Only a Matter of Education Policy Ideals? German Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process
Abstract
Recently, it has been discussed how actors at universities perceive the Bologna Process. However, there is a lack of understanding about the determinants influencing attitudes towards the reform. In particular, the relation between education policy ideals and perceptions of the Bologna Process has gone unobserved. Based on a survey at three universities in North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany, this article shows that a congruence of education policy ideals with the goals of the Bologna Process leads to a more positive perception of the reform. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models show that these findings are stable when controlled for socio-demographic characteristics, changes of everyday work and involvement in the implementation of the Bologna Process. Thus, it is worthwhile to take into account the education policy ideals of involved actors when analysing perceptions of educational reforms.
Introduction
Since as early as 1998, the Secretaries of Education of France, Germany, Great Britain and Italy agreed to establish a European higher education area (Sorbonne Joint Declaration, 1998), after which the Bologna Process became the most far-reaching academic reform of recent times. Its rationale is to create a knowledge society that is able to cope with social change and that strengthens Europe's economic competitiveness. In order to achieve this, six objectives were originally outlined in the Bologna Declaration. These included not only the adoption of a cycled degree structure based on a credit point system, but also a ‘promotion of mobility […] and co-operation in quality assurance’ (Bologna Declaration, 1999, pp. 3f.). Since then, the initial objectives have been differentiated and complemented (Brändle, 2010, p. 71), and 48 countries have agreed to participate in the reform to date and have engaged in the voluntary harmonisation of higher education. Even if politicians identify further need for reform, the Bologna Process is understood as ‘a European success story’ (EACEA et al., 2012, p. 3). With the opening of ‘the European Higher Education Area […], as envisaged in the Bologna Declaration of 1999’ (Budapest–Vienna Declaration, 2010, p. 1), the reform's objectives were already considered as widely implemented in 2010, despite the ministers having prolonged the Bologna Process until 2020 one year before (Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, 2009). Similarly, the implementation reports provided a positive assessment of goal attainment and declared the Bologna Process to be a broad success (Rauhvargers et al., 2009; EACEA et al., 2012).
Notwithstanding this interpretation of the Bologna Process as a successful project, it has been criticised from the beginning. Besides the severe student protest in 2009, critical voices were also raised at institutions of higher education (Liessmann, 2006; Bollenbeck and Saadhoff, 2007; Deutscher Hochschulverband, 2009; Kellermann et al., 2009). However, insufficient effort was made to determine the cause and extent of this criticism through empirical study. Even today, professors’ perception of the Bologna Process and the impact of a sceptical attitude on university routine are still unclear. Scientific debates focus less on the perception of the academic reform by the actors involved and more on the following aspects: evaluations accompanying the reforms, focus on goal attainment by means of quantitative indicators and provide information regarding the progress of the Bologna Process (Rauhvargers et al., 2009; EACEA et al., 2012; Kultusministerkonferenz und Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2012). International comparative studies ask for the implementation of the Bologna Process’ objectives and its impact on the participating states (Huisman and van der Wende, 2004; Witte, 2006; Ravinet, 2008; Lažetić, 2010; Martens et al., 2010; Knill et al., 2013). Meanwhile, surveys amongst students and graduates focus on the effects of the cycled degree structure on students (Köhler, 2010; Müller, 2011; Bargel et al., 2012). Beyond that, ideologies, objectives and implementation of the Bologna Process are discussed in theoretical debates and debates generating theory (Lamnek, 2002; Kellermann, 2006; Nagel, 2009; Toens, 2009). In spite of the central role assigned to teaching staff—especially to professors—by law (HFG, 2006) regarding the implementation of the reform, only particular studies expose the attitude of teachers towards the Bologna Process (Fischer and Minks, 2007; Gallup, 2007; Välimaa et al., 2007; Jaksztat and Briedis, 2009; Shaw et al., 2011; Schomburg et al., 2012; Sin, 2012; Louvel, 2013; Neave and Veiga, 2013; Brändle and Wendt, 2014; Leisyte et al., 2015). Nevertheless, most of these studies primarily describe the attitude of teaching staff towards the Bologna Process and do not analyse determinants of these attitudes.
This article is dedicated explicitly to this issue, inquiring after the determinants of professors’ criticism of the Bologna Process. To begin, an outline of the state of research regarding perception of the Bologna Process by professors in Germany is provided. Afterwards, basic assumptions and the study design are explained. Subsequently, the operationalisation and professors’ perception of the Bologna Process are described. Next, the education policy ideals of the respondents are brought into focus. Finally, multivariate analyses will show how far education policy ideals determine perception of the Bologna Process—controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, subject groups, changes in everyday work and experiences during the implementation of the new degree programmes. Thereby, the article at hand in many ways goes beyond the current state of research.
Professors’ perception of the Bologna Process
In 2007, a comparative study (Gallup, 2007) amongst the teaching staff of 31 countries provided a first insight into the extent of the criticism of the Bologna Process. The results show that respondents in Germany in particular have major reservations when it comes to the academic reform: 62 per cent of teaching staff disagree with the statement that ‘the introduction of the three cycle system […] will improve […] the quality of education’ (Gallup, 2007, p. 13). Moreover, 53 per cent of respondents believe that ‘it would have been better if the old one-tier system (without a split in Bachelor and Master) was kept’ (Gallup, 2007, p. 14). Saying this, teaching staff in Germany are amongst the biggest critics of the Bologna Process throughout Europe.
