Search results

This opening chapter introduces the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the project for its development – the Bologna Process, and it explains the growth and current structure of the EHEA and the governance of the Bologna Process. It also explains the interest in Bologna beyond the ‘boundaries’ of the EHEA and introduces the idea that Bologna is linked to promoting social justice in higher education while operating in a neoliberal context. The structure of the book is outlined as well.

This chapter conceptualises inclusion and neoliberalism and theorises the relationship between these two phenomena in order to contextualise the debates presented in the rest of the chapters in this book. Additionally, this chapter investigates the evolution of the meaning of ‘inclusion’ in the key international Bologna Process (BP) policy documents. This chapter is informed by a thematic analysis of 26 documents, issued between 1998 and 2020. The chapter demonstrates that understanding ‘inclusion’ only with regard to lifelong learning, student-centred education and the social dimension has pitfalls – there are overlaps between these action lines and, consequently, the relationships among them are unclear. A better way of understanding inclusion in Bologna may be through considering a tight relationship between the inclusion and neoliberal discourses in the support of marginalised groups in higher education (HE). The relationship has been evolving in relevant policy documents since 1998 which is the year that marks the preparatory Sorbonne meeting that gave life to Bologna in 1999. The inclusion discourse grew in strengths, while the neoliberal rhetoric firmly stood its ground since the beginning of the BP, while undergoing some transformations. In spite of such seemingly positive dynamic in the development of inclusion in the BP, its definition remained vague in the policy documents until 2020 as it was unclear which exact underprivileged groups were meant to be supported in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The 2020 conference outcome documents made a significant step towards closing the gaps in our understanding of whom inclusion targets in Bologna and how to implement these inclusion ideas. The chapter highlights this achievement and also prepares the reader to problematise its reach in national contexts later in the book.

This chapter maps the landscape of previous research into the Bologna Process on the international and national scales. This literature shows that Bologna has internationalised higher education in post-Soviet countries, and the Bologna developments have been acknowledged in the literature to be a case of Europeanisation.

This chapter also points out a few major gaps in that research. One of them is the interconnected development of higher education actors and instruments from the perspective of the idea of layering that brings path-dependence and change in a dialogue. The research about Bologna in the national contexts focuses mainly on a more normative, evaluative side of the debate. Prior research on Bologna in post-Soviet countries and specifically in Ukraine also looks primarily at positive and negative effects of the reform on the country's higher education. There have been difficulties ‘fitting’ Bologna ideas into the established conventions in Ukraine. There have been also challenges with interpreting some action lines, such as the student-centred learning or quality assurance. These studies have mainly investigated the change of higher education policies, overlooking the exploration of the change in the system of higher education actors and their roles in the countries. The studies seem not to have placed enough emphasis on the process of the development of higher education actors and their relationships in Bologna. Neither have they looked in detail into the contribution of these actors to the development of the Bologna instruments.

The Bologna reform in the post-Soviet context, just like Europeanisation there, tends to be seen as the implementation of change which is hindered by some past conventions. In contrast, this study about Bologna in Ukraine rests on the idea of layering that brings path-dependence and change into a dialogue.

The Bologna Process (BP) remains a key international framework for guiding higher education development in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) until 2030. This chapter traces integrative curriculum ideas in the BP post-2020 and explains why they are symbolic policies. Prior research into curricula in the BP does not explicitly refer to integrative curriculum ideas and does not explore them in the post-2020 context. 2020 marked the deadline for the achievement of a fully functioning EHEA and for setting up new priorities for 2030. This study is informed by the theoretical ideas of soft governance and symbolic policies in the Open Method of Coordination. This chapter addresses the aforementioned gap in the scholarship by relying on a thematic analysis of the first EHEA communique that set the agenda for the post-2020 period – Rome Ministerial Communique (2020) with its three annexes. The findings highlight the following main areas of the integrative curriculum agenda as symbolic policies after 2020: student-centeredness, research-based learning, and the interconnectedness between learning and wider society. This analysis is significant for our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the international policy rhetoric about the integrative curriculum which, in turn, defines the effectiveness of the implementation of these ideas in practice.

