Menú Principal:
Documentos
VIII ENOHE CONFERENCE: Viena 2010
Building Bridges: University Ombudsmen and University Cooperation in the Post Bologna European Higher Education Area (EHEA)
Pilar Abad-Garcia, DCU (UO)
U. of Valladolid (Spain)
Executive Comission (CEDU)
Building Bridges: University Ombudsmen and University Cooperation in the Post Bologna European Higher Education Area (EHEA)
Relevance of Cooperation in the EHEA
The idea of cooperation and its relevance in the present-day EHEA is as old as the earliest documents that inspired the `Bologna´ process. As we know the Bologna process is, fundamentally, one of voluntary cooperation between countries.
The short Preamble to The Magna Charta Universitatum of 1988 has room to express how the undersigned Rectors looked forward to :”.... far-reaching co-operation between all European nations...” and how they believed in the relevant input of European Universities in this respect: “... peoples and States should become more than ever aware of the part that universities will be called upon to play in a changing and increasingly international society.”
These words which also underlie the 4 Fundamental principle in the same document (.... the vital need for different cultures to know and influence each other...) have turned out to be nothing less than prophetic[1]. They are present verbatim or to the letter in almost all further `Bologna´ documents, starting with the 1999 Bologna Declaration where it is highlighted: “The importance of education and educational co-operation in the development and strengthening of stable, peaceful and democratic societies ....”, and continuing with more recent documents like the Leuven Communiqué (2009)[2] whose Part I widens the scope and claims for an EHEA “.... characterised by permanent cooperation between governments, higher education institutions, students, staff, employers and other stakeholders ...” (5.2), and the latest so far, the Bologna Policy Statement, issued in this beautiful town in March 2010[3], which practically repeats the words of the preceding document: “.... Cooperation based on partnership between governments, higher education institutions, staff, students and other stakeholders is at the core of the EHEA...” (9).
Both the last two abovementioned documents (Leuven, 2009 and Vienna, 2010) employ the expression “… and other stakeholders” , and since the OED gives the following definition in its second entry for the word “stakeholder” : “a person with interest or concern in something” , I feel I may be permitted to say that, in my view, Higher Education Ombudspersons can be also deemed as such, given their interest and concern also in `Bologna´s´ aftermath or, more precisely, in the predictable (academic and non-academic) problems within the new EHEA. That is, in my view, HE Ombudspersons can be a big help and contribute to “build bridges” of cooperation in order to redress conflicts within European (and international) HE Institutions.
In this regard, they could be considered a sort of “socio-academic” and “consultative” stakeholders, and, consequently, they will have something to say in the process of cooperation, but this “something” is to be considered always open to dialogue (Lisbon: 3) and a fosterer of social cohesion (London: 5) since it is meant to favour values of coexistence within academic communities.
Yet this is easier said than done, because, despite this, shall we say, convenient possibility, the fact is that, with the exception of some recent students´ UNESCO Fora (Paris; Bucharest 2009) where the Ombudsman topic has been dealt with[4]; Higher Education Ombudspersons are invariably neglected in the cooperative process either by *Bologna´s official “entourage” or, maybe, by our lack of action as Ombudspersons, especially at a transnational level.
2. University Ombudspersons and University Cooperation within the EHEA
I proceed to suggest other reasons which may serve to indicate clearly the useful role Higher Education Ombudspersons might have in the cooperative process, as well as to be more specific about the areas of their eventual contribution.
In 2003, the Berlin Communiqué[5] emphasized that in international academic cooperation “.... academic values should prevail.” (:1), and two years later the Bergen Communiqué[6] went on almost verbatim: “....We reiterate that in international academic cooperation, academic values should prevail”(:4).
That is, both Bologna documents highlight the idea of “academic values”, of principles and standards of behaviour in the academic field. Yet, these academic values imply, in my view, respect for and observance of other previous values: those associated with personal and social ethics whose neglect offends or goes against many individual rights and freedoms.
On the other hand, the Lisbon Declaration (EUA 2007)[7] proposes to work out “a supportive environment” within the EHEA in order to ensure: “.. .high quality student support services, in particular (accessible) guidance and counselling services…” (9.)
Now, in the wake of our colleague Tim Birtwistle´s clarifying article basically devoted to the figure of the Campus Ombudsman, I can say that the abovementioned concerns in values and accessible support seem close to his definition of the “Modern Ombudsman”, who, besides being “...a place of first resort.” he/she can also “.... get involved in dispute resolution .... informal problem analysis and discussion, mediation etc as opposed to final adjudication.” (:14). That is the “Modern ombudsman” is for the author the Campus Ombudsman i.e. he/she who mainly “deals with problems”, problems, I may add, often seminally provoked by disregard of values and mis- information. A fact that proves the Campus Ombudsman´s awareness that he / she works first with persons and then with problems.