More evidence regarding professors’ perception of the Bologna Process can be found in Fischer and Minks’ (2007) survey of professors of engineering and technical engineering in Germany. They note that 57 per cent of respondents are sceptical towards the Bologna Process. They further clarify that sceptics assess changes made by the academic reform more negatively than professors who are open minded towards the Bologna Process (Fischer and Minks, 2007, pp. 46ff.). Despite these considerable differences regarding the assessment of the reform's outcome, the Bologna Process did not lead to a split of the teaching staff (Fischer and Minks, 2007, p. 48). That implies that not all of the sceptics criticise the Bologna Process in its entirety. For instance, a fifth of them think the Bologna Process was important for restructuring degree programmes (Fischer and Minks, 2007, p. 103). Thus, even some of the sceptics share a view with professors who support the Bologna Process when it comes to some aspects of the reform.
A broader study was conducted by Schomburg et al. (2012) who focused on changes in teaching and studies at German institutions of higher education. To that end, they surveyed teaching staff at 83 German institutions of higher education focusing on their experiences and perceptions. Beyond the studies mentioned above, they analysed determinants of attitudes towards the Bologna Process. According to their findings, satisfaction with the Bologna Process is influenced by experiences made during the implementation of the cycled degree programmes, by the consequences of changes in teaching and studies, and by the approval of its objectives (Schomburg et al., 2012, p. 98). However, socio-demographic characteristics like age and gender as well as discipline have no noteworthy explanatory power regarding satisfaction with the academic reform. Altogether, teaching staff do not seem to criticise the reforms of recent years generally (Schomburg et al., 2012, p. 116). However, a majority of university professors are dissatisfied with the implementation of the cycled degree structure (Schomburg et al., 2012, p. 95).
All in all, professors in Germany are critical towards the Bologna Process. Their criticism is not only directed at the implementation of the reform, but also at the underlying objectives of the Bologna Process. To explore the reasoning behind and the extent of this criticism, the study ‘Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process’ was conducted. Next, the basic assumptions of this field research will be presented.
Reasons for different perceptions of the Bologna Process
Different perceptions of the Bologna Process may be ascribed to at least three reasons: changes in everyday work, experiences during the implementation process and education policy ideals. Even if there is no dominant theory that integrates all of these aspects, it is plausible to suggest that each of these aspects contributes to professors’ assessment of the reform.
Changes in everyday work
According to Bourdieu (1986, 1990), individuals develop a habitus during socialisation. This habitus provides schemes for perception, thinking, appraisal and action. Thus, individuals who experienced different socialisation have different routines available to cope with the challenges of everyday life. They are—due to their habitus and different habitus–field nexus—not equally capable of handling changes in everyday work, in so far as changes in everyday work represent a challenge to individuals, especially if they are forced to adapt their habits.
H1: A negative assessment of changes in everyday work intensifies criticism of the Bologna Process.
Experiences during the implementation process
In a similar manner, experiences collected during the implementation of the new degree programmes should affect perception of the Bologna Process. This is not only a matter of different habitus and capabilities of processing such experiences, but also a matter of receiving recognition for the commitment. In particular, professors who are used to independent decision making in academic self-governance might be frustrated if they suddenly lose this independence.
H2: Freedom of decision making during the implementation of the Bologna Process leads to a more positive perception of the Bologna Process.
Education policy ideals
Beyond that, it must be assumed that education policy ideals influence the perception of the Bologna Process. Due to their high educational attainment, which goes along with high cognitive capacity, the respondents are able to realise differences and similarities between the Bologna Process’ objectives and their own education policy ideals (Converse, 1964; Althaus, 1996). Furthermore, the attitude–behaviour approach (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977; Kim and Hunter, 1993) indicates that actions are highly correlated with underlying attitudes towards these actions. For example, the behaviour of voting or signing a petition is expected to be easily predictable if a person's attitude towards the subject is known (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977, p. 891). Regarding the relation of education policy ideals and objectives of the Bologna Process, this basically means that a congruence between the former and the latter should be associated with a more positive perception of the Bologna Process overall. In comparison, a dissonance between them should come with a more negative perception. The value dynamic perspective (Watson et al., 2004) suggests that professors have three options to overcome such a dissonance if the Bologna Process’ objectives are adopted by their institution of higher education. According to this perspective, the discrepancy can either be trivialised, selectively perceived or suppressed by setting aside individual values (Watson et al., 2004, pp. 30f.). In this regard, the dissonance between education policy ideals and the Bologna Process’ objectives adopted by institutions of higher education can be overcome by either avoiding the necessity of a reaction, by blinding out the changes or by adapting to the new conditions.
H3: A congruency between education policy ideals and the Bologna Process’ objectives leads to a more positive perception of the Bologna Process.
Following the study design and the operationalisation of perception of the Bologna Process and of education policy ideals, the three hypotheses will be examined by use of multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models. In this context the results will be checked for stability when controlled for socio-demographic characteristics and subject groups.
