Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
A critical discourse analysis of the Erasmus Mundus
External Cooperation Window: A focus on the International
Maghreb-Europe Education Network Project
Hayat Messekher
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
The “Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window” (EM ECW) project is a cooperation
project that grew out of the Bologna Process on Higher Education (H.Ed.) in the European
Union (EU), which aimed at establishing more exchange with the Southern Mediterranean
countries. Another smaller and more specific project developed from the EM ECW, the
International Maghreb-Europe Education Network project (IMAGEEN), had similar aims as
the EM ECW but with a focus on the countries of the Maghreb, namely, Algeria, Tunisia, and
Morocco. Conducting a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the descriptions of these projects
shows that they become an instrument to exercise the ideological power and scientific
advancement of the EU on the “third countries”. It does this by using discursive strategies to
create the need for Southern Mediterranean countries to work closely with European
universities to address this. Such discursive strategies, by the same token, distance the
projects’ conceivers in a way that disguises their maneuvers in a normalizing authoritative
rhetoric (Wooffitt, 2005) that creates an urgent need to reform the HE systems of Southern
Mediterranean countries in order to fit into the Bologna Process. All this is done in a
normalized and seemingly neutral discourse that becomes dominant and unquestionably
accepted.
Both the EM ECW and the IMAGEEN projects grew out of the Bologna Process. The latter,
also known as the Bologna Accords, are considered to be among the most important
agreements of the EU. It is worth noting that the origins of the EU go back to the economic
integration of European countries under the European Economic Community (EEC) that
started in the 1950s. After economic integration, political integration became the next step
especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the 1990s economics was at the heart of
European integration with the Treaty on European Union and the adoption of the common
currency of the Euro.
Clearly, any economy is directly linked to knowledge construction and expertise, and hence
to education in general. That is why the next step in the EU integration was education and
more particularly H.Ed. as stipulated by the Bologna Accords. These accords aimed at
reaching an agreement by means of which the educational borders between European
countries would “disappear”. Hence, the result would be a homogenization of the H.Ed.
systems of European countries. Such homogenization would enable the mobility of students,
researchers, and academics by assuring a certain “quality” in H.Ed. with a “common
reference point” as stipulated by the Bologna Process. I argue that this reform has been too
ambitious if not radical, and is a good example of the process of globalization at work that
will soon include the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia). My emphasis will be on
Algeria given my familiarity with the context and with Algeria’s H.Ed. reforms that were
triggered by these projects.
51
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
The aim of this paper is to show how descriptions of projects such as EM ECW and
IMAGEEN construct an image of a deficient H.Ed. system in the Maghreb through particular
discursive strategies, including choice of adjectives and verbs. These disguise a “neocolonial” attitude towards the Southern Mediterranean countries by creating an urgent need
for them to homogenize their H.Ed. systems in order to be able to participate in these
projects. This naturally legitimizes prospective reforms in the field of H.Ed.in those countries
so that the “flow” and exchange of students, researchers, and academics between the two
banks of the Mediterranean can be made possible. The projects’ descriptions implicitly state
that the North African H.Ed. systems are suffering from many problems and that these
projects are the solution which these countries must put into practice. In other words, the
texts i.e. the discourse, is motivated by a certain ideology, and aims to lead to specific
actions.
Theoretical Framework and Analysis
This study is informed by Fairclough (1992, 1995b) critical discourse analysis (CDA). A key
idea behind CDA is Foucault’s (1972) claim that ideology is diffused, maintained, and
reproduced through discourse. Hence, the main aim of CDA is to unfold the intricate
relationship between ideology, discourse, and social actions:
[CDA] aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality
and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b)
wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate
how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically
shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how
the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a
factor securing power and hegemony (Fairclough, 1995a, p. 132).
