In the last decades of the 20th century a congestion of problems in the German higher education area became apparent (Turner, 2001). Although the issues were obvious, German institutions were not able to solve problems such as shortage of study places, long durations of study, and increasing costs. Martens and Wolf (2006) and Toens (2009) describe how the federal government tries to overcome obstructions in the federalism of higher education by exerting pressure through inter-governmental treaties. They call this mechanism New Raison d’État. According to this line of argumentation, the Bologna process was supposed to urge the Länder (German federal states) to implement long overdue reforms.
The Sorbonne declaration is seen as the beginning of the Bologna process. One year later Germany signed the Bologna declaration. The goal of the process started by this declaration was to establish a common European higher education area. 42 additional member states joined the process and implemented great changes in their higher education systems until 2010.
Although the Bologna declaration initiated great changes, it does not entail any binding obligations. Instead the signers committed themselves to mere declarations of intent, common standards, and vague objectives (Toens, 2009). It is debatable whether the German federal government was able to exert pressure on the – in regards to higher education policy – mostly autonomous federal states utilizing these non-binding agreements. Even binding commitments are not implemented by German institutions in many cases (Börzel and Sprungk, 2002). Therefore it is questionable if a declaration of intent such as the Bologna declaration is able to coerce reforms on German Länder.
A fact supporting this doubt is that Belgium and Germany are the only member states from which two actors signed the Bologna declaration. In Belgium these represent the Flemish and the French part and thus the same level of governance. However in Germany a member of the federal government and a representative of the federal states – which are accountable for the implementation of any education reforms – signed the treaty. One year earlier only the federal minister Jürgen Rüttgers signed the Sorbonne declaration. Hence the federal government was not able to force the Bologna reforms onto the federal states. The federal states rather consented to the declaration from the very beginning. Therefore the state governments apparently were aware of the necessity of the Bologna reforms before the Bologna declaration was signed.
From this the question arises when and how the state governments had been convinced to approve the Bologna declaration and to implement reforms. One possible way to study this is by looking at deliberative processes. Cécile Hoareau (2012) analyses whether the integration theory Deliberative Governance is able to explain the formation and translation of the Bologna process on a European and national level.
Deliberative Governance is based on Jürgen Habermas’ (1981; 1991; 1983; 1997) concept of discourse and deliberation. In this theory the European Union is a multi-level system in which public and private actors reach decisions on various levels in a deliberative manner (Teague, 2001). Actors resort to several mechanisms to shape discourse. One of these mechanisms is framing. Frames are “individual cognitive maps, schemes to make sense of experiences of the world” (Hoareau, 2012). Framing helps to change the cognitive frames of participants of the discourse in such a way that the decisions are compatible with their believes (Goﬀman, 1974). Agenda-setting is one way of framing since it makes participants of the discourse aware of certain issues and shapes their frames in such a way (Teague, 2001).
This paper uses Deliberative Governance and framing as a starting point for further investigations. It argues that the Bologna process was not coerced by mechanisms of the New Raison d’Etat but rather that deliberative processes laid the ground for an agreement of the German Länder to the Bologna reforms.
Hoareau ﬁnds that Deliberative Governance inﬂuenced the formation of the Bologna process on a European and the French national level. This thesis broadens the question and asks whether this is also true on the German national and state level.
This leads to the research question whether the federal government was able to convince the state governments to sign the Bologna declaration by framing their higher education policies.
The Hypothesis consists of three sub-hypotheses:
- The frames in favour of a European higher education reform were not pronounced on a state level before the start of the Bologna process.
- The federal government used frames supporting a joint European reform of higher education in their speeches to set reform on the agenda.
- Frames promoting the idea of a European reform process increased in speeches of ministers of the federal states after the Bologna declaration was signed.
The independent variable of the design of this study is the composition of frames on the federal level. In order to ﬁnd these frames, speeches of the federal minister for education Jürgen Rüttgers to the Bundestag and to the Bundesrat are manually coded. These frames are measured between 1994 and 1998, shortly before the Bologna declaration was signed.
As a dependent variable the composition of frames on the state level is used. This variable is measured in a period clearly before the Bologna process (1990 to 1993) and a period after the declaration was signed (1998 to 2001).
A sample of two states is used to represent the frames on the level of the 16 Länder. The sample consists of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) and Bavaria. In order to exclude as many other reasons for change of policy as possible, all but inﬂuences through framing have to be minimised. Thus two states who were governed by members of the same party for all periods are chosen. In NRW the Social Democrats (SPD) formed the government during the whole period of study. In Bavaria this were the Christian Democrats (CSU).
The framing analysis is based on the methodology presented by Ferree et al. (2002). The units of analysis are (a) speeches to the federal and state parliaments. These speeches are held by (b) speakers which consist of (c) utterances. These in turn have (d) ideas as traits.
