introduction - web viewthe bologna process and organizational change in the netherlands. linda dunn...

The Bologna Process and Organizational Change in the Netherlands

Linda Dunn and Kate Simon

Michigan State University

EAD 991B

THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN THE NETHERLANDS

Introduction

In 1999 twenty-nine European ministers signed the Bologna Declaration, an agreement

aimed at unifying European higher education systems, creating the European Higher Education

Area (EHEA) with fine tuned academic and learning outcomes, harmonized degree structures

and quality control systems. The goal of the Bologna Declaration is to afford European students

and faculty alike greater mobility, and to add transparency to higher education systems thus

increasing the employability of graduates and enabling European higher education institutions

(HEIs) to participate and compete in an increasingly globalized market (Murphy, 2007).

Today, a total of forty-seven countries have committed to the Declaration (Wildavsky,

2010), meaning different countries are at different stages of implementation. Some have signed

policies into law, and have advanced quickly in making changes. Other countries have met with

resistance, or have failed to introduce and support the new systems with legislation, making the

pace of change much slower. The Netherlands has been on the forefront of change as one of the

original signatories to the Declaration and has initiated supportive legislation and programs

(Enders & File, 2008). As a result, the Netherlands is further along in the change process than

most countries and will subsequently be used as a focal point in this paper as we discuss the

Bologna Process. This paper will use Open Systems Theory as an overarching construct with the

change process being viewed and analyzed through the lens of several change theories with a

focus on the Burke-Litwin organizational change model.

Open Systems Theory

The Open Systems Theory describes how a system interacts and co-exists within its

environment. The assumption of Open Systems is that systems and organizations are continually

2


interacting with the environment through the exchange of energy, materials, information, people,

etc. The theory has applications in both the natural and social sciences, and creates a helpful

framework for understanding the impact that globalization has on higher education systems and

the subsequent response of the Bologna Process. Figure 1 in the appendix provides a visual

diagram of Open Systems Theory as applied to higher education institutions. In this figure, input

− the resources, people and other materials needed for HEIs to function − are taken into the

system thus generating throughput. Throughput represents all systems and functions of the HEI

such as conducting research and cultivating and teaching students. The result of throughput is

output − students who have earned degrees, research and outreach, new knowledge and income

that have been generated and so on. The output enters into a feedback loop mingling with the

environment and informing future input, throughput and output processes.

True to the Open Systems name, these processes are not occurring in a vacuum, they

occur in an external environment from which the input originates and the output is distributed.

Consequently, the organization (in this example, HEIs) must be in tune to the environment, and

receptive to feedback. Burke (2011) describes organizations as “unstable,” noting that unless a

balance with the environment is maintained, well-being and survival of the organization is

threatened. As in the natural world, the overarching goal of an organization is to survive, so

when this precarious balance is in jeopardy, change is essential.

In the case of higher education systems, one of the most impacting forces in the external

environment today is globalization. The specific forces of globalization will be discussed later in

this paper. For the purpose of understanding the impact of globalization on higher education

through the lens of Open Systems Theory, it will suffice to note that as a result of globalization,

new demands are being made of higher education institutions necessitating reexamination and

3


changes to their input, throughput and output to ensure the stability noted by Burke (2011) is

sustained and in the terms of natural science, to ensure survival.

Burke-Litwin Model

The history and the ongoing implementation of the Bologna Process is very complex with

countless players from the European Commission down to faculty, administrators and students at

individual institutions. To help organize and understand the complexities, and the mechanisms of

change, we look to the Burke-Litwin Model (Burke, 2011).

The Burke-Litwin Model was designed to describe change within a single organization.

Its development stemmed from observations of organizational change at organizations such as

British Airways which was privatized in the 1980s. Our application of the model in this paper

uses it to describe higher education institutions in the Netherlands as a whole rather than looking

at individual universities. Although the Burke-Litwin Model was developed for the purpose of

understanding change within a single institution, it still has many applications for a macro level

analysis. However, some facets of the model become less relevant to the changes described in

this paper and are therefore discussed only minimally.

