Path-dependent Implementation of the European Qualifications Framework in Education. A Comparison of Norway, Germany and England

Abstract

By comparing the implementation of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) in three education systems, this article advances the understanding of implementation processes and outcomes. The analytical framework combines concepts of norm diffusion with institutional, political and practical dimensions of implementation. Although a certain degree of norm diffusion is revealed, we find a variety of points of correspondence between national problem definitions and the EQF, varying levels of stakeholder involvement, as well as national institutional robustness against full EQF implementation. The national implementations represent different mind-sets and signify translation processes that reflect continuation of established institutional practices.

Europeanizing the National Education Space? Adjusting to the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) in the UK

“…In the case of the UK, many of the domestic policy objectives correspond very closely to the benchmarks set in the education OMC. This fit between EU and domestic level policy framing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for institutionalizing the education OMC (Helgøy & Homme, 2013). This applies in particular to those national contexts where participation in learning, for instance through peer-learning activities, is construed as "a discrete, isolated task" (UK Civil Servant 2, Email communication, 2012).…”

Shaping Perceptions of a Policy Instrument: The Political–Administrative Formation of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education in Norway and England

“…The Berlin Communique stated that signatories should "elaborate a framework of comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education systems, which seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, competences and profile" and also that "degrees should have different defined outcomes [to] accommodate a diversity of individual, academic and labour market need". 6 The intentions ascribed to the EQF, and LO's role in this, build on diverging principles: that they aim at international compatibility, but also respect the need for national autonomy and flexibility across programmes (Karseth & Solbrekke, 2010;Helgøy & Homme, 2013). As Huber (2012) points out that, "A key problem in the establishment of the EHEA is to make the performance of students and institutions comparable even if they originally were declared and designed to be incommensurable" (p. 212).…”

“…Implementation from the European to the national level has been pursued through an Open Method of Coordination (OMC) mode of governance, using 'soft' intergovernmental approaches to attempt to balance the intention to achieve unity and common action, with respect for diversity (Helgøy & Homme, 2013). The introduction of new EQFaligned, LO-based national frameworks and curricula, has therefore relied on voluntary agreements to meet certain timelines, agree common guidelines and regulations, set targets and develop new indicators to track progress, all of which serve to drive forward implementation without compulsion from above (Helgøy & Homme, 2013). stresses that the EQF and LOs are intended to promote a much broader 'outcome orientation' which is also promoted through a wider array of educational and training policies and tracked through benchmarks based on LOs (2012).…”

“…The selection of Norway and England allows a comparison of national settings where formal HE structures are well aligned, including EQF-aligned national curricula, but where there is considerable variation in HE system traditions and contemporary policy agendas. The two countries also have contrasting experiences of the introduction of outcome-based qualification frameworks (Helgøy & Homme, 2013). This section provides background about these national settings, supporting the comparison of LO enactment between them.…”

“…They consider implementation in terms of shifts in values and changes in structures or practices, drawing on 'norm diffusion' as well as traditional institutional and political perspectives. Helgøy and Homme's (2013) work is draw on heavily in Publication 1. Together, these studies provide evidence of important patterns of similarity and difference between the national contexts relevant to the way LO's introduction and HE reforms linked to LOs (such as national qualification frameworks) have played out.…”