Download paper - Maastricht University

Maastricht European Studies Papers 2007/07 L. Unbehauen 

The Bologna Process: 

Does à la carte hinder overall success of reform? 

Maastricht European Studies Papers 2007/07 

Date of Publication: October 2007 

Lena Unbehauen 

Email Author: l.unbehauen@student.unimaas.nl 

Abstract 

This paper investigates the crucial current state of the Bologna Process - an 

intergovernmental agreement among 45 pan-European states to harmonize the 

European higher education systems. After a short description of the nature and 

the development of the Bologna Process, the paper mainly analyses the 

Commission’s role as consensus-promoter. It also reveals that national 

sensitivities still challenge such a consensus culture and thus hinder reform. 

Therefore, this paper claims that the success of the Bologna Process mainly 

depends on the thorough implementation of the whole reform package. So far 

reform is hampered in the European Higher Education Area by incoherent à la 

carte implementation among the participating members. Six fields of national 

resistance to harmonization can be identified: the balance of incoming and 

outgoing students, introduction of the two-cycle structure, loss of educational 

diversity, language of instruction, commercialization of higher education and 

finally the establishment of a European system of quality assurance (QA) and 

accreditation. With reference to the Trend IV analysis of the European 

University Association a snapshot of the current state of the incomplete 

implementation in the Member States is given. 

MESP is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes working papers from ‘European Studies’ students. 

MESP is a joint initiative of the European Studies Programme at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, 

University of Maastricht, and the European Studies student association ‘Concordantia’.


Table of Contents 

1. Introduction 3 

2. Nature of the Bologna Process: a Non-Binding Intergovernmental Agreement 4 

3. The Content and Development of the Bologna Process 6 

4. The Strategies of the European Commission to Promote Consensus 9 

5. Challenges to Consensus Culture: Issues of National Sensitivity 11 

6. Current State of the Reform Process 15 

7. Conclusion: Factors on the Road to Success 17 

References 19 

List of abbreviations 22 

Appendix 23 

2


1. Introduction 

Higher education has all times been a very sensitive policy area of the nation state. It 

encompasses two notions, namely a cultural and an economic conception. In previous decades 

the cultural design, the decent education of the next generation of citizens and their 

socialization with certain values, used to be more important. However, external and internal 

pressures such as globalization, the ascend of the ‘knowledge economy’, the aging labor 

force, increased cross-border mobility and the technological revolution in terms of 

information and communication (Keeling, 2006, p. 215) have turned the image in favor of the 

economic rational - a rational which is also stressed by influential players like the European 

Commission. The most significant development these factors have triggered is the so-called 

Bologna Process, an intergovernmental agreement among 45 pan-European states to 

restructure and to harmonize the European higher education systems. 

Consequently, the question arises to what extent the Bologna Process constitutes a 

proof for a shift towards a consensus culture in higher education policy. As a matter of fact, a 

wide-spread consensus exists on the purpose of the reform as such but the degree to which 

change is supported by national actors is questionable. Therefore, this paper claims that the 

success of the Bologna Process mainly depends on the thorough implementation of the whole 

reform package. That means that a Bologna à la carte implementation, which is currently 

present, has to be avoided to ensure real achievements. 

In order to analyze all angles of this issue, the paper will be structured in the following 

way. First, the intergovernmental, non-EU-related nature of the process will be clarified, 

followed by a rough sketch of the objectives and priorities set out in the Bologna Declaration 

and in its follow-up work. Parallel the developing process and the extension of membership 

will be outlined. The third section investigates the steadily increasing role of the European 

Commission in the Bologna follow-up group (BFUG). Furthermore, the Commission’s 

ambition to promote consensus and innovation in the Bologna Process is examined by looking 

at its funding and discourse strategies. To give a balanced picture of this process, the fourth 

part focuses on the challenges to such consensus, concentrating on six fields where national 

resistance to harmonization is present: the balance of incoming and outgoing students, 

introduction of the two-cycle structure, loss of educational diversity, language of instruction, 

commercialization of higher education and finally the establishment of a European system of 

quality assurance (QA) and accreditation. Subsequently, with reference to the findings of the 

3


Trend IV analysis of the European University Association (EUA), a snapshot of the current 

state of progress will be provided that prepares the overall conclusion. 

2. Nature of the Bologna Process: a Non-Binding Intergovernmental 

Agreement 

Once asked what the Bologna Process really is, most students studying abroad can only come 

up with vague answers. This is alarming because these students are actually the living 

example of what this process is about: student mobility and the establishment of a European 

Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010 1 (Bologna Declaration, 1999). Due to this obvious 

knowledge gap the author deems it necessary to first clarify the very nature, content and 

development of this educational reform process. 

By definition, the Bologna Process is a synonym for a thorough reform of Europe’s 

higher education systems, which has been footed upon the intergovernmental agreement of 

currently 45 pan-European members to converge their degree structures and means of quality 

assessment into a common framework (Bologna Declaration, 1999). The overall aim is to 

promote the comparability of degrees which in itself is a prerequisite for the aspired increase 

in transnational mobility in the educational sector. 