Study design
To examine the hypotheses mentioned above, an exploratory, partly standardised survey of professors at three campus universities in North Rhine-Westphalia was conducted.2 The selection of universities was done according to the most similar case design (Seawright and Gerring, 2008), using criteria based on selecting universities of similar size—regarding the number of professors and students—as well as by the layout of the universities’ institutions on a campus. Besides, this design allows for the assessment of institutional factors and achieves a relatively large sample despite cost constraints. All of the universities were comprehensive universities, offering bachelor, master and doctoral degrees. Universities of Applied Sciences (Fachhochschulen) or other institutions of higher education were not included in the survey as they differ significantly from universities according to their institutional framework, their teaching practices and their implementation of the Bologna Process (Fischer and Minks, 2007; Schomburg et al., 2012). Overall, the survey included 1,171 professors who received a paper-and-pencil questionnaire via mail in December 2011. Over a period of approximately four months, the respondents sent back 158 usable questionnaires.3 This reflects a response rate of 13.5 per cent. Clearly, this response rate limits the study's generalisability. Having said that, it is acceptable as the survey is a pilot study.
As a consequence of different response rates, the share of respondents from the three universities varies between 39.2 per cent (university A), 31.6 per cent (university B) and 29.1 per cent (university C) in the dataset. Less than a tenth (7.7%) of the respondents are retired. The majority (57.6%) of surveyed professors work in the subject group of linguistics, literary studies or humane sciences. Roughly a quarter (24.7%) of the respondents work in the subject group of law, economics or social sciences. Approximately a tenth (10.8%) of the professors work in technical sciences or natural sciences.4 Based on the sample, some key figures were compared to data of the German Federal Statistical Office on the entirety of professors in Germany to control for possible problems of sampling. This comparison showed that professors of technical sciences or natural sciences and law, economics or social sciences are slightly underrepresented in the sample (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2012, pp. 93ff.).5 Female professors are, relative to their share of the German professorate, well represented in the sample (18.4%). They participated in the survey a little more often than their male colleagues.6 Added together, the sample, gained at three universities in North Rhine-Westphalia, is quite similar to the entirety of professors in Germany when it comes to subject groups and gender. Furthermore, there are no signs of systematic loss. That is, the distributions of subject groups and gender are similar between the whole professorate which was contacted and the professors who answered and sent back the questionnaire. As a result, there is no need to weight the sample. Thus, the presented results are reliable despite the low response rate.
That being said, the study at hand is a pilot study. Its principle purpose is to provide a first insight into the nexus of education policy ideals and perception of the Bologna Process. As a matter of fact, the database is quite small. Thus, a generalisation of the results to all professors in North Rhine-Westphalia, let alone to Germany, is difficult. Even if the sample is quite similar to the German professorate, conclusions regarding the attitudes of (university) professors throughout Germany—which are not drawn in this article—can be tentative at best.
Operationalisation
The independent variables used in the multivariate analyses include the education policy ideals, changes in everyday work, issues of the Bologna Process’ implementation and socio-demographic characteristics. The latter include gender and age of the respondents. For data privacy, age was asked for in birth cohorts (1950 or earlier, 1951–1960, 1961–1970, 1971–1980 and after 1980). Furthermore, the respondents were asked if they are retired and in which faculty they are working. As the faculties differ considerably between universities, this information was transferred into the three groups of disciplines mentioned above.7 The dependent variable is an indicator which measures perception of the Bologna Process.
Perception of the Bologna Process
The assessment of perception of the Bologna Process is carried out in a multi-tiered manner, based on the objectives of the reform. The Bologna Process’ objectives include both its underlying intentions (European higher education area, mobility, employability, etc.) and its core methods set as technical goals (cycled degree structure, credit point system, modularisation, European quality assurance system, etc.). The different objectives were deduced from the declarations of the European educational ministers8 and transferred into 15 statements (Table 1). In a first step, the professors’ agreement to these 15 items was measured using a 5-point scale (endpoints: do not agree–agree).
| Percentage of agreement | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Do not agree | Agree | ||||
| Promoting the mobility of students is important | 4.34 (0.8) | 0.0 | 2.6 | 12.9 | 32.9 | 51.6 |
| Promoting lifelong learning is important | 4.33 (0.84) | 1.3 | 2.6 | 8.4 | 37.4 | 50.3 |
| Promoting the mobility of scientific staff is important | 4.28 (0.91) | 1.3 | 4.5 | 10.3 | 33.3 | 50.6 |
| It is important that the student body is composed according to the principle of equal opportunity | 4.11 (1.18) | 6.8 | 3.4 | 14.2 | 23.6 | 52.0 |
| Implementing easy understandable and comparable degrees is appropriate | 3.62 (1.32) | 11.0 | 10.4 | 15.6 | 31.2 | 31.8 |
| The idea of creating a European higher education area is appropriate | 3.51 (1.4) | 13.0 | 13.6 | 14.9 | 26.0 | 32.5 |
| Improving the employability of students is important | 3.3 (1.22) | 11.0 | 12.9 | 28.4 | 30.3 | 17.4 |
| Increasing the competitiveness of the European higher education area is important | 3.18 (1.36) | 17.8 | 10.5 | 28.3 | 22.4 | 21.1 |
| It is important to focus more on the acquisition of competences during studies | 3.18 (1.27) | 12.9 | 17.4 | 24.5 | 29.0 | 16.1 |
| Implementing a cycled degree structure (bachelor and master) is appropriate | 2.94 (1.55) | 29.5 | 12.2 | 14.1 | 23.1 | 21.2 |
| Introducing a credit point system is appropriate | 2.88 (1.41) | 26.0 | 13.0 | 22.7 | 23.4 | 14.9 |
| Introducing structured doctoral regulations is appropriate | 2.86 (1.5) | 29.9 | 11.0 | 20.1 | 20.8 | 18.2 |
| Considering Europeanisation during the development of new degree programmes is important | 2.75 (1.4) | 26.5 | 21.2 | 15.2 | 24.5 | 12.6 |
| Introducing a European quality assurance system is appropriate | 2.73 (1.36) | 26.2 | 20.8 | 16.1 | 27.5 | 9.4 |
| Modularisation of degree programmes is appropriate | 2.56 (1.44) | 35.7 | 15.6 | 16.2 | 21.4 | 11.0 |
- Source: Study ‘Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process’.