The Burke-Litwin Model (Figure 2a) is made up of twelve categories, each representing a

core function of an organization. Burke (2011) notes that the placement of the categories is

intentional with the most important factors for change listed on the top starting with external

environment, leadership, mission and strategy, and organizational culture as four of the most

pivotal elements of change. The directionality of the arrows is also relevant showing the flow of

influence. While all arrows go both ways, Burke notes that there is generally more influence

traveling in the downward direction than there is upward.

4


An important similarity between the Burke-Litwin Model and Open Systems Theory is

quickly recognizable — external environment is centrally listed on the top of both diagrams.

Burke (2011) notes that the external environment parallels input from Open Systems Theory.

Although this is not a seamless transition from one model to the other (as environmental factors

in the Open Systems model are only a portion of what is considered input) it helps to understand

how the two relate and are indeed interconnected. If we continue this line of understanding, we

may see the grayed areas in figure 2a as throughput, and Individual, Group and Organizational

Performance aligns with output.

It is helpful to define two different types of change that take place in organization:

evolutionary change and transformational change. Evolutionary change is transactional and

characterized by more continuous change, where incremental steps are taken to fix a specific

problem in one area of an organization, rather than the throughout the whole organization.

Referring back to the Burke-Litwin model (Figure 2a), evolutionary change occurs most

commonly in the grayed areas, in other words, in the throughput process. Transformational

change on the other hand, deals with deep, systemic changes that alter not just how an

organization does things, but what it does. A helpful definition of transformational change is

provided by Eckel and Kezar (2003) who define it as change that “alters organizational structures

and processes, leads to reorganized priorities, affects organizational assumptions and ideologies,

and is a collective, institution-wide undertaking” (p. 53). Transformational change stems from

changes that occur in the external environment and a corresponding strategic reaction from

leadership that ripples through to the organization’s mission, strategy, culture and output. This

process is represented by the white categories in the Burke-Litwin Model (Figure 2a). Figure 2b

isolates these key factors of transformational change.

5


Five Core Strategies For Transformational Change

Transformational change in organizations can also be identified by looking at the

strategies used to shape change, as outlined in research by Eckel and Kezar (2003). Five core

strategies surfaced across transforming institutions that played fundamental roles in launching

and sustaining transformation efforts — senior administrative leadership, collaborative

leadership, flexible vision, staff development and visible action (Eckel & Kezar, 2003, p. 78).

These strategies fit well with the Open Systems Theory, and are seen in both the input and

throughput areas. The core strategies are also seen in the Burke-Litwin model in the categories of

leadership, and mission and strategy. Many of these aspects are apparent in the changes that have

occurred in the Netherlands, and several of these strategies will be woven through the following

sections.

Changing Toward Unified European Higher Education Area

As noted earlier, transformational change stems from changes in the external

environment. One of the overarching trends of the 21st Century is globalization. As noted by

Altbach, Reisberg and Rumbley (2010) globalization “has been shaped by such factors as an

increasingly integrated world economy, new information and communications technologies, the

emergence of an international knowledge network, and the rise of English as the universal

language of scientific communication” (p.33). These trends have fostered a global desire for

greater mobility, transparency and flexibility that facilitates lifelong learning in higher education

and satisfies the needs of an increasingly knowledge based economy.

Between 1999 and 2009, the number of students pursing higher education outside their

6


home country increased by 57% with nearly three million students studying outside their home

country today (Wildavsky, 2010). And this is only the beginning, it is estimated that by 2020,

this number may rise to more than seven million (Altbach et al., 2010). The United States attracts

roughly 22% of these students, and countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Jordan and China are

more actively working to recruit these foreign students (Wildavsky, 2010). Overwhelmingly,

globalization is one of the most pressing external pressures being experienced by European

higher education thus pushing Europe’s leaders to reconsider the structures and culture of its

HEIs.

