The social dimension: a neglected policy item in the Bologna Process

Since its beginning in 1999, the Bologna Process has influenced various aspects of higher education in its member countries, e.g., degree structures, mobility, lifelong learning, social dimension and quality assurance. The social dimension creates the focus of this research. The social dimension entered the Bologna Process agenda in 2001. Despite a decade of reforms, it somehow remained as a vague element and received low scholarly attention. This research addresses to this gap. Firstly, different meanings of the social dimension according to the major European policy actors are analysed. Unfolding the understandings of the actors revealed that the social dimension is mostly understood in terms reflecting the diversity of population on the student body accessing to, progressing in and completing higher education, with a special concern on the underrepresented groups. However, it is not possible to observe a similar commonality concerning the actual policy measures to achieve this goal. Divergence occurs with respect to the addressed underrepresented groups, i.e., all underrepresented groups or people without formal qualifications and mature learners, and the values and institutional interests traditionally promoted by these actors. Secondly, the dissertation discusses the reflection of this social dimension understanding at the national level by looking at cases of Finland, Germany and Turkey. The in-depth analyses show an awareness of the social dimension among most of the national Bologna Process actors and a common understanding of the social dimension goals. However, this understanding has not triggered action in any of the countries. The countries acted on areas which they defined problematic before the Bologna Process. Finally, based on these findings the dissertation discusses the social dimension as a policy item that managed to get into the Bologna Process agenda, but neither grew into an implementable policy, nor drop out of it. To this aim, it makes use of the multiple streams framework and explains the low agenda status social dimension with: i. the lack of a pressing problem definition: the lack of clearly defined indicators and a comprehensive monitoring system, ii. the lack of a viable solution alternative: the proposal of developing national strategies and action plans closed the way to develop generic guidelines for the social dimension to be translated into national policy processes, iii. low political perceptivity: the recent trends opt for increasing efficiency, excellence and exclusiveness discourses rather than ensuring equality and inclusiveness iv. high constraints: the social dimension by definition requires more public funding which is less appreciated and strategic constraints of the actors in allocating their resources v. the type of policy entrepreneur: the social dimension is promoted by an international stakeholder, the European Students’ Union, instead of the ministers responsible for higher education The social dimension remains a policy item in the Bologna Process which is noble enough to agree but not urgent enough to act on.

Strategies towards evaluation beyond scientific impact

Various research fields, like organic agricultural research, are dedicated to solving real-world problems and contributing to sustainable development. Therefore, systems research and the application of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches are increasingly endorsed. However, research performance depends not only on self-conception, but also on framework conditions of the scientific system, which are not always of benefit to such research fields. Recently, science and its framework conditions have been under increasing scrutiny as regards their ability to serve societal benefit. This provides opportunities for (organic) agricultural research to engage in the development of a research system that will serve its needs. This article focuses on possible strategies for facilitating a balanced research evaluation that recognises scientific quality as well as societal relevance and applicability. These strategies are (a) to strengthen the general support for evaluation beyond scientific impact, and (b) to provide accessible data for such evaluations. Synergies of interest are found between open access movements and research communities focusing on global challenges and sustainability. As both are committed to increasing the societal benefit of science, they may support evaluation criteria such as knowledge production and dissemination tailored to societal needs, and the use of open access. Additional synergies exist between all those who scrutinise current research evaluation systems for their ability to serve scientific quality, which is also a precondition for societal benefit. Here, digital communication technologies provide opportunities to increase effectiveness, transparency, fairness and plurality in the dissemination of scientific results, quality assurance and reputation. Furthermore, funders may support transdisciplinary approaches and open access and improve data availability for evaluation beyond scientific impact. If they begin to use current research information systems that include societal impact data while reducing the requirements for narrative reports, documentation burdens on researchers may be relieved, with the funders themselves acting as data providers for researchers, institutions and tailored dissemination beyond academia.