In other words, CDA makes the opaque and hidden connections between discourses and
their underlying ideologies and their subsequent social practices transparent and visible. In
fact, texts as discourse are informed by their social, political, and cultural contexts but they in
turn shape them. For this reason, when we conduct a CDA we closely examine the form,
structure and content of discourse. We look at the grammar, verbs, adjectives, nouns,
pronouns, and wording that are used to create that particular discourse and how the content
is received and interpreted by the listener or reader. Most importantly, it looks at the effect of
such discourse on its audience to generate certain social practices. Critical discourse
analysts “seek to reveal how texts are constructed so that particular (and potentially
indoctrinating) perspectives can be expressed delicately and covertly; because they are
covert, they are elusive of direct challenge, facilitating what Kress calls the ‘retreat into
mystification and impersonality’ (1989, as cited in Batstone, 1995, pp. 198-199). Thus, the
aim of this CDA “is to make these ideological systems and representations transparent and
to show how they are related to the broader social order” (Pennycook, 2001, p. 81).
This paper presents the analysis of three texts. The first describes the Bologna Process that
introduces a new vision of H.Ed. in the EU; the second describes the Erasmus Mundus
External Cooperation Window (EM ECW) project that addresses H.Ed. issues between the
52
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
EU and “third countries”; the final text is of the IMAGEEN project between the EU and the
countries of the Maghreb.
The analysis of the projects’ descriptions is undertaken in two stages using a Faircloughian
analytical framework for CDA (2001). The first stage is an accurate description of the
Bologna Process, the EM ECW program, and the IMAGEEN project; the second stage is a
critical interpretation of the texts and the discursive devices and strategies employed to
construct these texts. The interpretation is directed by the following research questions: (1)
How is Higher Education (H.Ed.) defined and used in the Bologna Process, the EM ECW
program, and the IMAGEEN project? (2) How are “third countries” such as Algeria described
and portrayed in these texts? (3) What are the ramifications of such representations of H.Ed.
on Algeria as one of the “third countries”?. These research questions will be addressed
during the interpretation stage through the interpretation of the three texts together.
Corpus Description
The first text I describe is “The Bologna Process – Towards the European Higher Education
Area”. First I will consider the framing of the texts, i.e. how the content of the text is
presented (Paltridge, 2006, p. 185). For instance, the first paragraph of the accords’
description lays out the aim which is to create a common area of H. Ed. between the
different European countries in order to facilitate the “flow” of students within these countries.
The purpose of this is to become more competitive and more attractive to scholars from
other countries, not only Europe, in order to compete with the best performing Asian and
U.S. systems. In the second paragraph the three priorities of the Bologna process are listed.
These are introducing the three cycle system of bachelor, master, and doctorate (the
License, Master’s, Doctorate or LMD system), quality assurance, and recognition of
qualifications and periods of study. The priorities are followed by a short paragraph on the
ongoing assessment of the process that will be performed by the Ministers of H.Ed. every
two years in a different European country. The fourth paragraph describes the mission of the
Bologna process after succinctly defining it as the collective effort of public authorities,
universities, teachers, students, associations, employers, quality assurance agencies,
international organizations and institutions. All these actors and actants are involved in
constructing a “Europe of knowledge” that includes lifelong learning and development,
growth and jobs and social inclusion, vocational education and training, and European
research. The fifth paragraph describes the implementation of the project which involves
various instruments and programs such as the EMECW program, followed in the next
paragraph by other exemplar programs. The following paragraph draws connections
between the Bologna process and the Copenhagen process that deals with vocational
education and which had already set European qualification frameworks and quality
assurance agencies for vocational education. The aim is to ensure the Bologna process
develops its own frameworks and quality assurance agencies for H. Ed. The final paragraph
describes the evaluation of the process through the use of a survey administered to students
which “echoed strong and encouraging support for the modernization [of H.Ed.].” In sum, the
rhetorical moves of the accords’ description are as follows: aim, priorities, ongoing
assessment, a succinct definition of the process and its mission statement, implementation,
necessity to develop frameworks and quality assurance bodies, and evaluation of the
process.
53
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
When considering the visual representation of the text, the mission statement is the part that
stands out because it is presented in bullet points. Some links are highlighted which refer
mainly to the complete Bologna Declaration, the different European cities where the
progress of the process implementation has been measured, and a couple of different
programs relating to H.Ed. in Europe.
