Europeanization of Higher Education Area: Towards a framework of analysis

Transcription

1 Europeanization of Higher Education Area: Towards a framework of analysis Amélia Veiga University of Porto CIPES Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies Portugal aveiga@cipes.up.pt Abstract The aim of this article is to outline a theoretical framework to address the changes imposed by the adaptation of the Bologna process at local level. This paper is part of my ongoing PhD project that is focusing on changes and adaptations taken at local level under the framework of the Bologna process. The analysis of these impacts at local level might contribute to embody the Europeanization of higher education and to depict a contribution to a theory based on practices developed by HEIs. The proposal to build the EHEA corresponds to the initiative of European states that want to converge their higher education structures. The European Union (EU) trying to keep the pace of economic and political arrangements at global level has defined the Lisbon strategy. In March 2000, the European Council assembled In Lisbon set out a ten-year strategy to make the EU the world's most dynamic and competitive economy. Under this strategy, a stronger economy will drive job creation alongside social and environmental policies that ensure sustainable development and social inclusion. This proposal gives the EU room to promote the European dimension of education and training policies. But the open method of coordination (OMC) used to push forward the Lisbon strategy, as stated by Kok (2004), although it produces movement does not guarantee good levels of coordination or the enlarged participation of all stakeholders, which would ensure that those involved should all be aware of and share the same goals. By contrast, organisations influence the local implementation process by using their autonomy to support their own strategies, thus it might be possible to find the confirmation that the non-linear character of institutional change produced by organisations works against the basic assumptions of OMC. On the other hand, it might increase the relevance of the political and economic factors, which was already evident in the analysis of content of the core documents of Bologna process (Veiga, 2003). 1

2 1. Initial observations and hypotheses 1.1 The European Higher Education Area The establishment of the EHEA 1 corresponds to a goal set by 29 2 Ministries of Education upon the signature of Bologna declaration. The rationales behind the Bologna process vary from a range of prospective motivations. There are arguments in favour of facilitating academic recognition in line with the 1997 Lisbon convention; there are opinions that express a political statement aiming at giving transparency and legibility to the HE systems in Europe; there are beliefs that Europe is loosing competitiveness to the United States in terms of attractiveness of foreign students and there are attitudes that present the use of Bologna as a lever to introduce reforms and changes at home. The coordination structure of the Bologna process was not defined from the very beginning but it is gaining shape by the involvement of European Commission (since the European Ministries Meeting held in Prague in 2001), which by making available human and financial resources acts as a catalyst. In terms of objectives one could argue that they have been increasing in quantity and refinement. The political discourse about growing transparency and legibility of European HE systems to promote (intra-european) mobility (workforce and/or academic) 3 and employability of graduates has been appropriated at national level. Since Bologna is being used as an umbrella to introduce any reform or change in higher education systems it is difficult to define the actual range of Bologna at global, national and institutional levels. Thus, under the scope of Bologna it is possible to find broad concepts, different national strategies and unattended consequences (Coate et al., Forthcoming). The concerns with transparency and legibility of European higher education systems were first acknowledged in 1993 with the publication by the EU of the White paper on Growth, competitiveness, employment the challenges and ways forward into 21 st century. This document identified among the weaknesses of European higher education systems the rigidity of institutions and practices; the under-utilisation of Information and Communication Technologies; the growing gap between the qualifications and the needs of employers; the disaffection of many young people with the learning process and the growth of early school leaving; the lack of experience required to support learning activities outside the formal system and the ageing teaching workforce. All the programmes that have been funded by the EU have played a significant role in increasing the transparency of 1 According to Grilo (2004) the EHEA was mentioned the first time in the European Ministers Conference held in Warsaw to discuss means to enhance European co-operation in education and training envisaging the accession of the 10 new Member States. On the other hand, the objective of creating the EHEA was explicitly set by the Ministers of Education signing the Bologna declaration. A recent report expresses that: This study focuses on four common themes that have direct relevance for the recognition of qualifications in VET and higher education: transparency, credit transfer, quality, and frameworks of qualifications. These themes respond directly to the EU goal of establishing a European Area of education and training (Deane & Watters, 2004). 2 Officially there are 30 countries that have signed the Bologna declaration. However, the Liechtenstein s signature came only after the Bologna event. At present there are 45 countries involved with the Bologna process. 3 According to Deane and Watters (2004) there were a number of actions and initiatives aimed not only at facilitating occupational mobility, but also educational mobility. 2

