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.

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.

The closing chapter offers additional reflection on two substantial threads which run throughout the volume. Firstly, quality education (SDG4). Contributors to the volume have articulated with varying degrees of explicitness what quality education means in their specific contexts. Complementary perspective is offered in the closing chapter, through the inclusion of personal interpretations from two students in their last but one year of high school in the United Kingdom. The students are reflecting back on a week of work experience in a university and looking forward to their university journey. Amrita Narang has kindly provided a response to these personal reflections, drawing on her experience of learning and working in various national higher education contexts. Aspects the two students highlight resonate with the ethos of entrepreneurial education. An example of entrepreneurial learning in a collaborative Sino-UK higher education venture is therefore included here, showcasing ways in which students can further grow their strengths, with bespoke entrepreneurial mentoring support.

The mentoring thread running throughout the volume is picked up in the final chapter with specific reference to contracting (a staple element of formal mentoring relationships, achieved in complex and subtle ways in informal ones), closure and co-learning. All chapter contributions focus on long-term, ongoing mentoring relationships, in which closure is temporary and is viewed as a stepping stone for subsequent learning opportunities. To facilitate continued learning in readers, the final section in the chapter invites them to pause and reflect, signposting three sources of insight and wisdom for sustainability-oriented lifelong learning and action.