SECEB Documents SECEB SECEB Documents Documents The Bologna Process and Cultural Education 1. Survey on the implementation of the Bologna Process in degree programmes in arts/cultural management and cultural policy across Europe 2. Seceb Policy Reccommendation On Bologna Process December , 2006 SECEB Documents INTRODUCTION Sharing Experiences on Cultural Education: realising the Bologna process, SECEB, is a European project financed by the European programme SOCRATES. It started in November 2005 and finished on December 2006. SECEB was initia ted by ENCATC, the only European network gathering institutions and profes sionals involved in training and education in the broad field of cultural management. Founded in 1992 in Poland, this independent and unique network gathers over 100 members and operates through 40 countries. All the project activities were implemented in cooperation with five universities, all mem bers of ENCATC: University of Barcelona, University of Grenoble, University of Bratislava, University of Potsdam and the University of Jyväskylä. The Bologna process was launched in June 1999, after 29 Education Minis ters signed a Declaration in Bologna to reform the structures of their higher education systems. Each signatory country committed itself to reform its own higher education system in order to create overall convergence at European level. The process originates from the recognition that in spite of their valua ble differences, European higher education systems are facing common inter nal and external challenges related to the growth and diversification of higher education, the employability of graduates, the shortage of skills in key areas or the expansion of private and transnational education The Bologna process opens theoretically, unexpected opportunities for the reinforcement of the European cooperation aspects of cultural management higher educational and vocational education. However, the concrete implementation logic of the Bologna process still have some difficulties in being adopted and understood by the academic circles all over Europe at least as far as cultural management is concerned. SECEB Documents The SECEB project aims to address this important issue by analysing and evaluating the implementation of the two-tier degree structure in the field of cultural management and policy education (higher and vocational sector) to generate knowledge, experience and new ideas connected to employability, mobility and quality assurance system. The essential was to take into con sideration the nature of the different educational levels and systems (poly technic, art academy and multi-faculty university) and the comparability of the different modes of realization of Bologna process. This goal was achieved by collecting data (research process); by organizing two European workshops (one In Brussels and one in Bratislava) and a final European Conference in Potsdam. The SECEB project is also accompanied by this Policy Recommendation on future policy and research needs. This document is addressed to anyone in Europe directly responsible for the implementation of the Bologna process at national, European and international level. It has the ambition to influence the future debate and decisions on this specific field, to contribute to a better understanding of the specificity of the cultural management area and to raise awareness of best ways of implementing the Bologna process and overcome the future challenges and risks. The starting points of the recommendations mentioned in this policy docu ment are the main goals of the Bologna process, decided by the European ministries: transparency, comparability, mobility and employability. The four chapters are sorted out in three steps. First we are describing the challenges along the general goals and the experiences in our courses (challenges). The aim of the second step is the presentation of the survey and the workshops e.g. the final conference (Outcomes). In the last part we summarise “what to do” (tasks). In a long-term basis the project partners will work towards a long-lasting plat form within ENCATC where European training institution active in the cultural field can develop and exchange best practices, ideas on future plans, policies and scenario for realising a common high educational area in Europe and be yond. SECEB Documents Survey on the implementation of the Bologna Process in interdisciplinary degree programmes in Arts or Cultural Management and Cultural Policy across Europe Edited by Lisa Mutke & Anita Kangas 1 Introduction In November 2005 the European Network of Cultural Administration Training Centres (ENCATC) started the SECEB-project which is funded by the EU under the SOCRATES-Programme. The objective of the project is to raise awareness and open up discussions about the implementation of the Bologna Process in the field of higher education in culture/arts management and cultural policy across Europe. In order to reach this objective ENCATC resorted to different forms of data collection and information exchange. The survey constitutes one part of the SECEB project. Its aim is to give an over view of the existing degree programmes in arts/cultural management and cultural policy in Europe. The survey highlights similarities and divergences between these degree programmes in regard to the implications of the Bolo gna Process and thereby allows for an analysis and evaluation of the achieve ments reached up to today. Consequently, it facilitates the identification of success stories, difficulties and common trends. In the following the results of the survey are presented and put into the context of the arts/cultural manage ment and cultural policy education in place in Europe. SECEB Documents SECEB Documents The Survey — general information 2 2.1 Distribution measures and Respondents The questionnaires were sent to about 80 institutions (universities and poly technics) which offer study programmes in culture/arts management and cultural policy on the Bachelor’s and/or Master’s level. They were distributed by e-mail. The distribution list was originally mainly made up of ENCATC mem bers. Later the range of responding institutions was expanded to non-mem bers through the “snowball system”. The survey was filled in by staff from 48 institutions of higher education be tween May and December 2006. 38 institutions are full members of ENCATC, four are associate members and six institutions are not ENCATC members. At the moment ENCATC has a 123 members. Consequently the proportion of ENCATC members participating in survey is about 40% (full and associate members included in this calculation). We received many comments from ENCATC members who did not want to answer the questionnaire. For example, because in their institutions nothing had happened connected to the Bologna Process, they did not want to fill in the questionnaire. It means that our results speak maybe too loudly about the most visible changes concerning the structures of the degree programmes of arts/cultural management and cultural policy. The voice of the institutions that have not yet been following for example the two main cycles (Bachelor/ Master) is not so strong in our empirical analysis. By no means is this survey intended to draw an overview of the academic training in culture/arts management and cultural policy across Europe. From a merely quantitative point of view this was impossible to achieve due to the limited number of respondents. In addition it has to be stated that giving an all-embracing picture of this field of study is hardly feasible given the enor mous diversity of programmes to be found in it. The study programmes vary enormously with regard to their institutional basis, structure, source of funding, international orientation etc. SECEB Documents 25 Polytechnic 21_ 20 University 15 12_ 10 8_ 5_ 5 2_ 0_ 0 Central and Eastern Europe Northern Europe Western Europe Chart 1:Type and number of institutions per geographical area SECEB Documents 10 As a consequence this survey aims at giving a glance on one set of institutions belonging to this field. It focuses on identifying the changes brought about by the Bologna Process in specific cases and is understood as starting point for further research into the effects of this process on the field of culture/arts management and cultural policy training on a larger scale. The type of the institutions and their location are two important features of the set of institutions analysed. The survey covers three regions in Europe: Central and Eastern Europe, North ern Europe and Western Europe. A look at the type of institutions in the respective geographical regions re veals a very diverse mix. Important to note is that polytechnics from Central and Eastern Europe are absent in this survey and that there is a considerable overhang of polytechnics from Northern Europe. The lack of polytechnics from Central and Eastern Europe is to be explained by the fact that ENCATC does not have any members from these countries which are polytechnics. The high number of returns from polytechnics in Northern Europe is to be ascribed to the dense and active network of arts management degree programmes in Fin land and also to the contacts which the survey leader has in her own country. This imbalance is taken into account in the analysis of the findings. 2.2 The Questionnaire — Subjects covered The survey covered two large subject areas: first the general information about the degree programmes in arts/cultural management and cultural policy including the academic disciplin in which they are embedded, the level of staffing and the funding structure and second information about the present degree structure, the structural reforms due to the Bologna Process and their implications on aspects such as course contents, student/staff mobility and quality assurance. In the following two chapters the findings in these two sub jects areas are presented. 