I H S — Florian Feldbauer / Scholar — 71
Research Interests
Current Research Interests
Educational Policy of the EU, Bologna Process, integration theory
Dissertation Outline
Title: The Bologna Process outside European Union: Why did they do it? (July 2005) Puzzle and Research Questions
The field of higher education in Europe is of particular interest due to the far-reaching changes that have taken place in the last decade. Of major interest in particular, is the relation between the European Union and its member states, which is characterized by tensions between national sovereignty in the field of higher education and the drive towards more integration promoted by the European Commission.
In addition, it is not clear how this cooperation between nation states who are not formally bound to comply but that perceive a need to frame higher education policy at the European level will be finally shaped. These tensions can be best examined by analysing the Bologna Process, which represents one of the most recent attempts of cooperation in the field of higher education in Europe. Therefore, my concrete research interest focuses on two aspects of this process:
Even though the resistance of the nation states to any attempt to harmonize higher education structures at the supra- or international level is not as deep as has been assumed, they have clearly resisted such attempts for a long time. Hence, an identification of the causes that lead to the harmonisation of higher education structures at the European level seems indispensable.
Why does the Bologna Declaration stand clearly outside the legal framework of the European Union? Although the European Commission has in the meantime become a member of the Bologna Process, an identification of this process as being part of the EU’s higher education policy would be inappropriate, also due to the fact that many nation states that are not members of the European Union participate. It seems somehow striking that the attempt to harmonize national structures of higher education takes place outside of the European Union, especially when regarding the continuous work and experience of the European Commission and the Community actions already taken in this policy field. This is even still the case when the work of other international institutions in higher education policy is considered.
The main research questions treat the two aspects mentioned in the puzzle above and are of great overall importance for integration theory at large:
I H S — Florian Feldbauer / Scholar — 73
1. What are the causes of the attempt to harmonize national higher education structures in the framework of the Bologna Process?
2. Why has the ‘Bologna Process’ been placed outside the European Union?
Theory
The causes of harmonization in this policy field and the non-integration (dependent variable) in the field of education policy that took place formally outside the European Union shall be discussed in light of two integration theories, namely liberal intergovernmentalism (Moravcsik 1993; Moravcsik 1998) and a neofunctional approach (Stone Sweet and Sandholtz 1997;
Sandholtz and Stone Sweet 1998). I will examine which one of them is better in explaining the main research questions by testing the respective hypotheses. It is evident that these two theories will offer different, maybe complementary, answers to the research questions stated above. The results will throw light on the driving (and maybe also resisting) forces of integration both in Europe and beyond.
Methods
To answer the research questions and test the hypotheses, document analyses and qualitative expert interviews with officials of participating states and experts in the field of higher education will be necessary. Experts from three countries will be interviewed.
Germany, in particular, represents an interesting case. Due to the federal states’ extensive competences in education policy, Germany may be considered as a kind of ‘least likely case’
(regarding integration). Additionally, Germany has already signed the Sorbonne Declaration - a forerunner to the Bologna Declaration. Experts from Austria would be good interview candidates due to the fact that Austria played a vital role in the preparation of the meeting in Bologna during its Presidency of the Council of the EU in 1998. To gain more variation, the third country from which experts will be interviewed will not be a member of the European Union or at least not have been a member of the EU in 1999.
Bibliography
Moravcsik, Andrew (1993). Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies. 31(4): 473-524.
Moravcsik, Andrew (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sandholtz, Wayne/Stone Sweet, Alec, Eds. (1998). European Integration and Supranational Governance. Oxford, New York, Athens: Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, Alec/Sandholtz, Wayne (1997). European Integration and Supranational Governance. Journal of European Public Policy. 4(3): 297-317.
Previous Research Interests
‘Europe in Austria’s civic education at high-school level.’
Abstract
Basic social and political changes both at the European level and also within Austria, have altered the situation for civic education. The embedding of Austria within the European system of multi-level governance, and the fact that European decisions more and more influence its citizens’ everyday lives, require a reorientation concerning the goals, contents and methods of modern civic education. In addition, the institutional integration of civic education in Austria’s high schools has changed since the creation of the ‘history and civic education’ subject in 2001. The aims of this thesis are to analyse the situation at high-school level, to uncover the political motives which lay behind the invention of the new subject and to identify its possible effects. The integration of the subject area of ‘Europe’ in the framework of civic education is examined, both the concepts and the practice. Qualitative interviews were used to examine the practical dimension. It is shown that ‘Europe’ in civic education can not be reduced to solely examining the European union and that concepts which seek to (mis)use civic education for the building up of a so-called European identity are incompatible with its aims. It appears problematic that this field is strongly lacking in conceptual definition.
In conclusion it is argued that civic education in Austria still only exists in terms of fragmented compromises and that the national perspective is still all-dominant. Concerning
‘Europe’, it is necessary to point out that this subject which greatly lacks consistent scientific research, is poorly integrated into Austria’s concept of civic education at high-school level, and therefore rarely discussed in class, also due to insufficient teacher-training and the complexity of this subject.
I H S — Zoe Lefkofridi / Scholar — 75