3 higher and vocational training systems. On the other hand, the harmonisation of standards to increase the mutual recognition of qualifications and vocational occupations has been under support of the EU for over 40 years (Deane & Watters, 2004) and in the 70s the goal of harmonisation was replaced by the goal of approximation of standards 4 ( ) and in the 90s the debate moved towards improving the transparency of qualifications, which was considered more in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity (Deane & Watters, 2004). Both the Sorbonne and the Bologna declarations make clear that the concept of mobility behind the process was the intra-european mobility. Without the success of previous initiatives and programmes, such as the Erasmus programme it is impossible to imagine the construction of the EHEA, the explicit objective of Bologna process. On the other hand, the experience on mobility at national and local levels was gained from the participation in that programme. Or as advocated by Guy Neave: a technique much recommended by civil servants on the grounds that, if you want to do something really radical, you first demonstrate that it has all been done before. This is the rowing boat theory of progress. Like the oarsman, you move forward whilst gazing steadfastly backwards. It is, I have to say, an integral part of the policy style in European higher education. It is best seen in the happy acronyms attached to successive versions of the European Union s student mobility programmes (Neave, 2004: 1). As economic competitiveness is increasingly becoming a driver of reform at global, national and local levels, it is likely there will be a shift from mobility students to foreign students and instead of mobility schemes, there are already marketing strategies to attract foreign students. However, policies aiming at the attraction of foreign students for the sole purpose of generating income for HEIs (Coate et al., Forthcoming) could be confronted with the argument of lack of sustainability in the long term because there is the risk of tackling the issue only as a business. Besides the concerns with brain/drain brain/gain it is important not to forget that the students come to have an opportunity to study in Europe but also to have better job prospects afterwards. And if there are no conditions for the return to the home country the decision to stay in the country where the degree has been awarded should be carefully analysed at political level. Moreover the initiative of the European Commission to enlarge the Erasmus programme to the world (Erasmus Mundus) makes possible to increase the flux of mobility students from countries outside Europe and opens the way to the future increase of the number of incoming foreign students that could generate revenue to HEIs. The implementation of the Bologna process uses as instruments the two-tier structure degree; the recognition mechanisms based on the ECTS and the Diploma Supplement and a quality assurance apparatus based on the emergence of accreditation clearly pursued in countries such as Austria, Germany, Norway, the UK and The Netherlands (Coate et al., Forthcoming). With the exception of the two-tier structure all the other devices were not new. The ECTS was largely spread at local (organisational) level by the institutions participating in the mobility programmes. Anyhow, it should be noted that: ( ) for every credit side, there is always a debit. And it is important to take account of this less palatable aspect because the tensions it engendered go far in explaining much of the true significance of the Bologna Declaration, quite apart from its often curious if not out rightly tortuous, phraseology (Neave, 2004: 8). 4 Interestingly the move from Sorbonne to Bologna was from harmonisation to convergence. 3

4 Furthermore the European Commission is diffusing the idea that the ECTS label confers European universities eligibility to participate in programmes funded by the European Union. As acknowledge by Deane and Watters (2004) This label recognises achievements and aims to promote increased use of the instrument. While there are already counsellors in place to support the implementation of the ECTS/diploma supplement, the Commission in addition will train national teams of Bologna promoters (ibid.: 36). The dissemination of the results obtained in the Tuning project contributed also to spread the gospel. The diploma supplement was introduced by the 1997 Lisbon Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, adopted by the Council of Europe and UNESCO, and it gained impetus with the Bologna process. The idea was to have an instrument to improve the recognition of qualifications trying to overcome barriers to the mobility of citizens such as the obscure terminology and mistrust of foreign qualifications. Although there are yet no studies about the implementation of the diploma supplement there are insights pointing to high costs of the information system and administration. Quality assurance systems have been a matter of European concern and quality assurance is established as an area of co-operation in the European treaties. Thus, in the wake of the Bologna process the discussions about the length of study cycles dominated the debates in the last three years. Observing the countries where the reform was introduced earlier, one could witness that the issues about the efficiency of the system were linked to the length of studies. Following the hint of Jacques Attali s report the dominant degree structure follows the pattern of 3-5-8, even though it seems there are no consensus among different disciplines, departments, institutions and countries (Coate et al., Forthcoming). However, the cultural transformations necessary for the full implementation of the EHEA have a time cycle that is not compatible with the more urgent practicalities imposed by the 2010 deadline such as the discussions about competencies, learning outcomes, and so on. For instance, it might be difficult to integrate the intercultural sensitivity, the norms and values present at local level and inherent to the internationalisation strategies developed by HEIs in the learning outcomes or qualification frameworks that have been introduced in the Bologna agenda in Berlin (2003). Therefore, a straightforward strategy to remain an eligible partner will be the formal implementation of a package of instruments. Additionally HEIs face today many challenges related to the background and roots of HE systems that show some contradictions (Coate et al., Forthcoming). According to the empirical data collected for the HEIGLO project the traditions of academic disciplines and subjects are under confront; a funding policy which regards education as a public good; a regulatory framework that promotes teaching in the national language to protect cultural and linguistic diversity; and last but not the least, the internationalisation background developed in HEIs since the implementation of EU programmes which was based upon a cooperative approach. Thus, changing environments and their impacts on organisations reveal a strong interplay among these features which may influence HEIs either towards a more competitive or towards a more cooperative attitude Therefore, the impact of the Bologna process at national and local levels will create a trend for closer relationships between internationalization and the mainstream higher education policy developed at national level (Frølich & Veiga, 2005). 4