11 SECEB Documents 25 23_ Polytechnic 20 University 15 9_ 10 10_ 5 0 3_ Multidisciplinary University or Polytechnic Art University, Academy or School 2_ 1_ Economic or Business School Chart 2: Institutional basis of the degree programmes 20 Polytechnic 16_ University 15 10 7_ 6_ 4_ 5 3_ 1_ 0 One Two or three Four or more Chart 3:Number of full-time professors SECEB Documents 12 Higher education in arts/cultural management and cultural policy — a multitude of institutions and orientations 3 Institutional basis of the degree programmes Concerning the institutional basis of the degree programmes it can be ob served that 23 of 35 university degree programmes are taught at multidisci plinary universities. 10 degree programmes are based in art academies. Two degree programmes are based in Business Schools. With regard to the poly technics it can be said that the majority of degree programmes are offered by multi-disciplinary institutions. Staffing levels With regard to staffing levels the survey reveals that of the 37 institutions which gave information on this aspect ten have assigned two to three fulltime professors to their degree programmes in arts/cultural management and cultural policy. Eight of the responding institutions have only one full-time professor assigned to their degree programmes and 19 have four or more full-time teachers. It is important to note that a number of the professors are assigned to the whole department/faculty which means they have teaching duties beyond the Culture/Arts Management or Cultural Policy degree pro grammes. Funding of the institutions 39 of the responding institutions are funded by the state, by the national, the regional or the local level. Four respondents described their institution’s fi nancial basis as guaranteed by both private funding and nine stated that they are financed by a mix of private and public funding. Multiple answers were allowed in this question. 13 SECEB Documents __31 Mix of public and private funding Private 9__ Public, mostly local 4__ Public, mostly regional Public, mostly national 3__ 5__ Chart 4: Source of funding 24_ 25 Polytechnic 20 University 18_ 15 10 7_ 4_ 5 4_ 2_ 0 Cultural Policy Cultural Theory 4_ 1_ Management Mediation 2_ Other Chart 5: Main orientation of Arts/Cultural Management and Cultural Policy degree pro grammes SECEB Documents 14 4 Contents of the degree programmes The survey allowed for some interesting comparisons with regard to the curricula of the degree programmes. Main orientation of the degree programmes The main orientation of the degree programmes was identified by asking respondents to choose from a list of six fields: cultural policy, cultural theory, management, aesthetic arts, mediation and other. Multiple answers were allowed. “Management“ was by far the most quoted orientation with 31 responses: 24 universities and seven polytechnics stated it as their main orientation. “Cultural Policy“ took the second place with 18 universities mentioning it. “Cultural Theory“, “Mediation“ and ”Other“ were mentioned four times by universities. An important difference between universities and polytechnics is noticeable. The subject “Cultural Policy” does not figure at all in the study curricula at the polytechnics. Similarly “Cultural Theory” only forms part of the curriculum at two polytechnics. Here one has to state that this subject holds an equally minor place in the university field with only 17 of the 34 institutions questioned mentioning it as part of their curricula. The fact that many degree programmes focus on management is coherent with the high importance which is given to the influence of the professional field. 29 of 48 responding institutions stated that connections exist with organisations/companies (s. chart 7, p. 9). In this respect it has to be stated that the universities which offer courses or whole programmes in Cultural Policy also maintain strong connections to the professional field. This means that also these universities put high value on the practical orientation of students towards a future career in the field In a possible follow-up to this study it will be important to ask further questions about the nature of the management courses in the respective degree programmes and about the exact forms of influence of the professional field. Possible questions could deal with the contents and the quantity of 15 SECEB Documents 25 Master 2nd Cycle 21_ 20 Bachelor 1st Cycle 16_ 15 11_ 10_ 10 5 1_ 0 Compulsory Curriculum 1_ Compulsory Students design Curriculum their own with Optional Modules curriculum Chart 6: Basis of the curriculum 20_ 20 Polytechnic 16_ University 15 9_ 10 5 4_ 1_ 1_ 3_ 1_ 0_ 0 No influence at all In general taken into account Connections Focus is exist entirely on the with the professional professional field organizations Chart 7: Influence of the professional field SECEB Documents 16 the management courses and identify what the term professional influence means in reality. More detailed information about these aspects will make it possible to draw a clearer picture of the main orientations of the arts/cultural management degree programmes. Charts 2 and 5 reveal an important feature of academic teaching in arts/cultural management and cultural policy. Although stress is put on the acquirement of management skills in most of the degree programmes most of them are not based in business schools. In fact these programmes integrate management knowledge into education in art academies or into academic disciplines whose focus has for a long time mainly been on the analysis of culture and arts from a humanist or social scientific perspective. The difference between evolving programmes focusing mainly on arts/cultural management and those which concentrate on cultural policy is due to their connection to different academic disciplines. Degree programmes focusing on cultural policy were mostly established in departments of social sciences. Characteristics of curricula The level of rigidity of the curricula in the different degree programmes was pinpointed by asking respondents whether their programmes were mostly based on a compulsory curriculum, a compulsory curriculum with optional modules or whether the students is given freedom to design their own curriculum. A compulsory curriculum with optional modules shows to be the most common model. This applies to programmes both on the Bachelor- and on the Master degree level with 16 mentions for the lower and 21 for the higher level. However, 21 degree programmes are based on a compulsory curriculum in the BA- and/or MA cycle. This is the case for both universities and polytechnics. The possibility of students to chose large parts of their curriculum themselves is an exception according to the survey findings. Influence of professional field and of European dimension Special interest lay in finding out to what extent two specific fields have an influence on the contents of the degree programmes. These are the professional field and the European dimension. Respondents were asked to determine their priority on a 4-stage scale: “no influence at all“, “generally 17 SECEB Documents 25 23_ Polytechnic 20 University 14_ 15 10 5 3_ 1_ 0 4_ 1_ No influence of the European dimension 1_ In general taken into account Connections exist with the themes 2_ Focus is entirely on the European dimension Chart 8: Influence of the European dimension SECEB Documents 18 taken into account“, “connections exist“ and “focus is entirely on this field“. Multiple answers were allowed in both questions. 29 respondents ranked the influence of the professional field highest in their priority list and 17 respondents stated that the professional field is generally taken into account in the curriculum. This observation applies to both universities and polytechnics. Only in one institution does this field have no influence at all while four institutions focus entirely on it. On the whole both universities and polytechnics attribute considerable importance to maintaining connections with the professional field. The picture is very similar concerning the influence of the European dimension on the contents of the degree programmes. The high importance accorded to the European dimension of cultural/arts management and cultural policy reflects the widely felt need amongst teaching staff to prepare students for professional careers which transcend national borders. This aspiration is put into effect by providing students and teaching staff with the incentives and the structural and financial means to extend their realms of experience and learning during study/teaching periods abroad. The situation concerning the mobility of students and teaching staff from cultural/arts management and cultural policy degree programmes is shown in the following chapter 5.3. 19 SECEB Documents __4 No, but two/three cycles are in our plans Yes, we introduced it as a result of Bologna Declaration Yes, we had it before Bologna Declaration 17__ __27 Chart 9: Adoption of the two cycle system 20 19_ Polytechnic University 15 10 7_ 7_ 4_ 5 3_ 3_ 3_ 2_ 0_ 0 3+2 4+1 4+2 0_ 3+1 Other Chart 10: Form of degree structure SECEB Documents 20 The implementation of the Bologna Process 5 The present level of implementation of the changes introduced by the Bologna Process and its implications were pinpointed by gathering a variety of information which is subsumed in four categories here: degree structure, decision-making, mobility (also languages) and co-operation between universities. Lifelong learning and quality assurance are subsequently dealt with in separate chapters. 