Pressures of globalization were being felt well before the 1999 Bologna Declaration, and

leaders of European nations have been putting the gears of change into motion for many years. In

an effort to become more active in the development of higher education policy, the European

Commission initiated the First Action Programme of 1976, The Erasmus Decision of 1987, and

the Treaty of Masstricht (1992). These efforts became more focused with the Lisbon Recognition

Convention of 1997, which aimed to foster greater recognition of qualifications. Then, a year

later, the Ministers of Higher Education of France, Germany, Great Britain and Italy met for the

800th anniversary of the University of Paris and signed the Sorbonne Declaration (Dittrich,

Frederiks, & Luwel, 2004). This document laid a foundation for many of the goals later outlined

in the Bologna Declaration such as the creation of two main degree cycles, a framework for

teaching and learning outcomes and the use of a credit system (Sorbonne Joint Declaration,

1998).

The Sorbonne Declaration notes that “We are heading for a period of major change in

education and working conditions, to a diversification of courses of professional careers with

education and training throughout life becoming a clear obligation” (Sorbonne Joint Declaration,

7


1998, p. 1). This statement and the above-mentioned programs all acknowledge evolving

demands on higher education and the need for change. Enders (2004) notes that there is “no

longer a single society to which a university can now be expected to respond. There are only

governments, academics and students, labor markets and industries, professions and occupations,

status groups and reference groups, communities and localities, and the dis-localities of the

“global” (p. 363). This aptly summarizes the increased pressure on higher education institutions

to cater to populations beyond their national boundaries.

Coming to a similar conclusion, Nayyer (2008) discusses how education was historically

a non-traded commodity; something primarily produced and consumed within a single nation,

but has become a global commodity. As a result, the global marketplace is “shaping the content

of higher education and exercising an influence” on higher education (Nayyer, 2008, p.7).

Relating this back to Open Systems and the Burke-Litwin Model, it may be concluded that the

external environment is, in Nayyer’s words, “shaping” input and throughput processes of higher

education.

Changes in the Netherlands

Prior to the Bologna Agreement, Dutch higher education had a binary, one-tier structure

with two types of higher education institutions: Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (WOs) and Hoger

Beroepsonderwijs (HBOs). WOs, also known as the University1, provide a combination of

academic research and teaching. A University education in the Netherlands focuses on training in

academic disciplines, the independent pursuit of scholarship, creation of new knowledge and the

application of scholarly knowledge in the context of a profession. Most universities offered a

1 The Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs will be referred to as the University in this paper – not to be confused with university with a lower case.

8


four- to five-year single-cycle structure prior to Bologna. At the end of this four- to five-year

program, a student would have earned what is deemed equivalent to a Master’s degree (Enders &

File, 2008).

HBO institutions, also known as Universities of Applied Science (UAS)2, provide

professional degrees with theoretical and practical training for occupations in which a higher

vocational qualification is either required or useful. UAS graduates find employment in various

fields, including middle and high-ranking jobs in trade and industry, social services, health care

and the public sector. Prior to Bologna, UAS had a four-year one-tier curriculum leading to a

Bachelor’s degree (Enders & File, 2008). In the University and UAS systems, students had a

very clear trajectory from high school on, but the system limited mobility.

The Bologna Declaration prescribed some major changes for higher education, changes

that would alter hundreds of years of practice and tradition. While this was a daunting task for

the leaders of European nations, it was also seen with a sense of inevitability, and as a necessity

so as not to “fall behind” (Litjens, 2005). Some of the core efforts being employed to achieve the

goals of the Bologna Process are the implementation of the Bachelor and Master Degree (BaMa)

system, the Qualification Framework and the Diploma Supplement.