It is not based on a binding treaty but builds upon the Bologna Declaration of 1999 

and several policy documents that have been adopted by the ministers responsible for higher 

education of the participating countries in the post-1999 follow-up process. Due to the fact 

that these documents are not legally binding, “it is the free will of every country and its higher 

education community to endorse or reject the principles of the Bologna Process, although the 

effect of ‘international peer pressure’ should not be underestimated” (Council of Europe, 

2006, p. 1) as individual countries might fear to fall behind the mainstream of change. Its 

voluntary and flexible approach, however, demonstrates the sensitivity of education policy 

which functions as a cornerstone of national sovereignty and national cultural heritage and is 

also the reason for delay of reforms and implementation problems. To calm national concerns 

it is repeatedly emphasized that the goal of establishing the EHEA is not foreseeing the 

embodiment of a “single education policy, but rather embracing a diversity of national 

education systems which learn to interact” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 

1 The Bologna Process should facilitate translation of one system to the other and therefore contribute to the 

increase of student and staff mobility and their employability. Moreover, it should boost the quality and 

attractiveness of European higher education for non-Europeans. 

4


2004a, p. 1). According to official declarations, the process aims at creating convergence but 

not harmonization or complete uniformity of the national education systems. Yet, these 

statements must be assessed critically because they have been part of the EU Commission’s 

rhetorical discourse strategy, attempting to play down actual power shifts and quickly 

extending developments in the European education fields. 

As already mentioned the Bologna Process is rooted in an intergovernmental 

agreement, however, “its extended membership places it clearly outside the EU’s formal 

policy-making processes” (Keeling, 2006, p. 207). Its size has increased from originally 29 to 

currently 45 participating countries 2 , proceeding with different reform speeds 3 (Council of 

Europe, 2006, p. 3). Its implementation is organized on international, national and 

institutional level. On an international level, the Bologna follow-up group has been installed 

since 2001, responsible for the continuing development of the process, planning of the next 

ministerial conference, organizing ‘Bologna seminars’ as well as considering new 

applications for membership. It consists of all signatory countries and the European 

Commission as well as the Council of Europe, EUA, ESIB, EURASHE, UNESCO-CEPES, 

ENQA, Educational Pan-European Structure and UNICE as consultative stockholders (p. 1). 

The Board and Secretariat, chaired by the current EU-presidency, control and assist the work 

of the BFUG. This link between international cooperation and national implementation, 

involving national ministries of education, rectors’ conferences, student unions and quality 

assurance agencies, can only be achieved by actively engaging all members; for it is the 

national players that decide over introducing ECTS, degree structures, mobility programs and 

national funding (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2004b, p. 1). The 

institutional level is also crucial for the actual implementation of the Bologna objectives and 

problems arise from varying priorities in each country and each institution, picking out what 

they like best and neglecting less favorable obligations. This level involves mainly higher 

education institutions, their faculties or departments and student and staff representatives 

(Council of Europe, 2006, p. 1). 

In other words, the whole “reform agenda is implemented in a decentralized way at 

the national level, but closely monitored and advanced by European-level reports, 

2 See appendices for a map of participating states 

3 Participants since 1999: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 

Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, 

Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom; 

- from 2001: Croatia, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Turkey; 

- from 2003: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Holy See, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, “the 

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”; 

- from 2005: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldavia and Ukraine. 

5


conferences, communiqués and policy declarations, which are all structured around a series of 

biennial ministerial meetings” (Keeling, 2006, p. 207). 

3. The Content and Development of the Bologna Process 

The first incentive for closer European cooperation in the field of education was given by the 

so-called Sorbonne Declaration, signed the 25 th of May 1998 by the education ministers of 

France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany. Its aim was the harmonization of the 

architecture of the European Higher Education System, focusing on progressive convergence 

of the overall framework of degrees and cycles, a common degree level system and the 

facilitation of student and teacher mobility (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 

2004c, p.1). This precursory declaration was the necessary push for the Bologna Declaration, 

which was adopted on the 19 th of June 1999 by 29 ministers of higher education. 

The Bologna Process can be divided into ten interlinked action lines that together form 

a comprehensive reform package. The six original objectives which form the core of the 

Bologna Process are defined as followed: 

1. Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees 

This includes that from 2005 onwards a Diploma Supplement has to be given to all 

students automatically when they graduate without charging a fee. In this supplement, 

issued in one mayor European language, the content and type of study are explained in 

order to promote greater insight for future employers from other countries or further 

studies (Bologna Declaration, 1999). 

2. Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles 

This action line demands the introduction of a three years undergraduate cycle (Bachelor) 

whose successful completion is the prerequisite for the graduate cycle (Master). The 

Bachelor degree will also be sufficient as an appropriate level of qualification for the labor 

market (ibid.). The introduction of these two main cycles has taken varying speeds in the 

member states, mostly due to fears that the “new system would threaten the quality of 

degrees (…) and undermine their proud academic tradition” (Coss, 2004, p. 1). 

6


3. Establishment of a system of credits 

The aim of launching a European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, short ECTS, 

is to promote greater student mobility. One ECTS is received for a specific workload of 

about 30 hours. However, it is the higher education institutes who determine how much 

learning effort a certain module requires and therefore, who decide on the number of 

ECTS obtained (Bologna Declaration, 1999). 