5 1.2 The Lisbon strategy In 2000 the European Union defined a ten-year global strategy to make the EU the world s most dynamic and competitive economy. Under this strategy, a stronger economy will drive job creation alongside social and environmental policies that ensure sustainable development and social inclusion. The balance between competition purely understood under the framework of economic rationales and other features seems to be clearly assumed in the Conclusions of the European Council 5 : The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Achieving this goal requires an overall strategy aimed at: - preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society by better policies for the information society and R&D, as well as by stepping up the process of structural reform for competitiveness and innovation and by completing the internal market; - modernising the European social model, investing in people and combating social exclusion; - sustaining the healthy economic outlook and favourable growth prospects by applying an appropriate macro-economic policy mix (European Council, 2000). The rational behind the Lisbon strategy could be summarised in the question addressed by Maria João Rodrigues who was in charge of the preparation of the Lisbon summit: is it possible to update Europe s development strategy so that we can rise to the new challenges resulting from globalisation, technological change and population ageing, while preserving European values? In the new emerging paradigm, knowledge and innovation are the main source of both wealth and divergence between nations, companies and individuals. Europe is losing ground to the United States, but this not means we have to copy them (Rodrigues, 2004: 2). The implementation of a global strategy of this type requires a governance centre at European level and institutional innovations that have to internalise the level of integration accomplished through the single market and the single currency (Rodrigues, 2004). Some of the strong aspects of a governance centre are: the European Council which is supposed to play a strong role as co-ordinator of economic and social policies; the economic guidelines that would improve the interplay among macroeconomic policies, structural policies and employment policies and the legislative support to the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) which was elaborated after a reflection on governance aiming at defining methods for developing the European dimension (idib: 6). On the other hand, the institutional innovations entail the use of a multilevel governance system, allowing interactions at various levels: European, national and local. According to Fritz Sharpf the multilevel modes of interaction could be described as mutual adjustments, 5 However it seems that there is some contradiction between this balance and a perceived neo-liberal trend in the policies developed by the Commission that might in part explain the recent negative votes on the new European Constitution in France and the Netherlands. 5