The Netherlands was one of the first countries to take visible action when the Dutch

parliament approved a change in the Law on Higher Education and Research (WHW) in 2002,

making it legally possible for Dutch higher education institutions to grant Bachelor and Master

degrees starting in the 2002-2003 academic year (Lub, Van Der Wende & Witte, 2003). The new

BaMa system introduced by Bologna fully replaced the former system of four- to five-year

degrees in the Netherlands (Ministry, 2010). Figure 3 in the appendix gives a visual depiction of

the new structure. One of the main motives for the Dutch government to implement the BaMa

2 HBOs will be referred to as UAS.

9


system is that it is seen as an essential condition for a modern and internationally oriented higher

education system (Lub et al., 2003). It is intended to make Dutch higher education more flexible

and open, and to fulfill the growing demand for lifelong learning.

This initial action by the Dutch legislation demonstrates leadership in the Burke-Litwin

Model. Examining the model from the top down, we see this action as leadership’s response to

the pressures of globalization in the external environment. This legislative change in turn affects

the mission and strategy, the organizational culture and output of Dutch HEIs as well as the

throughput systems. This made deep changes to the basic structures of how institutions award

degrees. This visible action was a firm message from senior administrators that the Netherlands

was going to support and actively embrace the goals of the Bologna Declaration.

New cooperation between Dutch UAS, Universities and foreign partners has resulted

from the new BaMa system. This has been particularly apparent in the UAS, where half of the

institutions have indicated their aim is to integrate as many Bachelor programs as possible,

including new part-time and “learning and working” opportunities (Lub et al., 2003). The BaMa

system is also allowing UAS and Universities to target new groups for admission and both are

aiming to attract more foreign students for Bachelor and Master programs. Learning to teach and

administer these new programs and the new clientele that will come with them will require staff

training and development in order to succeed. Although staff development is a function that

takes place at transactional or throughput level in the Burke-Litwin model, it is critical to the

success and sustainability of deep, transformational change and is therefore listed as one of the

core strategies by Eckel and Kezar (2003).

The BaMa has also enabled crossover between UAS and University students at the

Master level. But, with this new mobility comes a new challenge of developing admissions

10


procedures. Historically, a student’s track through the education system was determined prior to

entry into the high school level, so a student was guaranteed to move up through the system. As a

result, a well-developed admissions procedure was never required in the Netherlands. Now, with

students moving from UAS to Universities and vice versa, selection processes must be

established. Like the staff training and development mentioned above, the creation of admissions

procedures will cause ripples of change through many parts of the organizational structures of

higher education.

The Netherlands is moving from a system that guarantees students can move up into a

Master’s program within their track, to a system that involves admissions and selection for

certain tracks. These changes impact the very culture of higher education. Such deep changes can

be difficult to implement; yet, student organizations supported the degree reforms on condition

that student funding would remain the same, that the Bachelor degree would not become the

main exit point from University education, and that University students would still be guaranteed

entrance into the Master cycle. A shared agenda with preconditions facilitated quick

implementation of the reforms, including: maintaining the existing binary divide between

Universities and UAS; equivalencies between the traditional UAS diploma and the professional

Bachelor degree, and the traditional University degree and the Master degree; the University

Bachelor degree should be seen as a point for choice and mobility rather than an exit point for

University studies; and the right of each student to continue after a University Bachelor with at

least one Master without selection procedures (Enders & File, 2008). Through the use of

collaborative leadership, and by involving all stakeholders in the early stages of the decision

making process, the Netherlands was able to implement what could have been a contentious

change.

11


Another core effort of the Bologna Process has been to ensure proper comparability of

higher education systems. To realize this, the Qualification Framework was developed by the

European Commission (European, 2011). While the Framework is stemming from the external

environment, each country participating in the Bologna Process was charged with developing a

national qualifications framework that is aligned with the overarching European framework

(Ministry, 2010). The Dutch Qualifications Framework (NQF) describes the structure of the

higher education system in the Netherlands, indicating what prior education is required of

students entering higher education, what types of higher education there are, how long the

programs at the various levels take to complete and how students can transfer to higher levels.

The national framework includes the use of learning outcomes to describe study

programs and their components, quality assurance through reports available from the Dutch-

Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO) website, the requirement of institutions to indicate

the amount of time students spend on each program through the use of ECTS credits, and the

Diploma Supplement, which describes the exit level and the learning outcomes of a study

program in addition to specifying the higher level to which the diploma grants access (Ministry,

2010). Through the creation of this national framework, the Netherlands has been able to mesh

external demands with existing internal culture and systems.