4. Promotion of mobility 

This issue entails that obstacles to student and staff mobility should be removed. Students 

should be able to take national student loans and grants across national borders because a 

lack of pecuniary support is often a legitimate reason for students to not study abroad. The 

mobility of teachers, researchers and administrative staff should be facilitated by 

recognizing and appreciating working periods abroad without prejudicing their statutory 

rights (ibid.). 

5. Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance 

To assure this ambitious goal, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher 

Education has been set up in 2000 which disseminates information, experiences and good 

practices in the field of QA in higher education to European QA agencies, public 

authorities and higher education institutions (ENQA Secretariat, 2006). The overall aim is 

to establish an adequate system of peer review to guarantee comparable quality and 

accreditation. However, many countries do not want to give up their national sovereignty 

on the important issue of quality assessment. 

6. Promotion of the European dimension in higher education 

This vague-sounding objective refers to curriculum development, inter-institutional 

cooperation in form of joint diplomas, mobility schemes such as Erasmus-Socrates or 

Erasmus-Mundus as well as integrated programs of study, research and training. 

Moreover, according to this action line, the conditions for international students should be 

enhanced and information about the study possibilities on a European level should be 

provided to both national and foreign students (Bologna Declaration, 1999). 

7


Since the Bologna Declaration in 1999, there have been regular ministerial conferences 

every two years. The 2001 conference in Prague issued the so-called Prague Communiqué 

which added three additional elements of importance to the original core objectives. 

7. Lifelong learning 

The idea of lifelong learning has been emphasized in order to counter the challenges of 

competition and to promote the use of new technologies and the greater social cohesion. 

This also includes the recognition on vocational training and the focus on media skills 

(Prague Communiqué, 2001). 

8. Higher education institutions and students 

Here the need to involve universities and students as active and knowledgeable partners 

when conducting European-wide education policy is acknowledged. Furthermore, it is 

stated that students should participate and shape the organizational structures and content 

of higher education institutes because they are the first to be concerned by these issues 

(ibid). Thus, in the Prague Communiqué the active involvement of the European 

University Association (EUA, before named CRE) and the National Unions of Students in 

Europe (ESIB) as consultative members of the BFUG has been established. 

9. Promoting attractiveness of the EHEA (transnational education) 

According to the members of the Bologna Process it is important to make the profile of 

the EHEA more attractive for students from Europe and worldwide (ibid). In order to 

improve the comparability of European higher education degrees in other parts of the 

world, a common framework of qualifications and a coherent quality assurance and 

accreditation mechanism have to be developed to stay competitive in regard to other 

educational players such as the USA. The rationale is that as soon as ‘knowledge made in 

Europe’ becomes a recognizable label of qualification, it will be also draw students and 

high-skilled workers from all over the world. 

At the ministerial summit in Berlin in September 2003, a 10 th action line, namely the 

emphasis on doctorial studies (as the third educational cycle) and the synergy between the 

EHEA and the European Research Area (ERA) has been promoted. Moreover, three 

immediate priorities were singled out that were the most pressing and needed the greatest 

attention in the up-coming two years. These were: quality assurance (QA), the two-cycle 

8


degree system and the recognition and periods of studying. Especially the issue of developing 

common criteria and methodologies for national QA was a hot topic. The educational 

ministers demanded that by 2005 national QA agencies should clearly define the 

responsibility of involved institutions, evaluate programs and institutions through internal 

assessment, external review, participation of students and the publication of results as well as 

a system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures, international participation, 

co-operation and networking (Berlin Communiqué, 2003). The commitment to adopt 

guidelines and standards for QA has also been the focus of the last conference in Bergen in 

2005. 

This ambition will be, however, difficult to realize because of the variety of QA 

systems that exist on the national level. Even countries with very similar structures (most- 

likely case) such as the Belgian Flanders and the Netherlands had to overcome various 

differences regarding procedures and strategies until they could establish the Dutch-Flemish 

Accreditation Organization NVAO in 2004 (Dittrich, Frederiks & Luwel, 2004, p. 300). The 

differences stem from “different cultures and traditions, but also different policy objectives 

and differences in policy implementation” (p. 309). The first set of disparity can be traced 

back to the procedural workings in a country, such as different authorization procedures for 

temporary accreditation and duration of accreditation (8 years in Flanders, 6 in the 

Netherlands). For example, in Flanders the decision to grant accreditation has to be taken in 

four months (three in the Netherlands); submission of application for accreditation is 

prescribed more in detail and application costs are lower than in the Netherlands; and 

complaints and appeal procedures differ as well (p. 311). This example demonstrates the 

complexity of establishing a European-wide system of QA which remains an open issue to 

debate on the agenda of the Bologna Process. 

