qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw … · 2017. 12. 1. · Pavlin Samo XVIII....

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf

THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION

InternationalWorkshop

Ankaran,Slovenia,5‐8May2011

PROCEEDINGS

THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings

1

OrganisationalCommittee:BastianBaumannJanjaKomljenovičIgorRepacPavelZgagaTheinternationalworkshopwasorganisedwithintheresearchprojectDEP(Differentiation,equity,productivity:consequencesoftheexpandedanddifferentiatedhighereducationsystemsfromtheinternationalizationaspect)performedbyCEPS–FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana,andfinancedbytheSlovenianResearchAgency(ARRS).

CEPS–CentreforEducationalPolicyStudiesFacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljanaLjubljana,July2011http://ceps.pef.uni‐lj.si/eng.htm


2

I. TableofContents:

I. Table of Contents: .............................................................................................................. 2

II. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

III. Agenda ............................................................................................................................... 5

IV. Participant’ List .................................................................................................................. 7

V. Presentations ....................................................................................................................... 8

PerNyborg:InternationalisationandGlobalisationinHigherEducation:TheNordicExperience ............................................................................................................................. 8

KlemenMiklavič:IdeasunderlyingtheBolognaProcess ................................................ 16

JanjaKomljenovič:UniversityAutonomyintheEuropeanHigherEducationArea ..... 18

LeonCremonini:ConsiderationsaboutDifferentiationofHigherEducationinaGlobalizedContext .............................................................................................................. 20

ManjaKlemenčič:SoutheastEuropeanhighereducationsystemsinthecontextofinternationalisation:preliminarythoughtsforfurtherexploration .............................. 23

PavelZgaga:Internationalization,competitionand/orcooperation–“small”/”periphery”countries’perspectives ................................................................... 25

JohnBrennan:Universitiesintheirplace:socialandculturalperspectivesontheregionalimpactsofuniversities ........................................................................................ 28


3

II. Introduction

The Future of (European) Higher Education is the second May international workshop organised by CEPS. As last year this was a small meeting that took place from 5-8 May in Ankaran, Slovenia. The main aim of the meeting is to discuss in a small group of about 20 people what is currently happening in higher education in Europe. We already acknowledged last year that an event like this is excellent in offering enough time and relaxed environment for participants to speak openly and avoid the usual pressures at conferences and other organised events. As last year, this meeting is supposed to bring together some young but nevertheless quite experienced people who see their future in higher education policy or research and some people in senior positions. It is supposed to be an open meeting with ample room for discussion. The idea is to ensure a dialogue along a line of topics that should guide the discussion. Based on our last year's experience when the topic of the meeting was to broad, this year we decided to focus the theme of the event to the issue of internationalisation and differentiation of higher education. Possible topics of discussion are listed below. Yet,these topics are not rigid and deviation from them is more than encouraged. Each of them should be introduced briefly by one or more of the participants raising some of the questions for the discussion. Topics to be covered:

I. Differentiationofhighereducation- Differentiation/diversificationofhighereducation- Homogenisation(‘uniformisation’)ofhighereducation- Horizontalvs.verticaldifferentiation;institutionalvs.programmedifferentiation

II. Internationalisationandglobalisationofhighereducation- Internationalisationvs.globalisationofhighereducation- Connectiontowiderorganisationofmodernsocieties- Newactors,newagencies,newstructures- Internationalisationvs.globalisation:focusonhighereducationsystemsinsmalland

mediumsizecountries(e.g.CentralEurope;South‐easternEurope)

III. Newroleoftheuniversity- Whatrolesforhighereducation(ingeneral)anduniversity(inparticular)inthehighly

internationalised/globalisedcontext?- “GlobalHigherEducationAreas”:theircentres,theirmargins- Institutionaldiversity:challengestouniversitiesinsmallandmediumsizecountries(e.g.

CentralEurope;South‐easternEurope)

IV. Scenarios;possible/(un)desiredactions- Currentdevelopmentsandchallengestohighereducationinthenewdecade;light/dark

scenarios- Whatneedstobedone/couldbedone/whatneedstobeavoidedtopromotethelight

scenariosforthefuture?


4

Thenatureoftheworkshopisveryopenandflexible,targetedatdiscussion,informationsharingandopinions.Theagendaisopentochangeandwearealsolikelytodeviatefromitduringthemeeting.Theinputsoncertaintopicsareratherintendedtoinitiateandsupportthediscussionandtosetthecontextthanasanallencompassingcontentinput.Freetimeavailableforinformalindividualandgrouptalks(post‐breakfast,pre‐andpost‐dinnertime)ispartoftheconceptoftheworkshopanddeliberatelyplannedintheagenda.TheworkshopisorganisedbyCEPS–FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana(withintheresearchprojectDEP–Differentiation,equity,productivity:consequencesoftheexpandedanddifferentiatedhighereducationsystemsfromtheinternationalizationaspect,financedbytheSlovenianResearchAgencyARRS).


5

III. Agenda

FRIDAY,6.5.201110.00–10.30 Introductiontothemeeting JanjaKomljenovič&BastianBaumann PavelZgaga,onbehalfofCEPS Introductionofparticipants 10.30–13.00 Highereducationintheinternationalised/globalisedcontext INPUTS:

- UvalićTrumbićStamenkaModerator:ZgagaPavelDiscussiontopicsmayincludeissuessuchas:‐Internationalisationvs.globalisationofhighereducation‐Whathasbeenchangedaroundtheworldduringthelasttenyears?OverviewofHEreformsanddevelopments‐commonalitiesanddifferencesinapproaches‐Newactors,newagencies,newstructures‐Internationalisationvs.globalisation:focusonhighereducationsystemsinsmallandmediumsizecountries(e.g.CentralEurope;South‐easternEurope)

DISCUSSION 13.00–14.30 LUNCH 14.30–18.00 Connectionbetweenhighereducation,internationalisation/

globalisationandsocialarrangements(“politicalprojects”) INPUTS:

- Jazz,MarxandJohnleCarre:ResearchingHigherEducationintheEndTimes,BrennanJohn

- RackéCorneliaModerator:IvosevićVanjaDiscussiontopicsmayincludeissuessuchas:‐KnowledgeSociety‐Economicand/orDemocraticNecessity‐InternationallyInfluentialActors:theirpoliciesandagendas‐Connectiontowiderorganisationofmodernsocieties(e.g.politicalorsocialorders)

DISCUSSION 18.30–20.00 DINNER


6

SATURDAY,7.5.201110.00–13.00 Differentiation INPUTS:

- CremoniniLeonModerator:HopbachAchimDiscussiontopicsmayincludeissuessuchas:‐HigherEducation–towardsdiversificationorhomogenisation‐Whatrolesforhighereducation(ingeneral)anduniversity(inparticular)inthehighlyinternationalised/globalisedcontext?‐“GlobalHigherEducationAreas”:theircentres,theirmargins‐Horizontalvs.verticaldifferentiation;institutionalvs.programmedifferentiation‐Institutionaldiversity:challengestouniversitiesinsmallandmediumsizecountries(e.g.CentralEurope;South‐easternEurope)

DISCUSSION 13.00–14.30 LUNCH 14.30–18.00

International–national–institutional:differentiation,autonomy,rolesofHE

INPUTS:theDEPprojectteamModerator:KladisDionyssisISSUEStobediscussed:‐Differentiationofhighereducationsystems;‐Autonomyofhighereducationinstitutions;‐TheideationalandideologicaldiscourseswithintheBolognaProces.

DISCUSSION 18.30–20.00 DINNERSUNDAY,8.5.201110.00–11.30 Conclusions,strategiesandalliances Moderator:BaumannBastian

ISSUES:‐Currentdevelopmentsandchallengestohighereducationinthenewdecade;light/darkscenarios‐Whatneedstobedone/couldbedone/whatneedstobeavoidedtopromotethelightscenariosforthefuture?