6 intergovernmental negotiations, joint-decision making and hierarchical directions (Scharpf, 2001) 5. The OMC was implemented with the Luxembourg process on the European employment strategy. As stated by Rodrigues (2004) This method was created to overcome a strong political difficulty identified in the preparation of the special European Council of Luxembourg on employment in 1997, because it was not possible to adopt a common target for unemployment reduction, as a counterpart of the common targets for inflation, deficit and debt reduction. But, under the political pressure of this Summit, it became possible to adopt common qualitative guidelines instead, making some political choices to reform the European labour markets. After that, a process was organized whereby Member States emulate each other in applying them, stimulating the exchange of best practices, and defining specific targets while taking account of national characteristics. The European Commission presents the proposal of European guidelines organises the follow-up and can make recommendations to Member States. Despite some difficulties, the results obtained have been stimulating and encouraging and the current National action plans for employment adopted by all Member States are proof of this (ibid.: 7) The Lisbon European Council has formally adopted OMC in order to develop the European dimension of other policy areas: information society, research, innovation, enterprise policy, education and social exclusion. And it was recognised in the Conclusions of European Council that: 1. Implementation of the strategic goal will be facilitated by applying a new open method of coordination as the means of spreading best practices and achieving greater convergence towards the main EU goals. This method which is designed to help Member States to progressively developing their own policies, involves: - fixing guidelines for the Union combined with specific timetables for achieving the goals which they set in the short, medium and long terms; - establishing, where appropriate, quantitative and qualitative indicators and benchmarks against the best in the world and tailored to the need of different Member States and sectors as a means of comparing best practices; - translating these European guidelines into national and regional policies by setting specific targets and adopting measures, taking into account national and regional differences; - periodic monitoring, evaluation and peer review organised as mutual learning processes. 2. A fully decentralised approach will be applied in line with the principle of subsidiarity in which the Union, the Member States, the regional and local levels, as well as the social partners and civil society, will be active involved, using varied forms of partnership. A method of benchmarking best practices on managing change will be devised by the European Commission networking with different providers and users, namely the social partners, companies and NGOs (European Council, 2000). As stated by Rodrigues (2004) the OMC sets routines for comparisons and organises a learning process at European level in order to promote exchange and emulation of best practices to help Member states to improve their own policies. Gornitzka (2005) further elaborates on the lack of formal constraints, of legal sanctions and of formal policy coordination. However, it is recognised that the coordination capacity relies on the expected capacity of convergence of ideas, being this movement towards convergence the main driver for change. 5 Particularly interesting from the point of view of hierarchical directions is the 1985 ruling of the European Court of Justice that in the Gravier case decided that higher education, for the most part, came under the remit of the common vocational training policy because education, which prepares for a particular profession, trade or employment, is vocational training, and general, university education fulfils these conditions 6

7 Interestingly for the sake of some clarification, Rodrigues (2004) argues that the OMC does not aim to rank the Member states, but rather promotes a learning process; the use of benchmarking is considered as a technique to create European dimension by defining European guidelines and by encouraging management by objectives adapting these European guidelines to national diversity; the OMC is an integration method and should be combined with other methods that can range from harmonisation to cooperation; the European Commission can play an important role by presenting proposals on European guidelines, organising exchange of best practices; presenting proposals on indicators and supporting peer review. But the OMC used to push forward the Lisbon strategy, although it produces movement might not guarantee good levels of coordination or the enlarged participation of all stakeholders, which would ensure that those involved should all be aware of and share the same goals (Kok, 2004). On the other hand, as argued by Gornitzka ("O novo pacto") the lack of legal sanctions enables: The normative pressure stemming from a desire to look good or fear of being embarrassed may be a strong mechanism for converging with the European definition of good policies and striving for performing well on the indicators in cases where it is considered important to keep up with the European Jones s. OMC processes would represent, in addition to a site of learning, a podium where badges of honour and shame are awarded through the presentation of national performance data in league tables and scoreboards (Gornitzka, 2005: 7). According to Kok the social model for Europe is under challenge: Europeans have made choices about how to express the values they hold in common: a commitment to the social contract that underwrites the risk of unemployment, ill-health and old age, and provides opportunity for all through high-quality education, commitment to public institutions, the public realm and the public interest and that a market economy should be run fairly and with respect for the environment. These values are expressed in systems of welfare, public institutions and regulation that are expensive in a world where low cost and highly efficient producers are challenging the old order. If Europe cannot adapt, cannot modernise its systems and cannot increase its growth and employment fast enough then it will be impossible to sustain these choices. Europe, in short, must focus on growth and employment in order to achieve the Lisbon ambitions (Kok, 2004: 17) Gornitzka (2005) states that it is not possible to argue that the Lisbon strategy is only set in a neo-liberal ideology context and represents only economic aspects as there are authors who advocate the existence of a triangle between competitiveness, employment and social cohesion. Rodrigues stresses that to become the most competitive but to achieve this particular combination of strong competitiveness with the other features. This should make the specificity of the European way (Rodrigues, 2004). Thus, it is easy to understand that the Lisbon strategy focus on five main areas as sketched by Kok (2004) (i.e. knowledge society; internal market; business climate; labour market and environmental sustainability). According to Kok (2004) the policy areas of the knowledge society and of the internal and labour markets are closely linked to the development of education and research policies at European level. Under the knowledge society policy area it is possible to frame the initiatives that aim to promote Europe s capacity of attractiveness of researchers; under the internal market policy area the Lisbon strategy points to the creation of an internal market of services where the provision of cross broader education services could fit in; under the 7

