Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Dr Cecile Hoareau Berkeley CSHE & Maastricht School of Governance Presentation for 13 th February 2012 CHEER Sussex.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dr Cecile Hoareau Berkeley CSHE & Maastricht School of Governance Presentation for 13 th February 2012 CHEER Sussex."— Presentation transcript:

1 Dr Cecile Hoareau Berkeley CSHE & Maastricht School of Governance Presentation for 13 th February 2012 CHEER Sussex

2 Comparison between two higher education reform processes in Europe and the US The Bologna process (Europe) Degree profile experiment (US) Why did the Bologna process lead to major changes in Europe but similar attempts have been more limited in the US? An example of theoretical adjustment (from Hoareau, 2011) For Comparative Journal of Education

3 1. European HE reforms: the Bologna process 2. The Bologna process as deliberative governance 3. Research questions 4. Multiple methodologies 5. Widespread changes in Europe 6. A European style of reforms for US HE? 7. Explaining differences: the limits of deliberative governance 8. Conclusion

4 Who? 46 member states What does it seek to achieve? European HE becoming more like the UK system? Facilitate comparability Accessible Higher education Consistent measurement of credits Define and measure learning outcomes for all disciplines Tackle more sensitive questions e.g. role of the Government in higher education management, financing etc. Member states of the Bologna process

5 Why is it important? In economic terms, higher education a major export industry 1 st in terms of output generation in the UK (UUK, 2006) Top third before the entertainment industry in the US (Douglass, Edelstein and Hoareau, 2011) For Europe Facilitate movements across borders Start a European-wide debate on learning and its value

6 Why? Concern about the quality of European higher education (Attali, 1998: annex 8). In perspective of international competition Growing influence of India, China, Brazil and Australia in the economy and higher education (Allègre, 1993; interviews FF1, 02 May 2007, FCM1 28 April 2007) Prepare […] for the brain competition that the 21 st century will constitute (Allègre, 1997)

7 From…

8 To …

9 No coercion A set of ministerial declarations A complex network of agencies, programs, evaluations Eg. Tuning Europe produces reference points on what is being learnt Deliberative governance (Hoareau, 2011) Tuning programme

10 A mode of governance relying on: Deliberation Justify positions with reasoned arguments Open to each others arguments Reciprocity Resulting in Problem solving, framing, learning, incremental policy change Gehring, 2003; Habermas, 1984; Risse, 2000; Teague, 2001

11 Is it possible to obtain significant policy change without coercion? A talking shop or a consequential policy tool? Does it change participants opinions? Does it lead to policy reforms?

12 Unit of measurement: individual opinions and subsequent domestic reforms Multiple methodologies 72 interviews in Europe & 40 in US Cases of deliberations Archival work & secondary sources Analysis of reforms from 1999 Online survey of 160 participants (25% response rate) Retrospectively measure to which extent participants have changed their opinions and how much weight they give to participations to deliberations Various dimensions of relevant to the Bologna process (institutional management, qualifications, quality assurance) Objective: triangulation

13 Logistic and multinomial regression results

14 Institutional managementQualifications framework Quality control Minds matured and mentalities changed and everyone was aware over all the territory that if we do not agree on what we should do, in any case we cannot leave the system like this. (Interview FCM 3, 15 June 2007)


16 Other reforms as riders, e.g. France 2003 and 2007

17 Interpretation Deliberative governance can lead to a significant change of opinions and coordinated policy change in Europe (Hoareau, 2010)

18 Increasing attention to the Bologna process (Adelman, 2008 and 2009; Gaston, 2010; Lumina, 2011) The world has changed. The borders between the US and European higher education are now somewhat leaky […]. A European in America is now somehow thinkable! (Robertson, 2009) Three states […] examine the Bologna process to determine the forms and extent of its potential in U.S. contexts. Scarcely a year ago, such an effort would have been unthinkable (Adelman, 2009: 8).

19 Why does the US care? Accountability debate So far limited to general skills (AAC&U; 2007; Gaston, 2010) Especially around for-profits (Douglass, forthcoming) Threat to international supremacy Relationship with intellectual supremacy and attracting talents (Gaston, 2010: 11)

20 Tuning USA by Lumina foundation (2008) Indiana, Minnesota, Utah and Texas establish study groups Deliberation between administrators, labour market representatives and students Document Degree qualifications profile (2011) But : Low take-up rate No major reform widespread skepticism No further state support

21 EuropeUSA Start1998Late 2008 NatureA wide pan-European processAn experiment Number of participants 46 +European Commission + associations etc. 4 LevelGovernments, universities, EU institutions Universities and states TopicQuality assurance Qualifications framework Learning outcome Social dimension Tuning Learning outcome ImpactWidespread national reforms (e.g. France) ?

22 US efforts do not meet the same impact or popularity as the Bologna process 4 years after its launch, the Bologna process had already led to major domestic reforms in France, Germany and Italy. Tuning USA has not had such impact Why is there no Bologna process of the US?

23 Deliberative governance Needs-based argument Incentive-based argument

24 Deliberative governance Led to some agreement in the US (degree profile) But does not account for differences in Reforms undertaken Differences in the number of participants between Europe and the US

25 Needs-based argument should be dismissed US = 15 th out of 34 OECD countries Source: OECD (2010)

26 Concerns on overall quality of US higher education 45% of undergraduates show no learning gain after two years in higher education 35% of undergraduates show no learning gain after four years in higher education (Arum and Roksa, 2011)

27 Weve had a good run - as the saying goes, but we are no longer at the cutting edge. US higher education can no longer sail on the assumption of world dominance, oblivious to the creative energies, natural intelligence, and hard work of other nations (Adelman, 2009: 9)

28 Incentive-based argument The paradox of autonomy European universities have more incentive to convert to reform processes than US ones due to heavy Government steering Examples Funding structure Block grant vs performance based funding (Salmi and Hauptmann, 2006) Evaluation quality assurance in Europe broader than US accreditation schemes

29 In Europe: difference between de jure and de facto autonomy US universities do not have these constraints, so do not have the same incentive to enlist in a widespread reform process A paradox Government steering in Europe is meant to illicit university autonomy (Bologna declaration, 1999; Vernon, 2011 )

30 Explain why higher education reform processes are different in the US and Europe Need for reform exists But the incentive structures for higher education differ between Europe and the US Paradox of autonomy in higher education in Europe An example of theoretical adjustment Illustrates the limits of deliberative governance and the importance of incentive mechanisms for change

31 Further research Have more comparable data for US/Europe How do these change processes in higher education relate to broader socio-economic change?

Download ppt "Dr Cecile Hoareau Berkeley CSHE & Maastricht School of Governance Presentation for 13 th February 2012 CHEER Sussex."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google