Subsequently, a sum score (value range: 0–15) was generated by adding the number of items the respondents agreed to. In doing so, the information of the single items is transformed into one variable. This variable measures perception of the Bologna Process on a ratio scale. It has a fixed zero point as well as equal distance between each point. As a result, this variable can be used as a dependent variable in OLS regression. For each of the 15 objectives, the two values indicating agreement were counted. Thus, the sum score provides information about the number of positively evaluated responses. This method is independent of opinions on the Bologna Process’ implementation as it solely focuses on the objectives of the reform. Accordingly, this represents the best method for arriving at the most unbiased assessment of its underlying intentions. Another advantage of this method is that all 15 responses have equal weight when generating the sum score.9 Hence, the scale is robust against ascription of very high importance to single objectives by the respondents. Ergo, the method applied in the text at hand is superior to a generalised self-reporting, as used, for example, by Fischer and Minks (2007). Moreover, the distinction between the implementation of the Bologna Process and its underlying objectives allows causal analyses to be conducted of their interconnections.
Education policy ideals
The education policy ideals of the respondents were also assessed with several items. The professors could answer on a 5-point scale to what degree they agree to the single statements (endpoints: do not agree–agree). The respective statements were self-developed as there is a lack of a scale measuring educational policy ideals. To do so, prevalent discourses were used as a point of orientation. These included funding of higher education, social justice and equality in higher education, as well as new forms of governance at higher education institutions. Regarding the financing of higher education, the advantages and disadvantages of tuition fees were especially controversial (Helbig et al., 2012). One of the main questions concerning governance was whether or not standard setting by European actors (Lawn, 2011) is a legitimate way to improve (national) higher education, and was driven by concerns about losing academic autonomy and freedom (Altbach, 2001, p. 216). Furthermore, issues of social justice—such as access to higher education and diversity of the student body—have been discussed for a long time (Reimer and Pollak, 2010). Closely related to that, questions of equality—not only regarding gender mainstreaming (Kamphans, 2014) but also regarding the involvement of students in decision making (Friedrichsmeier and Wannöffel, 2010)—were addressed.
Table 2 illustrates the seven items that cover the four dimensions used in the multivariate analyses. If a dimension is covered by more than one item, the mean of the items is calculated to determine the strength of the dimension.10 In detail, the following education policy ideals are used in the analyses:
| Percentage of agreement | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Do not agree | Agree | ||||
| Conservative financing of higher education | ||||||
| Higher education should solely be financed by public funds | 3.57 (1.29) | 9.6 | 12.2 | 18.6 | 30.8 | 28.8 |
| The introduction of tuition fees was a right decision | 3.51 (1.54) | 20.1 | 7.1 | 12.3 | 22.1 | 38.3 |
| Equality | ||||||
| Half of the professors should be female | 2.47 (1.46) | 40.0 | 12.9 | 20.0 | 14.2 | 12.9 |
| The students should be parity involved in all university decision-making processes | 2.33 (1.39) | 40.4 | 19.2 | 18.6 | 10.3 | 11.5 |
| Europeanisation | ||||||
| There should be Europe-wide laws considering higher education | 1.85 (1.19) | 56.7 | 17.3 | 16.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 |
| Social justice | ||||||
| The share of students from socially disadvantaged classes should be increased | 3.88 (1.27) | 7.6 | 7.6 | 18.5 | 21.7 | 44.6 |
| Only the high-school graduates with the best grades in a year should be eligible to study | 2.3 (1.37) | 42.4 | 16.5 | 18.4 | 13.9 | 8.9 |
- Source: Study ‘Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process’.
- Conservative financing of higher education. An education policy attitude that is characterised by the rejection of tuition fees and the demand for exclusive public financing of higher education. This education policy ideal therefore contains conservative elements regarding the financing of higher education.
- Equality. An education policy attitude that is characterised by a demand for the improvement of gender equality and parity involvement of students. This education policy ideal is focused on achieving equality at institutions of higher education.
- Europeanisation. An education policy attitude that is characterised by an endorsing of the creation of European laws for higher education. That is, differences between national higher education should be reduced by means of a top-down process. From this point of view, a harmonisation of educational systems across Europe is supported.
- Social justice. An education policy attitude that considers social inequality. This includes supporting the inclusion of socially disadvantaged students and the reduction of social inequality when it comes to access to higher education. From this perspective, social justice should be improved—especially when it comes to the transition to higher education.