5.1 Degree Structure The part of the questionnaire concerning the degree structure best shed light on the degree of implementation of the Bologna Process in the different institutions. We asked about the adoption of the two/three cycle system, the introduction of the ECTS system and the admission requirements to the degree programmes. Adoption of two/three cycle system According to the answers the two/three cycle degree structure as propagated by the Bologna Process is in place in 44 of the 48 responding institutions. In 17 of the institutions this system had been introduced as a result of the Bologna Process while in the other institutions it had already existed before. Four institutions indicated that they are planning to introduce the two/three cycle system. The two/three cycle system manifests itself in different forms across the field of Culture/Arts Management and Cultural Policy degree programmes. About half of the responding institutions base their programmes on the 3+2 cycle structure. It has to be pointed out that only 14 institutions actually offer programmes on both the Bachelor’s and the Master’s degree level. The rest of the institutions in this category offer only M.A.-programmes but require a completed B.A.-degree for admission. The 4+1 degree structure exists in the polytechnics in Northern Europe and in the Netherlands and in the following 21 SECEB Documents 20_ 20 Polytechnic University 15 12_ 10 8_ 5 2_ 2_ 1_ 0 B.A. Only M.A. Only Both degrees Chart 11: Degree offer at universities and polytechnics SECEB Documents 22 universities: South West University ‘Neofit Rilsky’, Blagoevgrad/BUL, Queen Margaret University College/U.K. and at the Universitat de Barcelona. Some of the Finnish polytechnics in particular have not yet introduced one-year programmes on the M.A.-level but are plannig to do so. The 3+1 cycle structure is prevalent in the United Kingdom. In addition the universities of Bordeaux, Barcelona and Bologna, which are all offering one-year Master’s programmes, have been assigned to this category. The institutions in the category “other” fall into two categories: either they have not yet introduced a two/three-cycle based on the degree structure BA-MA or they have not provided detailed information about the length of their academic programmes. The two German institutions, the Fachhochschule Potsdam/Germany and the Universität Hildesheim/Germany belong to this category. They award a diploma at the end of a study period of 4 – 4,5 years. Doctoral Studies Doctoral studies are offered by the following nine universities: Sanacek Academy of Music and Performing Arts, Brno; University of Jyväskylä; Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts, Bratislava; Saint-Petersburg State Theatre Arts Academy; University of Hildesheim; Goldsmiths University of London; Jagiellonian University, Krakow, the University of Arts, Belgrade and the South West University ‘Neofit Rilsky’, Blagoevgrad. The existence of doctoral programmes could be seen as sign of a specific academic discipline called arts/cultural management or cultural policy. However, most of these PhD programmes are based in a long established academic discipline such as political science, sociology or economy. Within this framework the PhD students are offered the possibility to focus their doctoral studies on specific topics which clearly relate to the field of arts/ cultural management or cultural policy, and have special courses in the doctoral programmes. This is the case e.g. at the universities of Hildesheim and Jyväskylä. Adoption of ECTS system The following table provides an overview of the number of universities and polytechnics providing teaching at B.A. or M.A. level or at both levels. The B.A. 23 SECEB Documents __10 No, we had a simillar system before Yes, we will change Yes, we changed 7__ __29 Chart 12: Adoption of ECTS credit system SECEB Documents 24 degree is offered by ten institutions and the M.A. degree by 21 institutions. 14 of the responding institutions offer both B.A. and M.A. degree programmes. Due to incomplete data we have not been able to draw a more detailed picture of the amount of ECTS credits involved in the different degree programmes. Nevertheless it is possible to give some general indications of the amount of ECTS credits to be obtained in the different forms of the degree cycles. In the 3+2 degree programmes the number of ECTS in the B.A. programmes ranges from 180-220 and in the M.A. programmes it varies between 60-150. In the 4+1 degree programmes the amount of ECTS-credits to be acquired in the B.A.-programmes varies between 180 and 240. The two-year MA-programmes offered by the universities which follow a 4+2 degree system (University of Arts, Belgrade; Vilnius Academy of Fine Arts; Latvian Academy of Culture) consist of 120-147 ECTS credit points. Concerning the degree structure 3+1 it has to be stated that the three universities from the U.K. falling into this category have not adopted the ECTS system. The three other universities ranging in this category require their students to gain 50-90 ECTS credits in order to obtain the BA-degree (University of Bordeaux) or the MA-degree (University of Barcelona and University of Lyon). With regard to the six degree programmes assigned to the category “other“ we obtained the information that the University of Paris X and the University of Applied Sciences Bremen require their students to obtain 60 ECTS in the course of their MA-programmes. The Fachhochschule Potsdam requires students to achieve 340 credit points in its 4-year “Diplom”-programme. Of the 41 institutions which have adopted a two/three cycle system 29 stated they had introduced the ECTS-system. Seven indicated they are planning to adopt this system and ten refrained from doing so stating as reason that they already have a similar credit system. Consequently structuring its course offer on the basis of the two/three cycle system does not necessarily mean that an institution has adopted the Bologna Process as a whole. Some institutions have put into place a two/three cycle degree structure but have not yet adopted the ECTS credit system. Other institutions have not adopted the ECTS credit system at all and some of them do not plan to do so as they have similar credit systems which are equivalent or adjustable to the ECTS system. This shows that considerable differences exist not only concerning the degree structure of degree programmes in the culture/arts management and cultural policy field but also with regard to the systems of performance assessment. In 25 SECEB Documents _25 _25 25 Master 2nd Cycle 20 15 Bachelor 1st Cycle _15 _14 _14 _12 10 _5 5 0 _3 Application & CV Interview Entrance Other Exam (Language exam, Portfolio, etc.) Chart 13: Admission requirements SECEB Documents 26 addition, it has become clear from the survey that even in those institutions which have adopted the ECTS system there are large discrepancies as to the comparability of academic achievement measured in ECTS credit points. These aspects bear evidence of the state of transition in which the degree programmes find themselves. In many institutions a certain confusion about the changes introduced by the Bologna Process is observable which prevents the benefits of the process from becoming palpable. The field of academic training in culture/arts management and cultural policy is in the midst of a process of adapting to the changes where responsables of degree programmes are experimenting with ways of how to make the Bologna Process work best for their specific needs and purposes. Admission requirements Concerning the admission requirements it was evident from the responses to the questionnaire that the selection procedures are multi-dimensional for both B.A. and M.A. degree programmes. In both categories the highest importance is given to candidates’ applications and CVs and entrance interviews. The entrance exam ranges third place for both BA and MA cycles. Having said that there is still a considerable difference in that the two first mentioned selection methods play a relatively greater role in the admission to Master’s programmes with 24 institutions referring to them respectively. Another important aspect concerns the possibility of direct admission to an M.A. degree programme after having completed the B.A. cycle. Seven of 23 universities allow students to continue directly in their M.A. programmes after completing their B.A. degree at a university. But only three universities grant direct admission to students having obtained their B.A. degree from a polytechnic. 5.2 Decision-making in the institutions Looking at the Bologna Process we wanted to find out whether it had had any impact on the hierarchies in universities and polytechnics. In the survey the focus was on identifying possible changes brought about in two areas of decision-making: the introducing of curriculum changes and the final approval of these changes. The respondents were asked to state the main decision27 SECEB Documents 30 29_ With Bologna Process 26_ 25 Before Bologna Process 20 14_ 15 9_ 10 9_ 10_ 9_ 9_ 5 2_ 0_ 0 Department or Unit Faculty or School University Ministry Nation-wide comission Chart 14: Main responsible for proposing changes in the structure of the curriculum 20 With Bologna Process 17_ Before Bologna Processa 15_ 15_ 14_ 15 13_ 11_ 10 9_ 6_ 6_ 4_ 5 2_ 0 Department or Unit Faculty or School University Ministry Nation-wide comission 2_ Other Chart 15: Right to approve of the structure of the curriculum SECEB Documents 28 makers before and in the course of the Bologna Process. The questions were “Who is the main responsible for proposing changes in the structure of the curriculum?” and “Who has the right to approve the structure of the curriculum?” Multiple answers were possible. With regard to the proposal of changes in the structure of the curriculum it could be shown that for the majority of institutions the Bologna Process has not brought about changes in the existing hierarchies in the majority of institutions. 