11.30–12.00 Closing ‐Evaluationofthemeeting

‐Nextstepsandfollow‐up

12.00–13.30 LUNCH


7

IV. Participant’List

I. Baumann Bastian II. Brennan John III. Cremonini Leon IV. Doolan Karin V. Durr Jakub VI. Farnell Thomas VII. Hackl Elsa VIII. Hopbach Achim IX. Ivošević Vanja X. Kamšek Katja XI. Kladis Dionyssis XII. Klemenčič Manja XIII. Komljenovič Janja XIV. Lažetić Predrag XV. Miklavič Klemen XVI. Nyborg Per XVII. Pavlin Samo XVIII. Racké Cornelia XIX. Repac Igor XX. Tück Colin XXI. Uvalić Trumbić Stamenka XXII. Zgaga Pavel


8

V. Presentations

PerNyborg

FormerSecretaryGeneral,TheNorwegianCouncilofUniversitiesandtheNordicAssociationofUniversities

Addressforcorrespondence:[email protected]

InternationalisationandGlobalisationinHigherEducation:TheNordicExperience

AbstractThisarticleisanupdatedpresentationbasedonanarticlepublishedbyaNordicteamin2009*.ItdescribesrecenttrendsinstudentandstaffmobilityintheNordiccountriesandthetensionsbetweeninternationalisationandglobalisation.Thesefivecountrieshavealongtraditionforcooperation,supportingmobilityofstudentsandstaffbetweentheNordiccountriesandinternationally.However,therapidgrowthofaglobalmarketforeducationalservices,haveresultedintheintroductionoftuitionfeesforinternationalstudentsinthreeofthefivecountries.Astherealsoisagloballabourmarket,focusisshiftingfromacademicmobilitytojobmigrationduetotheincreasedneedforhighlyskilledpersonnel.Moreandmore,marketorientedEUpoliciesisdominatingoverNordicpoliciesbasedonequalityandsocialcohesion.ThereisnocommonNordicpolicyformeetingthechallengesoftheglobalmarketinhighereducation.

Internationalcooperationiscentraltohighereducation.MobilityofstudentsandstaffhasbeenanactionlineintheBolognaProcess–tothebenefitofhomeandhostcountriesalike.However,alongsidethiscooperation,aglobalmarketforeducationalserviceshasbeenrapidlygrowing,dominatedbyinstitutionsandenterprisesinafewlargeEnglish‐speakingcountriesassellers.Largeyoungeconomiescanbefoundatthebuyingend.Smallcountrieswiththeirownnationallanguagemaynoteasilyadjusttothechallengesfromthemarket,wheretheyatbestwillbebuyers–iftheycanafford.Thepoorercountriesshouldbepreparedforincreasedbrain‐drain,asjobmigrationmayoutnumberacademicmobility.

*CarlssonJ.,Jensen,H.P.,Nyborg,P.,Skulason,P.,Uronen,P.,InternationalisationandGlobalisationinHigherEducation:TheNordicExperience,TheObservatoryonBorderlessHigherEducation,July2009

The term international is used for processes relating to or affecting two ore more nations (international cooperation, international competition), whereas the term global is used for processes relating to or affecting the entire world (global pollution, the global market). In higher education, the term internationalisation is widely used for cooperation between individuals, institutions or educational systems. Globalisation describes processes by which economies, societies, and cultures are being integrated through communication, transportation, and trade. For higher education this implies new kinds of relationships that may involve or affect states, higher education systems, institutions and individuals. These are increasingly seen as “market” relationships – to be distinguished from “non-market” relationships based on cooperation, for which the international label is more appropriate.


9

TheNordiccountrieshavebeengoodatinternationalisation,workingverycloselytogether,buttheyhavenotbeenabletodevelopacommonstrategyformeetingtheglobalchallengesinhighereducation.1. The Nordic Cooperation TheNordiccooperationbetweenDenmark,Finland,Iceland,NorwayandSwedenisbasedonclosecultural,linguistic,economicandpoliticalties.Thesetiesarereflectedinanumberofformalandinformalcooperationschemes.Intheuniversitysector,informalnetworkshaveexistedforalongtime,withtheexchangeofstudentsandscientistsandjointpublicationsasresults.Ontheformalside,parliamentarianscooperateintheNordicCouncil,andnationalgovernmentscooperateintheNordicCouncilofMinisters.Intheuniversitysector,theNordicAssociationofUniversitieswasestablishedin1995,tolinkthenationaluniversitynetworksandtoestablishajointcontacttotheNordiccooperationschemessetupbytheministers.Inmanyrespects,theNordiccountrieshaveactedasasingleunit:"Norden".However,thegrowingstrengthoftheEuropeanUnionandtheEuropeanEconomicArea(whichincludesIcelandandNorwayintheEUprogrammes)makesNordenafadingbeauty.Forhighereducation,alsotheBolognaProcesscontributestotheshiftingoffocusfromNordentoEuropebothwithgovernmentsandhighereducationinstitutions.Onaglobalscale,theNordiccountriesaresmallentities,withatotalpopulationof25Mill.Tomeettheacceleratingglobalchallengesfacinghighereducation,acommonbaseandacommonstrategymightbeanadvantage.Withamillionstudyplaces,Nordencouldtakemanyinternationalstudents.ThebasicideasoftheNordiccooperationwerefarfrommarket‐oriented;socialcohesionhasbeenaleadingprinciple.Nordiccountrieshavesucceededincombiningeconomicgrowthwithsocialcohesion.ObserversaroundtheworldhavebeenamazedthattheNordiceconomiescanprosperandgrowinspiteofhightaxwedgesandanegalitariandistributionofincome.Presenteconomicandsocialtrends,includingglobalisationanddemographicchange,posesignificantchallengestothemodelaswehaveknownit.ThecontinuingtrendofglobalisationputstheNordicmodelunderpressure.Thereisaneedtofocusonthecoretasksofthewelfarestateandtoclarifythescopeoftheservicesthatcitizensareentitledto,includingeducation,whichhasbeenseenasacentralelementinthecombinedstrivingforeconomicgrowthandsocialcohesion.ThesocialdimensionofhighereducationwasintroducedinNorden50yearsbeforeitsappearanceintheBolognaProcess:Allqualifiedapplicantsshouldhavethepossibilityforhighereducation,irrespectiveofsocio‐economicconditions.Ineachcountryacollegesectorwasestablishedinparallelwiththetraditionaluniversitysector.Graduallythedifferencebetweenthetwosectorsisdisappearing,collegesbeingrenamedpolytechnicsoruniversitycolleges,someofthemhavebeenaccreditedasuniversities.TherestillarenotuitionfeesforNordicstudentsinthestate‐ownedmajorityofhighereducationinstitutions,andeachcountryhasawell‐functioningstudentsupportsystem.However,notallNordiccountrieswillcontinuetoincludeanincreasingnumberofincominginternationalstudentsinthesharingofsuchprivileges.TheNordiccooperationinhighereducationculminatedwiththe1994AgreementonAdmissiontoHigherEducation,betweenthefiveNordiccountries.TheNordicCouncilofMinistersthendecidedthatthereshouldbeequaltreatmentinhighereducationforcitizensofthevariouscountrieswithintheNordicgroup.Itwasmadeclearthatasfarasopportunitiesinhighereducationwereconcerned,theNordiccountriesshouldoperateasasingleunit.AstheErasmusprogrammeopenedupforEFTAcountriesandFinlandandSwedenfollowedDenmarkintotheEuropeanUnion,theNordicdimensionwasgraduallyovershadowedbythe


10

Europeandimension.WiththeBolognaProcess,theEuropeancooperationhasverymuchinfluencedtheNordichighereducationsystems.TogetherwithotherEuropeancountrieswehavebeenbuildingacommonframeworktorealisetheideathatstudentsandstaffshallbeabletomovefreelywithintheEuropeanHigherEducationArea,havingfullrecognitionoftheirqualifications.Eachcountryhasdevelopedathree‐cycledegreesystemandintroducednationalqualityassurancesystemscooperatinginaEurope‐widenetwork.Thelong‐timeNordicmutualrecognitionofdegreesandstudyperiodshasbeenbroadenedtoaEurope‐wideobligationthroughthe1997LisbonRecognitionConvention.Thus,fiftyyearsofNordiccooperationhasbeenbuildintoaEuropeancooperationinhighereducationthathastransformedtheeducationsystemineachcountry,nowwithacommonstructure,includingforinstanceforthefirsttimealsoacommondegreesystemintheNordiccountries.ThismakesNordiccooperationeasier,butitalsoopensupforawidermarket.WhatwillbetheconsequencesoftheLisbonAgenda,theenlargementoftheEU,andotherdevelopmentswithrespecttoEuropeanhighereducationfortheNordicstructuresthatweresetuptosupporttheNordiccooperationinhighereducation?Formeetingthechallengesofglobalisation,thesestructuresmaybeinadequate.Moreimportant,thebasicNordicideasofequalityandsocialcohesionmaynotthebestplatformforenteringaglobalmarketforhighereducation.AmorefundamentalquestioniswhethertheNordicmodelforfreeandopeneducationcansurviveinthelongrun. 2. Nordic student mobility in a global perspective Nordicstudentshaveforlongbeenmobile.Table2.1showssomeoveralltrendsintheperiod2000‐2006.(Developmentinindividualcountriessince2006willbecommentedseparately.)FromTable2.1itcanbeseenthattherehasbeenadecreasingtrendinthenumberofstudentsgoingabroadforafulldegree.Theremaybeseveralreasonsforthis:theintroductionofBachelorandMasterDegreeshaveopenedupnewpossibilitiesathome,anincreaseinfeelevelsatforeignuniversitiescomparedtonofeeinthehomecountry,inNorwayalsoaslimmingdownofthegeneroussupportschemeforstudiesabroad.Icelandisanexception.Denmarkhavehadandstillhaverelativelyfewstudentsabroad,onereasonbeingthatuntil2008,nosupportwasprovidedfortuitionatforeigninstitutions.

