Bologna: Engineering the right outcomes

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, Apr 2007 by Shearman, Richard

Abstract The 1999 Bologna Declaration and consequent changes in educational policy reflect a desire first to promote mobility and secondly to promote Europe as a world force in higher education in the face of challenges from elsewhere in the world. Innovative approaches to the Bologna reforms, such as outcomes-based accreditation, show great potential for realising these goals; however, they will only succeed if different national contexts are carefully considered.

Keywords accreditation; Bologna Declaration; degree structure

Since it was signed in June 1999, the Bologna Declaration on higher education1 has generated a flood of words and a forest of documentation. Googling Bologna process produces more than 1.35 million references. Travelling circuses of governmental and educational bureaucrats have peregrinated Europe, the scope for exploration greatly widened now that Bologna signatory countries number 45 and the putative European Higher Education Area stretches from the Arctic to the Black Sea and the Caucasus, and the Atlantic to the Pacific. Airlines and hotels all over Europe have benefited, although no information is available about the extent of carbon offset purchase. It has aroused considerable interest outside Europe2. The average academic, however, seemed to remain uninvolved, as the politicians had to be reminded from time to time3. Is Bologna merely a private game for the initiated, or is it having a real effect on higher education in engineering?

The volume of activity which Bologna has generated is all the more remarkable because the Declaration was simply a non-binding declaration of intent made by the higher education Ministers of the 29 original signatories. It carries no force in law - it is not a treaty, nor is it an EU instrument (although as we shall see, the European Commission, which is also a signatory, is active in a number of ways related to it). It has no central machinery, and the secretariat passes every two years to whichever country is hosting the next Ministerial meeting. As has been noted 'its implementation is far from trivial. It depends on the interaction of national actors in HE policy for its translation into policies, and is thus subject to a diversity of national interests, priorities, policy processes etc.'4

Generalisations about the effects of Bologna therefore have to be heavily quali- fied, particularly if the full range of the Bologna process is taken into account. The 1999 Bologna Declaration contained six different action lines; subsequent Ministerial meetings have increased these to ten. The original six were:

* Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees;

* Adoption of a system based on two cycles;

* Establishment of a system of credits;

* Promotion of mobility;

* Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance;

* Promotion of the European dimension in higher education.

Those added subsequently are:

* Focus on lifelong learning;

* Inclusion of HE institutions and students;

* Promotion of the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA);

* Doctoral studies and synergy between the EHEA and the European Research Area (ERA).

Several of these are obviously inter-related. Taken together, they indicate the two main drivers behind the whole Bologna process. On the one hand, is the desire to promote mobility, building on the gradual enlargement of the European Union and the opening up of Eastern Europe since 1989. On the other, is the drive to promote Europe as a world force in higher education, to cope with what are seen as challenges from other areas - not simply the longstanding one from the USA, whose model is often presented as one which Europe should copy, but also more recent challenges from China and other parts of Asia. Structural blockages caused by differences between national systems are seen as standing in the way of this. While the EU has only limited competence in educational matters, it has loudly proclaimed the need for change. Meeting in Lisbon in 2000, the Council of Ministers said that the EU 'must become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world' and that this required 'a fundamental transformation of education and training throughout Europe'. The most recent evidence of this attitude is in the proposals from the European Commission on a European Qualifications Framework5 and a European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training6. While these are not specifically about higher education, they do have potential implications for the way the Bologna process develops in the future.

One very obvious sign of structural difference was the different degree structures to be found in the signatory countries. The second of the original Bologna action lines, the adoption of a system based on two cycles (since increased to three by the bringing of doctorates within the process) has therefore been seen as a key area, and is probably the best known feature of the Bologna process, although awareness is not always accompanied by understanding. The Bachelor/Master system, as it was frequently called, contrasted with the traditional five year programmes which were the norm in the majority of other signatory countries. It was thought to be a British model, and this may be one reason why the British government, after signing the Bologna Declaration, appeared to take little interest in it for several years afterwards. However, the reality was always more complicated than that. Other models besides the five year integrated programme did exist in 'continental' Europe, and in engineering and the physical sciences integrated Masters programmes could be found in the UK, with the MEng in particular well established and indeed favoured by the engineering profession and many employers. Within engineering education as a whole, the points of comparison and difference between different national systems were reasonably well understood across Europe. A particular degree from one country was likely to be accepted as broadly comparable with a particular degree from another country even if there seemed at first sight to be differences. Indeed the main problems in establishing comparability often seemed to lie in degrees from different types of institution within the same country - a problem which Bologna has not necessarily solved, as tension between technical universities and Fachhochschulen in Germany indicates.