- Controlling and regulation of higher education
- Internationalisation and Europeanisation
- Reform of programs
- Idiosyncrasies of higher education
- Access to higher education
- Other ideas/frames
The codebook consists of several ideas for each of these frames.
The hypotheses were mostly conﬁrmed. First, the lack of frames supporting a joint European reform in speeches of the federal ministers prohibited reforms in the early 1990’s. Second, speeches of the federal education minister contained frames that harmonised with the idea of the Bologna reform. Third, the move towards more frames in concordance with the Bologna ideas in speeches from state governments suggests that the emphasis on frames supporting reforms by Jürgen Rüttgers aﬀected the decisions on the state level. Therefore framing is conﬁrmed.
As a conclusion it can be assessed that aspects of Deliberative Governance can be found in governance of German higher education.
Barkholt, Kasper (2005): The Bologna Process and Integration Theory: Convergence and Autonomy. Higher Education in Europe, 30(1):pp. 23–29.
Bologna Declaration (1999): The European Higher Education Area: Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Bologna.
Borghi, Vando and Van Berkel, Rik (2007): New Modes of Governance in Italy and the Netherlands: The Case of Activation Policies. Public Administration, 85(1):pp. 83–101.
Börzel, Tanja A. and Sprungk, Carina (2002): Wenn Staaten sich nicht an die Regeln halten. Gewollte und ungewollte Regelverstöße gegen das EU-Gemeinschaftsrecht. Projektantrag.
Burs, Matthias (2010): Diskursiver Wandel und räumliche Bezüge in der deutschen Hochschulentwicklung. die hochschule. journal für wissenschaft und bildung, (2):pp. 140–153.
Burs, Matthias (2013): Diskurs und Raum in der deutschen Hochschulentwicklung. LIT, Münster.
Capano, Giliberto and Piattoni, Simona (2011): From Bologna to Lisbon: the political uses of the Lisbon ’script’ in European higher education policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(4):pp. 584–606.
Charlier, Jean-Emile and Croche, Sarah (2006): How European Integration Is Eroding National Control over Education Planning and Policy. European Education, 37(4):pp. 7–21.
Cohen, Joshua and Sabel, Charles (1997): Directly-deliberative polyarchy. European Law Journal, 3(4):p. 313–342.
Corbett, Anne (2003): Ideas, Institutions and Policy Entrepreneurs: towards a new history of higher education in the European Community. European Journal of Education, 38(3):p. 315–330.
De Wit, Kurt (2001): Higher Education and European Integration. Tijdschrift voor Sociologie, 22(2):pp. 153–174.
Deitelhoﬀ, Nicole (2009): Deliberation. In: Hauke Brunkhorst/ Regine Kreide and Christina Lafont (Ed.), Habermas-Handbuch, pp. 301–303. Metzler, Stuttgart [u.a.].
Dobbins, Michael (2011): Explaining Diﬀerent Pathways in Higher Education Policy in Romania and the Czech Republic. Comparative Education, 47(2):pp. 223–245.
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar (2000): Deliberative supranationalism in the EU. In: Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Forrum (Ed.), Democracy in the European Union; integration through deliberation?, pp. 42–64. Routledge, London [u.a.].
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar and Fossum, John Erik (2000): Post-national integration. In: Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Forrum (Ed.), Democracy in the European Union; integration through deliberation?, pp. 1–28. Routledge, London [u.a.].
Fejes, Andreas (2008): Standardising Europe: The Bologna Process and New Modes of Governing. Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences, 1(2):pp. 25–49.
Ferree, Myra Marx/ Gamson, William Anthony/ Gerhards, Jürgen and Rucht, Dieter (2002): Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [u.a.].
Forst, Rainer (2009): Diskursethik. In: Hauke Brunkhorst/ Regine Kreide and Christina Lafont (Ed.), Habermas-Handbuch, pp. 306–307. Metzler, Stuttgart [u.a.].
Foucault, Michel (1991): Die Ordnung des Diskurses. Fischer-Taschenbuch, Frankfurt a. M.
Foucault, Michel (1995): Die Ordnung der Dinge. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.
Goﬀman, Erving (1974): Frame analysis. Harper Colophon books. Harper & Row, New York [u.a.].
Gornitzka, AÅse (2010): Bologna in Context: a horizontal perspective on the dynamics of governance sites for a Europe of Knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(4):pp. 535–548.
Gualini, Enrico (2006): Governance of Development and New Forms of Territoriality: Changes in State Action. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 36(1):pp. 27–55.
Günther, Klaus (2009): Diskurs. In: Hauke Brunkhorst/ Regine Kreide and Christina Lafont (Ed.), Habermas-Handbuch, pp. 303–306. Metzler, Stuttgart [u.a.].
Haapakorpi, Arja (2011): Quality Assurance Processes in Finnish Universities: Direct and Indirect Outcomes and Organisational Conditions. Quality in Higher Education, 17(1):pp. 69–81.
Habermas, Jürgen (1981): Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Vol 1 of Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.
