Search results

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 paper aims to ask how the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has orchestrated a sustainable development (SD) agenda in its international policy since 2020.

By drawing on theoretical ideas around policy orchestration as a key UN governing strategy and applying them to the analysis of the progression of the SD agenda in the EHEA, the paper conducts a thematic analysis of six recent key EHEA international policy documents and 19 interviews with key Bologna stakeholders in France, Germany and Italy.

The resultant analysis uncovers three overarching key themes that show the EHEA has the capacity to mitigate pitfalls in the UN’s SD agenda; some weaknesses of the UN’s orchestration of SD are translated into weaknesses in the EHEA’s formulation of its SD agenda; and the further development of an SD agenda as an essential direction of EHEA’s work. The paper then goes on to discuss how EHEA policies only mention SD discourse, omit concrete plans for its implementation and keep the very meaning of SD ambiguous throughout international policy documents.

The authors offer three original recommendations that the EHEA should adopt in an attempt to mitigate the issues raised in the run-up to its 2030 deadline for implementing its policies: the EHEA should develop an explicit definition of SD; recognise the Euro-centredness of EHEA policies and open them up to other voices; and cite academic research when developing policy documents.

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 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.

Credit mobility has been acknowledged not only to broaden personal and intellectual horizons but also to have positive effects on the skills development and employability of undergraduate students. Academics, policymakers and organizations representing the labour market have presented a broad number of skills-related explorations proposing different frameworks to help develop students' skills. However, the identification of explicit skills is still a difficult endeavour. This study aims to revise main conceptual skills frameworks applicable in the European higher education area (EHEA), determine the skills relevant in European credit mobility and categorize skills among the examined schemes in order to create a normative model of the skills students should obtain in exchange programmes.

The approach used to identify related literature was a search in three main databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for scientific and relevant articles after 1990 using the following combination of keywords: “skill frameworks” AND “higher education” OR “skill frameworks” AND “mobility exchange programs”. It produced 391 articles but only 32 deal with skill frameworks in European higher education. After the review of these existing literature (summaries, tables and conclusions), we found out that most articles focused on specific skills (transferable, employable, etc.) in the EHEA, but merely 16 academic publications offered a complete depiction of skills frameworks applicable in credit mobility programs. Most current accounts about skills outlines, specifically the ones related to employability, come from grey literature, namely comprehensive records and reports.

Data seem to confirm that there is scarce agreement on a common taxonomy of skills. However, considering the results, which summarize relevant educational, institutional and occupational perspectives, it can be noticed that there is consensus on the classification of only four skills: ICT, literacy and numeracy, which are considered basic, key or core skills in most researched papers together with problem solving, which is generally regarded as a cognitive skill. The general tendency is that policymakers and academia focus on some particular domains: basic/key, core/global foundation/fundamental skills, transferable, transversal and other skills. Studies analysing the workforce skill requirements have projected mainly cognitive and learning skills, whereas mobility programmes concede relevance to employability, management, career and life skills.

Measuring skills involves limitations as records vary depending on continuous emerging data from institutions, occupations and education. The key frameworks surveyed have provided a representative classification and depiction of the current skills from specific perspectives which are also believed to have their shortcomings. In combination, however, it is believed that the results presented can help provide a theoretical basis for assessing skills in credit mobility and Erasmus programmes within the EHEA. The resulting framework presents a founded basis for skills appraisal which expects to be meaningful for various stakeholders and helps determine how mobility policies can help improve the attainment of skills in the EHEA.

Research has suggested that education systems will have to adapt to the changing needs of the labour markets' reshaping roles to balance technology and human intellect. The workforce seems to realize that cognitive skills such as problem solving, organization and decision-making are needed in today's society; advanced basic learning skills such as numeracy and literacy are essential. Findings appoint to new areas for exploration in skills development in order to prepare European higher education students for current trends in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the fusion between digital, physical and biological spheres.

Data seem to confirm that a sole degree does not guarantee success, but the maturity of certain skills and the commitment to lifelong learning. This can be strengthened by taking part in EHEA credit student mobility that has proved to improve not only basic and linguistic skills but also self-development and respect for several aspects such as diversity and (inter)cultural awareness. Taking into account the perceptive and interpersonal abilities mentioned in reports on future skills, it seems that education will need further support for updated teaching practices and assessment of the skills that are expected to have greater demand, namely STEM. Institutions will need to update and promote the teaching of new skills based on a new collective and moral consciousness as recently indicated in OECD's (2018) Global Competence in order to make future citizens understand and act on issues of universal significance in today's interconnected world.

For several decades, government, education and industry have proposed different outlines for what graduates should know and be able to do. Limited academic studies have been found, however, with updated concrete data on which skills should preferably be developed or whether and how students can further improve these skills as part of EHEA credit student mobility. This study has synthesized works and identified domains which featured the importance of generic core, cognitive and employability skills. The revision of skill frameworks has underscored existing literature and reports on future skills which anticipate that, in order to confront the expanding and prevalent role of technology, graduates will need to focus on developing unique human skills such as effective communication and creative innovation, critical thinking and collective ethical values.

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.

This article provides an overview and analysis of 50 years of European policies, actions, and challenges to align its higher education and research, as well as lessons learned from this for similar initiatives elsewhere.

The study builds on a comprehensive overview and study of policy documents and scholarly literature to identify by decade the main policies and actions and the related challenges towards a European Higher Education and Research Area.

The findings make clear the key rationales, challenges, shifts and lessons to be learned from 50-year European policies for the alignment of higher education.

Its value lies in the historical overview and analysis of current initiatives, in particular the European Universities Initiative (EUI), to provide a historical and geographical context, which might give insight for similar initiatives elsewhere.