Internationalstudents

Out2000

Out2006 In2000

In2006

Denmark Exchangestudents 4312 4950 3725 6713 fulldegreestudents 4245 3154 3432 7757Finland Exchangestudents 6880 8610 4805 8191 fulldegreestudents 5340 4360 6372 10066Iceland Exchangestudents 213 376 248 498 fulldegreestudents 1944 2705 239 370Norway Exchangestudents 3520 4498 4516 4455 fulldegreestudents 14745 12375 6323 12680Sweden Exchangestudents 4100 5100 6533 11232 fulldegreestudents 21300 19000 5531 16865

Table2.1showsincomingandoutgoingstudentstoandfromtheNordiccountries.Numbersarefromnationalsourcesandnotdirectlycomparable.

ThereisanupwardtrendinthenumberofNordicstudentstakingpartinexchangeprogrammes,butapartfromFinlandthisincreaseinoutgoingexchangestudentsdoesnotfullyreflecttheincreasedfocusoninternationalisationintherespectivenationalstrategiessincetheBolognaProcessstartedin1999.


11

Incomingmobilityshowsdifferenttrends.InDenmark,FinlandandSwedentherehasbeena70‐80%increaseinthenumberofincomingexchangestudentsfrom2000to2006,inIcelandthenumbershavedoubled.ForNorway,therehasbeennoincreaseinthesameperiod.OnepossibleexplanationcouldbethatonecannoteasilysurviveinNorwayonanErasmusgrant.NumbersofinternationalfulldegreestudentshaveincreasedsignificantlyintheNordiccountries.AllNordiccountriesarewelcominginternationalstudents,althoughforstudentsfromcountriesoutsidetheEuropeanEconomicArea(EEA)theimmigrationprocedureshavebeencomplicatedandtime‐consuming,thisbeingonereasonthatthenumberofforeignstudentsthatenrolhasbeenmuchlowerthanthenumberofapplicationsfromqualifiedapplicants.OneobviousreasonforanincreasingnumberofapplicationshasofcoursebeentheNordicnon‐feeregimeinhighereducation.Followingthe2006introductionoftuitionfeesforstudentsfromnon‐EU/EEAcountries,therehasbeenadecreaseinthenumberofinternationalfull‐degreestudentsinDenmark.Inthe2008/2009intakeNorwaywasthelargestsourcecountrywith1394students,followedbySweden(931)andChina(868).Inspiteofactivemarketing,theexpectedsubstantialincomefromtuition‐payingstudentsinDenmarkhasnotmaterialised:Notonlyhasthenumberofnon‐EU/EEAstudentsdecreasedafter2006(seeTable2.2),butdatafromUniversitiesDenmark,seehttp://dkuni.dk/,showthatmostofthemareexcusedfrompayingtuition.

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

EU/EEA 1.733 2.030 2.477 1.975None‐EU/EEA1.274 741 813 962

Total 3.048 2.778 3.293 2.939

Table2.2Intakeofinternationalfull‐degreestudentsinDenmark2005‐09.Source:DanishAgencyforInternationalEducationhttp://en.iu.dk/

TheSwedishparliamenthasrecentlypassedalawoutliningtuitionfeesfornon‐EU/EEAstudents.Thesefeeswillapplyfromthe2011/2012academicyearbutwillbesupplementedbyscholarshipprograms.Thisisnota“forprofit”approachliketheDanishstrategy,butanadaptiontotheexistenceofaglobalmarket.TheneedforanadaptionisindicatedbytheobservationthataftertheSwedishdegreestructurewaschangedaccordingtotheBolognaBachelor–Masterstructurein2007,thenumberofforeigncitizenstudenthasbeenhighandincreasing‐enrolmentintwo‐yearMasterprogrammesincreasedfrom4985in2007to7430in2009(datafromSwedishNationalAgencyforHigherEducation,seehttp://www.hsv.se/).Finlandisadaptinginasimilarway:Finnishhighereducationinstitutionsmaynowchargetuitionfeesfromnon‐EU/EEAstudentsforEnglish‐languageMasters’degreeprogrammes.InIcelandandNorwayinternationalstudentsarenotexpectedtopayfortuition.InNorwaythenumberofnon‐EU/EEAstudentsincreasedfrom1922in2005to3036in2009.In2010,Russiatoppedthelistwith1035studentsregisteredatNorwegianhigherinstitutions.Chinacamefourthwith601studentsinNorway,afterSwedenandGermany(datafromNorwegianCentreforInternationalCooperationinHigherEducation,seehttp://www.siu.no/).Thesenumbersmaycontinuetoriseasneighbouringcountriesintroducetuitionfees,however,thereisnoindicationthattheNorwegiannon‐tuitionpolicywillchange. 3InternationalPhDstudentsintheNordiccountriesInallNordiccountries,thethreetierdegreesystemisinplace,withthePhDasthethirddegree.CandidatesforthePhD‐degreeareinmostcountriesseenasstudents,intheNordiccountries


12

theywillusuallybesupportedbytheuniversity,theymayevenbeconsideredasuniversityemployees,notasstudents.Example: The Norwegian model InNorway,PhD‐candidatesarenotconsideredtobestudentsandtheyarenotincludedinthestudentstatistics.TobeacceptedforPhD‐workinNorway,thecandidatemustapplyforatemporarypositionas“stipendiat”.Internationalcandidatesmaycompeteonequalterms.Asaresultofanincreasingnumberof“stipendiat”positionsforPhDworkatNorwegianHEinstitutions,thenumberofdoctorateshasmorethandoubledsince2000.Thenumberofdegreesawardedtoforeigncandidateswas81intheyear2000,thisnumberhadgrownto308or24%ofthetotalin2006,seeTable3.1.Amostinterestingquestion(yetunanswered)ishowmanyoftheinternationallyrecruitedcandidateswillstayinNorwayaftergraduationashighlycompetentspecialistsworkinginNorwegianresearch,industryorbusiness.Table3.1alsoshowswheretheforeignPhDscomefrom.Aspecialprogrammesupportscandidatesfromdevelopingcountries.ThereisamarkedincreaseindegreesawardedtomenandwomenfromAsiaticcountries.AsimilartendencyhasbeenseeninSweden.Citizenship/awardyear

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Norway 566 548 628 577 636 675 688 789 936Norden 13 21 17 27 27 34 37 43 42West/SouthEurope 20 30 22 33 37 42 50 55 83EastEurope 11 14 16 14 14 20 23 38 40NorthAmerica 4 3 5 6 5 7 8 7 11Africa 15 27 17 31 30 37 38 42 54Asia 15 33 28 31 29 36 54 49 64Total 647 677 739 723 782 855 905 1030 1244

Foreigncitizens 13% 19% 15% 20% 19% 21% 24% 23% 25%

Table3.1.PhD‐degreesinNorway.Source:NordicInstituteforStudiesinInnovation,ResearchandEducation,seehttp://www.nifustep4Staffmobility–academicexchangeorjobmigration?IncreasedstaffmobilityhasbeenoneofthegoalsoftheBolognaProcess,eagerlytakenupalsobytheNordiccountries.Yet,the“Bolognavision”ofstaffmobilityisnotwellarticulated.Therehasbeenlittleconsiderationofobjectivesandmeanstoreachthem.Whatkindofmobilitydowewanttoencourage,andhowcanitberealised?IntheBolognaProcess,staffmobilityhasmainlybeenrelatedtoteacherexchangeanddevelopmentofjointstudyprogrammes–traditionalacademicmobility.However,issuessuchassocialsecurityandpensionrightshavealsobeenbroughtup,bringingintheaspectofjobmigration–anotherformformobility.VisasandworkingpermitshavebeenobstaclesformobilitybetweentheEEAregionandcountriesoutside.Thisisnowrapidlychanging.TakingagainNorwayasanexample,internationalexchangeofstaffbetweenhighereducationinstitutionsisreportedonaregularbasis.Exchangeofacademicstaffhasincreasedfromaround1500in2003tomorethan2500in2007foroutgoingstaffandfrom800tonearly1600incomingvisitingstaffstayingformorethanoneweek.LittleisknownaboutjobmigrationofHEstaffbetweencountries.In200113%ofthetenuredstaffinNorwegianuniversitiesanduniversitycollegeshadforeigncitizenship.Recentreports


13

fromindividualinstitutionsindicatethattherehassincethenbeenamarkedincreaseinjobmigrationbyuniversitystaff.TheNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnologyhasreportedthatin2008,26%oftheresearchstaffhadforeigncitizenship,sohad35%ofthoseworkingforaPhD‐degree.TheUniversityofOslohasreportedthat1400researchers,25%oftheresearchstaffin2008hadforeigncitizenship.Forhighereducationthiswillmeanthattheteachingstaffwillbecometrulyinternational.Thisopensupnewpossibilities:Russian‐bornprofessorsmaygivecoursesinRussian,Chinese‐bornprofessorsmaylectureinChinese.Englishprofessorswillmasterthelanguageofthemostpopularcoursesforinternationalstudents.ThechallengemaybenottoloosetheNorwegianculturalbasis.TheEUCommissionhasrecentlymadesomeveryvisibleeffortstostimulatethemobilityofresearchers,seehttp://ec.europa.eu/,introducingtheEuropeanCharterforResearchersandtheCodeofConductfortheRecruitmentofResearchers(2005),theScientificVisaforresearchersfromthirdcountries(2005),andtheproposalofSocialSecurityandSupplementaryPensionRightsforResearchers.AHumanResourcesStrategyforResearcherswasbeenannounced(2008)forbetterjobopportunities.AResearchersMobilityPortalwasrecentlyestablished(2011),seehttp://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/.Clearly,theCommissionisnowfocusingonjobmigration,notsomuchonacademicexchange. 5RecruitmentofhighlyqualifiedspecialistsAllNordiccountriesandmostEuropeanoneshavetofaceashortageinthenationalrecruitmentofskilledworkersandspecialistsoverthecomingyears.Immigrationpoliciesarebeingadjustedforadualpurpose:Tolimittheflowofrefugeesandtoincreasetheflowofhighlyqualifiedspecialists.Ourcountriesareagingsocieties,althoughtheaveragenumberofchildrenpr.womanvaries(between1.4inDenmarkand1.96inNorway).Inordertohandlethissituationinrelationshiptotheproperdevelopmentofoursocieties,weneedawelleducatedpopulation.However,experiencetellsusthatthereisalackofhighlyeducatedspecialistsinanumberofareas,inparticularwithinmedicine,naturalsciencesandtechnologicalsciences.Wehavetolookabroadforrecruitmentoftherighttypeofspecialists.ThisispresentlymuchmoreactivelydoneinDenmarkthaninNorway.MethodsusedinDenmarkaree.g.greencardarrangementsforcertainprofessions,specialsalaryarrangements,properandinexpensiveschoolingforaccompanyingchildren,jobopportunitiesforaccompanyingpartnersandspecial(low)taxarrangements.Foreignspecialistworkinginresearchisforalimitedperiodensuredtaxonincomeatamaximumof25%,whichisapproximatelyhalfofthenormaltaxationlevelinDenmark.Thishashelpedattractingforeignspecialists,butiftheydon’tbringtheirfamily,theyusuallyleaveagain.TheintroductionoftheEUBlueCardSystemhttp://www.bluecardeu.co.uk/in2009indicatesafurthercommondevelopment†:

Thedirectiveestablishesmoreattractiveconditionsforthird‐countryworkerstotakeuphighlyqualifiedemploymentinthememberstatesoftheUnion,bycreatingafast‐trackprocedureforissuingaspecialresidenceandworkpermitcalledthe“EUBlueCard”.TheBlueCardwillfacilitateaccesstothelabourmarkettotheirholdersandwillentitlethemtoaseriesofsocio‐economicrightsandfavourableconditionsforfamilyreunificationandmovementacrosstheEU.Undertherulessetbythedirective,EUBlueCardholderswillenjoyequaltreatmentwithnationalsofthememberstateissuingtheBlueCard,asregardsworkingconditions,includingpayanddismissal;freedomofassociation;education,trainingandrecognitionofqualifications;etc.

†EUCouncilpressrelease.Brussels,25May2009


14

Onthisbasis,authoritiesinallEuropeancountriesmayseeinternationalstudentsintheirhighereducationinstitutionsascandidatesforhighlyqualifiedemploymentinthehostcountryaftergraduation.DanishauthoritiesmayshifttheirfocusfromseeinginternationalstudentsasapossiblesourceofincomeforDanishuniversitiestoseeingthemaspotentialcandidatesforhighlyqualifiedworkintheDanishindustry.NorwegianauthoritiesmayperhapsmoreclearlyalsoseetheirinternationalstudentsasareservoirofcomingspecialistsforNorwegianemployment–notonlyasacontributiontointernationalisation.Clearly,measurestolimitthebraindrainfromdevelopingcountrieswillbenecessary.InNorway,studentsfromthesecountriesaresupportedonequaltermswithNorwegianstudents.Tostimulatethereturntothehomecountry,loansfromtheNorwegianStateLoanFundforEducationwillbeconvertedtograntsafterayearathome.However,internationalstandardswillbeneededtopreventthatgraduatesfromdevelopingcountriesareactivelyrecruitedtoworkinrichcountries.6.Nordicchallengesanddilemmas FiftyyearsbeforeBologna,thesocialdimensionofhighereducationwasseenasacentralelementintheexpansionandbroadeningofhighereducationsystemsintheNordiccountries:Therewerenotuitionfeesandineachcountryafinancialsupportsystemwassetuptogiveallyoungpeopleequalopportunitiesforahighereducation.ActivatingtheintellectualpotentialofthepopulationmaybeoneofthereasonsforthesuccessoftheNordicmodel.Ithasbeenarguedbothbypoliticiansandeconomiststhatthemoneymighthavebeenusedmoreeffectivelyinasupportsystemcombiningtuitionfeesandgrants,placingmoreresponsibilitywiththestudentsforstudyingfull‐timeandfinishingontime.Overtheyearssomeadjustmentshavebeenmade,forinstancepartiallyconvertinggrantstoloansorintroducingabonusforthosefinishingontime.Suchchangeshavegenerallyhadlittleeffectonstudentsintheirhomecountry.Onepossibleexplanationmightbethatalthoughstudentorganisationsclaimthatloansandgrantsshouldbesufficientforfull‐timestudies,individualstudentstodaypreferacombinationofstudiesandpart‐timeworkforamorecomfortablelife.Privateinstitutionsmaychargetuitionfees.ThefactthatprivateinstitutionsinIcelandreceivefundingfromthestateaccordingtothesamerulesaspublicuniversities,hasledtothediscussionwhetherthepublicuniversitiesshouldalsobeallowedtochargetuitionfees.However,therightforafreehighereducationissodeep‐rootedintheNordiccountriesthatitmightbepoliticalsuicidetoproposeachangetothesystem.MostprobablytheNordiccountrieswillcontinueano‐feepolicyinstateinstitutionsfortheirhomestudents.Studentsthatconsidergoingabroadfortheirdegreehavemuchmorebeenundertheinfluenceofthesupportsystemthanhomestudents.Supportforstudiesabroadmaynotcoverallcostsandpossibilitiesforpart‐timejobsmaynotbegoodforforeigncitizens.Costsbecomeanelementwhendecidingwheretogo,evenmoresowhentuitionfeesinsomecountriesmaybehighabovewhatcanbeobtainedfromthesupportsysteminthehomecountry.Forexample,evenwiththestillgeneroussupportschemeoftheNorwegianStateLoanFund,thehightuitionfeesatUKandUSuniversitieshavedrasticallyreducedthenumberofstudentsgoingtothosecountries.FurtherrestrictionsinthesupportschemeturnedouttobeaneffectivebrakeontheexodustoAustralianuniversities.Ontheotherhand,thepossibilityofEnglish‐taughtmedicaleducationinlow‐costcountriesinEasternEuropehasconsiderablyincreasedthestudentflowtoHungaryandPoland.IfNorwegianauthoritiesshoulddecidethatthecountrywillnotneedahigherdensityofmedicaldoctors(alreadyamongthehighestinEurope),theymaysimplystopsupportingmedicalstudiesabroad.Ithashappenedbefore,itmayhappenagain.Highereducationwasin1995beendefinedasaservicetobetradedundertheregimeofGATSandtheWorldTradeAssociation.Governmentssupportingstudentsabroadmaythenbeinclinedtoseeinternationalhighereducationmoreasanimportofservicestothecountrythan