The two education policy ideals of Europeanisation and social justice match core objectives of the Bologna Process. Europeanisation of higher education is a genuine goal of the reform and was pursued from the very beginning (Sorbonne Joint Declaration, 1998). The social dimension, which was included in the Bologna Process in 2001 as the result of a student initiative, has been increasingly taken into account (Prague Communiqué, 2001, p. 3; London Communiqué, 2007, p. 5). Presumably, these education policy ideals have a positive effect on perception of the Bologna Process as they are congruent to its objectives. The education policy ideal of achieving equality should have the same effect if it is understood as an orientation that tries to use the changes caused by the Bologna Process to advance its own objectives. In comparison, a financially conservative education policy attitude should be accompanied by a critical perception of the Bologna Process. From this point of view, the claim to diversify funding sources for higher education (Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, 2009, p. 5) should be an especially controversial subject.
Changes in everyday work
To capture changes in everyday work, the professors were asked to rate the extent to which their everyday work has changed during the last five years.11 Two core facets are used in the multivariate analyses, which were evaluated on a 5-point scale (endpoints: increased–decreased) and then transformed into binary variables (Table A1). On the one hand, the professors were asked if they have less time for research than in former times. On the other hand, the influence of an increased examination workload per student is modelled.
Implementation of the Bologna Process
The assessment of the Bologna Process’ implementation concentrates on the degree of freedom that professors have while developing the new degree programmes. Thus, the focus is not on the actualisation of the reform's objectives but rather on the process of implementing the reform. Two binary variables provide information about the possibilities professors had to contribute their own ideas and whether or not respondents feel restricted by their university (Table A1). Both variables are based on a 5-point scale (endpoints: agree–do not agree) which was subsequently dichotomised. In doing so, the implementation of the Bologna Process can be brought into focus without centring on the reform's results.
Empirical analyses
Hereinafter, the professors’ attitudes towards the Bologna Process’ objectives and the sum score based on these attitudes will be described. Afterwards, the education policy ideals are described. These are supposedly a core determinant for perception of the Bologna Process. The third part of this section will focus on multivariate models of perception of the Bologna Process. At this point, the influence of education policy ideals on perception of the Bologna Process—controlled for socio-demographic characteristics and changes in everyday work—will be highlighted.
Perception of the Bologna Process
Table 1 shows the assessment of the Bologna Process’ objectives. It provides a split picture.
The majority of objectives are affirmed by the respondents. In particular, the promotion of lifelong learning (87.7%), of students’ mobility (84.5%) and of scientific staff's mobility (84%) are positively evaluated. In comparison, the modularisation of degree programmes (51.3%), the consideration of Europeanisation during the development of new degree programmes (47.7%) and the implementation of a European quality assurance system (47%) receive particularly negative responses. Thus, the technical goals of the Bologna Process are assessed more negatively than its underlying objectives.
These 15 items are the basis for a sum score, generated by addition of the positively rated objectives. This sum score shows the degree of consent to the Bologna Process’ objectives. Hence, the following applies: the lower the individual value on the scale, the greater the criticism of the Bologna Process. The internal consistency of the scale is good (Cronbach's α = 0.8). The sum score has a mean of 7.95 (SD: 3.56), a median of 8 and a skewness of −0.01. Of the professors, 53.8 per cent endorse at least 8 of the 15 items, and are therefore rather open towards the Bologna Process’ objectives. When comparing these supporters with critics who assess a smaller amount of aspects positively, substantial differences regarding evaluations of the Bologna Process’ results are revealed (Brändle and Wendt, 2014).
Education policy ideals
The education policy ideals are based on seven items. These items were rated by the professors on a 5-point scale (Table 2).
It is evident that the respondents largely agree to both aspects related to the financing of higher education. Thereby, the statement for public financing is clearly endorsed. Assessments of introducing tuition fees are less uniform but still positive. Sixty per cent of the respondents agree with the introduction of tuition fees, while more than a quarter are sceptical. When it comes to equality at institutions of higher education, the professors are broadly united in their opposition, with the majority deprecating the statements. More than half of the respondents disagree with the statement that half of professors should be female. An even larger share of the professors negatively assess the parity involvement of students. Even fewer respondents agree to the aspects of Europeanisation. Compared to all other items, the smallest share of professors agrees with the implementation of Europe-wide laws for higher education. Almost three-quarters of the respondents reject such legislation. On the other hand, the promotion of social justice is principally able to reach consensus. Roughly two-thirds of the respondents agree that the share of students from socially disadvantaged classes should be increased. From this perspective, social inequality is to be reduced in the transition to higher education. This is also expressed by the high rejection of the statement that only the high-school graduates with the best grades in a year should be eligible to study. Altogether, statements that possibly limit the discretion of professors receive less agreement, whereas items which point towards a preservation of the current state are more often agreed to.
To illustrate the dissemination of the education policy ideals, the items of one dimension were aligned—thus, the items for measuring the introduction of tuition fees and the selection of the best students at university admission were rotated. Afterwards, the dimensions were synthesised by calculating the mean for each education policy ideal across its associated items.12 In doing so, missing values were considered by a correspondingly adjusted divisor when calculating the mean. This enables the relevance of these four dimensions to be distinguished. Moreover, for the ease of interpretation, the percentage of agreement is calculated by summing up the two percentages indicating agreement. The same was carried out for the two percentages indicating no agreement. Table 3 shows some descriptive statistics for the four dimensions of education policy ideals in the sample.
| Percentage of agreement | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Skewness | No agreement | Indifferent | Agreement | |
| Conservative financing of higher education | 3.02 (1.14) | 0.07 | 27.0 | 46.1 | 27.0 |
| Equality | 2.4 (1.18) | 0.58 | 50.3 | 34.6 | 15.0 |
| Europeanisation | 1.85 (1.19) | 1.31 | 74.0 | 16.0 | 10.0 |
| Social justice | 3.8 (1.06) | −0.62 | 12.7 | 31.2 | 56.1 |
- Source: Study ‘Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process’.