On top of this, let us not forget that we have our European Network (our ENOHE) to start with, that is, the latter could be our first, shall we say, “tool” in the process of international cooperation.
Now, proceeding to more specific things, I will consider briefly the predictable areas of transnational cooperation for Campus Ombudsmen[8] within the EHEA.
In my view, these areas are the following:
The first three areas have mainly to do with neglect of academic (and also personal) values, and the other two seem to me more related with neglect of individual values, a fact which may also have an effect on the academic field.
Let´s put some flesh to these bones.
1.- MOBILITY
First of all, this item can be considered the flagship of the Bologna process. As also happens with the idea of cooperation, the concept “mobility” is invariably present in Bologna documents usually connected with the relevant “social” dimension of the process and often acknowledged as a “key objective” (Bergen:4)[9] or even as “...the hallmark of the EHEA ...”(Leuven:4)[10]. Among its main assets are usually considered its capacity for promoting academic quality as well as its effects on personal development, employability, respect for diversity and the benefits of linguistic pluralism all of which will lead to a desirable improvement in European social integration.
However this is only the sunny side of the matter. Although many obstacles have been officially removed, as stated in the recent Budapest-Vienna Declaration (2010): “....much has been achieved ....EHEA action lines such as degree and curriculum reform, quality assurance, recognition, mobility and the social dimension are implemented to varying degrees...”(.6), this “degree variation” as well as inveterate human fallibility suggest that problems or difficulties can still be expected within the EHEA for the resolution of which international cooperation between Campus Ombudsmen would be most advisable.
2.- QUALITY ASSURANCE
Together with “mobility”, this is the other jewel in the crown of the Bologna process as well as a domain in danger of teaching and research abuse[11].
The Berlin Communiqué (2003) stresses the fact that the:…primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself…” (:3) and, as we know, many of the complaints and appeals we receive at our institutional Campus Offices come from teaching origins (exam results, qualifications, local recognition, teacher-student/s academic disputes etc), and I fear these problems will also appear at a transnational level within the EHEA.
Other complaints come from the academic staff (Departmental policy, mal-administration, research etc). As regards research activity, reports of excessive commercialisation, malpractice, and neglect of scientific integrity have been already exposed in our ENOHE meetings as well as in other Fora, such as the Conference held in Bologna in 2007: “The Mangement of Integrity: Universities and Academic Malpractice”, or the 2 World Conference on Research Integrity to be held in Singapore next July ( www.wcri2010.org).
In this respect, the need of managing the conditions of integrity inside the institution has been highly recommended (BARBLAN : 9) [12]
On top of this, I would like to remind you that the capacity for cooperation between Higher Education Ombudsmen also underlies the “European Charter for Researchers” where it specifies “ethical principles for researchers” (:45) as well as the figure of “…. An impartial (ombudsman-type) person to deal with complaints/appeals of researchers, including those concerning conflicts between supervisor (s) and early stage researchers…” (:56).
3.-LIFELONG LEARNING
This could be the third area sensitive to or probably affected by academic abuse or problems.
In this regard, the Bergen Communiqué (2005), which points us towards the ENIC/NARIC[13] networks as entities devoted to the provision of information on Recognition of foreign qualifications[14](:3); and the subsequent London Communiqué (2007) (2.11) both heartily agree in encouraging and giving the necessary support to lifelong learning
Other documents, like the EUA´s Lisbon Declaration (2007)[15] and The Leuven Communiqué (2009) also deal with this matter positively, however, they perceive some “shadows” over the process.
The first warns us about predictable problems if the European Commission does not avoid : “ ….the development of two parallel qualifications frameworks….” in the process of elaborating a Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (11.).
The second welcomes lifelong learning as a part of our education system, and highlights it as “subject to the principle of public responsibility” emphasizing that “…. accessibility, quality of provision and transparency of information shall be assured.” (10.)
Finally, the abovementioned Budapest-Vienna Declaration (2010) still acknowledges “varying degrees” of implementation as regards Recognition among other lines of action (6).
To a great extent, this latent shadowy situation has the help of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union[16] in order to cope with it. However, other helpers seem to be needed, and, accordingly, and among other countries, Austria has established the First Ombudsperson´s Office (Karl Müllner) to see to specifically lifelong learning[17] problems and suggestions and cooperate with the Austrian National Agency for Lifelong Learning. This goes to show two things: 1) that other National Agencies could (or should) follow track; 2) that HE Ombudspersons could both locally and internationally cooperate or be a “link” in the same process.