15

asabenefitforthestudents.Schemesforthesupportofinternationalstudentsmaybechangedaccordingly.EvenintheNordiccountriestherighttohighereducationmaynotintimestocomeimplytherighttobuyaneducationontheglobalmarket,sendingasubstantialpartofthebilltothegovernmentintheirhomecountry.Whyshouldthehomecountrypayforaninternationaleducationifthecandidatedoesnotcomebackaftergraduation?Whyshoulditpayfortheoffspringofanincreasingnumberofguestworkers,perhapssupportedasinternationalstudentsintheircountryoforigin?Questionslikethesemaycorrodethesystem.Lookingtowardstheglobalmarketforeducationalservices,Nordiccountriesareindividuallysmallunitsinabigworld,andtheyhave(withtheexceptionofDenmark)notfullytakenastandregardingtheirrelationtothismarket.NicewordshavebeensaidintheNordicCouncilaboutjoiningforces,butnothingsubstantialrelatingtoeducationhasemerged‡.Inaglobalperspective,theNordicRegionisbarelyvisible.Nordiccountriesandtheirstudentsgoingabroadarebuyersontheglobalmarketforeducation.Atleastoneofthecountriesalsohopestoestablishitselfasaseller.Thequestionsremain:WillacommonNordicapproachtothechallengesofthemarketbepossible?CantheNordicmodelforfreeandopeneducationsurviveinthelongrun?Hasitperhapsalreadystartedtocorrode??

‡Seeforinstance:Globalisationreporttotheprimeministers,20May2010,http://www.norden.org/en/nordic‐council‐of‐ministers/globalisation‐co‐operation


16

KlemenMiklavič

ResearcheratCentreforEducationalPolicyStudies,FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana.

Addressforcorrespondence:Kardeljevaploscad16SI‐1000Ljubljana,[email protected]

IdeasunderlyingtheBolognaProcess(Notesforpresentation)

InterpretationsofBologna:Culturalpowerstrugglebetween(neo)colonialpowersResponseofdemocraticauthoritiestoglobalizationandTNEResponseofEuropeannationstatestoCommissionadvanceinthefieldofHEInstrumentforlabormarketintegrationNeoliberalagendatocutthecostsandspeedupthepreparationforproductivephaseCommodificationandtradeineducationEUinvolvement:Newboosttointegration(Mitterrand/Delores)–economicunion,marketintegrationSinkingcontinent–needforaboostincompetitiveness–KnowledgeeconomyPolicyrecommendationsinvadingmanysubfieldsofHEpolicyNotimeforsocialdimensionandotherromanticideasSorbonne1998Broadideatokickoff–ideaofEuropeCentralroleofgovernmentsBologna1999HarmonisationDiversityofcultures/languages+universityautonomy+intergovernmentalco‐operationCompetitivenessmentionedbutmarginalandincorrelationwithcivilizationappealPrague2001PublicgoodandpublicresponsibilitySocialdimensionStakeholders’inclusion+ECSensingTNE‐achallengeEurope’sinternationalAttractivenessandcompetitivenessBerlin2003SocialdimensionbecomesaslogancarriedalongtheprocessAttractivenessbecomesasubstitutetocompetitivenessDirectreferencetotheEULisbonStrategyECstrategyonshortandconcisetextwithfeasiblegoalsBergen2005


17

Secretariatvs.EC+presidencystate–powerfulplayerThingsareslippingoutofEChands‐ECbackupstrategy–thepromotersNL,UK,LevyClemetinsistonGATS–thedebatevetoedbyFEIandUNICEjoin–socialpartnersandemployabilityNOmakesSocialdimensiononeofthepillarcharacteristicsofBPLondon2007FromgrowingtoclarifyingPurposesofHEIs–onlyinLondonbecauseofcommissionhysteriaonthelengthGatsfadedawayLeuven2009FinancialcrisisandroleofHERanking‐anewtoyTNEmentionedagaininrelationtoUNESCO/OECD


18

JanjaKomljenovič

ResearcheratCentreforEducationalPolicyStudies,FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana


UniversityAutonomyintheEuropeanHigherEducationArea(Notesforpresentation)

InstitutionalautonomyappearanceIntheoreticalliteratureInpolicydocumentsCentreofattentioninthepastdecadeasitwasfromthebeginningoftheuniversityAboutinstitutionalautonomyNocoherentdefinitionDependingontime,regionandstakeholdersinvolved(‘whoistalkingaboutautonomy’)Sharedpoint:valueinitselfthatneedstobesafeguardedConnectiontouniversity’sroleinsocietyManyrecentchangesintheenvironmentthatinfluencesuniversitieslikeothersocialsystemsGeneralshiftinthepastdecadefromfocusonacademicfreedomtootherdimensionsincludingfinancingandgovernanceNewcircumstancesthatinfluenceuniversityanditsautonomyGlobalisation,internationalisationandsupranationaldecision‐makingMassificationofhighereducationNewpoliticalandculturalcircumstances(neo‐liberalism,marketisation,newpublicmanagement)Generaldefinitions‐theoryGeneralandvaguedefinitions:‘Therightofuniversitytogovernitself’ManyinterpretationsallowedandmanyelementscanbeincludedNeedfornewunderstandingsinrelationtonewcircumstancesandcontemporaryrolesoftheuniversityUnderstandings–policyCentreofattentionManystakeholdersandorganisations: EUA CoE EU UNESCO


19

BolognaProcess Otherrelevantorganisations:OECD,WBCommondenominator–positiveconnotationandvalueNewtrend:instrumentalisationoftheconceptFindingsfrompolicyanalysisConsistencyinhowtoachieveorincreaseinstitutionalautonomyInconsistencyinunderstandingwhatinstitutionalautonomyactuallyisorwhyitisneededImaginaryofautonomypossibletofail


20

LeonCremonini

ResearchAssociateatCenterforHigherEducationPolicyStudiesUniversityofTwente.

Addressforcorrespondence:P.O.BOX217NL‐[email protected]

ConsiderationsaboutDifferentiationofHigherEducationinaGlobalizedContext

Keywords:Verticaldifferentiation,horizontaldifferentiation,civilizationalattraction,world‐class,éliteBuilding»prestigioushighereducation«hasbecomesomewhatofaleitmotif.Universitieswanttobe»world‐class«toattractthebesttalentonthemarketandboosttheirfunds.Governmentsgotogreatlengthstorewardexcellenceineducationandresearch(theExcellenceInitiativeinGermanyandChina’sprojects985and211areexamples).Evencitizensareincreasinglyawareaboutthepositionoftheirnationaluniversitiesinpopularinternationalrankings(forexample,Liu(2007)mentionsthatbuildingworld‐classuniversities»hasbeenthedreamofgenerationsofChinese,includingpoliticians,universityadministrators,staff,studentsandtheordinarypublic«.Buildingéliteuniversitiesispromotinginter‐institutionaldifferentiationbothwithinandbeyondthehighereducationsystem.Itisaprestige‐buildingendeavourthatrestsupongloballysharedassumptionsaboutwhatconstitutesexcellence.Which»outputs«auniversityoughttoproducetobecomeworld‐class,andhowasystemcouldbeclassifiedas»world‐class«canbeinterpretedinthelightofinstitutionaltheoriesofisomorphismandpolicydiffusion.Asaninstitution,theuniversityclaimstheexistenceofaunifiedknowledgeandauthorityrootedinuniversalprinciplesandsupportstheproductionofasystemofknowledgeandassumptionsabouttheworld(Meyer,2006).Therefore,aworld‐classuniversityproducesauthoritativesciencethroughtheemploymentofscientistswithacknowledgedqualificationsawardedbyrecognizeduniversities(see,interalia,Drorietal.,2003,Meyer,2006).Still,thepursuitofprestigemayhaveseveralconsequences(ofvaryingdegreesofdesirability)thatwarrantfurtherinvestigation.1) First,itmayencourageinter‐institutionalinequalityinthesystemderivedfromdismissingalluniversitiesthatdonotfitinthemodelas»lessworthy«.Inotherwords,world‐classuniversitypoliciesfocussolelyonverticaldifferentiationbut,arguably,ahighereducationsystembenefitsjustasmuchfromhorizontaldifferentiation,whichincludesdimensionssuchasinstitutionalownership(publicvs.private),curricularthrusts,andstructuredifferentiation(e.g.binarity,whichreferstothebasicorientationsinthesystem,namelyresearchandprofessions).Throughhorizontaldifferentiationthesystemcanreachouttoheterogeneousstudentclientelesandalignwiththeirdifferentlearningneeds(UNESCO,2004;MOC&W,2010).Intimesofmasshighereducationthisisoftenconsideredastrongpoint.2) Second,thepursuitofprestigemaybuildnewsocietalcriteriaupon(orevenincontrastwith)thetraditionalexpectationsabouthighereducation’ssocialrole,withpotentiallynegativeconsequencesfornations–ifinfactnewexpectationsbuildontopofoldones,thereistherisk