Higher education (HE) systems in Europe have been identified as an essential element for promoting economic competitiveness since the Bologna Declaration in 1999. The aim of the Bologna Process was to expand access to educational opportunities, fostering participation in post-compulsory education by creating the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Inequalities in training because of geographic, ethnic or social origin, and inequalities in job opportunities, salaries, and incomes are critical dimensions of social development in HE. The development of policies, including those concerning education, that extend access to opportunities is essential to prevent such exclusion becoming permanent. The Access4All project aims to promote the educational and social inclusion of underrepresented groups as well as of non-traditional learners.

In this chapter, the project’s main results are reviewed, with: (1) a brief overview of inclusion policies and practices in European HE; (2) an operational definition of “good practice” and criteria for selecting examples of good practice for inclusion in HE; (3) a self-assessment tool enabling the characterization of institutional capacity for innovation and of inclusion policies and practices; and (4) a model for promoting strategic planning, focusing on inclusion in HE.

This book has brought together contributions which highlight two very important themes in higher education (HE) – neoliberalism and inclusion. These themes have been examined specifically within the context of the Bologna Process (BP), although the issues raised also speak to other education policy contexts beyond Bologna. These themes are discussed in seven chapters – at the international level and in six different national contexts. At the international level, attention has been paid to tracing the conceptualisation and the evolution of inclusion and neoliberalism in key BP policy documents at different phases of the process (see Chapter 2). At the national level, these themes have been examined within the national contexts of Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Scotland and Cameroon with different connections and relationships to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). In this concluding Chapter, we elaborate further on these themes, their relationship to each other based on the case studies covered and explore how inclusion discourses evolved in the neoliberal context of the BP while drawing attention to aspects of the inclusion agenda that require further attention. As the compilation stage of this book coincided with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we also reflect on the implications of this invasion for social justice and neoliberalism in the BP through actions taken by the EHEA.

The Bologna Process (BP) seeks to harmonise higher education (HE) across the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The social dimension of the BP was adopted to encourage member states to develop widening access measures. Countries were free to interpret guidance as they saw fit and there were no penalties for non-compliance. This chapter considers the implications of this approach for the implementation of widening access strategies in relation to disabled students and those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. We use Eurostudent Survey and Eurostat data to analyse the inclusion of these groups of students in different countries, commenting on interpretational difficulties arising due to non-harmonised definitions and categories. It is argued that allowing countries a high degree of latitude in interpreting the meaning of widening access has resulted in widely different approaches. Harmonised categories would be helpful in ensuring greater consistency, but these might be resisted on the grounds of infringing the autonomy of individual states. Tensions between national and supra-national policy arise in many social policy fields across the EHEA and will certainly need to be addressed in the post-COVID world to avoid the entrenchment of existing social divisions.

This is the introductory chapter of the book. This chapter explains the background and relevance of the topic of the book – the process of a national higher education reform in the post-Soviet space such as Ukraine until passing the Law about Higher Education in 2014, and the ways in which this story can inform our understanding of some aspects of the Europeanisation in the post-Soviet context. The Bologna reform is, arguably, one of the expressions of Europeanisation in post-Soviet countries that belong to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The Bologna Process is an international policy project for the standardisation of higher education structures in the European Higher Education Area. It comprised 29 European countries at the start of the Bologna Process in 1999, and it started incorporating more states later, a lot of which were not part of the EU. Beside the overarching goal to create the EHEA, a number of concrete objectives, called the action lines, were identified, such as the adoption of a common system of credits and cycles of study process, the development of an easily readable diploma supplement issued to graduates, the promotion of student and faculty mobility and the assurance of higher education quality.

This chapter also presents methodological considerations associated with designing the research presented in this book, such as conducting interviews and identifying policy documents – and how thematic analysis was applied to these two types of data. The case of Ukraine is characterised as instrumental because, beside the contribution it makes to how we see the Bologna reform in Ukraine itself, this case study is important for understanding wider Europeanisation issues.

In this chapter, the author attempts to sketch the phenomenon of internationalization as manifested in the literature on academic mobility. Internationalization is commonly seen as a process contributing to the quality in higher education while academic mobility is often regarded as the most critical dimension of this process. By providing a review of the literature on internationalization and mobility, the chapter highlights rationales for inbound and outbound mobility for higher education systems and institutions in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It further portrays how Georgia – a small country in the Caucasus and a member of EHEA responds to the global phenomenon employing several reforms, support schemes, and institutional initiatives. Lastly, reflecting on current trends and policies, the author attempts to map the prospects for internationalization of Georgian higher education. This chapter offers a promising area for comparative and international research on internationalization and contributes to the literature on academic mobility in Europe.