The two other remaining areas: Moral abuse and Globalisation, as I have said before, both have mainly to do with neglect of individual values, a fact which often has undesirable effects on the academic side. Besides, the problems in these areas are apt to negatively affect, and may even expose to criticism, the HE Institution involved.
4.- MORAL ABUSE
Under this label I have included different manifestations of the problem (gender-based matters, bullying, psychological or sexual harassment, verbal or physical aggression etc) which may be ethically summed up as a lack of respect for a person´s dignity no matter his or her disposition, shortcomings, sexual orientation, mental ability etc. Particularly, gender-based problems, eventually, may also have an effect on different academic issues such as choice of studies, further career development, inequality in academic working life conditions and promotion etc. Consequently, universities should ban discrimination and promote gender equality of opportunity.
In short, and as regards the aspects previously mentioned, the Campus Ombudsman, as a first resort and confidential Institution inner to the University, seems properly entitled to deal informally with these matters, and, according to their gravity, direct the claimant to the suitable redress procedures. To this I may add that some Spanish universities (like mine) have developed Norms for dealing specifically with cases of harassment where the figure of the Campus Ombudsman is included.
5. GLOBALISATION / INTERNATIONALISATION
Two documents of 2007 show their satisfaction and interest in the globalisation or internationalisation of the EHEA.
The first, the London Communiqué emphasizes the need for discussion “… between international and European partners …” as well as “….the benefits of cooperation based upon partnership, mutual trust and understanding, and the underlying values of the Bologna process.” (2.19 my emphasis)
The second, The Lisbon Declaration (EUA) speaks about “Internationalisation and the “Bologna Trademark” (/“Europa Trademark”) as regards European HE and its attractiveness for non-European communities. The reason for this is, as has been stated, because of their :”…. underlying philosophy and methodology and …” (: 3.12.) and “… a general understanding of HE as a public good and place a strong emphasis on the academic values that underpin HE.” (4:12.), and further even states that Universities should “… develop a code of conduct for international cooperation and exchanges in the EHEA.” (4:13.)
Later, the Leuven Communiqué (2009) proclaims the “international openness” of the EHEA and suggests the creation of a “Bologna Policy Fora”[18] “….. involving a variety of stakeholders.” (4:16.)
To sum up, two of these documents appeal to “principles” (or values) as a relevant asset of the EHEA´s international projection, and one (once more) suggest the necessity to involve “a variety of stakeholders” in the process.
Again, as stated above regarding “Moral abuse” where the key was “ lack of respect for personal dignity”, here it would be lack of tolerance for diversity, a most relevant aspect as regards desirable global academic communities, where equality of opportunities should be the target. Problems of beliefs, race, disability, gender etc should be first prevented, and if this is not possible, then solved, and Campus Ombudsmen, due to their position of accessibility and approachableness, can also do their part as one more of the abovementioned “various stakeholders”.
3.Updating the University Ombudsperson as a “builder of bridges”
In previous pages I have sustained the idea that HE Ombudspersons can effectively contribute to “build bridges” of cooperation with the aim of redressing conflicts within European (and international) HE Institutions.
However, in order to take part in this cooperative process within the EHEA, Ombudspersons should be willing to update or improve on their ombudsing function as well as to enhance or widen their scope.
Right from the start, within a cooperative context any Ombudsperson will have to reciprocally interact with the corresponding person at the “Host” university which has received students or staff members from the university of the former, and vice versa.
On the other hand, any Ombudsman must be aware of the fact that in unity is strength, consequently, in my view, we must formally unite if we wish to be taken into consideration and our proposals accepted both at European and international Fora.
Obviously, both aspects demand improvements at the individual and collective levels.
From the individual point of view, I dare to suggest that some kind of “mobility” within the EHEA should be also devised for Campus or HE Ombudsmen. The occasional meetings between UO at their different Offices or sites can bring nothing but benefit for both. They would get familiar with the procedures of each other, practise some benchmarking, possibly discover interesting synergies, and even get some informal training. On top of this, we must also think about the necessary and useful linguistic improvement as members of a continent rich in a diversity of languages.
At the collective level, we have already started to improve on our ENOHE Network thanks to our colleague and friend Josef Leidenfrost whose enthusiasm and tireless effort is keeping it going year after year.