21

thathighereducationsystemswillbeassessedandsteeredaccordingtocriteriathatincreaseinequalitywhilstfailingtoservesociety.3) Third,policiestocreateéliteuniversitiesoftenjustifiedonthegroundsthatinstitutionalreputewillipsofactoattract(foreign)studentsandresearcherstotheentiresystem–suggestingthatprestigeepitomizes,nourishesandsustainsanation’s»civilizationalattraction«towardstherestoftheworld.ThelatterconsiderationintroducesustothesecondkeyquestionIwishtoaddress,namely:whyhas»world‐class«inhighereducationbecomealmost"T.I.N.A.‐style"obsession?»Civilizationalattraction«isdefinedasapatternofsocialcontactsoraflowofpeople,whichexplainswhystudentsandresearcherstendtotraveltocertaincentresorcountriesthatareattractiveandrecognized.Indeed,azoneofcivilizationalattractionisalsocalled»zoneof

prestige«(Collins,2001).Thistranscendsgeopoliticalandeconomichegemony(infact,20th

centuryFranceisanexampleofthecontrary,becauseParisianintellectualculture»setthefashionsthathavebeenemulatedthroughoutthericherandmoremilitarilypowerfulpartsoftheworld«/Ibid.).Theconceptof»civilizationalattraction«isrelatedtootherconceptsthatareusedtostudymobilityinhighereducationanditsconsequencesfordifferentcountries,includingthecentre‐peripheryeffect(Ibid.)andthe»knowledgegap«(Stiglitz,2007).Thesenotionspositthatmanyoftheeducationalpossibilitiesareconstructedinspecificplacesaroundtheworld,whichthenbecomethemostobviousstudydestinationsforprospectivestudentsattheexpenseofperipheralcountries.Itistruethatthemassificationofhighereducationinaglobalizedenvironmentempowersstudentsandresearcherstochoosetheirstudydestinationsamongincreasinglynumerouscountries,butitislikewisetruethattheU.S.remainstodaytheglobal»academicpowerhouse«.In2010therewerealmost700,000foreignstudentsthere,ofwhichChinese,IndianandSouthKoreansaloneaccountedforalmosthalf(IIE,2011).TheU.S.remainsthetopdestinationfornon‐citizenstudentsandresearchers–along‐standingandwell‐documentedtrend(forexample,inhis1968comparativestudyaboutfundamentalresearch,BenDavid(pp.17ff.)alreadypointedatthegapinfundamentalresearchbetweentheU.S.andEurope,whichdeepenedduringandafterWorldWarII).Althoughonemayconcedethattheprospectofmorestudents,moreresearchers,andstrongercivilizationalattractionensuingfrompoliciespromoting(vertical)differentiation(believed,inturn,toyieldglobalstatusforthehighereducationsystem)hasitsallure,thefundamentalquestion(hintedtoabove)remains:isthepromotionofexcellence,ascurrentlyconceived,publicizedandimplemented,compatiblewiththeequallyproclaimedaspirationstoestablishworld‐classhighereducationsystems?Or,onthecontrary,isdevelopingaworld‐classuniversity,whichemphasisesverticaldiversity,inconsistentwithdevelopinganexcellenthighereducationsystem,whichcallsforinter‐institutionalequality,well‐establishedintra‐systemiceducationalpathways&c.(inotherwordsfocusesonhorizontaldifferentiationatleastasmuchasonverticaldifferentiation)?Ultimately,ascitizenshowconfidentcanwebethatourpolicymakersareexpressinggoodandearnestjudgementratherthanconveyingmererhetoric(called»diversity«or»world‐class«)toinformtheallocationofpublicfundstodifferentactorsinthesystem?SelectedReferences1)Ben‐David,J.(1968),FundamentalResearchandtheUniversities:SomeCommentsonInternationalDifferences,Paris,OECD


22

2)Collins,R.(2001),CivilizationsasZonesofPrestigeandSocialContact,InternationalSociology,Vol.16(3):421‐437.at:http://club.fom.ru/books/Collins01_3.pdf,accessedApril15,20113)Drori,G.S.,J.W.Meyer,F.O.Ramirez,&E.Schofer(2003),ScienceintheModernWorldPolity:Institutionalizationandglobalization,StanfordUniversityPress4)InstituteofInternationalEducation(2011),OpenDoorsfastFacts,2010,November15,2010at:http://www.iie.org/en/Research‐and‐Publications/Open‐Doors,accessedApril15,20115)Liu,N.C.(2007).“TheDifferentiation,Classification,andFutureWolrd‐ClassStatus”.In:P.G.AltbachandJ.Balán(Eds.).World‐ClassWorld‐Wide.TransformingResearchUniversitiesinAsiaandLatinAmerica,pp.54‐696)Meyer,J.W.etal.(2006),HigherEducationasanInstitution,CDDRLWorkingPapers,at:http://cddrl.stanford.edu,accessedApril2,20087)MOC&W(2010).DutchCommitteeontheFutureSustainabilityoftheDutchHigherEducationSystem:ThreefoldDifferentiationfortheSaleofQualityandDiversityinHigherEducation.TheHague:MinistryofEducation,CultureandScienceoftheNetherlands8)Stiglitz,J.E.(2007).MakingGlobalizationWork(pbk.[withanewAfterword]ed.).NewYork;London:W.W.Norton9)UnitedNationsEducationalScientificandCulturalOrganization(2004).DiversificationofHigherEducationandtheChangingRoleofKnowledgeandResearch.PaperspresentedattheSecondScientificCommitteeMeetingforEuropeandNorthAmerica(PaperNo.6).Paris.At:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001467/146736e.pdf.AccessedApril15,2011


23

Dr.ManjaKlemenčič

PostdoctoralResearcheratCentreforEducationalPolicyStudies,FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana.2011/12VisitingResearcheratWissenschaftszentrumBerlinandINCHERKassel2010/11VisitingScholaratBostonCollegeCenterforInternationalHigherEducation

Addressforcorrespondence:WissenschaftskollegzuBerlinWallotstrasse1914193Berlin,[email protected]

SoutheastEuropeanhighereducationsystemsinthecontextofinternationalisation:preliminarythoughtsforfurtherexploration

This contemplationbeginswithaworkingassumption that thehigher educationenvironmentwhich influences behaviour of governments and higher education institutions extends fromnationaltointernationalcontext.Alsothenormativeenvironmentthatshapeswhatisvaluedbythesegovernmentsandhighereducationinstitutionsisextendedtointernationalcontext.Thus,the decisions on what are viable and – indeed – desirable governmental higher educationpolicies, institutional policies and university structures in one country are shaped byinternationalcontext.The international context consists of policies and policy processes formulated in variousinternationalpolicy regimes ‐ suchas for example theEHEA ‐ andbyglobalhigher educationtrendsanalysedandinterpretedby/intheseregimes.Theinternationalhighereducationpolicyregimes consist of governments, higher education institutions, international organisations,policyexpertsandacademicaswellasotherhighereducationstakeholders,suchasassociationsrepresentingstudents,universitiesandteachertradeunions.Globalhighereducationtrendsarethe various developments associatedwith terms of globalisation of higher education, such ascrossboardereducation,internationalrankings,etc.Inabsenceof internationalpolicyregimes,nationalgovernmentsand institutionsusebilateralor multilateral cooperation to compare each other’s’ policies, and to formulate their ownpolicies.Indoingsotheymostoftenapplythemethodprincipleof‘cherry‐picking’:theyimitatethe perceived best practices and emulate them into national context. Policy formulationsupportedthroughnationalcomparisonsmayimprovethepoliciesandnationalpractices,butitdoesnotnecessarilycreateconditionsforsufficientconvergenceofpoliciesthatwouldsupportinternationalcooperation.Bothinternationalcooperationinhighereducationandconsequentlyinternationalisationofnationalhighereducationarenearuniversallypromotedasbeneficialforadvancementofnationalhighereducation systems.Thus, various internationalpolicy regimeshavebeendevelopedtobetterrealisethegoalofinternationalisation.In the case of international policy regimes, a common policy discourse and normativeframework is developed. The regimeprovides a forum for sharing and exchange of ideas, formutual learning, and for negotiation of commonly acceptable policy recommendations andnormative declarations. Theparticipating actors – through intensity of interactions ‐ socialiseinto this framework, develop common ‘vocabulary’ andpossibly common identities related totheirroleandparticipationwithintheregime.Thecommoninitiativesareformulatedbasedonthe expectation that soft instruments – such as joint policy recommendations, declarations as


