Susana Melo University of Bristol

edsjdm@bristol.ac.uk

Qualifications frameworks, the Council of Europe, and the epistemic dimension of transnational technocracy

2012 LLAKES Conference, 19th October 2012, London

2

• Networks of experts who supply knowledge to

authoritative policy actors (Haas, 1992)

• Instrumental learning:

- rational policy-making, evidence-based policy

agendas, ‘best practices’

- times of uncertainty, crisis, disruption of policy

patterns: revision of assumptions, updating

strategies

(Stone, 2012; Gilardi & Radaelli, 2012)

Epistemic Communities

3Role of Knowledge and Policy Networks

Knowledge Dimensions Policy Process

Production of ideasProblem identification

Formulation(Common) adoption

Evaluation

Spreading of ideas across space through -> regular interaction leads to common patterns of understanding and hegemonic knowledge

Transmission of knowledge in technical co-operation (“one-way” transaction?) Implementation

Compliance

Utilization of knowledge in everyday practices

(Stone, 2012)

Supra-national

National

Local

Governance

4Bologna Process Actors – Mapping Policy Ideas

5EHEA Qualifications Framework - 2005

Learning outcomes ECTS credits

First cycle

Qualifications that signify completion of the first cycle are awarded to students who:- can apply their knowledge and understanding in a manner that indicates a professional approach to their work or vocation, and have competences typically demonstrated through devising and sustaining arguments and solving problems within their field of study;

Typicallyinclude 180-240 ECTSCredits[outcomes+workload]

Second cycle

… 90-120 ECTScredits

Thirdcycle

… Not specified

Excerpt from Bologna Ministerial Conference, Bergen 2005

6National Qualifications Frameworks

(I) Key Criterion: Make levels explicit and refer to them in terms of learning outcomes (2008)

(II)Key Consequence: Redesign study programs on the basis of learning outcomes (from structure to approach to teaching practices)

(III)Key issues reported in 2012 EHEA conference:Coherent implementation requires at the pan-European level:

Training the “trainers’ trainers” Peer learning activities Facilitators: the Council of Europe, Bologna working group,

and Network of National Correspondents

7 The Council of Europe...

Palais d’Europe, Strasbourg, Feb. 09

8Council of Europe and Qualifications

CoE-UNESCO European Commission

Bologna Process

1997 Lisbon Recognition Convention

Professional recognition(1989, 1992)

Convention: No of ratifications: 15 EHEA countries (1999), 45 (2010)

Convention Committee

Access implementation plansRecommendations

ENIC Network(1994)

NARIC Network(1984)

ENIC/NARIC Networks + Supporting new networks in other parts of the world

Diploma Supplement(1999)

Diploma Supplement ECTS

Diploma Supplement + ECTS

QF Lifelong Learning

2005 EHEA qualifications framework2007 Council of Europe takes on the task of ‘assisting’ in the development of national qualifications frameworks

9 The CoE as a Facilitator: Methodology

• Publishing in its own journal: Defining concepts; establishing approaches; discussing procedures

• (Co-)organising conferences: Organisational support; identifying experts; in some

cases cover travel expenses of experts and of participants from some countries

Type of conferences–All EHEA (with BFUG)–Regional (with initiator/sponsoring country or not)–National (often upon public authorities’ request)

10 CoE Conferences on the Bologna Process 2005-10

Qualifications Frameworks

Other regional

Other national Total

All EHEA 3 3Regional 5 3 8National 7 12 19 15 30

National & Other NationalAlbania 5Azerbaijan 3Armenia 2Georgia 2Moldova 2Russia 2Macedonia 1Turkey 1Ukraine 1

Regional & Other RegionalSetting and Supporting South East Europe Regional Network for Qualifications (Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Turkey) 5Informal Conferences of Ministers of Education from the New Independent Countries 3

11 Some conclusions

•Formation of transnational technocratic communities through networks of experts who transmit dominant knowledge/train at the supra-national level for implementation of agreed instruments

•Peer learning for building on mutual trust and sharing of experience (and not for making policies)

•‘One-way’ transmission? Problematic? Contested? In this case study, yes!

References

• Haas, P. M. (1992). "Introduction: Epistemic Communities and

International Policy Co-ordination." International Organization

46(1).

• Stone, D. (2012). Agents of Knowledge. The Oxford Handbook

of Governance. D. Levi-Faur. Oxford, Oxford University Press:

339-52.

• Gilardi, F. and C. M. Radaelli (2012). Governance and

Learning. The Oxford Handbook of Governance. D. Levi-Faur.

Oxford, Oxford University Press: 155-68.

12