36 respondents stated that the main responsible for proposing changes in the structure of the curriculum is on the same level as before the Bologna Process, be it the department/unit, faculty/school, university or ministerial level. The department/unit level was the most mentioned level. Nevertheless it has to be pointed out that at six institutions the Bologna Process has brought about a shift of authority. This shift has taken place either from the department/faculty to the university level or from the university level to the ministerial level. In three institutions the Bologna Process has resulted in a shift of authority to the lower level, either within the university or from the ministerial to the university level. Similar to the findings concerning the allocation of authority for initiating changes in the curriculum it could be observed that the level of hierarchy which approves of changes in the curriculum has largely not been changed with the Bologna Process. In this question the survey produced an even picture with a third of the responding institutions at a time allocating this right to the faculty, the university or the ministry. Still, a slight power shift is noticeable: Three institutions state a power shift from the university to the ministry in this matter and two institutions state that the power to approve curriculum changes has been relocated to a nation-wide commission. However, it has to be said that these conclusions are not completely incontestable. Due to the high number of respondents who gave multiple answers it is in many cases not possible to pinpoint exactly which body holds the ultimate authority to introduce and to sign for curriculum reform. In many institutions the new situation brought about by the Bologna Process is not clear yet. In particular the new role assigned to educational ministries in the course of the Bologna Process with regard to proposing and approving of curriculum reform has not been evident from the answers to the questionnaire. However the answers reflect the general trend of decision-making power 29 SECEB Documents 25 24_ Polytechnic 20 University 15 10_ 10 5_ 4_ 5 1_ 0 National or regional National language language and English 1_ English Chart 16: Language of instruction 20_ 20 Teachers 18_ 16_ 15 Students 14_ 13_ 10 5_ 5 3_ 2_ 1_ 0_ 0 Significant Slight Not at all Decreased No Information Chart 17: Mobility of students and teaching staff SECEB Documents 30 being transferred to the higher levels in the hierarchy of education bodies. 5.3 Mobility The survey served us to find out how far the internationalisation of the degree programmes in arts/cultural management and cultural policy has progressed. We wanted to identify developments connected to mobility in a twodimensional way by asking about the degree programmes’ arrangements for sending out students and teaching staff and for welcoming foreign students in these degree programmes. Language of instruction Spanning both dimensions is the question about the language of instruction. In 29 of the responding institutions the language of instruction in the degree programmes in arts/cultural management and cultural policy is the national language only. The four degree programmes in England are comprised in this category. In 14 degree programmes teaching is provided not only in the respective national language but also in English. These universities and polytechnics are situated in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Serbia, Slovakia and Spain. Mobility We asked whether the outgoing mobility of students and teaching staff had increased in the course of the last three years. 36 respondents, i.e. three quarters of the respondents, rated the increase as slight for both students and teaching staff. A significant rise of student mobility was reported from 14 institutions, five institutions claimed a significant rise of teacher mobility. With 13 for students’ mobility and 18 for teaching staff mobility a rather large proportion of respondents stated no increase at all. In order to find out how mobility is facilitated in practice in the different degree programmes we asked respondents to answer to the following question: “How do you offer mobility to your students, teachers and researchers?” Respondents were allowed to give multiple answers and could choose from 31 SECEB Documents 30 27_ 25 Researchers 26_ 24_ Teachers 21_ Students 20 15 10_ 10 9_ 11_ 10_ 10_ 8_ 5_ 5_ 5 0 Institutional Agreements Exchange Programmes Grants Own budget 4_ 4_ 3_ Other Chart 18: Mobility arrangements 20 _21 Foreign students 15 _14 10 _8 5 0 None 1 to 10 students More than 10 Chart 19: Number of foreign students at the institutions SECEB Documents 32 the following five options: institutional agreements, exchange programmes, grants, own budget, other. According to the answers about 26/27 of the responding institutions provide their students with the chance of studying abroad through institutional agreements and exchange programmes. These two arrangements range also high when it comes to facilitating the mobility of teaching staff with 24 respondents mentioning institutional agreements and 21 exchange programmes. Grants figure third place as a funding source for students and teaching staff. For researchers though, funding through grants represents the most widespread mobility aid with eleven respondents mentioning it. In general researchers are far from benefiting to the same extent as students and teaching staff from their institution’s mobility arrangements. Funding provided by the institutions itself plays an important role in facilitating the mobility of teaching staff. Foreign students With regard to the numbers of foreign students studying in the Cultural/Arts Management and Cultural Policy degree programmes the picture is as follows: Eight institutions responding to this question do not have any foreign students, 21 have one to ten % and at 14 institutions more than 10% of students come from abroad. In this aspect the divergences between the respondents are considerable. The three universities which have the most foreign students are the University of Belgrade, the City University London and the Goldsmiths University London. Still it is impossible to draw clear conclusions from this picture because the survey did not gather information about the total number of students in the degree programmes. 5.3 Enhanced co-operation through the Bologna Process The broader aim of the Bologna Process consists in facilitating academic exchange across Europe on a large-scale by harmonizing degree structures and thereby rendering degrees more comparable. From the beginning of the Bologna Process and even before this process came into play have institutions of higher education set up joint degree programmes 33 SECEB Documents 12 Polytechnic 11_ 10 University 8 6 4 4_ 3_ 2_ 2 0 Involvment in Joint degree programme Involvment in application to Erasmus Mundus programme Chart 20: International co-operation 20 18_ Polytechnic University 15 12_ 11_ 10 5 4_ 4_ 3_ 0 To develop joint programmes To validate joint modules in the curriculum Diversity remains concerning modules and content in the curriculum Chart 21: Degree programme development at European level SECEB Documents 34 as a way of facilitating the exchange of experience among students and crossborder recognition of their degrees. Joint degree programmes have also found their way into the field of higher education in cultural/arts management and cultural policy although so far on a relatively modest scale. A third of the responding institutions stated their involvement in a joint degree programme. In the framework of the Bologna Process the establishment of joint degree programmes is supported by a special programme called Erasmus Mundus. Through this programme EU grants are accorded to institutions of higher education which set up joint degree programmes on the basis of close cooperation in curriculum planning, student admission, teaching staff exchange etc. Of the 48 participants in the survey five stated to be involved in an application to an Erasmus Mundus Programme. Three of these institutions are universities and two are polytechnics. Asked about their attitude towards further European-wide co-operation with regard to the future development of the degree programmes we received quite mixed responses. About half of the respondents (22) are in favour of integrating joint modules in the curriculum. 16 respondents regarded developing joint contents altogether an appropriate way forward in the field of cultural/arts management and cultural policy training and 14 respondents stressed the importance of keeping diversity concerning the contents of the study programmes. Comparing the answers of universities and polytechnics it becomes clear that a greater number of universities are in favour of closer co-operation in programme development with 11 of them considering the validation of joint modules a good way forward. In regard to the polytechnics no preference is observable as to the degree of European co-operation given that there are four mentions for both the development of joint contents and joint modules. 