Research topics of American and European Degree Programs

At the heart of many of these reforms is the objective expressed in the second of six so-called ‘action lines’ of the Bologna declaration, the “adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate” (ibid). The translation of this objective into national policy formulation constitutes the research topic of this study.

Historically, European HE systems have shown a wide variety in terms of degree structures, but a two-cycle system was novel to most of them. As I will show, for those European countries that had not previously structured their degree programs in two consecutive cycles, the move to such a structure Triggered debates about fundamental changes in their HE systems. These debates reached far beyond the formal change of degree length, titles, and types, and extended too many of the respective HE systems’ tangible and intangible aspects. But the developments were also relevant for the few European HE systems that traditionally had national degree structures organized in two main cycles and were faced with the question of the “compatibility and comparability” (Bologna declaration, 1999) of their degrees with other countries in new ways.

To compare degree structures across national HE systems, it is not sufficient to look only at the length, titles, and types of degrees. They have to be understood in a wider context, such as which types of higher education institutions (HEIs) grant them, which percentage of an age group attains the particular degree, which curricular goals are attached to them, and which opportunities in the labor market they open up. These and other issues are likely to come into play in the course of a reform of national degree structures. This study will therefore analyze the adaptations of national degree structures with a view to their potential for wider changes in European HE systems.

In a great number of signatory countries, reforms are currently underway to adapt national degree structures to a two-cycle system. In many but not all European countries, this system is referred to as ‘Bachelor and Masters following the Anglo-Saxon example. Other terms used are ‘undergraduate and graduate studies’, ‘first and second degree’, and ‘two-tier’ structure. Differences in connotation notwithstanding, all these expressions are used interchangeably in this study to denote the same thing. I mostly use the terms ‘two-cycle degree structures’ and ‘undergraduate and graduate studies’ following the terminology of the Bologna documents. I also speak more generally of ‘adaptations of national degree structures’ to include the English situation which did not necessitate the introduction of a new degree structure. I speak of ‘national degree structures’ to clarify that I refer to changes in national systems rather than individual higher education institutions (HEIs).

In the meantime, the aim formulated in this action line has been extended to explicitly include the doctoral level as a third cycle (Berlin Communiqué, 2003) which, in the Bologna declaration was still lumped together with the Masters level as a second cycle. While acknowledging the importance of this development, this work focuses on HE up to the Masters level.

The role of the Bologna process for the reforms of degree structures that are underway across Europe is somewhat debated. Admittedly, they cannot always be attributed exclusively to the Bologna process. In some countries they were initiated prior to the Sorbonne and Bologna declarations. The latter could therefore also be seen as a formalized expression of a general political will and trend that existed anyway. In the words of the authors of the European University Association’s (EUA) second ‘trends report’, the Bologna process in connotation notwithstanding, all these expressions are used interchangeably in this study to denote the same thing. I mostly use the terms ‘two-cycle degree structures’ and ‘undergraduate and graduate studies’ following the terminology of the Bologna documents. I also speak more generally of ‘adaptations of national degree structures’ to include the English situation which did not necessitate the introduction of a new degree structure. I speak of ‘national degree structures’ to clarify that I refer to changes in national systems rather than individual higher education institutions (HEIs).

In the meantime, the aim formulated in this action line has been extended to explicitly include the doctoral level as a third cycle (Berlin Communiqué, 2003) which, in the Bologna declaration was still lumped together with the Masters level as a second cycle. While acknowledging the importance of this development, this work focuses on HE up to the Masters level. The role of the Bologna process for the reforms of degree structures that are underway across Europe is somewhat debated. Admittedly, they cannot always be attributed exclusively to the Bologna process. In some countries they were initiated prior to the Sorbonne and Bologna declarations. The latter could therefore also be seen as a formalized expression of a general political will and trend that existed anyway. In the words of the authors of the European University Association’s (EUA) second ‘trends report’, the Bologna process is mostly seen as confirming/reinforcing national priorities. [...] The process’ biggest strength [...] [is that] it ‘crystallizes’ major trends and reveals that issues and solutions have a European dimension; as a consequence the process is not (or no longer) seen as an intrusion, but as a source of information on the most suitable way forward for Europe (Haug & Tauch,2001: 5). In a different vein, Neave interprets the Bologna process as an “act of appropriation”, in the course of which credentials are claimed for a number of trends that have not been created by it but just bundled under its label: However one may look upon these observations, it is beyond doubt that since the Bologna declaration, a great deal of reform in European HE is focused and coordinated in the framework of the Bologna process, by which the aims of the declaration are implemented. Therefore, the adaptation of national degree structures will be regarded in the context of this process.

While the term ‘convergence’ is not mentioned in the Sorbonne and Bologna declarations, it is clearly the declarations’ and the ensuing Bologna process’ leitmotiv. The degree of convergence and the dimensions, to which it shall extend however, go largely unspecified. regarding the adoption of a system of two cycles, it is stated only that the first cycle should last “a minimum of three years”, should be “relevant to the European labour market”, and that “the second cycle should lead to the master and/or doctorate degree as in many European countries” (Bologna declaration, 1999). At the same time, in line with previous European education policy documents, the Bologna declaration confirms the intention to “take full respect of the diversity of cultures, languages, national education systems and of university autonomy” (Bologna declaration, 1999; see also De Wit & Verhoeven, 2001; Verbruggen, 2002). Ithas to be kept in mind that the Bologna declaration is not a binding legal contract or policy agreement, but a declaration of intent of the European ministers in charge of HE. It has been deliberately agreed upon outside of the framework of the European Union (EU)though the ensuing process becomes increasingly interwoven with EU-processes and procedures (see Verbruggen, 2002). For its translation into national policies, and eventual changes in individual HE systems, the declaration is therefore largely dependent on what happens in the signatory countries, i.e., at the national level. Finally, there is broad consensus among HE researchers that strong underlying forces push towards diversification of European HE systems (Huisman, 1995; Teichler, 2003), among them expanding student enrolment (Trow, 1974), increasing academic specialization (Kogan, 1997), growing needs of the knowledge society, intensifying globalization in HE, and increasing competition between HEIs (Van der Wende, 2001). In sum, the Bologna effort stands against a range of opposing pressures towards diversification. This study investigates how the resulting tension between convergence and diversity (see Meek, Goedegebuure, Kivinen, & Rinnen, 1996; Teichler, 1988c) plays out when it comes to translating the Bologna declaration into national policies.