The Side Effects of the Bologna Process on National Institutional Settings: The Case of France

  • Christine Musselin
Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 26)

Abstract

The successive declarations which punctuated the Bologna process since 1998 promote large ambitious goals – among them, competitiveness, quality, mobility, etc. – and rely on two main objectives to attain these goals. The first one has already been achieved in almost all signing countries and consists in the generalisation of a two-tier structure (bachelor and master) for all European curricula, most of them corresponding to a three year + two year cycle, even if variations are still to be found from one country to another or from one institutional sector to another in the same country (see, for instance, Witte 2006).

References

  1. Abbott, K.W. and D. Snidal. “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance.” International Organizations 54.3 (2000): 421–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesi, B., S. Bürger, B. Kehm and U. Teichler. “Bachelor and Master Courses in Selected Countries Compared with Germany.” Bonn, Berlin: BMBF, 2005.Google Scholar
  3. Bleiklie, I. “Managing Knowledge Production – National and Institutional Strategies for Norwegian Universities.” Paper presented at the 22nd EGOS Colloquium, The Organizing Society, Bergen, 6–8 July 2006.Google Scholar
  4. Börzel, T. “Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanization in Germany and Spain.” Journal of Common Market Studies 39.4 (1999): 573–596.Google Scholar
  5. Börzel, T. and T. Risse. “When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change.” European Integration online Papers (EioP) 4.15 (2000). Retrieved from http://eiop.or.at/eiop/text/2000-015a.htm.
  6. Caporaso, J., M.G. Cowles and T. Risse (eds). Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, M.D., J.G. March and J.P. Olsen. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17.1 (1972): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crozier, M. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. (Originally published as Le phénomène bureaucratique. Paris: Le Seuil, 1964.)Google Scholar
  9. Crozier, M. and E. Friedberg. Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. (Originally published as L’acteur et le système. Paris: Le Seuil, 1977.)Google Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, P. and W.W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48 (1983): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ENQA. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Helsinki: Pikseri Julkaisupalvelut, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. Eurydice. Two Decades of Reform in Higher Education in Europe: 1980 Onwards. Brussels: European Commission, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. Featherstone, K. “Introduction: In the Name of ‘Europe’.” In Featherstone, K. and C.M. Radaelli (eds). The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedberg, E. Local Orders. Dynamics of Organized Action. London: JAI Press Inc., 1997. (Originally published as Le pouvoir et la règle. Paris: Le Seuil, 1993.)Google Scholar
  15. Gornitzka, Å. “What is the Use of Bologna in National Reform? The Case of Norwegian Quality Reform in Higher Education.” In Tomusk, W. (ed.). Creating the European Area of Higher Education: Voices from the Periphery. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hacker, J.S. “The Historical Logic of National Health Insurance: Structure and Sequence in the Development of British, Canadian, and US Medical Policy.” Studies in American Political Development 12 (1998): 80–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, P.A. (ed.). The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. IGAENR (Soulas, J., B. Descamps, M.-F. Moraux, P. Sauvannet and B. Wicker). La mise en place du LMD, rapport N° 2005–31, Paris: Ministère de l’Education nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, 2005.Google Scholar
  19. Kehm, B. and U. Teichler. “Which Direction for Bachelor and Master Programmes? A Stocktaking of the Bologna Process.” Tertiary Education and Management 12.4 (2006): 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kletz, F. and F. Pallez. “L’offre de formation des universités.” In Felouzis, G. (ed.). Les mutations actuelles de l’université. Paris: PUF, 2003, 187–208.Google Scholar
  21. Knill, C. and D. Lehmkuhl. “How Europe Matters. Different Mechanisms of Europeanization.” European Integration online Papers (EioP) 3.7 (1999). Retrieved from http://eiop.or.at/eiop/text/1998-007a.htm.
  22. Krücken, G. (with Bunzmann, J., L. Hürter, M. Kandzorra, K. Kloke, J. Körnert, S. Ludwig, B. Podolšak and Y. Prill). Hochschulen im Wettbewerb. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Einführung von Bachelor- und Masterstudiengängen an deutschen Universitäten. Report. Bielefeld: Department of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Majone, G. and A. Wildavsky. “Implementation as Evolution.” In Pressman, J.L. and A. Wildavsky (eds). Implementation. 3rd edn. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, 163–180.Google Scholar
  24. March, J. and J.P. Olsen. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: The Free Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, J.W. and B. Rowan. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83.2 (1977): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michelsen, S. “The Bologna Process and University Reform – Change and Continuity in the Norwegian Case.” Paper presented at the 22nd EGOS Colloquium, The Organizing Society, Bergen, 6–8 July 2006.Google Scholar