4. The Strategies of the European Commission to Promote Consensus 

When looking at the Bologna Process so far, it seems like a natural development that at least 

the members of the EU would give up their sovereignty in this field and pool their education 

policies. However, this trend has proven to be a contested and lengthy process. This is 

confirmed by the fact that despite acknowledging the extension of the EU’s higher education 

activities, the EU’s sphere of influence has been limited in the Treaty of Maastricht to 

encourage international mobility and to “only support and complement policy action at the 

9


national level, while further respecting their responsibility for the content of education, the 

structure of educational systems, and their cultural and linguistic diversity” (Huisman & Van 

der Wende, 2004, p. 349). 4 

Despite its restricted authority, the EU Commission has been a driving force behind 

the process and has used several strategies to increase its powers in the field of education by 

constructing sort of a consensus culture among the members of the Bologna Process. In such 

way the Commission also attempted to legitimize its key role concerning the education policy 

of the EU (Huisman & Van der Wende, 2004). That means that the Bologna Process is 

intensively shaped by the involvement of the Commission, which constitutes the only full 

non-state member - although the original plan was to place the Bologna Process completely 

outside the framework of the EU. 

Due to the fact that the Commission was only legitimized to act in the field of the four 

freedoms (mobility of goods, persons, services and capital), its strategy was to concentrate on 

the promotion of greater student mobility. Consequently, it created the ERASMUS program 

in 1987 which encouraged students to study abroad. The success of the program 5 in 

combination with the EU funds has “probably removed some of the suspicions of national 

governments regarding EU intrusion in domestic affairs“(p. 351). Thus, the EU’s focus on 

student and staff mobility has provided an apparently neutral and easy-to-digest approach, 

concerning an area which is less threatening national sovereignty than other educational 

issues. Moreover, the increased exchange of students made the still existing obstacles more 

visible. Neave (2003, p. 151) suggests that “mass mobility laid bare a very shocking diversity 

(…) which now posed real and practical problems to the builders of a European ‘higher 

education area’”, relating to quality, transfer of credits, language of instruction and structural 

features of the national education sectors (Huisman & Van der Wende, 2004, p. 350). 

Through financial incentives for mobility schemes the Commission has build trust and has 

also fostered its role as influential member in the BFUG. In fact, according to Ruth Keeling 

“many of the Bologna initiatives are ‘mainstreaming’ solutions first developed by the 

Commission” (Keeling, 2006, p. 208). For instance, ECTS, first developed within the 

Erasmus framework, was later accepted as a European-wide standard in the Bologna 

Declaration (ibid.). 

4 Maastricht Treaty, 1992 (Chapter 3, article 126): “The Community shall contribute to the development of 

quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States”, particularly with regard to the European 

dimension and international mobility. 

5 By 2005 1.4 million European students have spend a period of their studies in another European country 

(European Commission, 2005) 

10


At the same time, the Commission has used a specific discourse strategy to increase 

consensus in higher education, constructing it as “purposeful, progressive, successful, 

economically beneficial, collaborative and international” (p. 211). Not only globalization 

itself but also the rhetoric emphasis placed on European competitiveness by the Commission 

has led to a new concept of higher education. Unlike in previous decades, the national and 

cultural role of higher education is waning, while the economic rational gains importance 

(Huisman & Van der Wende, 2004, p. 350). The commercialization of education has become 

apparent in the Commission’s construction of higher education institutes as organizations that 

compete for students on an open market and whose performance is assessed by its measurable 

output, such as research, publications and applications for patents and number of European 

Nobel prize winners (Keeling, 2006, p. 209). The reforms pursued in the Bologna Process 

have also been linked to the research policy of the Lisbon Strategy, aiming at greater 

employability of the European citizens due to better skills and knowledge provided through 

education. The transnational and external dimension praised to the skies by the Commission is 

also an integral aspect of the wider Bologna Process (see action line 9). It presents higher 

education as an important arena for competition vis-à-vis the US and China, concerning for 

example the attraction of foreign students and the ranking of its universities. It can be said that 

the Commission’s perspective of higher education has become widely-accepted among the 

members of the Bologna Process and has increasingly shaped its development. It has managed 

to become an important agenda-setter in the Bologna Process, “playing a central role in 

maintaining the momentum of current political debate [in the area of education], and steering 

their convergence in ways which have affirmed its own centrality” (Keeling, 2006, p. 215). 

Scholars like Ruth Keeling have termed this expansion of the Commission’s influence on 

European education policy the so-called ‘snowballing’ effect (p. 212). 

5. Challenges to consensus culture: issues of national sensitivity 

However, education will always remain an area of dispute and challenge and one should not 

blindly acknowledge the Bologna Process as a completely smooth development towards 

greater acceptance of supra- or international interference in domestic education policy. On the 

contrary, it should not be forgotten that the Bologna Process is only a general policy program, 

while its outcomes are still largely determined by the power of national governments and 

other stakeholders as well as their will to implement the restructuring measures (Huisman & 

11


Van der Wende, 2004, p. 353). The apparent policy consensus, encouraged by the 

Commission, is challenged by national actors who raise objections in more sensitive areas. 

Six of these caveats are especially pressing. The first is the possible imbalance between 

incoming and outgoing international students (p. 353). How many international scholars are 

entering a system, will definitely depend on the attractiveness and status of the respective 

national higher education structure. Consequently, domestic policy-makers in countries with 

weaker and less reputable education systems fear that this could lead to a so-called brain-drain 

of their highly skilled student force. However, it should be acknowledged that this can also 

give the necessary push for such systems to modernize. Furthermore, one should keep in mind 

that most students, even if studying abroad, will in most cases return back home after 

receiving their degree because of cultural and family ties. 

