statement reflects this

interest and highlights some o the challenges related to cooperation and competition.

With the Strategy European Higher Education in a Global Setting adopted in 7 theMinisters o the countries participating in the Bologna Process identified five priority

areas which are o special importance in the cooperation with other regions o the world.

The priority areas listed below are meant to provide a common ramework to which all

stakeholders can make their ull contribution: Improving inormation on the EHEA

Promoting European higher education to enhance its worldwide attractiveness Intensiying policy dialogue

Strengthening cooperation based on partnership Furthering the recognition o qualifications

A first report on overall developments at European, national and institutional level in implementing this Strategy (published in 2009) pointed out that a number o steps have

already been taken in all five areas, but urther action is needed to respond adequatelyto the growing interest in the EHEA and to meet the many, very different expectations

rom across the world.

Europes role in the global

higher education settingBy Barbara Weitgruber

BarbaraWeitgruber,Austria,Chair of the

Working GroupEHEA in a GlobalSetting(7)

Juan Ramon de laFuente, Presidentof the InternationalAssociation ofUniversities

As globalisation and internationalisation grow in importance for all higher education

institutions worldwide, the European model, known as the Bologna Process, is incre-

asingly playing a major role as a catalyst for greater regionalisation. Whether this

approach is a stepping stone towards greater internationalisation, or, on the contrary,

a move to build stronger blocks in a higher education landscape where competition

is heating up will depend on the extent to which Europe, and other nascent regional

initiatives, promote their global dimension.

It is easier to overcome barriers to international higher education and research col-

laboration such as distance, language and traditions within a single region. However,

the International Association of Universities (IAU) is also well aware of the invaluable

benefits of working with partners from well beyond ones region. The key is to ensure

that such collaboration whether between regions or within regional integration mo-

vements in higher education gives pride of place to the respect and active partici-pation of all interests, stakeholders and approaches so that all partners can benefit

and overall, higher education can be strengthened and improved.

Juan Ramon de la Fuente


30/40

3


The concerns expressed by Prof. Goolam Mohamedbhai underline the need to engage in true

dialogue and to oster cooperation based on partnership. As stressed by the participantso the first Bologna Policy Forum at ministerial level rom 6 countries in April in theirconcluding Statement transnational exchanges in higher education should be governed on

the basis of academic values and fair and fruitful brain circulation should be promoted.

Higher education and research have always been international. The opportunity or all

stakeholders to engage in policy dialogue however has increased with the growing in-

terest in the Bologna Process across the world. As higher education institutions and theirrepresentative organisations, students organisations and social partners are key part-

ners in the Bologna Process, they are also main stakeholders in the emerging new ormsof international cooperation. And it is, among others, this stakeholder involvement which

makes the Bologna Process special as the ollowing quote shows:

With the first Bologna Policy Forum, representatives confirmed their interest in osteringmutual understanding and learning in the field o higher education. It is now up to stakeholders across the world, especially policy makers, higher education institutions, stu

dents and staff to take concrete action in line with the Communiqu o the UNESCOWorld Conerence on Higher Education recommendation: International cooperation in

higher education should be based on solidarity and mutual respect and the promotion ohumanistic values and intercultural dialogue. As such it should be encouraged despitethe economic downturn.

GoolamMohamedbhai,Secretary-General,Association of

African Universities

Dzulkifli A Razak,Vice-Chancellor,Universiti SainsMalaysia, andVice-President ofthe InternationalAssociation ofUniversities

The Bologna Process and the creation of a European Higher Education Area (EHEA)

have had two important effects on African higher education. First, the majority of

universities in Francophone African countries have embarked on the process of ad-

opting the LMD (Licence-Maitrise-Doctorat) qualification structure, as advocatedby the Bologna Process. Second, efforts have started in creating an African Higher

Education Area (AHEA), along lines very similar to the EHEA. Just as in Europe, the-

se processes are meant to lead to harmonisation of higher education in Africa, thus

facilitating continental academic mobility and institutional collaboration.

However, it is important that these processes take into account the specificity of Africa

and not be a mere imitation of what is happening in Europe. Fears have also been ex-

pressed that the creation of an AHEA patterned on the EHEA would lead to increased

academic mobility from Africa to Europe, which may worsen the brain drain situation.

Goolam Mohamedbhai

The emergence of the European Higher Education Area, through the Bologna

Process, is indeed a laudable example of how diverse institutions and stakeholders

at all levels of higher education can, when working together, move the agenda of

higher education for the benefit of the larger community. Asia in particular could

learn much from this example in its attempt to enhance the contribution of higher

education to the region.

Dzulkifli A Razak


31/40

3

Mobility

tudent and staff mobility is one o the central aims o the Bologna Processand has been promoted by all participants in the Process and enjoys unanimous support. Focus on, and support or, enhanced opportunities or

mobility have been pivotal in the effort to overcome barriers and to workon the new instruments acilitating mobility.

One may find it diffi cult to remember how revolutionary the commitment to largescaleand easilyaccessible student and staff mobility was eleven years ago. Today, mobility ismore important than in the past: academics and students are more aware o, and opento, the positive effects o mobility than ever beore. Higher education institutions now

agree that it is strategically important to use the valuable working time o administrativestaff, academics, students and university boards to make mobility unction in practice.

Over the years public unds allocated to student mobility have increased in many countries but there is still a long way to go and this will require more actions. It is likely thatmore unding or students is not enough and in the next decade we will also need to en

courage and support our administrative staff and teachers to be mobile. Nothing is moreeffective in convincing students to go abroad than talking to a teacher who has already

had the experience.

The academic relevance o mobility, particularly student mobility, has urthermore beenenhanced and underlined by many o the initiatives and action lines developed and pro

moted by the Bologna Process, such as improved recognition practices, qualifications rameworks, quality assurance cooperation and the adoption of a three-cycle degree system.

Many o these achievements were urther improved by the joint European Students Uni

on and Education International campaign to urther increase student and staff mobilityacross the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Entitled Lets Go!, this mobility cam

S GayaneHarutyunyan,Armenia, Chair ofthe CoordinationGroup on Mobility(7)

Rafael Bonete,Spain, Member ofthe CoordinationGroup on Mobility(7)

Enhancing opportunities

for students and staff By Gayane Harutyunyanand Rafael Bonete


32/40

3

Mobility

paign put orward a clear picture o country

achievements in relation to the Bologna mobility goal, spread urther

bologna process for universities

Documents