Introduction

The Bologna Process for the creation of a barrier-free European Higher Education Area was initiated almost 18 years ago on 19 June 1999 in a joint declaration by Europe’s education ministers. Originally, thirty countries affirmed their commitment to this goal and began the task of facilitating mutual access to science and education resources as well as improving the international dialogue and the mobility and exchange of students, teachers and researchers. Problem statement. In the meantime, the group of countries participating in the Bologna Process has grown continuously. The 48th and latest country to be included in the European Higher Education Area and hence also in the Bologna Process was the Republic of Belarus. That was here in Yerevan two years ago at the Ministerial Conference. The meeting was dominated by the challenges of the economic and social crisis confronting numerous European countries at that time, the consequences of which we can still observe today in manifold ways. In the course of these developments, separatist voices have gained noticeably in influence for the first time. That is why it was all the more important that a positive example of Europe as a place for academic freedom was renewed and underlined in the Yerevan Communiqué: Short analysis of current researches. “We will support higher education institutions in enhancing their efforts to promote intercultural understanding, critical thinking, political and religious tolerance, gender equality, and democratic and civil values, in order to strengthen European and global citizenship and lay the foundations for inclusive societies.” [5] The ideal of the Bologna Process is thus embedded in a concept of European and global citizenship that is based on the enlightened values of democracy and human rights. We are hence not talking here about the technicistic realization of harmonization measures in higher education, particularly in the administration and organization of degree programmes. The Bologna Process is closely linked to the development of inclusive societies, that is, “societies for all”, where social, economic and political participation is not delimited by categories such as race, gender, class, generation or origin. The measures anchored in the Bologna Process are oriented towards this guiding principle of critical and independent thinking, of inclusion and equality at national as well as international level. This is the benchmark against which the Bologna reforms must be measured. Research novelty. Criticism of the ways in which the Bologna reforms are implemented and standardized must therefore always also take into account this dimension of global politics alongside academic aspects and higher education policies. However, legitimate political claims must not be fulfilled to the detriment of scientific freedom. The danger is inherent in the very structure of the Bologna Process that scientific freedom in the different member countries will be levelled out in favour of the international harmonization wanted at political level. If it wants to avoid shipwreck, European higher education policy must navigate skilfully between these two poles, the seductive Scylla of scientific freedom and the shapeless Charybdis of levelled local and regional peculiarities. My hypothesis is that the harmonization process in the European Higher Education Area can even hinder student mobility if it is put into practice badly. I would like to illustrate this using data gathered in the framework of a research project at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in which software for planning overlap-free degree programmes has been developed. My question is: How can international mobility be implemented in a targeted manner and put into practice at the level of programme planning and curriculum development?

The article highlights the European progress of the Ukrainian higher education within the framework of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union and on the basis of Ukrainian legislation (Laws of Ukraine «On Higher Education» (2014) and «On Education» (2017), underlines that European integration of Ukraine is the strategy of development of the Ukrainian state, and the integration of the higher education system of Ukraine into the European Higher Education Area is recognized as one of the principles of state policy in the field of higher education. It is determined that the quality assurance system of education, defined by the Ukrainian legislation, consists of a quality assurance system in educational institutions (internal quality assurance system); external quality education system; quality assurance systems in the activities of the governing bodies and institutions that carry out external quality assurance of education. It corresponds to the European philosophy and practice of ensuring the quality of education. The characterization of the essence of Europeanization and Europeanization of higher education, European benchmarks in the field of higher education in the European Higher Education Area are provided. The author emphasizes that the dynamics of the implementation of these standards by the countries varies, although the commonality is the introduction of systems of internal quality assurance, external quality assurance, creation of an institution for the quality assurance of higher education. The challenges that exist on the way of synchronization of the quality assurance system of higher education in Ukraine with the European standards, as outlined in the Standards and Recommendations for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, are highlighted. A conclusion is made about the dynamic progress of the Europeanization of higher education in Ukraine and the need for further synchronization with European standards.