8 labour market policy area are promoted a lifelong learning strategy and partnerships between the HEIs and industry that may increase the employment rate. Of course, as it is argued by Gornitzka (2005) the involvement of the European Union in these policy areas is not new; however as it was acknowledged elsewhere (Huisman & van der Wende, 2004) it is possible to identify a shift from the cooperation paradigm to the competition paradigm related to the development of internationalisation policies linked with the implementation of European programmes. This shift is challenging the backgrounds of HE systems and requires a strong interplay among the features that may influence HE environments and the policy contexts. Interestingly Gornitzka (2005) noted also that research is the cornerstone to the Lisbon strategy and education is seen as a necessary form of investment in human capital (Gornitzka, 2005: 17). This argument is corroborated by the ambitious 3% target of the GDP for investment in research activities (2% coming from private sector and 1% coming from the public sector) set by the European Council in Barcelona, in March Yet it is possible to argue that the Lisbon strategy raises the awareness of the importance of research to build the knowledge based economy. The 2003 Berlin communiqué (under the scope of Bologna process) acknowledges the need to build the European Research Area (ERA) together with EHEA to meet the target defined by the Lisbon agenda. The discussions about ERA go hand in hand with an emerging rhetoric on innovation. Not surprisingly one could observe the likelihood to have an innovation area besides the education and research areas. The debates about the competitiveness of European research focus both on the comparison with the United States of America and on questions about research intensity, which is increasing tensions among institutions at local level. The Lisbon strategy s message in the perspective of higher education systems is to increase the investment in research and to improve the quality and effectiveness of the education and training systems. The latter objective was clearly expressed in the European Council of Barcelona, in 2002, by the endorsement of The detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems aiming at making European education and training a world quality reference by Pursuing this objective of becoming a world quality reference implies that EU Member States set and are aiming at common quality standards for education and training (Deane & Watters, 2004). This work programme will be implemented employing the OMC under the Lisbon strategy: The implementation of the EU s work programme since 2001 employs the Open Method of Coordination, which is a decentralised approach using multiple forms of partnerships to spread effective practices and assist Member States to develop their own policies whilst achieving greater convergence towards EU goals (Deane & Watters, 2004: 22) European HEIs belong mainly to the public domain and there are tensions emerging in the definition of research priorities, funding criteria and the need for extra fund raising. The challenge posed by the global level to the local level is featuring the economic and social dimensions of both levels in a very clear way. The interplay between the economic relevance of applied research and the possibility to establish partnerships between HEIs (public domain) and the private sector challenges norms and values rooted in HEIs and increases the need for communication across the institution to cope with global challenges. On the other hand, the significance of pure research or a policy developed to concentrate 8

9 resources for research should be carefully balanced at global, national and local levels to avoid social inequalities. 1.3 Hypotheses These observations together with the empirical data collected from two research projects 6 draw on three hypotheses. The first hypothesis deals with the possibility of having a process of Europeanization impacting HEIs that is driven by economic rationales rather than academic rationales. According to the empirical data of the HEIGLO project the drivers of policy change that are under discussion are based on the dichotomy of cooperation versus competition. The competition paradigm is associated with globalisation and the cooperation paradigm with internationalisation. The latter predominates in continental European countries while competition is more related to English speaking countries. In the UK international competition is clearly the basis of higher education policy and practice as it was mentioned that the government s over-riding concern with economic competitiveness is largely driving the agenda (Luijten-Lub et al., 2004: 250). Among the seven countries (Austria, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom) of this study, the economic rational and the competition paradigm are increasing their importance on the definition of national policies. However, international cooperation is also evident as demonstrated by the Dutch example where the competition for Asian students is the basis of the cooperation policy with those countries. On the other hand, the perceptions of interviewees are often more clear about the distinction between globalisation and internationalisation rather than about the distinction between internationalisation and Europeanization. Thus, institutional policies of Europeanization or integration in the European area of higher education have been strongly driven by the intrinsic internationalisation character of scientific knowledge. This feature might have contributed to balance the influence of the academic rationale over the economic rationale. However, after 2010 the process of Europeanization will overlap the creation of EHEA. Yet the process of internationalization to be developed afterwards will coincide with the global level impacting HEIs in the sense that the local reality and the decisions taken by institutions will define the degree of de-institutionalization of certain patterns that have to cope with the challenge of social Europe and assist to ground an explanation of the process of Europeanization taken at local level. The second hypothesis assumes that the Lisbon strategy was defined at European/global level and the Bologna process was launched at national level. However, as it is being coordinated or lead at intergovernmental level it assumes global features which may be in contradiction with the genesis of the process itself in the sense that a intergovernmental declaration turn up into a dynamic process of structural changes impacting different national contexts. According to the monitoring project of Italian reform, the legislation that implemented, or regulated the implementation of, the consequent reform of study 6 The first project (HEIGLO) aims to identify and analyse higher education s response to the challenges of Europeanization, internationalisation and globalisation and the (supra) national contexts, the organisational settings, and the policies and activities aimed at supporting this response. The second project aims at monitoring the implementation of Bologna in twelve European universities (six Italian universities and one from each of six different European countries France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). 9