Before the Bologna Process was implemented in the Netherlands, study programs

(courses leading to a specific degree) were evaluated beginning in 1987 with ad hoc visiting

committees of external peers every six years. Information provided by faculties in self-evaluation

reports and observations during two-day site visits were the basis of the report. The government,

through the Inspectorate for Higher Education, monitored the soundness of visiting committees’

reports and any follow-up activities by the institutions. If shortcomings were found in quality, the

12


government had the option of using coercive powers backed by sanctions (Enders & File, 2008).

After signing the Bologna Declaration, the Netherlands and Flanders founded the NVAO

which commenced its activities in 2004 with two directors. “Employees of the NVAO process

the Flemish and Dutch applications in bi-national teams in order to gain knowledge and

understanding of each other’s system and to create unity in their approach and assessment of the

applications” (Dittrich et al., 2004, p. 308). With this new accreditation system, shortcomings

must be addressed before accreditation is granted. Accreditation ensures that degrees are legally

recognized, that enrolled students are eligible for grants and loans and that these students are

counted in the formula funding for public higher education institutions.

The new accreditation system was discussed with the institutions, experts, trade unions,

students and professional organizations. Major decisions on degree and quality assurance

reforms implemented as part of the Bologna process were prepared by committees, taking into

account views from institutions and student organizations prior to implementation (Enders &

File, 2008). The strong representation of the higher education community on the NVAO board

resulted in credibility and acceptance by the higher education institutions (Enders & File, 2008).

The collaboration of the Netherlands and Flanders in the NVAO resulted in a treaty

signed in 2009, according to which accreditation decisions will be mutually recognized. This

makes it easier for foreign students and alumni to continue their studies or find a job in the

Netherlands and Flanders (Enders & File, 2008).

The Dutch-Flemish collaboration on the creation of the NVAO, the inclusion of

stakeholders in committee representation, the willingness to continue to refine processes as

external conditions change, and the continuous communication amongst and between

administration and stakeholders is an excellent example of Eckel and Kezar’s senior

13


administrative support, collaborative leadership, flexible vision and visible action. This supports

the notion that the higher education system in the Netherlands has undergone a transformational

change and is likely a contributing factor to the success of the changes.

The governance of higher education in the Netherlands is based on the principle of

institutional autonomy in combination with a high institutional responsibility for quality

assurance and accountability (Enders & File, 2008). Government responsibility is focused on

quality, accessibility and effectiveness of the system. Carrying out these different but

overlapping roles has historically been achieved though continuous communication amongst

governmental and higher education leadership including: the Ministry of Education, Culture and

Science (OCW) which is a Dutch government component that makes policies, drafts legislation

and appropriates public funds; the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) which

represents shared interest of the fourteen research universities; and the Netherlands Association

of Universities of Applied Sciences (HBO-raad) which represents the 39 government-funded

Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands and works to strengthen the social position

of UAS institutions (HBO-Raad, 2011; VSNU, 2011). Also playing leadership roles are

employer organizations, professional organizations and advisory boards such as the NVAO, the

Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO, 2011).

Another contributing factor is the broker-like role the national ministry plays between the

interests of different stakeholders, notably those of the national rectors’ conferences of

universities and UAS. The ministry played a facilitating and responsive role, which supported

the generation of moderate compromises for national policies, but in turn created strong support

for implantation (Witte, Wende, & Huisman, 2008). Where universities and UAS disagreed, the

compromises reflected in national policies tended to bend towards the side of the University

14


rectors’ conference, which was more in line with the national employers’ organization. This

disagreement of universities and UAS was very openly expressed because each group had its

own national interest representation. The ability for all voices to be represented in the

preliminary discussion and planning stages of change likely contributed to the relative ease with

which the Bologna Process has been implemented in the Netherlands (Witte et al., 2008).