Habermas, Jürgen (1983): Diskursethik – Notizen zu einem Begründungsprogramm. In: Jürgen Habermas (Ed.), Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln, pp. 53–126. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.
Habermas, Jürgen (1991): Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.
Habermas, Jürgen (1997): Faktizität und Geltung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.
Hoareau, Cécile (2011): Globalization and higher education policy-making in France: Love it or hate it? French Politics, 9(3):pp. 222–239.
Hoareau, Cécile (2012): Deliberative governance in the European Higher Education Area. The Bologna Process as a case of alternative governance architecture in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(4):pp. 530–548.
Joerges, Christian and Neyer, Jürgen (1997): From intergovernmental bargaining to deliberative political processes: the constitutionalisation of comitology. European law journal, 3(3):p. 273–299.
Keeling, Ruth (2006): The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 41(2):p. 203–223.
Kehm, Barbara M. and Lanzendorf, Ute (2006): Germany – 16 Länder approaches to reform. In: Barbara M. Kehm and Ute Lanzendorf (Ed.), Reforming university governance; changing conditions for research in four European countries, pp. 135–186. Lemmens, Bonn.
Koller, Andreas (2009): Kontrafaktische Voraussetzungen. In: Hauke Brunkhorst/ Regine Kreide and Christina Lafont (Ed.), Habermas-Handbuch, pp. 338–343. Metzler, Stuttgart [u.a.].
Kovac, Vesna/ Ledic, Jasminka and Rafajac, Branko (2003): Academic Staﬀ Participation in University Governance: Internal Responses to External Quality Demands. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(3):pp. 215–232.
Krejsler, John (2006): Discursive Battles about the Meaning of University: The Case of Danish University Reform and Its Academics. European Educational Research Journal, 5(3):p. 11.
Maassen, Peter and Olsen, Johan P. (Ed.) (2007): University dynamics and European integration;. Springer, Berlin [u.a.].
Maeße, Jens (2010): Die vielen Stimmen des Bologna-Prozesses: Zur diskursiven Logik eines bildungspolitischen Programms. transcript.
Martens, Kerstin and Wolf, Klaus Dieter (2006): Paradoxien der Neuen Staatsräson: Die Internationalisierung der Bildungspolitik in der EU und der OECD. Zeitschrift fur Internationale Beziehungen, 13(2):pp. 145–176.
Mayring, Philipp (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz, Weinheim.
Pasternack, Peer (2011): Das Wechselspiel zwischen Bund und Ländern bei der Verschiebung hochschulpolitischer Kompetenzen. In: Christoph Hönnige/ Sascha Kneip and Astrid Lorenz (Ed.), Verfassungswandel im Mehrebenensystem, p. 321–343. Springer.
Piattoni, Simona (2005): Multi-Level Governance: Analytical, Empirical and Normative Challenges. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 35(3):pp. 417–445.
Reinalda, Bob (2008): The Bologna Process and Its Achievements in Europe 1999-2007. Journal of Political Science Education, 4(4):pp. 463–476.
Rhoades, Gary and Sporn, Barbara (2002): Quality assurance in Europe and the US: Professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 43(3):p. 355–390.
Sand, Inger-Johanne (1998): Understanding the new forms of governance: mutually interdependent, reﬂexive, destabilised and competing institutions. European Law Journal, 4(3):p. 271–293.
Schimank, Uwe and Lange, Stefan (2009): Germany: A Latecomer to New Public Management. In: Catherine Paradeise/ Emanuela Reale/ Ivar Bleiklie and Ewan Ferlie (Ed.), University Governance, No. 25 in Higher Education Dynamics, pp. 51–75. Springer Netherlands.
Sorbonne Joint Declaration (1998): Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system. Paris.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2011): Studierende an Hochschulen. Techn. Ber. Fachserie 11 Reihe 4.1, Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
Steenbergen, Marco R/ Bächtiger, André/ Spörndli, Markus and Steiner, Jürg (2003): Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1):pp. 21–48.
Stykow, Petra (2007): Vergleich politischer Systeme. UTB ; 2933. Fink, Paderborn.
Szolar, Eva (2010): Higher Education Reform And The Bologna Process In Hungary. Magyar Pedagogia, 110(3):pp. 239–263.
Teague, Paul (2001): Deliberative Governance and EU Social Policy. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 7(1):pp. 7–26.
Tjeldvoll, Arild (2009): Finnish Higher Education Reforms: Responding to Globalization. European Education, 40(4):pp. 93–107.
Toens, Katrin (2009): The Bologna Process in German Educational Federalism: State Strategies, Policy Fragmentation and Interest Mediation. German Politics, 18(2):pp. 246–264.
Turner, George (2001): Hochschule zwischen Vorstellung und Wirklichkeit. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.
Yagci, Yasemin (2010): A Diﬀerent View of the Bologna Process: The Case of Turkey. European Journal of Education, 45(4):pp. 588–600.