The second text is the “External Cooperation Window” program. The program is defined as a
cooperation and mobility scheme in the area of H.Ed., with the general objective of achieving
a better understanding and mutual enrichment between the EU and third countries in the
field of H.Ed. The general objective is followed by the specific aims, which include enhancing
the international co-operation capacity of universities in the “Third countries”; to promote
cooperation between sending and hosting institutions; to improve the transparency and
recognition of studies and qualifications, in particular building on the “acquis” and
achievements gained by the Bologna process in this area; to provide “good students from
vulnerable groups” with higher education; to enhance in the medium term the political,
cultural, educational and economic links between the European Union and Third-countries.
In sum, this text is shorter than the first. It gives a succinct definition of the program followed
by the general objective and the detailed aims that are visually prominent because they are
presented in indented bullet points.
The third text is the “Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window - International
Maghreb-Europe Education Network Project. This document starts with a contract number, a
call for proposals reference, and a lead applicant from one European country only, namely
France. It enumerates partners from Europe, then from the Maghreb starting with Algerian
followed by Moroccan and Tunisian institutions of H.Ed, and two associate organizations,
one from Italy and a financial institution from Morocco. The next section is the abstract of the
project to which I will turn in the next section.
The project abstract is divided into three main sections: the objectives, the main activities,
and a summary of the mobility flows. The duration of the project is also provided along with
a contact person in Algeria. The overall objective of the IMAGEEN project is “to support
North African universities in the implementation of the Bologna Process and to strengthen
the Euro-Mediterranean partnership through cooperation of higher education institutions and
non academic members in order to improve higher education systems in North Africa and
generate mutual enrichment and understanding between people”. The specific aims of the
IMAGEEN project are the implementation of the LMD system, improvement of the
transparency and recognition of studies and qualifications, the promotion of quality
assurance and evaluation of curricula, training of open-minded and internationally
experienced women/men as the future professionals and leaders capable of responding to
the demands of the new “Global Knowledge Society” and the university-industry
partnerships’ development. The project tasks consist of the actual amendments that have to
be done in H.Ed. in “Third countries” such as the modularization of undergraduate and
graduate curricula, improvement of quality assurance procedures, developing PhD doctoral
schools and joint degrees, insuring sustainability of students and staff mobility. These tasks
will be implemented in “thematic fields” which basically include all the fields and
specializations of H.Ed. in “Third countries”. The last component of the project’s main
activities include the timeline of the projects’ stages and statistics on the “flows” and “waves”
54
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
of students as well as assessment of the first implemented phase of the project. This shows
only figures of how many flows have taken part in the project and at which level of the LMD
process, followed by estimates of future “mobility flows”.
When I consider the thematic construction of the IMAGEEN project, it is clear that it is
presented as a business contract. The contract number shows it has been approved by the
European Commission. It also includes a call for proposals, the partners in the project, the
objectives, the implementation, a timeline, assessment of the project’s first phase, and
potential capacity for the second phase.
While describing the content of these texts I was very vigilant and skeptical as far as the
word choice, sentence structure, and text structure levels are concerned because, as argued
by Johnstone (2002): “[w]ays of talking [and writing] produce and reproduce ways of thinking
, and ways of thinking can be manipulated via choices about grammar, styles, wording, and
every other aspects of language. …..every linguistic choice – every choice about how to
produce discourse, but also every choice about how to interpret it – is a choice about how
the world is to be divided up and explained” (Johnstone, 2002, p. 45). A final observation on
the three texts described is that they all use declarative sentences which “present” facts and
hence it reads persuasively and convincingly, i.e. it is “[a] discourse which is designed to be
factual or authoritative” (Wooffitt, 2005, p. 93).
Corpus Interpretation
In the interpretation of the corpus, following Fairclough (2003) I will pay close attention to the
details because as he argued texts are rich in details because “[they] simultaneously
represent aspects of the physical world, the social world, [and] the mental world” (Fairclough,
2003, p. 27). I will also look at the “foregrounding; that is, what concepts and issues are
emphasized, as well as what concepts and issues are played down or backgrounded in the
text” (Paltridge, 2006, p. 185). The device of membership categorization along with
inference-richness in category entitlement (Sacks, 1992) will also be used.