The interplay between the administrative entities listed above, the importance of the

active involvement of stakeholders in decision-making to the Dutch higher education culture,

and the fluid communication between these various stakeholders are further examples of senior

administrative support, collaborative leadership and visible action at work as identified by Eckel

and Kezar (2003).

Conclusion

The overarching goal of the Bologna Process was to unify higher education in Europe.

Much progress toward this goal has been made in the Netherlands and elsewhere with the

development of BaMa degrees, the Qualifications Framework, the Diploma Supplement and

other actions. However, despite this progress, unification remains an extraordinarily ambitious

goal that will require transformational change on many levels and will take decades to achieve. It

will be a long time before we can study many of the outcomes of the Bologna Process in the

Netherlands and elsewhere, but in the meantime, the ongoing implementation provides an

excellent study of organizational change.

Over the course of this paper, we have looked broadly at the pressures globalization has

placed on higher education institutions, how the Bologna Process has addressed many of these

pressures, and how this process has been implemented in the Netherlands. Open Systems Theory

15


provides an overarching architecture for understanding how the external pressures of

globalization have impacted input and throughput processes. Connecting Open Systems Theory

to the Burke-Litwin model and the five core strategies identified by Eckel and Kezar (2003) has

provided a useful framework to begin to understand an incredibly complex process of

transformational change.

16


References

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Tracking a global academic revolution. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(2), 30-39.

Burke, W. W. (2011). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dittrich, K., Frederiks, M., & Luwel, M., (2004). The implementation of ‘Bologna’ in Flanders and the Netherlands. European Journal of Education 39(3) 299- 316.

Eckel, P. D. & Kezar, A. (2003) Taking the Reins: Institutional Transformation in Higher Education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalisation, and the nation state: recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Journal of Higher Education 47(3), 361-382.

Enders, J. & File J. (2008). The Bologna Process independent assessment: The first decade of working on the European Higher Education Area: Volume 2 case studies and appendices (Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission Report). Retrieved from the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies website: http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1290_en.htm.

European Commission Education & Training Website. The European Qualifications Framework (EQF), 2011. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm

HBO Raad: Vereniging Van Hogescholen Website, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.hbo-raad.nl/english

Litjens, J. (2005). The europeanisation of higher education in the Netherlands. European Educational Research Journal. 4(3), 208 – 218.

Lub, A., Van Der Wende, M. & Witte, J. (2003). Bachelor-master programmes in the Netherlands and Germany. Tertiary Education and Management 9, 249-266.

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders (2010). Towards more transparency in higher education: The Dutch National Qualifications Framework. Retrieved from http://www.nuffic. nl/nederlandse-organisaties/docs/ internationaliseringsbeleid/bologna-proces/dutch-national-qualifications-framework.pdf

Murphy C. (Ed.). (2007). The Bologna Process. International Educator 2007 Bologna Supplement. Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home /Resource_Library_Assets/Bologna/bolognaprocess_ie_supp.pdf

17

http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home

http://www.nuffic/


Nayyar, D. (2008). Globalization: What Does it Mean for Higher Education?. In L.E. Weber and J.J. Duderstade (Eds.). The Globalization of Higher Education (pp. 3-14). London: Economica.

NVAO: Netherlands – Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie Website, 2011. Retrieved from http://nvao.com/

VSNU Association of Universities in the Netherlands Website, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.vsnu.nl/About-VSNU/What-is-the-VSNU.htm

Wildavsky, B. (2010). The worldwide race for talent. In The great brain race: How global universities are reshaping the world. Princeton University Press.

Witte, J., Wende, M. v.d., and Huisman, J. (2008). Blurring boundaries: how the Bologna process changes the relationship between University and non-University higher education in Germany, the Netherlands and France. Society for Research into Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 3, June 2008, 217-231.

18

THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN THE NETHERLANDS 19


20


21

THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN THE NETHERLANDS 22

introduction - web viewthe bologna process and organizational change in the netherlands. linda dunn...

Documents