This overview clarifies that the broadest approval is for the ideal of social justice. More than half of the respondents think that more attention should be paid to social inequality when it comes to access to higher education, and that prospective students from all social strata should be empowered to study. All the other education policy ideals received considerably less consensus. Twenty-seven per cent of the respondents agree with a conservative financing of higher education, while almost half of the professors are indifferent considering this attitude. Compared with this, only 15 per cent of the professors agree with the education policy ideal of equality. More than half of them do not agree with this orientation. Even less respondents agree with the education policy ideal of Europeanisation. Only ten per cent of the respondents support Europeanisation. Nearly three-quarters of the professors oppose this education policy ideal.
With regard to the congruency of education policy ideals and the Bologna Process’ objectives it can be stated that there is no clear coherence. On the one hand, the education policy ideal of social justice, which is a central concern of the Bologna Process, is rated very positive. On the other hand, only a small share of professors agree to the education policy ideal of Europeanisation, which is also at the core of the academic reform. In addition, the financing of higher education seems to be a similarly controversial subject. The Bologna Process aims at a diversification of financing of higher education (Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, 2009, p. 5), while the education policy ideal of a conservative financing of higher education is widely accepted amongst the professors.
Education policy ideals and perception of the Bologna Process
To examine the determinants of perception of the Bologna Process the sum score introduced above will be used. Again, this shows the number of the reform's objectives that are assessed positively by respondents. Stepwise extended OLS regression models will show to which extent education policy ideals, changes in everyday work, the implementation of the Bologna Process and socio-demographic characteristics explain attitudes towards the Bologna Process. For that purpose, a sample of 138 professors, who have no missing values on any variable, is used.
Table 4 illustrates that the education policy ideals alone explain 29.4 per cent of the variance (model 1). Thereby, all education policy ideals have significant effects. Social justice, europeanisation and equality influence perception of the Bologna Process positively. On the other hand, the academic reform is assessed more negatively the stronger a conservative financing of higher education is supported. According to hypothesis H3, this means: if the professors have education policy ideals that are congruent to the Bologna Process’ objectives, they assess the Bologna Process more positively. However, if the respondents have distinct education policy ideals which are in contradiction to the Bologna Process’ objectives, such as the conservative financing of higher education, criticism of the academic reform increases. Moreover, the positive effect of the egalitarian education policy ideal indicates that the initiated reforms were used by the professors to introduce individual objectives.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education policy ideals | ||||
| Conservative financing of higher education | −0.74*** (0.26) | −0.85*** (0.26) | −0.60** (0.25) | −0.79*** (0.27) |
| Equality | 0.61** (0.28) | 0.66** (0.28) | 0.48* (0.27) | 0.40 (0.28) |
| Europeanisation | 0.91*** (0.24) | 0.88*** (0.24) | 0.84*** (0.23) | 0.83*** (0.25) |
| Social justice | 1.04*** (0.26) | 1.07*** (0.26) | 1.14*** (0.24) | 1.10*** (0.25) |
| Changes in everyday work | ||||
| Less time for research | 0.58 (0.62) | 0.65 (0.59) | 0.90 (0.61) | |
| Increased examination workload per student | −1.7*** (0.58) | −1.51*** (0.55) | −1.6*** (0.57) | |
| Implementation of the Bologna Process | ||||
| Contribution of own ideas | 1.11** (0.49) | 1.24** (0.52) | ||
| Restricted by university | −1.64*** (0.51) | −1.44*** (0.54) | ||
| Men | −0.60 (0.75) | |||
| Retirement | 1.37 (1.05) | |||
| Birth cohorts (reference: 1950 or earlier) | ||||
| 1951–1960 | 0.07 (0.78) | |||
| 1961–1970 | −0.10 (0.76) | |||
| 1971–1980 | 0.79 (1.17) | |||
| Subject group (reference: linguistics, literary studies or humane sciences) | ||||
| Law, economics or social sciences | −0.90 (0.62) | |||
| Technical sciences or natural sciences | 0.51 (0.83) | |||
| Constant | 3.23*** (1.11) | 4.07*** (1.21) | 3.95*** (1.23) | 5.62*** (2.05) |
| r2 | 0.294 | 0.339 | 0.408 | 0.433 |
 |
0.272 | 0.308 | 0.370 | 0.361 |
- Source: Study ‘Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process’.
- OLS regressions, unstandardised coefficients with standard error in parentheses, n = 138.
- *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.
Controlling for effects of changes in everyday work, the education policy ideals’ effects remain stable (model 2). The explanatory power increases to some degree (increase of r2 = 0.045). Verifiably, the increased examination workload per student has a distinct effect on the Bologna Process’ perception. If the workload increased during the last five years, the professors assess the Bologna Process more negatively. By contrast, changes regarding time available for research do not significantly affect the perception of the Bologna Process. In so far as hypothesis H1 is supported: a negative assessment of changes in everyday work intensifies criticism of the Bologna Process.