35 SECEB Documents 50 External 43_ 40 Internal 30 22_ 25_ 21_ 20 16_ 8_ 10 4_ 2_ 0 For teaching For research For other activities None yet Chart 22: Quality assurance Main criteria for quality assurance Number of institutions Percentage of graduates with a job in the field after 3 years 35 Number of aplicants/study places available 13 Above average teachers evaluation by students 15 Research evaluation by an independent research body 18 Degree of internationalization of the field 15 Interest of the Board of Trustees of the University; other Explicit interest of the labour market in relation to other educational alternatives 6 19 Chart 23: Main criteria for quality assurance SECEB Documents 36 6 Lifelong learning Lifelong learning activities are integrated into the teaching offer at 22 of the responding institutions. They take diverse forms such as professional development courses (Jagiellonian University, Krakow; Potsdam Polytechnic), short-term seminars (University of Arts, Belgrade), one-year training courses (IUT, Bordeaux) or E-learning courses (Goldsmith College - University ofLondon, University of Lyon). 7 Quality assurance Quality assurance is an important component of the Bologna Process. In the survey we asked respondents to name their mechanisms for quality assurance in the field of teaching, research and other activities. Multiple responses were allowed. In all three fields internal evaluation outweighs external evaluation. This preponderance is particularly striking in regard to teaching activities where almost all respondents name internal evaluation but only 19 mention external evaluation. With respect to research activity internal and external evaluation balance each other with external mechanisms even slightly taking the lead over internal ones. For other activities internal evaluation is again outweighing external evaluation by more than the double with 15 and 7 institutions referring to these mechanisms respectively. Six institution state not to have introduced any quality assurance mechanisms yet. In addition we asked participants to state the main criteria guiding quality assurance in their degree programmes. With 34 entries the criteria “% of graduates with a job in the field after 3 years“ came out as the prevalent criteria. The other criteria are on a relatively equal rank with 13-17 respondents mentioning them. One exception is made by the criteria “interest of the board of trustees of the university/other“ which is not given great importance at all by respondents which is obvious from the low number of entries. 37 SECEB Documents 8 conclusion Corina Şuteu (2006) has analysed the practices and the development of the disciplines of cultural management training and related higher education studies in cultural management and cultural policies. According to her the Bologna Process can have some specific positive outcome with regard to cultural management higher education: (1) by comparing course contents in an effort to tune their objectives, the hybrid character of cultural management competence would be addressed systematically from a European perspective and also from a nationally rigorous one (2) the tension between academic or management/administrative oriented education in Europe might be smoothened, because a common ground of shared interest will be provided by the advancement of the Bologna Process and (3) Bologna will push the need to clearly assess the typology of competencies required in cultural management at different levels of professional activity and within a strongly international context. The education of arts/cultural management and cultural policy is organised in various ways as their traditions root in different national circumstances. The education has already a long history: City University in London pioneered arts and cultural management education in 1974. Many other countries (France, Italy, Finland) started their arts/cultural management education at the turn of the decade 1980/1990. Later on the education has diversified in terms of the fields of study and modules. According to our survey the education of arts/cultural management, cultural policy, cultural theory or mediation is organised at universities or polytechnics, at specialized departments but also in interdisciplinary co-operation. Even if there were specialized departments the education was interdisciplinary. The titles of the arts/cultural management education are the same regardless of what kind of institutions are organising it. We can find Degree Programme of Cultural Management as a Bachelor or Master in the art universities, multidisciplinary universities and polytechnics. Different universities have a two-tier degree structure with an obligatory three-year Bachelor’s degree (as an independent degree qualifying for Master’s studies or working life) and a two or one-year Master’s degree. Polytechnics have four-year Bachelor’s degree (qualifying for working life). It is an interesting question what kind SECEB Documents 38 of similarities one can find in the contents of these programmes and how they are related to structural decisions. The important question is, should we and how harmonize Bachelor’s degree in two institutions, universities and polytechnics. The Master’s degree programmes in arts/cultural management or cultural policy or cultural studies are mostly organised in the universities. They are multidisciplinary programmes. The Bologna Process has a clear potential for reducing disciplinary boundaries and opening up possibilities for interdisciplinary projects. Degrees with new study programmes and combinations of different disciplines bring new qualifications to the labour market and may form the basis for innovations. The new Masters programmes resulting from the Bologna Process are viewed in a positive light since they increase the multiplicity of studies forming part of the degree. The labour market has new requirements for competence and the Masters programmes are thought to be a good response to these needs. In the universities interdisciplinarity in research is often stated as a goal, but interdisciplinarity in education is not mentioned as often. That’s why it is still quite complex to create a new distinct interdisciplinary discipline like arts/ cultural management or cultural policy. Women studies and cultural studies are very good examples of trying to establish new disciplines. The orientation towards the discipline and the possibilities of the institutionalization of the discipline is a very long lasting process where a lot of research is needed. According to our survey Master’s degree programmes in arts/cultural management or cultural policy have no standard duration for a master. Universities have even one year (some of the arts/cultural management programmes) but mostly two-year Master’s degree programmes. The field of education in arts/cultural management and cultural policy is diverse. Its systematisation into four categories (3+2, 3+1, 4+2, 4+1) highlights two questions. What can universities and other types of higher education institutions do? The possible move they can take is certainly to shape and structure their own offering, and institutions could implement to profile themselves in the emerging European space of higher education. Could universities start to follow the rule, that the Bachelor’s degree comprises 180 ECTS points (three years of study), and the master’s course a further 90-120 ECTS points (1½ -2 years of study)? This system would make it possible for students to acquire their skills at various universities throughout Europe, 39 SECEB Documents and it creates transparency between national systems which differ from each other in many respects and are sometimes quite difficult to reconcile. The other question concerns the binary divide between traditional universities and polytechnics. One can say that there is no substantial difference in the course contents of cultural management programmes. A Doctor’s degree can be taken directly after the Master’s degree. According to our survey of 48 responding institutions only nine universities, i.e. about one fifth of the respondents, also offer the doctorate. It seems to be very useful that universities could increase co-operation and horizontal mobility at the doctor’s degree level. The broader aim of the Bologna Process is facilitating academic exchange across Europe on a large-scale by harmonizing degree structures and thereby rendering degrees more comparable. According to our survey the mobility of students, researchers and staff has increased in the responding institutions in the course of the Bologna Process. The possibilities to mobility seem to be very good, because many institutions have various exchange agreements and also their own grant systems. Almost 70 % of the respondents indicated a slight or significant increase in students’ mobility over the last three years. Also the number of teachers benefiting from mobility agreements has increased. In the framework of the Bologna Process the establishment of joint degree programmes is supported by a special programme called Erasmus Mundus. Through this programme EU grants are accorded to institutions of higher education which set up joint degree programmes on the basis of close cooperation in curriculum planning, student admission, teaching staff exchange etc. Of the 48 participants in the survey five stated to be involved in an application to an Erasmus Mundus Programme. Attempts at monitoring and assuring quality in higher education have given rise to a number of initiatives nationally and internationally, and there is clear evidence of quality having assumed a significant status in the agendas of universities and polytechnics across Europe. In the United Kingdom, for instance, a national system of quality control and assurance has been set up and a number of other countries have developed similar systems. In some countries, like Finland, the higher education institutions themselves have been made responsible for the evaluation of their practices, possibly in collaboration with national evaluation agencies. At European level, the