We have even taken a further step forward since, as you will remember, in our Hamburg Conference (2009) a Steering Committee was appointed to do the job of starting to work out the viability of a future European Association of HE Ombudsmen, that is, to find out the way of giving a legal form to our endearing Network. Whenever this would be feasible, the ultimate goal would be, in my opinion, that the Association of European HE Ombudsmen be acknowledged as one more of the representative associations (EUA, ESIB…) at any EHEA meetings as well as at those of other EHEA partners or consultants, and, consequently, have the opportunity of participating actively, of having our say in the matters, in the general process of transnational and international HE cooperation.
It is up to us and our successors to secure that these improvements shall be properly carried out.
May 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) - Let us also remember the Sorbonne Joint Declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system” (1998)
(2) - “The Bologna Process 2020 – The EHEA in the new decade”. See also, for instance: The Prague Communiqué, 2001, The Bergen Communiqué, 2005 or The Lisbon Declaration, EUA 2007
(3) - Vienna, March 12, 2010
(4) - Global Student Statement to the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education (Paris, January 2009); The Bucharest Message (“Access, Values, Quality and Competitiveness”) (Bucharest, May 2009). See: ENOHE News 2009/2 (:1-2)
(5) - “Realising the European Higher Education Area” (19 September 2003)
(6) - “The European Higher Education Area – Achieving the Goals” (19-20 May 2005)
(7) - “Europe´s Universities beyond 2010: Diversity with a Common Purpose”
(8) - T. Birtwistle, “The Campus Ombudsman” , ENOHE News 2009/2 (:11-16)
(9) - “The European Higher Education Area – Achieving the Goals” (Bergen 19-20 May 2005)
(10) - “TheBologna Process 2020 – The EHEA in the new decade” (Leuven 28-29 April 2009)
(11) - “…. The higher education and research sector is not immune to the disruption which is taking place in the world and which is still ahead of us …” See: Luc E. Weber, “University Governance, leadership and management in a rapidly changing environment”, in EUA Bologna Handbook. 2006 (basic edition), :18
(12) - A. Barblan, M. Daxner & V. Ivosevic 2007 Academic Malpractice. Threats and Temptations. Bologna: Bononia UP
(13) - ENIC (European Network of Information Centres in the European Region); NARIC (National Academic Recognition Information Centres in the European Union)
(14) - See: Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Information on Recognition (June, 2004). See also: The Lisbon Recognition Convention: Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region/Union. Council of Europe, 1997
(15) - “Europe´s Universities beyond 2010: Diversity with a Common Purpose”
(16) - Lifelong Learning Programme UK; http://www.ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm EU . See also the document: “European strategy and co-operation in education and training” which makes the following statement: “...Lifelong Learning must become a reality across Europe. It is key to growth and jobs, as well as to allow everyone the chance to participate fully in society.” (:1)
(17) - See: “The First Ombudsman´s Office at a European Union Programme National Agency”. ENOHE News, 2009/2 (:19)
REFERENCES
- P. Abad-Garcia, “ How the University Ombudsman adds value to Bologna: (human) Quality Assurance (hQA)”, 6th ENOHE Annual Conference, London, 2008
- P. Abad-Garcia; “ Implementing Bologna: The Impact on Campus Ombudsmen. Observations from Spain”, 7th ENOHE Annual Conference, Hamburg, 2009 (www.cedu.es)
- A. Barblan et al, Academic Malpractice. Threats and Temptations. 2007, Bologna: Bononia UP
- T. Birtwistle, “The Campus Ombudsman”, ENOHE News 2009/2 (:11-16)
- Bologna Policy Forum Statement (Vienna, March 12, 2010)
- European Council, The European Charter for Researchers. The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (2005)
- E. Froment et al (eds), EUA Bologna Handbook. Making Bologna Work. 2006, Berlin: Raabe (basic edition)
- Global Student Statement to the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education (Paris, January 2009); The Bucharest Message (“Access, Values, Quality and Competitiveness”) (Bucharest, May 2009). See: ENOHE News 2009/2 (:1-2)
- “The First Ombudsman´s Office at a European Union Programme National Agency”. ENOHE News,
2009/2 (:19)
- The Leuven Communiqué (2009), “The Bologna Process 2020 – The EHEA in the new decade”.
- The Lisbon Declaration, “Europe´s Universities beyond 2010: Diversity with a Common Purpose”,
EUA 2007
- The Lisbon Recognition Convention: Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region/Union. Council of Europe, 1997
- The Sorbonne Joint Declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system” (1998)
Luc E. Weber, “University Governance, leadership and management in a rapidly changing environment”, in EUA Bologna Handbook. 2006 (basic edition), :18
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna (2005-2007)
http://www.ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc28_en.htm
http://www.lifelonglearningprogramme.org.uk/
http://www.ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm
Sub-Menú: