Higher Education in Germany: reform in incremental steps

Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna Process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence

“…Welsh 2004;Witte 2006). The reference to institutional factors underlines the impact of different national points of departure and pursued reform strategies which sustained national peculiarities filtering adjustment pressure and serving to uphold national differences in higher education (Bleiklie 2001, p. 26).…”

Towards a ‘Post‐Public Era’? Shifting Frames in German and Australian Higher Education Policy

“…Pritchard (2006) identifies an inability and unwillingness to change and improve the quality of teaching and research, and Welsh (2004) describes significant opposition from the Länder governments, who are able to use their constitutionally protected veto power and autonomy in determining higher education funding to block reform. Indeed, Welsh (2004) characterises the German situation as 'organised anarchy' and a 'professional bureaucracy plagued by logjam'. Reforms that are deemed urgent are delayed in a policy process that is time consuming and marred by stakeholder conflict.The emphasis has thus become changing the role of the state from one of 'rowing' to 'steering at a distance', in which funding is linked to outputs and performance (Orr, Jaeger and Schwarzenberger, 2007).…”

“…The works by Ostermann (2002), Ash (2006), and Orr, Jaeger and Schwarzenberger (2007) describe significant change occurring in the German higher education system. The situation is described by Welsh (2004) as an emergence of a ‘new paradigm’ in German higher education policy and by Weiler (2000, p. 334), who argues that its ‘long and rather sleepy habitat has all of a sudden become exciting, controversial and lively’. The literature relating to Australia similarly includes descriptions of change brought about by: engagement of universities with the global higher education market (Currie and Newson, 1998; Marginson and Rhoades, 2002; Marginson, 2006), corporatisation (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997), and institutional reorganisation (Harman, 2000).…”

“…This theme is manifest in the delimiting of ‘unsuccessful’ and ‘successful’ discipline areas on purely financial criteria (Pritchard, 2006), the perceived need to engage with the global higher education market, and the prominence of economic efficiency and diversification (Ostermann, 2002). The neo‐liberal nature of the ‘wake‐up call’ is also described by Welsh (2004), who identifies increasing emphasis on evaluation, accountability, competitive research funding and the introduction of student fees. This particular framing of higher education policy is characterised by a growing influence of neo‐liberalism to the point where it penetrates the policy discourse.…”

“…This is a significant departure from the Humboldtian principles of Lehrfreiheit and Lernfreiheit in favour of a growing application of neo‐liberal policy ideas. Most noticeable has been the opening up of the system to market forces and a growing emphasis on diversification (Welsh, 2004; Pritchard, 2005). This has involved the introduction of student fees of between €100 and €500 per semester in around half of the 16 Länder.…”