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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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?
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
4
Thenatureoftheworkshopisveryopenandflexible,targetedatdiscussion,informationsharingandopinions.Theagendaisopentochangeandwearealsolikelytodeviatefromitduringthemeeting.Theinputsoncertaintopicsareratherintendedtoinitiateandsupportthediscussionandtosetthecontextthanasanallencompassingcontentinput.Freetimeavailableforinformalindividualandgrouptalks(post‐breakfast,pre‐andpost‐dinnertime)ispartoftheconceptoftheworkshopanddeliberatelyplannedintheagenda.TheworkshopisorganisedbyCEPS–FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana(withintheresearchprojectDEP–Differentiation,equity,productivity:consequencesoftheexpandedanddifferentiatedhighereducationsystemsfromtheinternationalizationaspect,financedbytheSlovenianResearchAgencyARRS).
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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.
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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.
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
17
Secretariatvs.EC+presidencystate–powerfulplayerThingsareslippingoutofEChands‐ECbackupstrategy–thepromotersNL,UK,LevyClemetinsistonGATS–thedebatevetoedbyFEIandUNICEjoin–socialpartnersandemployabilityNOmakesSocialdimensiononeofthepillarcharacteristicsofBPLondon2007FromgrowingtoclarifyingPurposesofHEIs–onlyinLondonbecauseofcommissionhysteriaonthelengthGatsfadedawayLeuven2009FinancialcrisisandroleofHERanking‐anewtoyTNEmentionedagaininrelationtoUNESCO/OECD
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
18
JanjaKomljenovič
ResearcheratCentreforEducationalPolicyStudies,FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana
Addressforcorrespondence:Kardeljevaploscad16SI‐1000Ljubljana,[email protected]
UniversityAutonomyintheEuropeanHigherEducationArea(Notesforpresentation)
InstitutionalautonomyappearanceIntheoreticalliteratureInpolicydocumentsCentreofattentioninthepastdecadeasitwasfromthebeginningoftheuniversityAboutinstitutionalautonomyNocoherentdefinitionDependingontime,regionandstakeholdersinvolved(‘whoistalkingaboutautonomy’)Sharedpoint:valueinitselfthatneedstobesafeguardedConnectiontouniversity’sroleinsocietyManyrecentchangesintheenvironmentthatinfluencesuniversitieslikeothersocialsystemsGeneralshiftinthepastdecadefromfocusonacademicfreedomtootherdimensionsincludingfinancingandgovernanceNewcircumstancesthatinfluenceuniversityanditsautonomyGlobalisation,internationalisationandsupranationaldecision‐makingMassificationofhighereducationNewpoliticalandculturalcircumstances(neo‐liberalism,marketisation,newpublicmanagement)Generaldefinitions‐theoryGeneralandvaguedefinitions:‘Therightofuniversitytogovernitself’ManyinterpretationsallowedandmanyelementscanbeincludedNeedfornewunderstandingsinrelationtonewcircumstancesandcontemporaryrolesoftheuniversityUnderstandings–policyCentreofattentionManystakeholdersandorganisations: EUA CoE EU UNESCO
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
19
BolognaProcess Otherrelevantorganisations:OECD,WBCommondenominator–positiveconnotationandvalueNewtrend:instrumentalisationoftheconceptFindingsfrompolicyanalysisConsistencyinhowtoachieveorincreaseinstitutionalautonomyInconsistencyinunderstandingwhatinstitutionalautonomyactuallyisorwhyitisneededImaginaryofautonomypossibletofail
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
25
Dr.PavelZgaga
CentreforEducationalPolicyStudies,FacultyofEducation,UniversityofLjubljana.
Addressforcorrespondence:Kardeljevaploscad16SI‐1000Ljubljana,[email protected]
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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).
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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)?
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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.
THEFUTUREOF(EUROPEAN)HIGHEREDUCATION,InternationalWorkshopProceedings
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.
Top Related