The second area of national resentment is the restructuring of the national educational 

systems and the incompatibility of the new two-cycle arrangement with the traditional degree 

structure. Despite the easy transition in some countries, others have been more reluctant to 

introduce the Bachelor and Master structure. While the frontrunner Netherlands have 

introduced the ECTS and two-cycle system already in 2002/03 and have adjusted 82% of its 

academic programs (Leegwater, 2005, p. 5), Germany can only offer 26, 3 % of its degree 

programs according to the new system. The new structures exist parallel to the ‘traditional’ 

German degrees, such as Magister and Diplom (Galler & Hendriks, 2005, p. 1). The belated 

switch to the two-cycle system, which is planned by 2009/10, is due to the decentralized 

structure of the German higher education sector and the Kulturhoheit (cultural autonomy) of 

Germany’s Länder who can act as veto players in the restructuring process. In the UK the 

two-cycle structure is not easily compatible with its traditional two-year foundation degrees 

and in Portugal there is disagreement on the duration of the first cycle. Greece is lagging 

behind, also due to the resistance to restructuring by its academic elite and student bodies. 

Here academics are frightened that pressures such as internationalization and globalization 

could ultimately result in the degradation of the public university (Reichert & Tauch, 2003). 

Another national concern, voiced by the Portuguese scholars Amaral and Magalhães is 

the possible loss of the most unique feature of the European Higher Education system: its 

diversity. The argument is that harmonization and the introduction of a more uniform and 

centrally planned European core curriculum, as recommended in the 2001 ‘Tuning 

Educational Structures in Europe’ project 6 , will increase bureaucracy and will stifle program 

6 The tuning project was launched on May 4 th 2001with financial support of the Commission to exchange 

information and to pinpoint some common subject-based reference points, curriculum content, learning 

outcomes and teaching methods in order to advance the quality of European higher education. In the area of 

12


diversity and institutional autonomy (Amaral & Magalhães, 2004, p. 87/88). This coincides 

with the general fear that Brussels’ bureaucrats could acquire too much power and form a new 

oligarchy. Scholars like Sursock emphasize that diversity and institutional autonomy are the 

cradle of innovation and creativity and that some “constructive ambiguity” is needed to 

maintain “vibrancy vitality and variety” (Sursock, 2002) in Europe’s Higher Education 

system 

The fourth challenge to consensus is the cultural and therefore heatedly debated issue 

of the language of instruction. The aim of the language policy in most countries is certainly 

the preservation of the national language. In Germany teaching in English is still a very hot 

potato which has to be handled with care to calm critics that predict the loss of Germany’s 

cultural heritage; a concept that is principally defined by the German language as common 

connector. A similar situation exists in Greece, where the encouragement of the Greek 

language and culture is an integral element of its internationalization policy by subsidizing 

Greek language courses in and outside of the country’s borders (Huisman & Van der Wende, 

2004, p. 355). The Dutch language policy has taken its advantage out of this disagreement and 

has added attractiveness to its system by changing to English as language of instruction. 

Without much discussion, more than half of its bachelor and Master programs are now taught 

in English 7 . 

The fifth area of concern is the commercialization of higher education. The 

competitive image of education, coined by the Commission, pushes for result-driven 

education and research that can face the cost-benefit test in today’s globalized world. This 

picture leaves little space for alternative concepts on what education should achieve and 

reduces other goals such as non-productive research, familiarizing students “to the life of the 

mind” (Newman, 2000, p. 6), personal self-awareness and satisfaction of curiosity, in rank 

(Keeling, 2006, p 214). It seems like the original purpose of learning, namely to understand 

the world around oneself, is being replaced by output-based education machinery which 

neglects to value arts that do not bring money. Furthermore, by emphasizing so much on 

research, teaching as such will take a back seat and the counseling and guiding role of 

professors and tutors might vanish. Scholars like Henkel (2001) even go that far to predict a 

“loss of a sense of vocation”. 

chemistry or mathematics, for instance, it prescribed compulsory modules, minimum credits as well as certain 

subject knowledge outcomes. 

7 385 of 647 Master programmes in the academic year 2004/05 were provided in English (Leegwater, 2005, p. 

13). This policy might be due to the fact that the small Netherlands try to gain an advantage vis-à-vis their 

education competitors and due to the wide-spread acceptance and knowledge of English among the Dutch 

population. 

13


The probably hottest topic of debate is the move towards a European accreditation 

system. Since the beginning, quality assurance (QA) has been pursued by the education 

ministers with less emphasis than the other action line of the Bologna Process. In the original 

Bologna Declaration the wording “promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance 

with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies” (Bologna Declaration, 

1999) is rather vague and shows a lack of commitment by the member states. However, this 

vacuum has been filled in the Bologna follow-up process and has been advanced to one of the 

main points of attention, despite its weak base in the founding declaration (Haug, 2003, p. 