10 programmes was passed in 1999 and 2000, apparently in accordance with the recommendations of the Bologna Declaration (1999). However, even though the timing of the reform was consistent with the Bologna process and the legislation was publicly linked to it, there are important differences between the Bologna process and the Italian reform. The Bologna process aims at the creation of the European area of higher education as a key way to promote the mobility and employability of citizens and the Continent s overall development (Bologna Declaration, 1999). In practice, however, the Italian reform seems mainly designed to improve the efficiency of the Italian system, by addressing some of the traditional shortcomings which had been identified much earlier: very low completion rates, a very high level of drop-out, excessive completion times and the low employability of graduates (Fulton et al., 2004). The findings of the previous research undertaken within HEIGLO project point to the possibility that although Bologna process and Lisbon strategy are different in nature and in terms of objectives accomplishment, both can lead and promote the integration of national policies towards Europeanization as they are now converging into one policy framework (van der Wende & Huisman, 2004). This convergence may increase the relevance of the economic factor at European level. Thus, it is crucial to question the viability of this policy framework to build a social Europe assuming this goal as an integrator objective for global, national and local levels. The construction of the EHEA could represent some achievement for a European social model if it contributes to strength the social capital. As a consequence the interplay between the social and the economic dimensions will be balanced. At this point of reflection it is important to stress that Europeanization is understood as a process of European integration that could be embedded in different dominant logics. Following (Knill & Lehmkhul, 1999) Europeanization could have different constellation depending on its impacts at national level. According to these authors Europeanization could be positive integration, negative integration or framing integration. This categorisation might be useful to distinguish the effects of European policy making in the national context. These authors define the Europeanization with positive impact at national level as the recommendation of an institutional model to which domestic arrangements have to be adjusted. Accordingly member states have only limited institutional discretion when deciding on the concrete arrangements in order to comply with European requirements (ibid: 2). The negative integration occurs when the European legislation changes the national rules of the game having direct influence on the distribution of power and resources between the different actors. The framing integration consists on European policy which neither prescribes concrete institutional requirements nor modifies the institutional context for strategic interaction, but affects domestic arrangements even more indirectly, namely by altering the beliefs and expectations of domestic actors. This links to the third hypothesis, which assumes that the convergence of Bologna process and Lisbon strategy into one policy framework could be classified as framing integration. This common policy framework does not prescribe a concrete institutional model but it rather changes the beliefs and expectations of national and local actors using OMC to attain the objectives defined at European level. From a linear perspective, OMC uses benchmarking as a learning process and the need to report that the objectives are being reached can be responsible for failures or successes on the expectations of social actors placed at the European and national level and the local level. Again, using the data collected under the monitoring project of the Italian reform it is possible to note that the Italian national report to the Berlin Conference of European 10

11 Education Ministers on the implementation of the Bologna process dated July 2003 presents a success story with no reference to any difficulties in implementation. The report describes the adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees; the creation of a new qualification structure essentially based on two main cycles; the establishment of a system of credits; the promotion of mobility; the promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance; the promotion of the European dimensions in higher education; lifelong learning; and international links between higher education institutions and students which are designed to enhance a European perspective. However, the picture with which the monitoring team was presented at institutional level was completely different from the optimistically European perspective of the national Berlin report (Fulton et al., 2004). The available data about the implementation of the Bologna process requires a clarification about the different perspectives one can use to study the implementation of a policy framework. The policy process linked to the implementation of a policy framework such as the Bologna process entails as in most implementation processes, policy objectives characteristically multiple (because there are many things we want, not just one), conflicting (because we want different things), and vague (because that is how we agree to proceed without having to agree on exactly what will be done) (Cerych & Sabatier, 1986: 14). Within either a top-down approach or a bottom-up approach it is likely that the roles of social actors and institutional arrangements are resistant to policy change. As put by Cerych and Sabatier they are likely to strongly affect the extent of goal attainment and the reformulation of goal priorities and implementation structures (Cerych & Sabatier, 1986: 15). The data available on the implementation of the Italian reform show that: At Faculty level the committees which had previously been responsible for each course were replaced by course co-ordinators, who were quite unable to counteract the power of collegial bodies such as the Academic Senate, which have the power of final decision. Thus the reform was entirely driven by Faculty Deans and other academic staff who responded to their own sectional interests rather than to students needs. Moreover, in our two case study institutions the number of study programmes was sharply increased without adequate attention to the consequences in terms of resource requirements. This was particularly serious because the Ministry had no intention of providing the additional funding which would have been needed (Fulton et al., 2004: 7). But implementation of policy process could also be seen as mutual adaptation and a learning process, and implementation as negotiation and interaction (Gornitzka et al., 2005b: 45). In this sense it is necessary to explain how it is possible to see the implementation of Bologna process. For this purpose one will use the work done by Gornitzka et al. (2005b) to give an idea about different perspectives of implementation: Narrow vs. negotiating over intentions Narrow process with a start and a finish Process without a decision to launch it or a goal line that marks the ending of putting policy into practice By stages vs. negotiating over intentions Processes in terms of phases or stages Policy implementation as intertwined where defining and negotiating over intentions and objectives are continuous and infinite Top-down vs. bottom-up Central control as a means to secure successful implementation Emphasis on informal processes 11