The consideration of experiences during the implementation of the Bologna Process further increases the model's explanatory power (increase of r2 = 0.069)—again without changing the effects of the education policy ideals (model 3). The Bologna Process is assessed more positively if respondents took advantage of opportunities to contribute their own ideas during the implementation of new degree programmes at their institutes. Then again, if the professors were restricted by the university, they perceive the Bologna Process more negatively. Accordingly, hypothesis H2 is supported: the greater the freedom of decision during the implementation of the Bologna Process, the more positively it is assessed.
Furthermore, the inclusion of socio-demographic characteristics and subject groups do not substantially change the effects mentioned earlier (model 4). None of the additional control variables has a significant effect on perception of the Bologna Process. However, the explanatory power of the model increases slightly (increase of r2 = 0.025). Solely the effect of the egalitarian education policy ideal is no longer significant.
In total, it can be stated that the education policy ideals—except the egalitarian ideal13—have independent and stable effects on perception of the Bologna Process. According to this, assessments of the biggest academic reform in recent years are determined by fundamental education policy ideals and their congruence with the Bologna Process’ objectives. They have the biggest explanatory power when it comes to perception of the Bologna Process. Compared with this, changes in everyday work have a smaller explanatory power, whereby increasing workload tends to lead to an increase in criticism of the Bologna Process. In particular, an increase in examination workload intensifies the criticism. Presumably, the respondents causally link the increase in examination workload to the Bologna Process, so that a large negative effect is observable. In addition, experiences during the implementation of the new degree programmes have less explanatory power regarding perception of the Bologna Process than the education policy ideals. Nevertheless, distinct effects are to be found. On the one hand, university restrictions during the implementation of the new degree programmes increase the criticism of the Bologna Process. On the other hand, the contributing of ideas reduces the criticism. In other words, the greater the professors’ freedom of decision making during implementation of the Bologna Process, the more positively it is assessed. In comparison, socio-demographic characteristics and subject group do not influence the Bologna Process’ perception.
Conclusion
Recapitulating, it can be stated that a large share of the surveyed professors do not understand the Bologna Process as a success story—contrary to the proclamation of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Approximately half of the respondents are sceptical towards the Bologna Process’ underlying objectives. Examining the determinants of perception of the Bologna Process affirms findings of previous studies: socio-demographic characteristics do not influence judgements of the Bologna Process (Schomburg et al., 2012). Beyond that, the study at hand suggested that a negative assessment of changes in everyday work would lead to a more critical perception of the Bologna Process (H1). In addition, it was hypothesised that freedom of decision making during the implementation of the Bologna Process leads to a more positive perception of the Bologna Process (H2). Moreover, it was argued that education policy ideals are intrinsically tied to perception of the Bologna Process (H3).
The empirical analyses affirm all three hypotheses and thus provide evidence supporting the theoretical framework. Firstly, professors who assess changes in their everyday work negatively criticise the Bologna Process to a greater extent—supporting H1. According to Anderson (2008) this might be a manifestation of academic resistance. This implies that the reform is criticised because it forces professors to adapt to new structures and break their old habits. Secondly, freedom of decision making during the implementation of the reform leads to a more positive perception of the Bologna Process—supporting H2. From the point of view of self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000), this can be connected to the fulfilment of basic psychological needs—especially of autonomy, which is traditionally of high importance for professors (Altbach, 2001, p. 216). However, most importantly, congruency between education policy ideals and the Bologna Process’ objectives affects perception of the academic reform positively—in line with H3. Drawing on the attitude–behaviour approach (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977), it was argued that political behaviour is predictable if a person's attitude towards the subject is known. In this respect, the professors’ assessment of the Bologna Process should be predictable if their education policy ideals are known. Generally, this holds true. The findings suggest that the education policy ideals of social justice and Europeanisation—both congruent with the Bologna Process’ objectives—positively influence perception of the reform. In contrast, a financially conservative education policy ideal is, as expected, associated with a negative perception of the Bologna Process. These effects are stable even when controlled for socio-demographic characteristics, changes in everyday work and experiences during the implementation of the new degree programmes. This means that the consideration of education policy ideals leads to a better understanding of perception of the Bologna Process. To put it in a nutshell, professors are in fact relevant political actors who rate the academic reform according to their political ideals and not just because they are (un)satisfied with the changes or because their experience during the implementation was (un)pleasant.
Thus, it is feasible that criticism of the Bologna Process and academic resistance against it are not solely the products of its implementation or changes in everyday work. On the contrary, the results presented suggest that critics of the academic reform might have been sceptical towards the Bologna Process from the very beginning due to different education policy ideals. As such, criticism of the Bologna Process can be traced back to a number of reasons. On the one hand, the professors’ education policy ideals compete with the Bologna Process’ objectives. On the other hand, it is to be assumed that the experiences gained during the reform's implementation only sporadically bridged these differences. Last but not least, if changes in everyday work are assessed as negative, they tend to reinforce criticism of the Bologna Process. In the end, the overall critical assessment of the reform is conditioned by a combination of all of these different reasons.
However, the results only provide a first insight into the nexus of education policy ideals and perception of the Bologna Process. This limitation is due to the small sample that merely allows tentative conclusions regarding the entirety of professors in Germany. The study at hand neither assesses cross-institutional nor cross-national differences, as it only included professors of three comprehensive universities in North Rhine-Westphalia. Besides, the findings are based on a cross-sectional study which does not allow for a time comparison. Moreover, the operationalisation of the education policy ideals—especially of ‘Europeanisation’ which was only measured with one item—needs to be validated and eventually refined. Thus, several tasks remain for future studies.