230). This is due to the fact that the consistent, compatible, internally and externally readable 

common framework of European degrees is undermined if no mutual mechanism for QA is in 

place (p. 230). Simply put, the first requires the second because homogeneous quality buys 

mutual trust. Nevertheless, there are always also those members who fear externally inflicted 

standards, as inadequate for their national system and a hindrance to innovation for its higher 

education institutions (Lourtie, 2001, p. 16). 

According to Haug, in order to anticipate these apprehensions, the following 

developments should be prevented. First, QA should not become a monopoly imposed from 

one single European accreditation agency. Instead there is a need for multiple accreditation 

and private accreditation initiatives. Second, it ought not to be a ranking system. Multilateral 

accreditation is footed on threshold criteria and indicates a minimum floor of standards, 

instead of officially ranking universities. Such league tables are rather established by the 

media. Third, the form of a superstructure as well as any additional level of bureaucracy for 

universities has to be avoided. In other words, QA self-assessment, external audits and reports 

drawn up on an institutional or national level do not have to be repeated at the European 

stage. And last but not least, the system of European QA should not be shielded from other 

international forms of QA World-wide in order to assure the attractiveness of European higher 

education abroad (Haug, 2003, p. 236/237). To solve this heated discussion on European QA, 

Haug presents the concept of “meta-accreditation, a multilateral system based on some form 

of accreditation of accreditation agencies (…) [meaning that] if quality 

assurance/accreditation in a given region or sector is indeed well done and trustworthy, then 

the work should not be redone at European level” (p. 232). This decentralized approach fits 

into the general concept of subsidiarity and allows a diversity of QA agencies that are 

connected by a common set of quality criteria (such as composition of the agency, its 

standards and procedures, critical size, independence) (p. 233/234). Whether this proposal 

14


will dissolve the fears of all participating states and constitute consensus in this contested area 

is questionable. Yet, it can be used as a reasonable basis for more dialogue and development. 

6. Current State of the Reform Process 

As it could be already expected, no homogeneous picture of the Bologna Process exists 

among all member countries. This is due to different starting conditions and educational 

systems (some countries had already traditionally a two-tier structure or a credit system) as 

well as diverse times of entry into the whole reform process. However, one of the most 

important reasons is the non-binding nature of the Bologna Process and the national 

preference to implement only selective elements of the reform which coincide with national 

priorities. Therefore, the National Union of Students in Europe (ESIB) has stressed in its 2005 

report “Bologna with student eyes” that “Bologna still must not be understood as pick and 

choose supermarket” (ESIB, 2005, p. 3). 

A half time snapshot of the reform towards an EHEA by 2010 is provided in great 

detail by EUA’s Trend IV report 8 and ESIB’s 2005 Bologna Analysis, which will serve as a 

basis for the upcoming section. Yet, due to the scope of this paper only a few relevant issues 

of insufficient implementation will be highlighted here. 

First, the introduction of three cycles (bachelor, master, doctorial cycle) had triggered 

profound structural change in most participating countries 9 . Nevertheless, little attention has 

been devoted to the aligned need to also redevelop the curricula when drawing up new 

courses. According to the Trend IV findings, the three-year bachelor cycle has been 

“mistakenly regarded as a compressed version of former long-cycle programmes” (Reichert & 

Tauch, 2005, p. 6) although bachelors are not constructed in the first place to equip the 

students with the same degree of knowledge and skills as traditional five-year courses (p. 14). 

However, the fact that universities have often only relabeled old programs and have tried to 

cram in the content of previous long-cycle courses, without using their chance to ‘clear out’ 

the curriculum, has let to extremely compact programs (ibid). Moreover, a general trend or 

pedagogical shift can be noticed away from traditional teacher-centered towards more 

8 The Trend IV report provides an analysis of how institutional actors, such as universities, respond to the 

challenges of implementing the Bologna Process. Its results are based on sixty-two site visits in twenty-nine 

European countries and questionnaires from national rectors’ conferences. During the site visits rectors, deans, 

academics, junior staff, PhD candidates, students and administrators have been interviewed (Reichert & Tauch, 

2005, p. 10). 

9 However, regulated professions, such as medicine, where regulated bodies have a say are still excluded from 

the new two-tier system (Reichert & Tauch, 2005, p. 13) 

15


student-centered learning (p. 47). Also my own university, the University of Maastricht, has 

picked up this new approach by focusing on so-called Problem-Based Learning, which 

involves a great amount of self-study and extensive group discussions on the learned content. 

Furthermore, many governments have failed to inform both students and employers on the 

value and meaning of the bachelor and to restructure their own public service employment 

practices (p. 15). Both issues are a reason for the only reluctantly growing acceptance of the 

new degree structures in society. 

Second, concerning recognition the Diploma Supplement has been implemented by all 

member countries by 2005. However, due to technical problems (software programs, data 

flow between universities and central administration etc.) and troubles with translation, some 

institutions do not issue to all graduates (case in Greece, Denmark and Germany), 

automatically (in Central and Eastern Europe), free of charge (in Hungary, Serbia and 

indirectly in Turkey) and a widely spoken European language (in Hungary and Romania only 

issued in national language) (ESIB, 2005, p. 34/35). Both the Trend IV and the ESIB report 

regard, its main weakness remains the lack of inclusion of learning outcomes, as well as 

program details which would […] to supply the necessary information on the knowledge and 

proficiency of the degree-holder (Reichert & Tauch, 2005, p. 27; ESIB, 2005, p. 35/36). The 

majority of Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) use ECTS as a unit for both accumulation and 

transfer (in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, 

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland) or are at least 

working on its implementation (Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Poland, Spain and Portugal), while 

the UK and Turkey still limit the use of ECTS to student mobility only (Reichert & Tauch, 

2005, p. 23). The fact that HEIs decide independently on how much ECTS should be granted 

for a certain module leads to diverging and sometimes even contradicting practices. ESIB 

criticizes that professors roughly estimate the workload (which provides the basis for the 

amount of credits obtained), instead of referring to student input when calculating the ECTS 

amount 10 . Thus it can be said that the student workload is inappropriately measured because it 

is mostly based on contact hours with professors, neglecting the students’ time spent on self- 

study (ESIB, 2005, p. 47). Simply put, it can still not be relied upon that one ECTS in one 

country equals one ECTS in another country. 

Thirdly, Trend IV findings prove that a correlation exists between improved QA 

within institutions and the level of institutional autonomy (Reichert & Tauch, 2005, p. 7). It 

has been shown that HEIs in countries that grant most institutional autonomy (namely UK, 

10 Good practices in obtaining student input for the calculation of ECTS exist in Estonia, Finland, the 

Netherlands, Norway and the UK (ESIB, 2005, p. 44). 

16


Ireland, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria) take the European lead, in regard to 

internal quality assessment. Other HEIs that are under more severe restrictions as for instance 

in Belgium, Greece and some Länder of Germany display a less coherent internal QA (p. 32) 

because they are not independent in the selection of students and staff. 

The above-mentioned problems give only a short review of the current state of the 

Bologna Process. Nonetheless, what becomes clear is that now that it is half way through, 

many practices exist on paper but in reality they are only partially implemented. After digging 

deeper underneath the smooth surface, it appears that, despite a continuous development of 

the Bologna Process into the right direction, not all that glitters is gold. 

7. Conclusion: Factors on the Road to Success 

It is undeniable that there has been ongoing development in higher education in the last 

decade. Education has turned into a common concern instead of being an isolated national 

policy field. The scholars Huisman and Van der Wende go even so far to say that “much of 

the fear of national governments for intervention in domestic affairs has been erased by 

positive experiences and developments” (2004, p. 355) such as the incorporation of 

internationalization into mainstream higher education policy, the rising student and staff 

mobility, the financial support through Commission funds and the political flexibility for 

governments in regard to implementation of Bologna objectives. 

However, it is also this flexibility which provides the participating states with a 

loophole. That means that, despite the consensus about a common need for reform, national 

states commit themselves to the Bologna Process in mainly rhetoric terms but when it comes 

to coherent implementation they are rather reluctant. This fact diverts from the concept of a 

cozy consensus which the Commission tries to foster in the field of European higher 

education. As the fourth part of this paper has illustrated, national players even voice dissent 

and challenge sensitive elements of the fast-evolving process that are not in line with national 

preferences. Neave explains the ‘power game’ like this: 

“The Bologna process has now reached the stage when principles begin to assume 

institutional form. And institutional form is not far removed from attributing mandates. 

Yet, he who speaks of mandates is but one step away from bringing up the fundamental 

question of control and co-ordination” (Neave, 2002, p. 10) 

17


Neave is right to argue that the reform process has reached a crucial stage. In the last years 

even the sensitive question of QA has come to the fore and the call for a common European 

QA mechanism has caused heated discussions. However, the success of this next reform 

phase and of the Bologna reform as such will depend mainly on the implementation of the 

whole reform package; implementation not only meaning a change to appropriate national 

legislation but also to actual practices at Europe’s HEIs. Unfortunately the findings of the 

Trend IV analysis have revealed that much remains to be done, even in such basic action 

fields as convergence of degree structure and recognition. 

Yet, the Trend IV report has also identified certain factors which can help the reform 

on its road to success. The first success factor is the positive perception of the aims and added 

value of the Bologna Process among HEIs across Europe. In other words, if the “top down 

agenda [is transformed] into their own bottom-up interpretation of desirable change” 

(Reichert & Tauch, 2005, p. 42), the reform will run more smoothly. Second, good 

communication within the institutions and a pro-active leadership can foster better 

cooperation and flawless implementation of the reform (ibid.). Thirdly, the right “balance 

between national level regulation and coordination and institutional autonomy” (p. 44) is 

needed to guide but not over-regulate the HEIs in their reform progress. National qualification 

frameworks should give incentives for action without prescribing too many rules on, for 

example, the language of instruction or accreditation of programs. The fourth reason for 

success is to allow the institution enough time to adjust instead of rushing them through half- 

cooked reforms (p. 46). It has proven that countries such as the Netherlands which started the 

implementation early could report the most thorough reform results (p. 45). Last but not least, 

not only rhetoric commitment but increased national funding is necessary. Until now most of 

the Bologna reforms and the associated higher administrative and staff costs had to be paid 

out of the limited pot of Europe’s HEI, leaving less resources for other fields such as research 

or intensive student counseling. 