12 As argued by Gornitzka et al. (2005b) the criteria for determining policy success or failure differ significantly according to the approach used. Likewise for the issue of what is democratic or not (ibid.). Again, using the available data about the implementation of Bologna process the actors at various levels seem to view the process under a narrow and stage-by-stage perspective and as a top-down movement. The definition of OMC can be seen also within a top-down approach but as an implementation instrument it might favour the negotiating over intentions perspective as the OMC supports adaptation and is based on a learning process. The production of a negotiated consensus could be close to the intergovernmental multilevel mode of interaction that is the basis of the Bologna process. Anyhow, the goals to achieve using the OMC are clearly established and are not continuous and infinite as in the negotiating over intentions perspective prescribes. Apparently this puts a challenge for different implementation approaches and needs an effort from the point of view of the researcher to understand this particular process of implementation. 2. Framework for analysis 2.1 Structural approach As acknowledge by several researchers the analysis of policy processes should apply a multi theoretical framework as the direction of change is seen as non-linear, rather than linear (Gornitzka et al., 2005b). Accepting the challenge to study the complexity of the changed relationship between policy makers and policy objects (Gornitzka et al., 2005a: 12) one is taking into consideration changing contexts of implementation; the different actors of policy processes placed at different levels and the discrepancies between the expectations at global and national level and the reality of the local level. Thus, theoretically one is using a framework based on different conceptual perspectives: the structural approach, complemented by the institutionalism framework and organisational theories. The structural approach will take into consideration the different levels of interaction and the heuristic model GLONACAL - Global, National and Local (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002) 7. The GLONACAL model gives a picture of institutional and systematic change which will be analysed as a result of a dynamic and interactive process towards seeing policy making and implementation as an integrated process (Gornitzka et al., 2005b). To some extent this approach will include the work on the advocacy coalition framework of policy change (Sabatier, 2005) contributing to clarify strategic or top-down decision making and the impact of internal coalitions and alliances with external interests on the way major corporate decisions are reached. Assuming that the Lisbon strategy is a strategic decision taken at global level and that the Bologna process is a strategic decision taken at national level, which is the impact on the implementation at local level? At local level institutions can establish coalitions with other European HEIs and develop their own profile of Europeanization establishing links or partnerships with other organizations in favour of their own corporative interests. This 7 This model seems to be more appropriate than the analysis that takes into consideration macro-meso-micro levels because GLONACAL model may show a dynamic process of institutional and systematic change. It considers the agency as a broad concept: empowerment and exercise. 12

