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

A European reform for US higher education?

The limits of the Bologna process

Dr Cecile HoareauBerkeley CSHE & Maastricht School of GovernancePresentation for 13th February 2012 CHEER Sussex

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

1. Introduction

1. European HE reforms: the Bologna process2. The Bologna process as ‘deliberative

governance’3. Research questions4. Multiple methodologies5. Widespread changes in Europe6. A European style of reforms for US HE? 7. Explaining differences: the limits of deliberative

governance8. Conclusion

Outline

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.

2. European higher education reforms: the Bologna process

Member states of the Bologna process

Why is it important? ◦ In economic terms, higher education a major

‘export industry’ 1st 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


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 21st century will constitute’ (Allègre, 1997)



From…

2. European higher education reforms: the Bologna processTo…

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

3. Deliberative governance

A mode of governance relying on:• Deliberation

• Justify positions with reasoned arguments• Open to each other’s arguments• Reciprocity

• Resulting in • Problem solving, ‘framing’, learning, incremental policy change

• Gehring, 2003; Habermas, 1984; Risse, 2000; Teague, 2001

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?

4. Resarch questions

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

5. Multiple methodologies

Object Instit. manag. Qualifications Quality control Models 1 2 1 2 1 2 Delib. 0.62 0.80

* 0.57 **

0.69 ***

0.39 0.74 *

0.38 0.41 0.22 0.25 0.40 0.45 Prox. maj -2.64

**** -2.95 ****

-0.19 -0.75 ***

-0.35 -0.97 **

0.45 0.47 0.24 0.25 0.38 0.42 Profession -0.36 -0.36 -0.14

-0.00 -0.03 -0.13

0.37 0.39 0.21 0.23 0.35 0.42 Country. 0.42 0.60

* 0.32 *

0.46 **

0.13 -0.16

0.34 0.37 0.19 0.22 0.33 0.40 Implemt. 0.11 -0.20 -0.01

-0.09 0.70

* 0.55

0.42 0.44 0.23 0.27 0.42 0.51 Age -0.47

** -0.35 -0.21

* -0.06 -0.11 0.00

0.21 0.23 0.12 0.14 0.20 0.25 Constant 2.24

**** 2.11 ***

-0.04 -0.44 0.04 -0.28

0.66 0.68 0.36 0.40 0.59 0.70 N 203 206 464 472 161 163 LR chi2 58.27 70.32 13.76 63.57 7.1 25.81 P > Chi2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.01 Log-likeld -107.40 -139.17 -303.84 -400.90 -106.92 -161.59 Note: The first line represents log-odds; standard errors are on the second line for each category. Note2: * significant at p ≤ .1; ** significant at p ≤ .05; *** significant at p ≤ .01; ****significant at p ≤ .001. Note 3: 1 and 2 indicate models 1 and 2, respectively the logistic regression and the multinomial logistic regression.

Logistic and multinomial regression results

6. Widespread changes in Europe

Institutional management Qualifications framework

Quality control

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1Pr

obab

ility

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Total number of meetings

LB pr(1)/UB pr(1) institutional management

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1Pr

obab

ility


LB pr(1)/UB pr(1) qualifications framework

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1Pr

obab

ility


LB pr(1)/UB pr(1) quality assurance


‘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)



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

Interpretation◦ Deliberative governance can lead to a significant

change of opinions and coordinated policy change in Europe (Hoareau, 2010)


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)’.

7. A European style of reform for US higher education?

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)

7. A European style of reform for US higher education?

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

7. A European style of reforms for US higher education?

8. Explaining differences: the limits of deliberative governance

Europe USA

Start 1998 Late 2008

Nature A wide pan-European process An experiment

Number of participants

46 +European Commission + associations etc.

4

Level Governments, universities, EU institutions

Universities and states

Topic Quality assuranceQualifications frameworkLearning outcomeSocial dimensionTuning

TuningLearning outcome

Impact Widespread national reforms (e.g. France)

?

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?

8. Explaining differences

Deliberative governance

Needs-based argument

Incentive-based argument


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


Needs-based argument should be dismissed


United States

United Kingdom

OECD average

EU 19 average

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Tertiary graduation rate

US = 15th out of 34 OECD countries

Source: OECD (2010)

◦ 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)


8. Explaining differences‘We’ve 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)

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


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)

8. Explaining difference

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

9. Conclusion

Further research

◦ Have more comparable data for US/Europe

◦ How do these change processes in higher education relate to broader socio-economic change?

9. Conclusion

Documents

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