24

well as benchmarking, naming and shaming, etc. – will influence national and institutionalpoliciesandpracticesinthecommonlydesireddirectionandultimatelyleadtoconvergenceofnationalpolicies.Thiswill‐inturn‐makepossibleforinternationalisationofhighereducation.Despite the promise of international policy regimes, there are twomajor caveats. One caveatpertainsthepoliticsbehindtheregimepolicyprocessesand, inparticular, thequestionwhoseinterestsareserved,whose influence is thestrongest,and–consequently‐ the legitimacyandgeneral acceptance of the polices proposed. Or to see the issue from a point of view ofsmaller/peripheral states, the question here iswhether and towhat extent governments andinstitutions from these statesare inposition to influencecommonpolies and raiseawarenessabout their specific needs. The closely related concern is that of potential ‘democratic deficit’within regime policy processes and disassociation of individual students, academics and staffwiththeregimepolicies.Theother–andrelated‐caveatisconcernedwiththecapacityofgovernmentsandinstitutionsfrom smaller, peripheral and/or lesser developed higher education systems to formulatecomprehensivenational higher educationpolicies and strategies. Such capacity contains threemain aspects: (1) rigorous and effective systemsof national data collection on various highereducation indicators, (2) a sufficient criticalmass of policy experts and academics to conductcomparativeanalysesandstudies,policyreviews,evaluationandimpactassessmentsandworkonstatisticsandindicators;and(3)informedandinvolvedstakeholderstofeedintothepolicyprocess at various stages. These aspects are equally important to influence negotiations ofinternationalregimes’policiesanddevelopmentofmainstreampolicydiscourses.Finally, theyare important for these actors’ ability to critically evaluate and examine policyrecommendations stemming from international policy regimes or propagated by individualpolicyactorsand/orfundingagencies.In line with discussion, the questions that interest me are: “How are international highereducation policies reflected in the national and institutional context of South East Europeanstates?” and “What is the capacity of these states for comprehensive higher education policyformulation?”ThesequestionsarebuiltonapresuppositionofsomecommoncharacteristicsofsmallerperipheralstatessuchasthosefromtheSEEregion:(1)relativefinancialweakness,i.e.relatively lesser funds available for public spending on HE; (2) weak (or developing)government structures andgovernance coupledwithweakdemocratic procedures, possibilityfor corruptivemoments, interference into institutional autonomy and academic freedom; (3)thatthesestatesaretypicallynotconsideredas“zonesofcivilizationalattraction”;(4)thatthesestates are at different level of economic and social advancement from the states that theycompare themselves to, or evenmore importantly, that these states have a different startingpoint intermsoftheirdevelopmentthanthosetowhomtheythemselves orothermostoftencomparethem.Hence,theremaybedifferentforcesthatshapehighereducationatplayinthesestatesthanthosethatareattheforefrontofthepolicy‐makinginpolicyregimes,suchasEHEA.It would be then worth exploring problems that are magnified in, but also problems andopportunities and advantages that are specific to these countries when it comes to highereducationdevelopment


25

Dr.PavelZgaga

CentreforEducationalPolicyStudies,FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana.


Internationalization,competitionand/orcooperation–“small”/”periphery”countries’perspectives

TherelativenotionofattractivenessTakingpartininternationalizationofhighereducationisveryoftenunderstoodasconditionedby an “enhanced attractiveness”: an attractiveness of both national systems and individualinstitutionswithinit.Yet, national systems differ; they also differ regarding their size as well as their political(economic)“weight”.Whataboutattractivenessof“small”or“periphery”HEsystems?Whyanenhancedattractiveness?Thenotionofattractivenessiscloselyassociatedtocompetitivenessandcooperation.Whatcouldenhancedattractivenessbegoodfor?On the one hand, it can strengthen international – but also national – competitiveness: highereducation systems in general and institutions in particular should performbetter in terms ofmobileaswellasinternationalstudents,teacherandresearchers,programmesobtained,etc.Thisissueis,firstofall,relatedtoqualityassuranceandqualityenhancementaspects.Attractivenessvs.cooperationOn the other hand, enhanced attractiveness can also strengthen international cooperation inhighereducation.This issue iscloselyrelatedto thepromotionofpartnerships inhighereducation–nationallyand internationally, in particular close relationships that could be built through jointprogrammesofteachingand/orresearchamonginstitutionswithastrongmobilityaspect,butalsothroughdialogueandmutuallearningfromgoodpractices.In this sense, cooperation can also increase competitiveness but by diminishing the strict“egoistic”character.Awayfromexcessivecompetition“To facilitate change, universities should move away from excessive competition fuelled byperniciousratingsystems,anddevelopstructuresandproceduresthatfostercooperation.Thiswouldenablethemtosharefacultymembers,studentsandresources,andtoefficientlyincrease


26

educationalopportunities.Institutionswouldn’tneedadepartmentineveryfield,andcouldout‐source some subjects. Teleconferencing and the Internet mean that cooperation is no longerlimited by physical proximity. Consortia could contain a core faculty drawn from the homedepartment,andarotatinggroupoffacultymembersfromotherinstitutions.”MarkC.Taylor,ReformthePhDsystemorcloseitdown.Nature,Vol.472,21April2011AcasefromSEE:ShanghaiUniversitytorankMacedonianUniversitiesShanghai Jiao TongUniversity,which analyzes the top universities in theworld on quality offaculty,researchoutputqualityofeduca‐tionandperformance,hasbeenselectedtoevaluatethepublic and private institutions for higher education in Macedonia, Minister of Education andScienceNikolaTodorovtoldreportersonSunday.TherankingteamincludedtheShanghaiUniversityDirector,ExecutiveandsixmembersoftheUniversity'sCenter,Todorovsaid,pointingoutthatMacedoniaistobethefirstcountryfromtheregiontobepartoftheAcademicRankingofWorldUniversities(ARWU),commonlyknownastheShanghairanking."TheShanghairanking list is themostrelevant intheworld,andbeingpartof itisamatterofprestige.We shall be honored our institutions for higher education to be evaluated by thisuniversity.This isgoingtobearevolution intheeducationsector,as forthefirst timeweareofferedanopportunitytoseewherewestandinregardtothequality,"Todorovsaid.MINA–MacedonianInternationalNewsAgency,16January2011Internationalization,researchandPhDstudiesInternationalizationpressuresHEIstoraisetheir“attractiveness”and“competitiveness”.Yet,thiscallisreceiveddifferentlywiththe“topresearch”,“national”or“local”universities;itisreceived differently in different countries and world regions. It is a general expectation offounders and public today that HEIs should increase their “attractiveness” which ispredominantly measured by the number and strength of research projects and doctoralprogrammes(or“doctoralschools”).Their fight for “attractiveness”andprestige is linkedwitha today’s fight for financial survivaland,hopefully,expansion.Explosionofdoctoralstudentsandstudies?ThisisaseriouschallengeforHEsystemsinsmallcountriesduetolowacademiccriticalmasses;it is aparticularchallenge forHE incountries “in transition” (and/or “post‐conflict” societies)withtheirunstablepoliticsandweakeconomies.As a result, we are witnessing – also e.g. in the South‐eastern Europe – an explosion of(“research”)universities–aswellasanexplosionofdoctoralstudentsandstudies.Ontheotherhand,doctoralcandidatesmoreandmoreoftendecidetodotheirstudiesatoneofthe“leadinguniversities”(braindrain).


27

Acase:DoctoralstudentsinSlovenia2000–2010

Doctoralstudents;Slovenia,Academicyear2006/07vs.2010/11

Ac.year 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2010–2011

Typeofdoctoralstudies

Total Total

Total

1. Fulltime –all

2.Parttime –all

Total1+2

3. Fulltime –1sty.

4.Parttime –1sty.