An aim of considerations is to present the selected determinants of functioning of internal systems of ensuring the quality of education related to Polish universities. The author’s attention is focused on the international standards and guidelines concerning elements of the system of quality ensuring connected with the Bologna Process and the selected legal regulations in this respect in force in Poland. The Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) were adopted by the Ministers responsible for higher education in 2005 following a proposal prepared by the European Association for Quality Assurance in High-er Education (ENQA) in cooperation with the European Students’ Union (ESU)1, the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) and the European University Association (EUA). Since 2005, considerable progress has been made in quality assurance as well as in other Bologna action lines such as qualification frameworks, recognition and the promotion of the use of learning outcomes, all these contributing to a paradigm shift towards student-centred learning and teaching. Student-centred learning and teaching plays an important role in stimulating students’ motivation, self-reflection and engagement in the learning process. This means careful consideration of the design and delivery of study programmes and the assess-ment of outcomes. The teacher’s role is essential in creating a high quality student experience and enabling the acquisition of knowledge, competences and skills. The diversifying student population and stronger focus on learning outcomes require student-centred learningand teaching and the role of the teacher is, there-fore, also changing. Providing conditions and support that are necessary for students to make progress in their academic career is in the best interest of the individual students, programmes, institutions and systems. It is vital to have fit-for-purpose admission, recognition and completion procedures, particularly when students are mobile within and across higher education systems. It should be noted that the results of this article can be used to compare the Polish and Ukrainian systems of quality assurance in higher education, as well as the domestic quality assurance procedures It is important that access policies, admission processes and criteria are implemented consistently and in a transparent manner. Induction to the institution and the programme is provided. Institutions need to put in place both processes and tools to collect, monitor and act on information on student progression

Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area

The promotion of international staff mobility is a founding principle of the ‘Bologna Process’, designed to create a converged system of higher education across Europe, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), and in which CEE countries are implicated. Meanwhile, the Chinese government encourages Chinese universities to internationalise and exchange staff, while focussing on Central and Eastern Europe to develop relationships in the EU. A unique, two-phase research methodology was devised to investigate the effects of culture on implementing staff mobility through strategic entrepreneurship and the feasibility of the transfer of such an approach from intra-EHEA mobility to Sino-EHEA mobility. A first-, second and third-person Insider Action Research (AR) approach was used to organise and implement an international staff exchange between universities within the EHEA. Data generated were subjected to a double process of analysis, including a meta-cycle of enquiry. This was followed by a series of in-depth interviews with Chinese academics on exchange in Europe. Data collected were subjected to thematic analysis and then triangulated with the Phase One data. Results showed the importance of individuals in the implementation of strategy. There were marked similarities in the importance of an ‘eco-system of collective interest’, often provided by the exchanger’s family, and in institutional attitudes to supporting these networks. Differences in entrepreneurial intensity between institutions as a result of organisational and national cultures affected the behaviour of individuals and this determines the strategy used to implement the exchange. Evidence of the paradoxical behaviour pattern in China and the significant cultural differences within the EHEA is presented as a starting point for Sino-CEE mobility strategy development: an entrepreneurial intra-EHEA strategy cannot simply be transferred to a Sino-EHEA context.

This paper contextualizes the development of Ukrainian higher education in broad historical, geopolitical, and socio-economic realities. The author argues that these realities determine the current Ukrainian education trajectory. Higher education reforms in Ukraine are analyzed in the context of two major influences: European regionalization and inherited Soviet structures in education. Particular focus is placed on the Bologna Process, the European education initiative to standardize higher education in Europe. Soviet organizational and administrative principles are outlined and analyzed as the second influence that determines Ukraine’s unique educational developments.
 A brief overview of higher education reforms in Ukraine notes the distinctive changes in the legal framework between 1996 and 2014. Ukrainian education reforms within this period are viewed from the perspective of the Bologna Process, a series of voluntarily agreements between European countries to establish a common European Higher Education Area to retain the regions’ influence and competitiveness. Contesting voices regarding the European-associated education reforms range from unquestionable support (Europhiliac) to absolute rejection (Europhobic). Such contesting voices reflect the Ukrainian society’s broader understanding of its complex educational challenges. The author argues that public concerns about reforms in Ukraine initiated with the Bologna Process, originate in the nature of the reforms, the Ukrainian educational system and its foundational principles, public stereotyping of the reforms, and the unstable political situation in the country.