European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, ENQA, has worked to establish SECEB Documents 40 comparable methodologies and criteria and to produce a level of consistency to ensure evaluation mechanisms. Quality assurance involves the auditing of existing practice against targeted standards, while quality enhancement is concerned with the fostering of true improvement in teaching and learning. In other words, quality assurance relates to evaluation and assessment, whereas quality enhancement deals with improvement and innovation and is policy and strategy driven. Quality assurance means measurement, quality enhancement involves experimentation, benchmarking, and establishment of good practice. Quality assurance is thus one stage in the pursuit of quality, but in a rapidly evolving social and economic context the evaluation of current practice is insufficient. What is needed is a process-oriented proactive strategy geared to the improvement of practice in response to the needs of society. Arts/cultural management and cultural policy education institutions have all participated in quality assurance both in external and internal meanings. It was interesting to notice that according to their proposals concerning the main criteria for quality assurance, they would like to focus evaluation on steering the higher education institutions more in the direction of the labour market than individual institutions’ own results (research, teaching, number of applicants). In its own way the adoption of the European Credit Transfer System is also of relevance in this context. Most of the institutions have adopted the ECTS-system. Who has the right to approve the structure of the curricula? We can find many discussions concerning the position of educational institutions in the new situation brought about by the Bologna Process. It seems that national legislation undermines autonomous decision-making more than earlier and significantly limits institutional autonomy. The balance between national regulation or coordination and institutional leeway is the main issue. In the survey we found that in many institutions the new situation is not clear yet. However the answers reflect to a certain extent the general trend of decisionmaking power being transferred to higher levels in the hierarchy of education bodies than before. The objective of the survey part of the SECEB-project was to gather information about the implementation of the Bologna Process in the field of arts/cultural management and cultural policy across Europe. The resulting overview of the present landscape of degree programmes in culture/arts management and cultural policy across Europe was the starting point of an analysis of the current 41 SECEB Documents developments and tendencies in this specific field of academic teaching. The survey made it possible to identify common features, differences and also discrepancies in a number of areas and to draw conclusions as to the specific challenges institutions in this field need to tackle in order to strengthen their co-operation in the future. The findings of the survey provided us with a basis for devising policy recommendations for policy-makers on the one hand and for the universities and polytechnics themselves on the other hand. The survey provides the programme responsibles in the responding institutions with the chance to compare their own situation and decisions concerning changes resulting from the Bologna Process with those of their homologues in similar study programmes at universities and polytechnics all over Europe. This might start processes of exchanging experience and evaluating possible successful changes and future challenges for this specific field of study. This survey COULD be seen as a starting point for further stocktaking and analysis of the current state and development trends of higher education in culturAL/arts management and cultural policy in Europe. Some aspects to be investigated in more detail in future studies would be e.g. the degree structure, the quality assurance practices or the lifelong learning activities which a number of institutions engage in. For this purpose the development of an ENCATC directory of study programmes containing detailed information about these and other aspects would be a very valuable step to take. Another important aspect to be analysed is how the future employability of the students is considered and enhanced at the various institutions. Given the growing importance of this aspect the exchange of experience and building of common strategies for defining the professional needs of the cultural labour market and preparing students for it would be a very valuable part of future international co-operation through the ENCATC network. SECEB Documents 42 43 SECEB Documents Policy Recommendations TRANSPARENCY The Challenge The courses should be readable and understandable by instructors and stu dents from all over Europe. The general structures, descriptions and the ter minology should be similar, to facilitate understanding and encourage co operation and mobility. Transparency is a main condition for comparability and mobility to happen. As main objectives of the Bologna Process, the three-cycle system, Module descriptions and ECTS, as well as quality assurance are supposed to ensure transparency. Outcomes The fact that a number of academic programs do not yet present themselves in English significantly prevents transparency. On one hand, students unfa miliar with the language of the program are unable to register and it also pro hibits the comparison of programs. On the other hand the use of a common terminology is also prohibited. But also where English is used to present the programs there are large differences in the presentation of study require ments, course content and degrees. The English terms are used differently or what is meant is often not clear. National systems and educational traditions influence the educational frameworks and terminology. Tasks In order for instructors and students to better understand the course offerings abroad, the following three steps should be considered: • Developing a unified scheme for the description and explanation of the various academic programs in cultural management field. Steps have already 45 SECEB Documents been taken in the form of a UNESCO commissioned overview created by ENCATC for cultural management and cultural policy programs: The ENCATC/UNESCO Directory. The directory could be brought up to date and a system could be de veloped from this to benefit all programs in order to support cooperation and mobility. In addition, transparent accreditation mechanisms should be put into use as a transition period until 2010. • Defining the cultural management administrative and technical terms in a glossary is a high priority. English terms could be used as a basis for the translation of terms into other European languages. This would give us a com mon understanding of the English terminology and the equivalents in other languages. • Defining the nature of the criteria which should be used in evaluating the quality of the programs in cultural and arts management: how many credits, semesters, internships, teaching modules, how long a program should last to allow students to acquire a BA or a MA in cultural? • Quality assurance relates to evaluation and assessment, whereas quality enhancement deals with improvement and innovation and is policy and strategy driven. Quality assurance means measurement, quality enhancement involves experimentation, benchmarking, and establishing of good practice. Quality assurance is thus one stage in the pursuit of quality, but in a rapidly evolving social and economic context the evaluation of current practice is in sufficient. What is needed is a process-orientated proactive strategy geared to the improvement of practice in response to the need of society. Transparency of quality assurance should also be ensured, particularly by widely dis seminating the proceeding of such activities. • Harmonizing the semester periods and calendar is a priority for enabling and facilitating cooperation at the European level. SECEB Documents 46 COMPARABILITY The Challenge Comparing the programs means that a module should correspond to the same knowledge one can acquire, regardless of where the course is offered. The system of Modules, ECTS and quality assurance creates instruments to make the courses comparable. This general goal has to be transferred to the cultural management training programs. Outcomes Academic teaching in arts/cultural management and cultural policy across Europe does not by any means present itself in a consistent picture. The sur vey clearly demonstrated the diversity and the numerous divergences existing in a range of aspects. The academic programs differ from each other in length: bachelor programs encompass between 6 and 8 semesters, the master programs take between two and four semesters to complete. There are also great differences in rela tionship to the respective emphases. Through the modularization, there is a larger proportion of required courses than electives. This bonus of education standards however does not correlate with better comparability. The courses of study develop a closed canon of modules which are not based on an equal platform of European education standards. Because of the interdisciplinary character of the training, different emphases have emerged: cultural policy, arts and cultural management, cultural economics, cultural theory and cul tural studies. Conclusion: The academic landscape of arts/cultural management is domi nated by a variety of the programs and formal standards do not foster com parability. 