The Work and Workshop of the Master of the Rajhrad Altarpiece

The main aim of this project was to verify the possibility raised in the publication of new archival data in 1980 that the group of panel paintings attributed to the Master of the Rajhrad Altarpiece and his workshop were not created before 1420, as earlier academic opinion held, but in fact only around 1450. It included a detailed analysis of the 21 panels forming the group, including infrared reflectography research. This helped identify the highly personal underdrawing style of the "Rajhrad Master" as common to all the panels in the group, proving that they really form a coherent whole. Questions of the painter's education and the nature of Bohemian society around 1450 were also considered, as. Bartlova felt these had been neglected in earlier studies. She concludes that the Master studied in Prague in the late 1430s and then continued studying in Vienna and Munich from 1440. The new dating of the group of panels connected with this anonymous master and his workshop throws new light on Bohemian artistic production during the late Hussite period (c.1430-c.1470). It was generally thought that artistic activity moved out of Prague after the outbreak of the Hussite wars in the 1420s, but this research revealed considerable activity there throughout the period. Numerous painters listed in the Book of the Prague Painters' Guild for this period can now be linked with extant panels, although most of these have survived outside Prague, principally in South Bohemia. These findings have broad implications for studies of Bohemian art in this period.

Modes of Diversification in Bulgarian Higher Education: Case Studies in four Disciplines

This project was stimulated by the unprecedented speed and scope of changes in Bulgarian higher education since 1989. The rapid growth of the student population and the emergence of a new private sector in higher education led to tightening governmental control and a growing criticism of autonomy and academic freedom. This raised questions about the need for diversification in the field, about the importance of recent innovations in terms of strategic choices for future development and so of how higher education governance could maintain diversity without the system deteriorating. The group first traced the extent of spontaneous processes of innovation at the level of content, of institutions, and the organisation of teaching and learning processes. They then identified the different parties in the struggle for institutionalisation and against diversification, and promising mechanisms for maintaining diversity in higher education. On this basis they outlined a basis for a wide-ranging public discussion of the issue which may serve as a corrective to the mechanisms of state control. Their work included analysis of the legislative framework laid down in the Higher Education Act, which effectively dispenses with the autonomy of universities. They then surveyed the views of both high-level executives in the field and the academics actually involved in the process, as well as of the "consumers" of the educational product, i.e. the students. In considering diversification, they focused on four different types of programmes, including those where diversification is largely limited to content level (e.g. Law), those where it operates mainly on structural levels (e.g. Industrial Management), those where it is often feigned (e.g. Social Work), and those where it is at best formal and sporadic (e.g. Mechanical Engineering). They conclude that the educational system in Bulgaria has considerable internal resources for development. The greatest need is for adequate statutory regulation of academic life which will provide incentives for responsible academic development of higher education institutions and create conditions for the institutionalisation of academic self-organisation and self-control, which will in turn limit the pathological trends in the diversification processes.