A sweeping analysis is provided of the problems and challenges inherent in adapting the higher education systems of South East Europe to the Bologna Process. For the countries in question, not yet members of the European Union, educational reform, particularly the reform of higher education along the lines of the Bologna Process, are viewed as crucial steps to be taken on the way to membership. Such matters as course programmes and credits, faculty and student mobility, brain drain, the employment of graduates, quality and competitiveness, use of the NITs in the region, inter-university co-operation, higher education and society, lifelong learning, and the actions of international organizations are discussed. Some suggestions for further progress are given.

Quality Assurance in Bachelor and Master Programmes in Public Administration. A Comparative Study

This work tries to analyze the official discourse on the development of a European Higher Education Area and focuses on the issue of equal opportunities of access to and completion of study in higher education. For this aim official documents of the first decade of the 21st century referring to the Bologna process (communiqués and declarations of the Bologna process ministers responsible for higher education) were studied using the qualitative content analysis. The results of this work showed that the question of equal opportunities was included in the priority of the social dimension and occupied the Bologna process mainly from the year 2005 and on although mentions for equal opportunities to higher education studies exist in all Bologna process communiqués. The priority of social dimension was the outcome of the adaptation of human capital theory and mainly involved notions such as mobility, lifelong learning, students’ socio-economic background, gender and underrepresentation. DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n3p261

The borrowing and transfer of policies, ideas and practices from one system to another may in part explain the convergence of educational systems. Using text documents as research material, this paper examines the adoption and transfer of Bologna Process (BP) ideas in the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) and in the Cameroonian higher education (HE) system through the lens of policy borrowing and transfer, and policy convergence, in order to understand the justification for such transfer at the local level. In 1999, in what is known as the BP, 29 ministers of HE signed the Bologna Declaration with the intention of creating a European HE area. In 2005, the heads of state of the CEMAC region signed the Libreville Declaration with the intention of creating the CEMAC Space for Higher Education, Research and Professional Training through licence, master and doctorat reform. The justification for the adoption of BP ideas in the CEMAC region was attributed to the convergence of educational systems. The need to legitimise the harmonisation of the degree structure and to adhere to international standards for international recognition of certificates and graduates was found to be the major justification for the reform in the Cameroonian HE system. This paper draws attention to two aspects: first, how the BP, a European model of harmonisation, has spread beyond Europe and is influencing reforms in other parts of the world, including Africa; and second, how borrowed models are justified at the local level.

ABSTRACTUniversities in Canada have been highly engaged with internationalisation – concurrent with the Bologna Process in Europe – yet appear only marginally influenced by the ‘external’ Europeanisation of higher education. This paper examines the intersection of these processes: Has the Europeanisation of higher education influenced the internationalisation of Canadian higher education? Evidence indicates that the influence of the Bologna Process in Canada has been slight. Aside of a brief period of reflection just prior to the ‘completion’ of the European Higher Education Area in 2010, few policy actors in Canadian higher education have seriously considered the impacts of Bologna. In Canada, internationalisation has focused on Asia and inbound student mobility, with perspectives on Europe comparatively limited to research collaboration, faculty mobility, and small-scale (outbound) student exchange programmes. Based on document analysis and survey data, this paper argues that the dearth of Europeanisation in Canadian higher education has more to do with domestic dynamics than a weak externalisation of the Bologna Process. The political structure and organisational culture of Canadian higher education is much different than that of Europe, such that the internationalisation strategies employed in Canadian higher education tend to neglect Europe and the Europeanisation of higher education.