  27. Mignot-Gérard, S. and C. Musselin. “Comparaison des modes de gouvernement de quatre universités françaises.” Report CAFI-CSO and Agence de Modernisation des universités, Paris, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. Mignot-Gérard, S. and C. Musselin. “Enquête quantitative des modes de gouvernement de 37 établissements.” Report CAFI-CSO and Agence de Modernisation des universités, Paris, 2000.Google Scholar
  29. Mignot-Gérard, S. and C. Musselin. “L’offre de formation universitaire: à la recherche de nouvelles régulations.” Education et Société 8.2 (2002a): 11–25.Google Scholar
  30. Mignot-Gérard, S. and C. Musselin. “More Leadership for French Universities, But Also More Divergences Between the Presidents and the Deans.” In Dewatripont, M., F. Thys-Clément and L. Wilkin (eds). European Universities:Change and Convergence. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 2002b, 123–146.Google Scholar
  31. Mignot-Gérard, S. and C. Musselin. “Chacun cherche son LMD.” CSO-ESEN Monograph, 2006.Google Scholar
  32. Musselin, C. “Structures formelles et capacités d’intégration dans les universités françaises et allemandes.” Revue Française de Sociologie 31.3 (1990): 439–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Musselin, C. La longue marche des universités françaises. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2001. (English translation: Musselin, C. The Long March of French Universities. New York: Routledge, 2004.)Google Scholar
  34. Musselin, C. “Change and Continuity in Higher Education Governance? Lessons drawn from Twenty Years of National Reforms in European Countries.” In Bleiklie, I. and M. Henkel (eds). Governing Knowledge: A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education – A Festschrift in Honour of Maurice Kogan. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005a, 65–80.Google Scholar
  35. Musselin, C. “Is the Bologna Process a Move Towards a European Higher Education Area?” In Halvorsen, T. and A. Nyhagen (eds). The Bologna Process and the Shaping of the Future Knowledge Societies. Conference Report, Third Conference on Knowledge and Politics. Oslo: Department of Administration and Organization Theory, Department of Sociology and Forum for University History, University of Oslo, 2005b, 22–32.Google Scholar
  36. Musselin, C. “Les paradoxes de Bologne: l’enseignement supérieur français face à un double processus de normalisation et de diversification.” In Leresche, J.-Ph., M. Benninghoff, F. Crettaz von Roten and M. Merz (eds). La Fabrique des sciences. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2006a, 25–42.Google Scholar
  37. Musselin, C. “Are Universities Specific Organizations?” In Krücken, G., A. Kosmützky and M. Torka (eds). Towards a Multiversity? Universities Between Global Trends and National Traditions. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2006b, 63–84.Google Scholar
  38. Neave, G. and F. van Vught. Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  39. Olsen, J.P. “The Many Faces of Europeanization.” ARENA Working Papers, WP O1/2. University of Oslo: Centre for European Studies, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/working-papers2002/papers/wp02_2.htm.
  40. Palier, B. and Y. Surel et al. (eds). L’Europe en action: L'européanisation dans une perspective comparée, Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006.Google Scholar
  41. Pierson, P. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  42. Pierson, P. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94.2 (2000): 251–267.Google Scholar
  43. Racké, C. “The Bologna Process and the EU: Neither Within nor Without.” Workshop on Analysing Change in Higher Education Policies: The Bologna Process Under Scrutiny. Paris: AFSP – CSO – CIERA, 22 May 2006.Google Scholar
  44. Radaelli, C.M. “The Domestic Impact of European Union Public Policy: Notes on Concepts, Methods and the Challenge of Empirical Research.” Politique Européenne 5 (2001): 107–142.Google Scholar
  45. Ravinet, P. “The Sorbonne Meeting and Declaration: Actors, Shared Vision and Europeanisation.” Paper presented at the Third Conference on Knowledge and Politics, University of Bergen, 18–20 May 2005.Google Scholar
  46. Ravinet, P. “When Constraining Links Emerge From Loose Cooperation: Mechanisms of Involvement and Building of a Follow-up Structure in the Bologna Process.” Paper presented at the Third International Euredocs Conference, University of Kassel, 16–18 June 2006.Google Scholar
  47. Ravinet, P. “La genèse et l’institutionnalisation du processus de Bologne.” PhD thesis, University of Sciences Po, Paris, 2007.Google Scholar
  48. Reichert, S. and C. Tauch. Trends IV: European Universities Implementing Bologna. Brussels: EUA, 2005.Google Scholar
  49. Renaut, A. Les révolutions de l’Université : Essai sur la modernisation de la culture. Paris: Calman-Lévy, 1995.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, H. Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: The Free Press, 1945.Google Scholar
  51. Steinmo, S., K. Thelen and F. Longstreth (eds). Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  52. Thelen, K. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review in Political Science 2 (1999): 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weick, K.E. “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21.1 (1976): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Witte, J. Change of Degrees and Degrees of Change: Comparing Adaptations of European Higher Education Systems in the Context of the Bologna Process. Enschede: CHEPS/University of Twente, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Musselin
    • 1
  1. 1.De Sociologie Des OrganisationsParisFrance

Personalised recommendations