If all these factors will be considered and incorporated into the reform strategy it might 

be possible to speed up the Bologna Process and make it a real success, which until now has 

been hindered by the selective and incoherent implementation of reforms among the 

participating members. 

18


References 

Amaral, A. & Magalhães, A. (2004). Epidemiology and the Bologna Saga. Higher Education, 

Vol. 48, 79-100 

Berlin Communiqué (2003). Realizing the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of 

the Conference of Ministers responsible for higher education in Berlin on 19th of September 

2003. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the World Wide Web: 

http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Communique1.pdf 

Bologna Declaration (1999). Towards the European Higher Education Area. Joint 

Declaration of the European Ministers of Education Convened in Bologna at the 19 th of June 


http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/bologna_en.html 

Coss, S. (2004). New States set to pass education test. EU Studies Guide February 2004. 

European Voice. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the World Wide Web: 

http://www.europeanvoice.com/eu/info 

Council of Europe. (2006). Bologna for Pedestrians. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the World 

Wide Web: 

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/ehea2010/bolognapedestrians 

Dittrich, K., Frederiks, M. & Luwel, M. (2004). The Implementation of ‘Bologna’ in Flanders 

and the Netherlands. European Journal of Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, 299-316 

European Commission. (2005). Erasmus Networks now cover nine-tenths of Europe’s 

universities (October 20). Press Release (IP/05/1313). Brussels: European Commission 

European Network of Quality Assurance. (2006). Publications. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from 

the World Wide Web: 

www.enqa.eu/pubs.lasso 

ESIB-Bologna Process Committee. (2005). Bologna with student eyes. Retrieved June26, 

2006, from the World Wide Web: 

www.esib.org/documents/ESIBbolognaanalysis.pdf 

Galler, B. & Hendriks, B. (2005). National Reports 2004-05: Germany. Retrieved June 15, 

2006, from the World Wide Web: 

www.bologna-bergen2005.no 

Henkel, M. (2001). Policy Change and Academic Identities. Seminar Paper, Debates in 

Higher Education (November 6). London: University College 

Haug, G. (2003). Quality Assurance/Accreditation in the Emerging European Higher 

Education Area: a possible scenario for the future. European Journal of Education, Vol. 38, 

No. 3, 229-241 

Huisman, J. & Van der Wende, M. (2004). The EU and Bologna: are supra- and international 

initiatives threatening domestic agendas? European Journal of Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, 349- 

357 

19


Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European 

Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 

Vol. 41, No. 2, 203-222 

Leegwater, M. (2005). National Reports 2004-05: The Netherlands. Retrieved June 15, 2006, 

from the World Wide Web: 


Lourtie, P. (2001). Report to the Ministers of Education of the signatory countries. Prague 

Neave, G. (2002). ‘Anything Goes: or, How the Accommodation of Europe’s Universities to 

European Integration Integrates – an Inspiring Number of Contradictions’, Bulletin of the 

University of Porto 10.35, 9-18 

Neave, G. (2003). The Bologna Declaration: Some of the historic dilemmas posed by the 

reconstruction of the Community in Europe’s systems of higher education. Educational 

Policy, Vol. 17, 141-164 

Newman, F. (2000). Saving Higher Education’s Soul. The Futures Project: Policy for Higher 

Education in a Changing World. Rhode Island: Brown University 

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2004a). The Bologna Process from a 

Norwegian Perspective. Bologna-Bergen summit 2005. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the 

World Wide Web: 


Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2004b). Handling the Bologna Process. 

Bologna-Bergen summit 2005. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the World Wide Web: 


Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2004c). Basic Information. Bologna-Bergen 

summit 2005. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the World Wide Web: 


Prague Communiqué (2001). Towards the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of 

the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher education in Prague on May 19 th 


http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Prague_communiquTheta.pdf 

Reichert, S. & Tauch, Ch. (2003). Trends in Learning Structures in European Higher 

Education III. Bologna Four Years After: steps toward sustainable reform of higher 

education in Europe. Retrieved June 26, 2006, from the World Wide Web: 

www.eua.be 

Reichert, S. & Tauch, Ch. (2005). Trends IV: European universities implementing Bologna. 

Retrieved June 26, 2006, from the World Wide Web: 

www.eua.be 

20


Sursock, A. (2002). ‘Reflection from the higher education institutions’ point of view: 

Accreditation and quality culture’. Proceedings of the international conference on 

accreditation and quality assurance: Working on the European Dimension of Quality. 

Amsterdam, 42-48. 

21


List of abbreviations 

BFUG: Bologna follow-up group 

ECTS: European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System 

EHEA: European Higher Education Area 

ENQA: European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education 

ERA: European Research Area 

ESIB: National Unions of Students in Europe 

EUA: European University Association 

EURASHE: European Association of Institutions in Higher Education 

HEI: Higher Education Institute 

NVAO: Dutch and Flemish Accreditation Organization 

QA: Quality assurance 

UNESCO-CEPES: European Centre for Higher Education 

UNICE: Union of Industries in the European Union 

22


Appendix 

Members of the Bologna Process in 2005 

source: http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no 

23

Download paper - Maastricht University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?