Search

The paper argues that the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is currently experiencing a crisis of academic freedom and discusses the need to chart a course out of this crisis. The paper claims that the crisis, with its two dimensions (intellectual and empiric), is specific to Europe/EHEA; it is not a global or national crisis, although there are challenges to academic freedom in all other parts of the world and also within individual national higher education systems in Europe. Efforts have been started recently to address key challenges to academic freedom in the EHEA and eventually plot a course out of this crisis. The paper outlines how a comparative and applied interdisciplinary study of these efforts helps reveal their nature and scope, identify the actors/stakeholders involved as well as those, astoundingly, absent; it also allows to discuss and assess early on the chances of success and identify challenges and gaps in these efforts. The paper concludes that charting a course for academic freedom at present in the EHEA is an intergovernmental process. Higher education institutions and academics are not part of this process.

The future of the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) have been debated for more than 20 years (Bergan and Deca 2018). From the very start, even as the implementation of this continental-wide project in higher education got underway and in parallel to historical analyses (“looking back” too) that begun slowly to emerge, the future of the EHEA has been a constant preoccupation. It is perhaps in the nature of things that while the future can be close or distant, it never quite arrives, like a textitfata morgana, so that any discussion of “the future” can in principle be endless. Or, it could be that in this case discussions about the future indicate continuing uncertainty about the substance, shape and timeline of a European area for higher education. As we are completing the second decade of the Bologna Process and, if we take a formal approach, the first decade of the EHEA, this debate nevertheless takes on added urgency and includes some new elements. We are encouraged by the fact that few if any voices have been heard advocating an end to the EHEA. We therefore disregard this option here.

This chapter provides an analysis of the evolution of institutional autonomy and academic freedom in Europe since the launch of the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It points to evidence suggesting diverging paths within and between these two areas of university governance. The emergence of a European notion and model of institutional autonomy is one of the most remarkable developments of the period. Although young, this model is already consequential in Europe and it has acquired prominence beyond its borders as well. University autonomy has attracted a lot of attention in the higher education scholarship, policy thinking and regulatory reforms on the continent. Academic freedom, on the other hand, is a largely disregarded and underdeveloped area. At present, the very understanding of the concept of academic freedom and, to some extent, university autonomy is a confused one. A case can be made that they both require attention and that we may need to rethink them afresh in Europe. What is the stake is not primarily a theoretical or conceptual matter, but a practical and moral one.

This chapter discusses why governance and funding are currently serious matters of concern for public policy in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It argues that discussions about governance are particularly intense in times of major change in the world around higher education, and that we are once again traversing such a period in Europe. External ruptures in society at-large and changing trends in higher education, which influence the policy discussions and reform initiatives on governance are summarized. The chapter puts forward a synopsis of some of the most important developments in governance and funding since the start of the Bologna Process and launch of the EHEA, and points to important current challenges. Finally, it introduces the papers of the governance and funding section of this volume.

The original ambition of the section on Financing and Governance of the 2nd Bologna Researchers’ Conference had been to review key aspects in this area along the Bologna action lines.

From an educational policy perspective, student centred learning (SCL) is a rather new concept. It has emerged in recent years in national and institutional policy documents, often as part of rather declarative and formal approaches. Such policies are frequently lacking a clearly articulated definition of the concept and its effective operationalization. SCL is a new concept in Romania as well, and its adoption has not been free of difficulties. It is due to the influence of the Bologna Process that SCL is currently becoming an integral part of the strategic framework of universities. The article analyses the understanding of the SCL concept from the perspective of Romanian universities, as well as the extent to which it has been internalized within their processes and practices. The article looks at SCL from two different perspectives: curriculum development (in terms of using learning outcomes and the ECTS) and teaching (in terms of pedagogy and quality assurance). At the same time, the analysis specifically tracks Romania’s commitments regarding SCL within the Bologna Process, and in the broader national higher education policy context.

National strategies and practices in internationalisation of higher education vary across countries. So does their efficiency and impact. For countries that, like Romania, are considering adopting a national internationalisation strategy and are deliberating what exact model to choose (or develop), valuable lessons can be learned from a well-calibrated cross-country comparison. The present study was invited by the Romanian Executive Agency for Funding of Higher Education, Innovation and Development specifically for this purpose. The study is based on a comparative analysis of four European countries: Estonia, Germany, Poland, and Romania. It focuses on aspects such as: existence or not of a national strategy; content of strategies, where they exist, from principles and priorities to legal provisions and budgets; main internationalisation practices, whether linked to a formal strategy or not; main actors at national level; student mobility data. The comparison provides concrete elements for a possible framework informing the choices of the relevant stakeholders/policy makers in Romania. At the same time, it provides surprising insight that may be of interest for policy makers and higher education actors in other countries, as well as for scholars of internationalisation, for example by outlining policy approaches and “country profiles” with regard to internationalisation.

The article proposes to characterize the Bologna process as a knowledge society project. Viewed in this perspective, the Bologna process appears to be a surprising success story. Success is expressed in the capacity of the project to generate innovation in higher education, its real impact in Europe, and its global prominence. A major shortcoming of the Bologna process as a project is in the area of funding. The article argues that it is more useful to talk of a funding policy gap in the European Higher Education Area, rather than simply a funding gap. An explanation is proposed for this situation, as well as recommendations regarding a possible way forward.

The paper analyses stereotypes and prejudices of the Romanian majority about three ethnic minorities: Jews, Gypsies and Hungarians. The specific role those stereotypes play, their origin, and several examples of discrimination are explained in relation to demographic, economic, political and cultural factors, including types of prejudices other than ethnic. The nature of the interaction between international public opinion, the Romanian state and civil society is considered to be responsible for the specific forms which prejudice and discrimination take in contemporary Romania.