In the April issue of WENR [1] we looked at the impact of the Bologna Process [2] beyond the borders of Europe, providing an overview of how the European higher education reform movement is influencing reform in other parts of the world, and concluding with a more in-depth look at Bologna-inspired reform in Africa. With this issue, we look at Bologna’s impact in the Asia-Pacific region.
Exchange
Asia has long been a region of the world viewed by European, Australian and North American institutions of higher education as a source of international students. Recent European educational initiatives in Asia, therefore, have largely been focused on promoting the westward flow of Asian students. Initiatives such as the ASEAN-EU University Network Program (2000) and the European Commission’s Asia Link (2002) have focused primarily on developing institutional ties and promoting European institutions at recruitment fairs in Asia. The initiatives also have a focus on curriculum, human resource and management development, with a view to developing institution-to-institution and intra-network cooperation opportunities. A special “window [3]” in the Erasmus Mundus [4] program has also provided graduate students from target countries the opportunity to apply for scholarships to study at European institutions.
Traditionally, Britain has been the major European destination for Asian students, but as Continental European countries adapt their system to the Bologna model, they make themselves more compatible with the Anglo-American models familiar to India, Pakistan, the Philippines and much of Asia. As a recent article [5] in The Chronicle of Higher Education states, “a growing number of Continental universities are using English in the classroom; European governments and institutions are more aggressively marketing their education overseas; universities are setting up more partnerships with foreign institutions to create pipelines for prospective students; and virtually all European nations are synchronizing their degree programs so that what was once a hodgepodge of degrees is now more accessible to foreign students.”
In recent years, however, this model of one-way traffic has begun to change, as source nations such as China, Japan and South Korea have themselves become major destinations for international students (largely Asian) and, in the case of China and to a lesser extent India, have greatly expanded the number of seats available to domestic candidates. In Japan, a declining birthrate has meant that universities are being forced to look overseas in order to meet enrollment targets and the government is beginning to introduce legislation aimed at easing the process of attracting foreign students and lecturers.
As student mobility within Asia increases, is there evidence that policymakers at the regional level are looking to encourage this mobility by addressing issues directly related to cross-border academic travel, such as the recognition of foreign credentials, the harmonization of national quality standards, and the transfer of academic credit? And, for the purposes of this article, is their any evidence that Bologna might be providing impetus or inspiration for those efforts?
Bologna as a Model
The immediate answer to this question would probably be “no”. Bologna, it seems, has yet to fully register on the radars of higher education professionals in Asia. However, there does appear to be concern in the United States that if countries such as China choose to adopt a new model of tertiary education based on three years of undergraduate education and two years of graduate education, a global system of higher-education mobility based on the European model might emerge. Diana Carlin, the chair of the NAFSA Bologna Task Force [6], notes this in a March 2007 discussion paper [7]:
“Further, and of particular note, is the possibility of Australia and China adopting the Bologna degree structure for their respective education systems, which, if implemented, would leave the United States on the outside looking in during the decades ahead”
The fear of course is that international student flows would be redirected from the United States to destinations abroad, primarily in Europe, offering shorter, more compatible and affordable English-taught degree programs; a scenario with implications for university budgets and perhaps more seriously the flow of highly skilled workers.
In India, where the three year undergraduate degree is commonplace, and typically not viewed as equivalent to an undergraduate degree by graduate admissions officers in the United States, maybe European graduate schools are already beginning to look more attractive. Current figures [8] from the Council of Graduate Schools [9], which tracks international applications and enrollments at North American member graduate schools, would suggest not, but as stated above the Bologna reforms are still young and relatively unknown to Asian constituents.
The Australian university sector, which offers three-year undergraduate programs has had great success in attracting Asian students. And while the length of degree programs is but one consideration among many for internationally mobile students, the Australians have started to take note of European developments and might see it as a model for attracting ever more Asian students to their shores.
Sub-Regional Initiatives
In Southeast Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [10] has worked for more than a decade to promote cooperation in the fields of higher education and human resource development. Primary among the initiatives has been the creation of the ASEAN University Network [11] (AUN), which has worked to develop networks in areas such as quality assurance, and to promote academic mobility and regional human resources.
ASEAN has cooperated directly with other Asian and neighboring countries, in addition to the European Union through the ASEAN-EU University Network Program, which aims to enhance cooperation between higher education institutions in the two regions and to promote regional integration within ASEAN countries. Since 2000, the two regions have held round-table discussions on a range of issues related to regional educational integration in areas such as quality assurance, autonomy in higher education, regional cooperation in a globalizing world. In addition, the EU has assured technical assistance in quality assurance and credit transfer, suggesting that the ASEAN region is serious about building structures to enhance cooperation and academic mobility.
At the ministerial level, the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization [12] has been working since 1965 to promote cooperation in education, science and culture in the Southeast Asian region. Although the organization works to create educational linkages and networks within the region, it does not appear to be spearheading any kind of movement that might lead to a broader education area, similar to that occurring in Europe. It was, however, an observer at the recent Asia-Pacific Education Ministers’ Meeting in Brisbane, which issued a communiqué listing areas of cooperation that might lead to the future creation of an Asia-Pacific higher education area.
Regional Initiatives: The Brisbane Communiqué
In April 2006, Australia hosted ministers and senior officials from 27 countries [13] (of 53 invited [14]) in Brisbane for the inaugural Asia-Pacific Education Ministers’ Meeting. The broader Asia-Pacific region, which has been dubbed the Brisbane Communiqué region, extends across Asia, the Middle East and the Near East as far as Turkey (also a Bologna signatory). Delegates at the meeting responded to the following theme:
What actions on education and training can be agreed that will strengthen good relations in the region; and underpin its social and economic development, through the international mobility of students and research collaboration?