This chapter analyses some unintended outcomes and challenges, such as the emergence of sub-circuits for student mobility, the increase of private providers, and corruption in higher education occurred in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the Association of South-East Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) Common Space for Higher Education. These unintended outcomes constitute the vulnerability, disengagement or superficial conformity to regional agreements of newer member countries. The chapter asks what causes unintended outcomes in the regional processes and why the peripheral status of newer members continues to persist to the detriment of regional integration. Drawing on empirical data of national higher education reforms in newer members and comparing regional projects in Asia and Europe, the author argues that the dysfunction and transformation of nation-states and weak governance structures can be seen as causes of these unintended outcomes. Furthermore, new sub-regional economic projects and influx of multiple international influences also cause facade conformity and complex reconfigurations of higher education systems in the newer members. Understanding of different unintended outcomes and their causes will help devise future priorities for the EHEA and ASEAN.

Although the Bologna Process expresses the conviction that the higher education systems of the countries signatory to the Bologna Declaration (1999) should become increasingly comparable and compatible, it leaves higher education as a national responsibility and protects and encourages cultural and educational diversity. Given this statement of principle, the author discusses the special problems involved in adapting the higher education systems of South East Europe to the Bologna Process, citing his own country, Slovenia, as an example. He examines the issues of diversity versus integration, the modernization of curricula, the development of a proper balance between institutional autonomy and the national co-ordination of higher edu cation, the links between university and non-university higher education, and the preparation, in higher education institutions, of teachers for primary and secondary school education.

In 1998, the ministers responsible for higher education in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom met in Paris to celebrate the University of Paris’s 800th anniversary. At the meeting, they signed the “Joint declaration on the harmonization of the architecture of the European higher education system” (Sorbonne Declaration). The document envisioned the creation of a European area of higher education with a harmonized framework of degrees and study cycles that would improve external recognition and facilitate student mobility and employability. Although there is a long history behind initiatives for joint actions in European higher education, as well as for measures taken by the European Community (Shaw, 1999; Corbett, 2005), the Sorbonne Declaration gained much public attention and gave birth, in 1999, to a Ministerial Conference in Bologna that marked the beginning of intensive higher education reform activities all over Europe (i.e., the Bologna Process).KeywordsHigh EducationPublic GoodPublic ResponsibilityEuropean High Education AreaBologna ProcessThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

In this and the following chapter the empirical complexity of the attempts to integrate Europe as applied to the university sector, and very particularly the Bologna and Lisbon processes, will be discussed. Both chapters show that to study any single process of European integration in isolation is problematic. Under some conditions, as both Bologna and Lisbon demonstrate, reform processes interact and intertwine, if not integrate, as several partially interconnected developments intersect, cross and meld. An important foundation stone in the Bologna process can be traced back to 1988, when university leaders of Europe came together in Bologna to sign the Magna Charta Universitatum. This declaration extolled certain fundamental values of the University: academic freedom, the freedom to teach and learn, and with it, university autonomy. Ten years later (May 1998) the 800th anniversary of the Sorbonne was celebrated in Paris, during which occasion the British, French, German, and Italian Ministers responsible for higher education signed a joint declaration (the Sorbonne Declaration) aimed at harmonizing the structure of higher education in the four countries. One year later (June 1999) Ministers of Higher Education of no fewer than 29 European countries signed the so-called Bologna Declaration. Given that at that time only 15 member states made up the European Union, this was an amazing feat of intergovernmental action and commitment to a joint interest, namely the creation of an open European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The Bologna Declaration laid out policies and joint measures for establishing the EHEA. It included a schedule for achieving the joint objectives thus agreed upon, and a commtment by the Ministers of the countries involved to meet every other year for discussing and assessing progress. The pursuit of the joint policies and measures is commonly referred to as the Bologna process. The Bologna process has been one of the most studied, if not the most studied European integration attemptwith respect to theUniversity.120 However, such studies usually treat the University as an isolated phenomenon – isolated from the dynamics