13 statement draws on the difficulty to have a single model that would be able to frame policy areas which are top-down and as suggested by (Gornitzka et al., 2005a) are related to social and economic policies and the bottom-up policies related with higher education activities that is to say with teaching and learning. Interestingly the Bologna process disputes both ways of policy making. Thus, it seems to be the most appropriate to study the different factors that are challenging the definition of an European multi-level government theory by taking into consideration that the analysis of the European dimension will involve a transfer of power to the global level and the substance of multi-level policies developed by the government structures (Sharpf, 2001). The Bologna process in this perspective is seen as an intergovernmental multilevel mode of interaction. We accept together with Marginson and Rhoades that the term globalisation means becoming global. It is possible to envisage the Bologna process and the Lisbon strategy converging into one policy framework, as there is a development of increasingly integrated systems and relationships beyond the nation. Such systems are more than economic: they are also technological, cultural and political (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002: 288). The GLONACAL model takes into consideration two different actors inserted in the meaning of the word agency. The agency is defined, firstly, as the institution or organisation that has some power to adopt policies in the sense of an entity or organisation that could exist at global, national and local level (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002); and secondly, as the ability of people individually and collectively to take an action (exercise agency), at the global, national and local level (ibid.). The GLONACAL model considers three levels of operation: the global, the national and the local levels. This model is particularly useful to analyse intersections, interactions and mutual determinations of these levels and domains (ibid.) that operate on a simultaneous basis and to show that National and local entities and collective efforts can undermine, challenge and define alternatives to global patterns; they can also shape the configuration of global flows (ibid.). This is particularly valuable to study the implementation of the Bologna process and its impact upon organisations and the feedback loop it might generate to the national and global levels. Thus, one might have conditions to use the model to foster exploration and analysis of types and patterns of influence and activity, to re-conceptualise social relations and actions globally, nationally and locally (ibid: 290). The GLONACAL agency heuristic is represented as a set of interconnected hexagons in three-dimensional space and the representation encourages a focus on specific organisations and collective action rather than over generalised conceptions of polities and states, economies and markets or higher education systems and institutions (ibid.). Analysing Figure 1 the central hexagon represents the basic building blocks (global agencies, national agencies and local agencies) and the additional hexagons correspond to the centre as we move beyond the nation sate and national systems/institutions of higher education. 13

14 Figure 1 GLONACAL AGENCY HEURISTIC MODEL Source: (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002: 291) At global level our analysis is taking the European Union as agency and the European Commission, the European Parliament, European Association of Universities and similar stakeholders as human agencies. At national level, the States are agencies and the Governments, Ministries and Council of Rectors and Presidents, professional associations and labour market representatives are human agencies. At local level we take into consideration the higher education institution as agency and the academic community (professors, researchers, non-academic staff and students) as human agencies as they are 14

15 able to influence local practice and undertake initiatives for their units to compete in international higher education markets (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002: 290). Conceptually the GLONACAL model also considers the following dimensions represented in figure 1: reciprocity, strength, layers and conditions and spheres. Reciprocity refers to the idea that activity and influence generally flow in more than one direction (ibid.: 292), taking the example of implementation of Bologna process. The political statement made at national level with the Bologna declaration forced the introduction of legislation that is impacting European higher education institutions. As these institutions are participating in global markets and are able to define their own strategies to cope with the challenges, the local level will influence directly the national level by inducing amendments to the initial legislative framework, thereby impacting those countries. Due to the interconnections between the three levels, the global level that defined the OMC to develop the Lisbon strategy could also be influenced at local level by the institutional autonomy of European HEIs, which explains the non-linear character of policy implementation that works against the basic assumptions of OMC. Strength refers to the magnitude and directness of the activity and influence, as well as the resources available to agencies and agents. Links between levels and domains may be stronger or weaker, more direct or indirect (ibid.). Again, taking into consideration the Bologna process one may consider that the participation of an agency, such as the European Commission could have a great and direct impact in terms of the economic and political resources involved. On the other hand, some HEIs may achieve global influence by defining standards of quality of teaching and of quality of research and could also be of influence to the global and national levels. The figure 1 represents strength in two ways: direct influence is identified as a full line and indirect influence is identified as a broken line. Layers and conditions refer to the historically embedded structures on which current activity and influence are based, and the current circumstances that make possible for lines of force and effect to move from one level to another, global, national and local (ibid.: 293). For example, the background and roots of HE systems show that the traditions of academic disciplines and subjects are under challenge: The point is that higher education institutions, systems, and countries have long histories shaped through centuries of sedimentation of ideas, structures, resources and practices. Contemporary agencies and agency generally do not sweep all this away; their influence and activity is layered on top of powerful and resilient structures and commitments. It is also contingent upon and shaped by a range of current structural conditions (ibid.). Within the European context it is worthwhile to note, following Guy Neave, that in different countries the relationships between the national and local levels are diverse. There are countries, such as France, Italy, Spain, and Sweden which subscribed to higher education as inseparable from the national community and have a Napoleonic relationship between university, government and society. By contrast, Anglo Saxon countries follow twofold principles embedding the historic community to which the university is answerable: Prime amongst these was the belief that the relationship between government and university ought not to be proximate. The second, which stood in marked contrast, held to the view that the principle of proximity should, however, most assuredly apply to the community to which the university should 15