47 SECEB Documents Tasks Harmonizing length or credits is one purpose, harmonizing contents is a much more sensitive one. A harmonization of the various academic programs, to aid the direct comparability of modules and courses, will not be possible in the future and is not even sensible. It is much more beneficial to preserve diversity and to strive for a balance between harmonization and differentiation. • • Harmonization: Despite all of the differences in content there is a com mon core in the curricula of the training programs. During the Final Conference in Potsdam the participants highlighted the point that it would make sense to support the common features and develop key modules from them that fit thematically. In this way courses in subjects like Cultural marketing, Cultural Economics, European Cultural Policy and Project Management could be offered and would be recognized Europe wide. Aiming at comparability does not mean that the actual content in each of the programs should not retain elements that differentiate them. Exactly that difference makes study abroad interesting. • Differentiation: Besides a common basis it is also important for each pro gram to develop its own specialization. In order to survive in the European market, the USP’s (unique selling point) need to be promoted so that each program maintains a distinct profile. This is a requirement of the open market in which the students and partners are oriented and a basis from which vital decisions are made. The task of harmonization is, therefore, to clearly define the differences and profiles of the programs and to create comparable criteria in which to describe them. From this basis there is the opportunity for aca demic programs to create networks based on their profiles. SECEB Documents 48 MOBILITY The Challenge A transparent academy system in Europe, with comparable degree cycles, modules, exchange contracts and information in English, allows instructors and students to get in contact with other universities for a short or long-term period. We have to analyze the conditions supporting mobility and encourage different types of mobility. Outcomes Mobility and exchange take place primarily at three levels: 1. Individual student 2. Teacher exchange 3. Common projects between European academic programs and joint courses Within the ENCATC network many project cooperations have been created, ranging from one time and irregular projects to long term cooperations. An example of the last type is the Synaxis Baltica, a cooperation of 10 Universi ties around the Baltic Sea which takes place every year at a two week sum mer academy. Important for the success of these projects are the personal contacts and very little formal arrangements. The increasing formalized and structured formalities created by modularization and the ECTS system con sequently require intense long term planning and complicated agreements. This hinders cooperation. Formalized academic programs leave no room for short term cooperations. The choice of students to construct their academic courses to suit their learning needs is also restricted by the formalized plans. 49 SECEB Documents In the framework of the BP, the establishment of joint degree programs is supported by a special program called Erasmus Mundus. Through this pro gram EU grants are accorded to institutions of higher education which set up joint degree programs on the basis of close cooperation in curriculum plan ning, student admission, teaching staff exchange etc. Of the 48 participants in the survey, five stated their involvement in an application to an Erasmus Mundus Programme. Three of these institutions are universities and two are polytechnics. Despite this positive development, the participants of the Final Conference underlined that the Erasmus Mundus Program only fits for a small group of academic programs because the procedures are too complicated and inflexible. One instrument to facilitate mobility is instruction in English. Of the 48 sur veyed academic programs many offer instruction in English in addition to the native language. In some Master programs (outside of the UK) plans are being made to offer courses in English or they have already started. For example, the University of Bologna offers a Master degree in Cultural Management which doesn’t require the student to know Italian. Many programs offer a mix of courses in the native language and English, whereby the majority of programs only offer a few courses in English. In the SECEB project it was hotly debated which role language plays in each cultural context academically. Should we provide training that reflects the global market in which English is the primary communication medium? Or does it remain the norm that cultural managers, even in the future, are limited to working in their own regional markets (i.e. German, French, Dutch speaking countries) and English simply remains an ad ditional means of communication. Conclusion: The academic landscape of arts/cultural management is domi nated by a variety of the programs and formal standards do not foster com parability. Tasks • A greater flexibility in financial procedures of the mobility programs is definitely needed. The EU Intensive Program for example should cover at least a part of the expenses of the students where the actual Intensive course is held. Master Programs of Arts Management and Cultural Policy are often na tionally and internationally unique, which means that students studying there come from all over the world. For this reason especially foreign students studying at the University where the IP is held are not in equal position regarding the IP grants. SECEB Documents 50 • Also, IP should be organized without limitations regarding the participa tion of institutions with various backgrounds and levels. The assessment of the project proposals should also take less time and should be more transparent with regards to reason of approval or rejection. • Culture differences are a main source of activities and the creative process in the arts. In the “every day culture”, community projects and on the in ternational level, cultural identify/differences, the battle of cultures, cultural segregation and hybrid cultures are important themes. To be confronted with and inspired by cultural differences is a main motive for going abroad. Standardized module programs in English can undermine this source of learning and programs in national languages should be maintained. An appropriate balance between modules according to their specificity should be looked for. • Especially in international projects and for students studying abroad there must be room for the individual learning process and the chance to make new experiences. That means that there should be open modules whose content is determined by project groups based on their learning needs. The education re form is vital. In terms of the Bologna Process the European reform movement towards student oriented instruction should be supported and not stifled by standardized learning. It is vitally necessary to evaluate the variety of experiences with international projects when training cultural managers. International cooperations in the future profit from this knowledge. It would therefore be quite sensible to study the function of language in the supporting of mobility and cooperation. 51 SECEB Documents EMPLOYABILITY The Challenge The objective of employability of graduates is one of the main cornerstones of the Bologna Process. Bridging of academic studies and professional activities and making firm links between them is beneficial for achieving an enhanced employability. Furthermore, it is very important to discuss about the first cycle degrees and the second cycle degrees from the employability perspective. The cultural sector is a growing market for employment. “In a study presented to the EU’s Ministers of Culture on 13 November, the European Commission shows the importance of the cultural sector for the EU economy, and underlines its potential for creating more and better jobs in the future. With its 5.8 million employees, the cultural sector employs more people than the total employed in Greece and Ireland put together. In addition, the cultural sector accounted for 2.6% of EU GDP in 2003, and experiences higher growth rates than the average of other sectors of the economy.” The challenge of the training course is to prepare the student for a working field which is growing but very complex and a permanent chance. Outcomes Most of cultural management training courses are practically oriented and fulfill a main objective of the Bologna Process: urging European universities to better prepare students to enter the job market and consequently to reorgan ize their programs. There are some differences between more academically and more practically oriented programs. Still also in the universities the programs of arts/cultural http://www.wfa.fi/cgi-bin/wfa_cgi/dl.cgi?dir=lista07&filename=kulttuuri_15.11.2006.doc SECEB Documents 52 management or cultural policy have been bridging academic studies and pro fessional activities and making firm links between them. All institutions have strong links to the professional sector. For students con tacts made during their obligatory semester internships are important for building a career network. The reflection about practical knowledge is on the other hand a necessary skill because the job market is constantly in flux. Edu cation for a static career is hardly possible anymore. Tasks • It is very important to discuss about the first cycle degrees and the sec ond cycle degrees from the employability perspective. As the acceptance and relevance of first cycle degrees is partially lacking on the labour market, a concrete effort of all stakeholders is needed to raise awareness for them and their acceptance as