Total3+4

A.“Traditional”

964(U+I)

1012(U+I)

U=1027I=124

U=199I=97

U=761I=84

U=960I=13

U=n/aI=n/a

U=n/aI=n/a

U=n/aI=n/a

B.“Bologna”

n/a 45(U+I)

U=99I=n/a

U=521I=233

U=2174I=127

U=2695I=106

U=268I=71

U=1062I=40

U=1330I=111

TotalA+B(U+I)

964

1057

1250 754 2301 2801 339

1102 1441

U=Universities;I=IndependentCollegesData:SURSGraduatesintertiaryeducation,Slovenia2010

Total

HE1stcycle(level?Degree?)

HE2nd cycle(level?Degree?)

HE3rdcycle(level?Degree?)

Comp.:Doctorate2005

Total 19.694 11.284 6.918 1.492 369Education 1.468 318 1.111 39Artsandhumanities 1.213 237 776 200Socialsciences,business,law 8.726 5.608 2.467 651Science,maths,computing 1.087 437 430 220Technologies,engineering 3.072 1.889 969 214Agriculture,veterinaryscience 560 341 193 26Healthandsocialaffairs 1.707 858 779 70Services 1.861 1.596 193 72“HE3rdcycle”;definitioninSlovenianVisokošolskiprogrami3.stopnje:Specializacijapouniverzitetniizobrazbi(prejšnja),Magistrski(prejšnji),Doktoratznanosti(prejšnji),Doktoratznanosti(3.bolonjskastopnja).QuestionstodiscussQuestionsthatarise:

• Whatcouldbeoutcome(s)ofthesetrends?• Whattypeof“doctoralstudies”couldweexpectinthesecountriesine.g.five(ten)year

period?• Willallthesenewdoctorsbeemployable?• Whateffects could these trendsproduce in small countries (inparticularwith regards

theirresearchcapacity)?


28

ProfessorJohnBrennan

CentreforHigherEducationResearchandInformation,theOpenUniversity,UK

Addressforcorrespondence:[email protected]

Universitiesintheirplace:socialandculturalperspectivesontheregionalimpactsofuniversities

ThepresentationwilldrawonarecentUKproject§(andthepresentation’stitlereflectsthetitleoftheplannedbookbasedontheproject).Throughfouruniversity/regionalcasestudiesintheUK,theprojectsoughttoexaminetheregionalimpactsofuniversities,withtheemphasisuponthesocialandculturalratherthantheeconomic.AlthoughtheempiricalfocuswasontheUK,theoriginsoftheprojectlayinalargerinternationalprojecton‘Theroleofuniversitiesinsocialtransformation’andthepresentationwillattempttosettheUKfindingsinthislargerinternationalcontext.(Theinternationalprojectcomprisedaseriesofnationalandothercasestudyreports,includingacomparativereportonIndia,Pakistan,PolandandSlovenia!)

Below,themainfindingsoftherecentUKprojectaresummarised.

Universitiesandeconomicdevelopment/regeneration

Universitiesareimportantasnodesinthetransmissionofglobalisedcompetitiveagendas–e.g.relatingtotheknowledgeeconomy,digitisation,creativityetc.;

Universitiesplayapartinupskillingandre‐skillinglocalworkforces,butitisdangeroustoseethemasonlydoingsofortheirimmediateregion–theregionalimpactintermsofthelocallabourforceismoreapparentinthepublicsectorthanintheprivatesector;

Universitieshaveasignificantimpactasbusinessesintheirownright–e.g.throughtheirpropertystrategies–andaresignificantemployersoftechnicalandprofessionalstaff(includingknowledgeprofessionals);

Thebusinessstrategiesofuniversitiesaredrivenbytheirownpriorities–inpractice,however,theseoftenseemtoalignwithlocalandregionaldevelopmentpriorities,whetherbecausetheycreateopportunitiesforthemorbecauseplaceandlocationmatter(itishard–althoughnotimpossible‐forauniversitytorelocate);.

Theunintended(orunplanned)consequencesofuniversityactivityonplacesandtheirregenerationmaybeasimportantastheplannedorintendedones–e.g.impactofstudentification,bohemianisation,serviceactivities,propertydevelopmentetc..

§ HigherEducationandRegionalTransformation:socialandculturalperspectives(theHEARTproject),aprojectfundedbytheUKEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil


29

Regionalanduniversityimages,localandinstitutionalcultures

ImageisatransformativediscoursethatrunsthroughalltheHEARTcasestudiesforboththeuniversitiesandregions(fromimage'enhancing'toimage'constraining').

Universitieshaveastrategicimpactontheirregionsthroughpartnership/developmentopportunitieswithagenciesconcernedwithregionalregeneration.

Universitieshaveaphysicalimpactontheirimmediateenvironments(e.g.buildings,carparking). Universities'involvementinculturalventures(bothhighandpopularculture)andthroughthepresenceofstudentsisimpactrich. However,universities'involvementinculturalinnovationandattitudinalchangeisimpactpoor.

Aspirationsandopportunitiesforpersonalchangeandsocialmobility

Allfourcasestudyinstitutionsarereinforcingthedominantdiscoursearoundwideningparticipationand‘lowaspirations’locallybyjustifyingengagementactivitiesthroughthisnarrative

However,howeachinstitutionengageswiththisdiscoursesvariesandisheavilydependantupontheirpositionwithinthehighlycompetitivehighereducationmarket

Theaspirationsofmanylivinginthesefourregionsdonotalignwiththosevaluedwithinthepolicyandpracticeofnational/localgovernmentsandeducationalinstitutionsincludinguniversities.

Universitieswereregardedbystakeholdersas‘creamingoff’themostablestudentsthroughwideningparticipationactivities.

Whileimportantopportunitiesforsocialmobilityarebeingprovided,afunctionofclassreproductionandstatusconfirmationmaystillbethedominantstory.

Formsanddiscoursesofpublicandcommunityengagement

Developingactivecitizenshipskillsandprogrammesoftenformanelementofthe“publicengagement”strategyofuniversitiesalongwithleadershipandcoordinationrolesincommunitydevelopmentandregenerationstrategies.

Thelevelandnatureofuniversities’engagementandpromotionofactivecitizenshipvaryaccordingtotheshapeofthelocalHEmarket.


30

Alluniversitiesdeveloparhetoricofpublicengagementbutthoseexplicitlypositioningthemselvesonaglobalmarketshowamoreinstrumental

(strategicpartnershipsandactions)and/orinstitutionalised(beingvisibleoncommissionsandfora,adheringstrictlytoHEFCEguidelines)approach.Ontheotherhand,themoreentangleduniversities(inlocalsystemsofsocialeconomicrelations)seemtostruggletodevelopamoreholisticrhetoricofengagement.

‘Opportunity’universities:in‘new’universitieslocatedinareasofhighsocioeconomicdeprivation,therhetoricofengagementisnotdissociatedfromthediscourseonemployability.Theirdiscoursesandactivitiesaroundcommunitysupport,civicengagementandactivecitizenshipalsoseemmoreexplicitandverydiverse(intermsoftherangeofactions).

Atransformativeapproach:theseuniversitiesalsotendtohaveaself‐assignedmissionofculturalregeneration(raisingaspirations,entrepreneurialculture,)andbuildtheirengagementrhetoricaroundtheissueofthedepreciatedimageofthecityorregiontheyareassociatedwith.

Theroleofuniversitiesintacklingsocialinequalitiesandrelativedisadvantage

Withintheproject’sfoursub‐regions,wideningparticipationactivitiestendtoprovidesocialmobilityopportunitiesforthefewwithoutnecessarilyalteringpatternsofinequalitythataffectthemany.

Insub‐regionswithseveralhighereducationproviders,asocialstratificationofinstitutionsmaymapontoandreinforcewiderpatternsofinequality.

However,byitscontributiontoregionaleconomicdevelopmentandbyincreasinglocalemploymentandconsumptionlevels,alocaluniversitymaybringadvantagestoallwithinitssub‐region.

Bytheirimpactonthelocaleconomyandlabourmarket,universitiesmaybechangingwhothe‘winners’and‘losers’arewithoutnecessarilyimpactingonoveralllevelsofinequalityandrelativedisadvantage.

Atleastoneofthecasestudyuniversitiessawitsroleintacklinginequalitiesanddisadvantageasverylongtermandinter‐generational,seekingtobe‘open’toallandbroadeningitsnotionsof‘access’beyondcourseenrolmentstoinclude,knowledge,expertiseandfacilities.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw … · 2017. 12. 1. · Pavlin Samo XVIII....

Documents

Transcript of qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw … · 2017. 12. 1. · Pavlin Samo XVIII....