First and foremost, the most striking issues in the Bologna Process, the EM ECW program,
and the IMAGEEN project are the way H.Ed. is foregrounded and used. In the Bologna
process, it is conceived of in a marketing lens in that it offers “a wide and transparent range
of high quality courses” from which students, as customers, can choose. It is also
constructed as a commodity that is run as a business to be modernized using “structural
funds and loans from the European Investment Bank”, yet nothing is mentioned on the
conditions and eligibility to be granted such funds and loans and for whom, i.e. for students,
researchers, or universities. Plus, whenever there is funding and loans are granted, this
creates a financial and moral dependence on the debtor. Such practices and consequences
have been witnessed with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and their
subsequent Structural Adjustment Policies. In similar vein, the text refers to the “Bologna
Stocktaking exercise through country analyses”, without defining what this stocktaking
exercise is or how the country analyses are to be done.
Another recurrent concept that permeates the text is “quality assurance” and the “quality
assurance agencies”, as if prior to these accords there was no quality in H.Ed. In fact there
has always been something sought in education; although this might not necessarily be
55
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
“quality” it is particular values that each educational system promotes. Some educational
systems are known for being “competitive”, others are not. This depends ultimately on each
society and its educational system. Hence, framing the accords’ text in terms of “quality
assurance” imposes the views of the EU on countries beyond the European continent. In
other words, the text is inherently hegemonic. Furthermore, stressing again and again that
quality assurance has to be secured, promoted, and reinforced through “quality assurance
agencies” commodifies H.Ed. and runs it as a business or an industry. The very fact of using
a “Eurobarometer” not only objectifies H.Ed., it imposes European norms. Such agencies will
have to develop certain norms and standards that they will ensure H.Ed. institutions in “Third
countries” abide by. Many questions need to be asked: Whose norms and standards? How
will these norms be implemented? Will they be an International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) that polices H. Ed. within the EU and the countries that it is involved
with in projects of cooperation?
Van Dijk (2001) argues that in CDA we analyze “[the] semantic macrostructures, local
meanings, where many forms of implicit or indirect meanings, such as implications,
presuppositions, allusions, vagueness, omissions, and polarizations are especially
interesting, and analysis of context” (Van Dijk, 2001, p. 26). When analyzing the second text,
the EM ECW project, the semantic aspect and its implicit implications, presuppositions and
vagueness among other things will be considered. First, the appellation of the program as an
“external cooperation window” is a metaphor. Windows usually open to an outside world
hence the view from any window is usually unidirectional, while this program claims to be
cooperative. Also, if we hypothesize that we can have a view from the outside world into the
inner world, it will most probably be perspectival and narrow. In other words, the
presupposition is that this program will enable the partner countries to be open to the
external world with all the connotations that this might imply. Also, the first sentence of the
program description states that it is “a co-operation and mobility scheme” but adds nothing
as to the direction of the mobility. Will it be unidirectional, most probably South-North, or bidirectional, South-North and North-South?
Another important aspect of this text which cannot be disregarded is the naming of “Third
countries”. Johnstone (2002, p. 48) states that “[c]hoices about naming and wording, [i.e.]
deciding what to call something can constitute a claim about it.” Such naming is a device
used in membership categorization that include both how we refer to ourselves and how we
“other” people. The adjective “Third” entitles and denies the partner countries the first and
second rank. It does not say what is first and what is second, or what makes and constitutes
the ranking. Thus the naming of “Third countries” is open to many allusions and
presuppositions to readers and interpreters, and is inference-rich (Sacks, 1992).
The close reading of the last text, that of the IMAGEEN project, which is supposed to be a
realization of the cooperation that EM ECW seeks to promote, clearly reveals that the real
aim is “to support the North African universities in the implementation of the Bologna
Process.” This process was not initially intended to include the North African countries.