Despite these limitations, the results point at a way to increase acceptance of the academic reform: it is reasonable to explicitly emphasise the range of possibilities for shaping the Bologna Process, even if perception is greatly influenced by education policy ideals and not solely by its implementation. In particular, if the Bologna Process is understood as a permanent reform project (Bucharest Communiqué, 2012), ‘critical voices raised among staff and students’ (Budapest–Vienna Declaration, 2010, p. 1) should be carefully taken into account. If this integration succeeds, necessary reforms of degree programmes can be achieved in the medium term. By this means, the acceptance of the degree structure and the feasibility of studying degree programmes can be improved.
If this article has achieved nothing else, it has demonstrated that research on perception of reforms in the education system should not only focus on the achieved changes and the implementation process, but also on the education policy ideals of the actors involved. Despite a limited database, it could be shown that education policy ideals greatly influence perception of the academic reform. The result that a congruency between education policy ideals and the Bologna Process’ objectives influences perception of the reform is highly plausible, but has never been shown before. In this respect, this article provides a starting point for future research that focuses on perception of educational reforms.
Notes
Appendix
| Variables | Wording of the item and coding |
|---|---|
| Perception of the Bologna Process |
Sum score (value range 0–15) generated from the items in Table 1. Introduced by: ‘Please state how much you agree to the following items.’ 5-point scale: 1 = agree–5 = do not agree (rotated for purpose of illustration) |
| Education policy ideals |
For the wording and assignment of the single items see Table 2. Introduced by: ‘Below you find some general education policy statements. Please indicate how much you agree to each of them.’ 5-point scale: 1 = agree–5 = do not agree (rotated for purpose of illustration) |
| Gender |
Are you female or male? 0 = female; 1 = male |
| Retirement |
Are you already retired? 0 = no; 1 = yes |
| Birth cohorts |
Dummies generated from the question: Which year were you born? 1950 or earlier; 1951–1960; 1961–1970; 1971–1980; after 1980 |
| Subject group |
Dummies generated from the question: ‘Which faculty are you working at?’ Linguistics, literary studies or humane sciences; law, economics or social science; technical sciences or natural sciences |
| Changes in everyday work | Introduced by: ‘Compared to everyday work 5 years ago …’ |
| Time for research (less) |
Dummy generated from the answer to the statement: ‘my time for research’: increased–decreased 5-point scale: 1 = increased–5 = decreased 0 = not decreased (value range 1–3); 1 = decreased (value range 4–5) |
| Examination workload per student (increased) |
Dummy generated from the answer to the statement: ‘the average examination workload per student’: increased–decreased 5-point scale: 1 = increased–5 = decreased 0 = not increased (value range 3–5); 1 = increased (value range 1–2) |
| Implementation of the Bologna Process | Introduced by: ‘During the development of new degree programs …’ |
| Contribution of own ideas |
Dummy generated from the answer to the statement: ‘I was able to contribute my own ideas’: agree–do not agree 5-point scale: 1 = agree–5 = do not agree 0 = contributed no own ideas (value range 3–5); 1 = contributed own ideas (value range 1–2) |
| Restricted by university during the development of new degree programmes |
Dummy generated from the answer to the statement: ‘I was restricted by university guidelines’: agree–do not agree 5-point scale: 1 = agree–5 = do not agree 0 = not restricted (value range 3–5); 1 = restricted (value range 1–2) |
- Source: Study ‘Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process’.
| Variables | Manifestation | N | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 20 | 14.5 |
| Male | 118 | 85.5 | |
| Retirement | No | 126 | 91.3 |
| Yes | 12 | 8.7 | |
| Birth cohorts | 1950 or earlier | 31 | 22.5 |
| 1951–1960 | 46 | 33.3 | |
| 1961–1970 | 50 | 36.2 | |
| 1971–1980 | 11 | 8 | |
| Subject group | Linguistics, literary studies or humane sciences | 82 | 61.2 |
| Law, economics or social sciences | 35 | 26.1 | |
| Technical sciences or natural sciences | 16 | 11.9 | |
|
Changes in everyday work Time for research (less) |
Not less | 39 | 28.3 |
| Less | 99 | 71.7 | |
| Examination workload per student (increased) | Not increased | 48 | 34.8 |
| Increased | 90 | 65.2 | |
| Implementation of the Bologna Process | |||
| Contribution of own ideas | Contributed no own ideas | 66 | 47.8 |
| Contributed own ideas | 72 | 52.2 | |
| Restricted by university during the development of new degree programmes | Not restricted | 57 | 41.3 |
| Restricted | 81 | 58.7 |
- Source: Study ‘Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process’.
| Variables | Mean | SD | Min | Max | Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perception of the Bologna Process | 8.03 | 3.53 | 0 | 15 | 8 |
| Education policy ideals | |||||
| Conservative financing of higher education | 2.97 | 1.13 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Equality | 2.37 | 1.16 | 1 | 5 | 2 |
| Europeanisation | 1.84 | 1.15 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
| Social justice | 3.75 | 1.07 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
- Source: Study ‘Professors’ Perception of the Bologna Process’.