They agreed to collaborate on a range of issues under four key areas of cooperation. Similarities with the early days of Bologna cannot be mistaken:
- Quality assurance frameworks for the region linked to international standards, including courses delivered online;
- Recognition of educational and professional qualifications;
- Common competency based standards for teachers, particularly in science and mathematics; and
- The development of common recognition of technical skills across the region in order to better meet the overall skills needs of the economic base of the region.
Not unlike the role of the Bologna Follow-up Groups, themes from the Brisbane Communiqué are being progressed by a Senior Officials’ Working Group [15] composed of representatives from across the region, and currently chaired by Australia and headquartered at the Department of Education, Science and Training [16] in the Australian capital, Canberra. This Working Group reported to ministers in August 2007, recommending that the logical approach to moving the Brisbane Communiqué forward would be to:
- Assess the current situation in the region with regards to the four Brisbane Communiqué themes and to determine where effort needs to be placed for future action;
- Develop working groups to progress each goal;
- Prioritize the themes of quality assurance and educational and professional recognition by holding seminars across the region.
A more extensive report is to be submitted at the next Asia-Pacific Education Ministers’ Meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for 2009.
Australia
In case any comparisons with Bologna might be missed, the Department for Education, Science and Training issued a discussion paper timed to coincide with the Brisbane meeting entitled “The Bologna Process and Australia: Next Steps [17].” The paper begins with a preface by Education Minister Julie Bishop acknowledging that the Bologna Process has implications for higher education across the globe, including Asia-Pacific, and that it represents “challenges to, and opportunities for” Australian higher education providers working “to enhance [their] existing success and reputation as a provider of world-class education to both domestic and international students.”
The preface continues by stating that Australia must work with its key Asian education partners to develop an effective multilateral dialog “about future directions in higher education.” In addition, the minister calls for a domestic dialog “to develop a degree of common understanding of the key benefits and outcomes Australia seeks through alignment with Bologna initiatives.”
Stating that Australia already enjoys excellent collaborative academic relations with the Bologna region, including joint recognition of qualifications (Australia ratified the Lisbon convention in 2002), the discussion paper notes that “impediments resulting from differences in systems and basic structures still exist.’ And furthermore, “Bologna compatibility would closely align key features of the Australian higher education system with the university systems of the 45 [now 46] European countries and would allow broader cooperation, facilitate the movement of students between Australian and European higher education institutions and aid recognition.” A common credit transfer system and diploma supplement would further encourage mobility, the paper continues.
Taking these two documents together, one cannot help but draw the conclusion that Australian government officials responsible for education are keenly aware of the importance of Bologna and see it as a possible means of promoting and consolidating their own position in the international higher education market, and more importantly within the Asia-Pacific region. Of course, the Brisbane developments are just a year old and if Bologna is to be taken as an example, buy-in must come from the ground-up (students, academics, institutions, employers and employees) if ministerial directions are to be pursued. Judging from the lively responses to Ms. Bishop’s statements from numerous stakeholder organizations, summed up in a September 2006 speech [18] by the minister, that buy-in is far from certain.
Among the many themes [19] generated in response to the paper, perhaps the most important can be summed up by the response [20] from the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee [21], which stresses the high value placed on collaboration and partnerships in the region with Australia’s traditional educational partners, and the emphasis that any response to Bologna should not be at the expense of those relationships. Furthermore, the AVCC argues that any collaboration with Bologna must not “result in the diminution of the Australian university system,” while also acknowledging that Bologna provides a point of reference that might drive regional discussions toward the creation of an Asia Pacific Higher Education area. In conclusion, the AVCC states that harmonization within the Asian region may be much more important than with Europe.
Recognition and Mobility Tools
With regards to credit and degree recognition in the Asia region, the AVCC notes in its response paper that “The University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific [22] (UMAP) Credit Transfer System [23] (UCTS) which is modeled on the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) is currently used by Australian universities for exchange in the Asia-Pacific region.”
In addition, the AVCC shares the belief of DEST that one of the most effective ways of communication and translating the Australian system of education to the rest of the world is through the diploma supplement – a document appended to an academic credential outlining a student’s achievements and the learning outcomes of their particular program of study as well as providing information about the national education system and the specific mission and focus of the institution awarding the qualification.
Such has been the commitment to the development of an Australian Diploma Supplement [24] that the Australian Government has provided the equivalent of US$350,000 for a consortium of universities to develop an agreed-upon template. The project is scheduled for completion by January 2008.
Conclusion
While none of the initiatives outlined above point directly to a Bologna-style regional higher-education architecture, there are signs that efforts are underway for a move in that direction, spearheaded largely at this point by an Australian education system eager to maintain its dominant position in the Asia-Pacific higher education market. As stated by Australian education minister, Julie Bishop, at the Australian National Seminar on the Bologna Process in September 2006:
“So, while the greater Asia-Pacific region will set its own goals and frameworks, Bologna (and the Copenhagen Process in the area of vocational and technical education), provide pointers for greater collaboration in the region, for the benefit of the region. In recognition of this, the Senior Officials’ Working Group will remain alert to the future possibilities for compatibility with initiatives such as Bologna.
“The European vision also introduces some urgency for this region to develop its own approach to collaboration and facilitation of student and academic mobility. Without this development, we could face a situation where Europe eventually has a highly integrated education system, while Asia-Pacific has, by comparison, very limited recognition, credit transfer, and fewer opportunities for people of the region to enjoy the benefits of being part of a globally-connected workforce.”