However, the text of the IMAGEEN project employs a hegemonic and imperative tone stating
that the “specific objectives are the implementation of the new Bachelor/Mater/Doctorate
curricula architecture” (my emphasis added). In other words, despite claiming that these
projects are supposed to develop mutual understanding and exchange, they simply impose
56
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
on “Third countries” reforms to implement in their H.Ed. system. This is a concrete example
of the EU “neocolonial” attitude and discourse towards Southern Mediterranean countries,
which lack agency, who are to be told what to do because the EU is better equipped to meet
“the challenges of a Global Knowledge Society.” This implies that Southern Mediterranean
countries are unable to meet these challenges and may not even know what the “Global
Knowledge Society” is. In other words, they need the help and assistance of an
“enlightened” EU to open an “external window” for them onto the world of knowledge and
modernity because “to modernize” has been a recurrent key word throughout the texts.
Most of the verbs used in the three texts, such as to establish, to promote, to improve, to
provide, to build, etc., are action verbs that give agency to the EU, the EM ECW and
IMAGEEN project. This is what Johnstone (2002, p. 46) refers to as “choices about the
representation of actions, actors, and agents.”
Finally, looking at the ramifications of the representations of H.Ed. and “Third countries” in
the texts, and being a member of one of the so-called “Third countries” Algeria, I have
witnessed the blind adoption of the LMD system without any preparation for faculty members
and staff. The whole Bologna process was exported to the Maghreb while it was still under
implementation in Europe and there was no evidence of its success. However, even if the
process was successful in Europe, there is no guarantee that it would be successful in the
Maghreb, or that it would respond to the local needs and demands of the region. The
reforms that were imposed on the so-called “Third countries” were “isomorphic” and not
“idiosyncratic” (Luhmann, 1990). Because of the “neocolonial” ideology underpinning the EM
EWC program and the IMAGEEN project, the EU was aiming at the training of Highly
Qualified Workers (HQW) who in the long term can move to Europe and help compete with
American, Japanese, and Australian systems that also train HQW. Clearly this is a huge
project to exploit not the material resources of “Third countries” as did the colonial powers,
but the human resources through neocolonialism.
Having been trained by the Algerian H. Ed. system and worked as a teacher in a H.Ed.
institution in Algeria, I admit that the whole system was suffering from many problems.
Hence, the inclusion of Maghreb into the Bologna process was a “godsend” solution to which
Algeria was the first to answer positively, followed by Morocco, and then Tunisia. In theory
these projects were supposed to be collaborative but in practice there was no collegiality,
and there was more dependence. According to a recent study by Ghouati (2009), the
inclusion of the Maghreb in the Bologna process, although still in progress, has been
positively evaluated by the decision makers, but the field study he conducted between
December 2007 and May 2008 revealed the opposite.
In conclusion, this article demonstrates that a close reading of this corpus shows that H.Ed.
is promoted as a commodity and then run as a business because H.Ed. is being re-imagined
and constructed through the lens of economic globalization. However, this new vision of
H.Ed. is the sole product of the EU that serves only the needs and objectives of the EU to
compete with America, Japan and Australia, although it tries to disguise this through a
“discourse of justification” (Wodak & Matouschek, 1993) . This discourse is conceived and
being implemented through a hegemonic “neocolonial” policy and ideology that serves
European capitalist interests.
References
57
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
Batstone, R. (1995). Grammar in discourse: attitude and deniability. In G. Cook & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle & practice in applied linguistics (pp. 197-213). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window - International Maghreb-Europe
Education Network Project. Retrieved from:
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/extcoop/results/documents/fact_sh_01.pdf
External Cooperation Window Program. Retrieved from:
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/extcoop/call/index.htm
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity.
Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995b). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1972.). Archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Ghouati, A. (2009). Globalisation d’une politique éducative au sud de la méditerranée. Le
processus de Bologne au Maghreb Paper presented at the communication au
colloque international Les universités au temps de la mondialisation/globalisation et
de la compétition pour l’excellence, Université de Paris 8.
Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Boston, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Columbia University Press.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, N.J:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversations. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), (Vol. 1 & 2). Oxford:
Blackwell.
The Bologna Process - Towards the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved from:
http://www.tempusbih.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&Item
id=96
VanDijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95-120). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Matouschek, B. (1993). "We are dealing with people whose origins can clearly
58
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 5:1 2011
tell by just looking": Critical discourse analysis and the study of neo-racism in
contemporary Austria. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 225-248.
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical
introduction. London,UK: Sage Publications.
59