meaningful, varied degrees in their own right. They either lead to the labour market or provide the ground for second cycle studies. • The development of the national and European job market is hard to pre dict and the changing skill requirements are very diverse. Therefore it is es sential from the side of the academic programs, to make a study of regional job markets and to exchange the results Europe wide. This way the training can be customized to fit the market. • The work requirements in the cultural sector are increasingly precari ous. In many areas there are no standard rate secured payments, work hours and contractual terms of contract. The exploitation of workers is to be closely watched. Academic institutions should take on responsibility for these prob lems. These responsibilities should include the development of Europe wide standards for working conditions. • Students need to organize their studies with flexibility. This includes the possibility to interrupt their studies in order to take on a job or internship in the cultural sector. In addition, they should be capable of taking on a job paral lel to their studies. In the end, students must develop their career profile. The experiences of the European academic programs confirm this idea: career op portunities improve dramatically when students build career contacts during their studies, develop their personal profiles or even create their own self-em ployed possibilities. Therefore a flexible course of studies is indispensable. 53 SECEB Documents Appendices Questionaire Monitoring the implementation of the Bologna Process on interdisciplinary arts/cultural management and cultural policy studies in Europe ENCATC (European Network of Cultural Administration Training Centres) is ex tremely committed enhancing important objectives of the Bologna process. To raise further awareness and open discussion of Bologna process across Eu rope in the field of Cultural Education ENCATC is coordinating one year lasting project called SECEB, Sharing Experiences on Cultural Education realising the Bologna process. It is a European project under the Socrates programme. SECEB consist of different kinds of workshops and meetings. This questionnaire is also part of the SE-CEB project, and its main objective is to analyse and evaluate the implementation of the two-tier degree structure in the field of cultural management and policy education (higher education). Aim is to generate knowledge, experience and new ideas connected to employability, mobility and quality assurance system. Data collection activities will particularly focus on the following topics: Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate, promotion of mobility of students and teachers, and promotion of the European dimension in the higher education in the art/cultural management and cultural pol-icy programmes. The essential is to take into consideration the nature of the different educational levels and systems and the comparability of the different modes of realization of Bologna process. The data collection is conducted by questionnaires among ENCATC members: 121 training institutions in 35 countries. The results are analysed and reported in the Final Conference of SECEB in Potsdam, Germany, at the end of 2006. We thank you for your time in filling out this questionnaire. Please return it as an attachment by e-mail to [email protected] or by normal mail to Anita Kangas, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, P.O.BOX 35, FIN-40014 UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ or by fax to the number: *358-14-2603638 Deadline for sending the questionnaire: 16.06.2006 55 SECEB Documents INSTRUCTIONS Please circle/underline your choice of answer and/or write your answer on the line. Circle only one of the choices unless told differently. Your/s name/s: ........................................................................................ E-mail address: ........................................................................................ Name of your institution: ........................................................................................ Is your institution a part of a) University b) Polytechnic/Fachhochschule/University of Applied Sciences c) Other, please specify ........................................................................................ In what kind of school/institution are the Arts/Cultural management/Cultural policy programme involved? a) Art university/academy/school b) Economic/Business school c) Social/Political Science d) Multidisciplinary university (with many faculties) e) Other ........................................................................................ What is the main orientation of your Arts/Cultural Management and Cultural Policy Programme? a) Cultural policy b) Cultural theory c) Management d) Aesthetic Arts e) Mediation f) Other: ........................................................................................ Is studying at your department/unit divided into two/three cycles (based on the Bologna Declaration)? a) Yes, we already had it before the Bologna Declaration b) Yes, we introduced it as a result of the Bologna Process c) Two/three cycles are in our plans d) No, we do not plan to launch two/three cycles structure SECEB Documents 56 If you have a degree structure based on two main cycles (Bachelor and Master), what model you follow a) 3+2 b) 4+1 c) 2+2 d) 2+3 e) 3+1 f) Other: ........................................................................................ Which are the levels to which your programme trains students? (several answers are possible) a) Bachelor/ 1st cycle b) Master/2nd cycle c) Doctorate/PhD/3rd cycle What are the entry procedures for the programme? (several answers are possible) 1st cycle/Bachelor: a) Secondary Education b) Application + Curriculum vitae c) Interview d) Entrance exam e) Other: ........................................................................................ 2nd cycle/Master: a) Directly from 1st cycle (University) b) Directly from 1st cycle (Polytechnic) c) Application + curriculum vitae d) Interview e) Entrance exam f) Other: ........................................................................................ Give the title/s of your programme/s and total workload required to complete the programme/s 1. ........................................................................................ Number of ECTS: .... Number of student’s hours working with teachers: ..... h. 2. ........................................................................................ Number of ECTS: .... Number of student’s hours working with teachers: ..... h. 57 SECEB Documents 3. ........................................................................................ Number of ECTS: .... Number of student’s hours working with teachers: ..... h. Language(s) of instruction: ..................................................................................... Tuition fee, if applicable: ...................... Euros per credit Did you have to or will you change over to the ECTS (60 credits represent one year of study)? a) Yes, we changed b) Yes, we will change c) No, we had a similar credit system already Is the curriculum of your programmes essentially based on: 1st cycle/Bachelor: a) a compulsory curriculum b) a compulsory curriculum with optional modules c) students design their own curriculum 2nd cycle/Master: a) a compulsory curriculum b) a compulsory curriculum with optional modules c) students design their own curriculum How would you describe the influence of the professional/commercial field on the contents of the studies? a) no influence of professional/commercial field at all b) in general taken into account in the contents c) connections exist with organisations/companies in the professional/ commercial field d) focus is entirely on the professional/commercial field How would you describe the influence of the European dimension (international modules) on the contents of the studies? a) no influence of the European dimension at all b) in general taken into account in the contents c) connections exist with the themes d) focus is entirely on the European dimension SECEB Documents 58 Who is the main responsible for proposing changes in the structure of the curricula? Before the Bologna Process With the Bologna Process Department/unit × × Faculty/School × × University × × Ministry × × Nation-wide commission × × Other × × Who has the right to aprove the structure of the curricula? Before the Bologna Process With the Bologna Process Department/unit × × Faculty/School × × University × × Ministry × × Nation-wide commission × × Other × × Has student/teacher mobility increased at your programme over the last three years? Students Teachers Significantly × × Slightly × × Not at all × × Decreased × × No information × × Why?........................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................ 59 SECEB Documents How do you offer mobility to your students, teachers and researchers (e.g. through institutional agree-ments and exchange programmes, your grant system)? Please underline the most popular ones. Students Teachers Researchers Institutional agreements × × × Exchange Programmes × × × Grants × × × Own budget × × × Other × × × Is your institution involved in joint degree programmes? a) Yes b) No Is your institution involved in an application to an Erasmus Mundus Programme? a) Yes b) No In which direction do you think it will be easer that our fields of Programmes develop at the European level? a) To develop joint contents b) To validate joint modules in the curriculum c) Diversity remains concerning modules and contents in the curriculum What kind of mechanisms for evaluation/quality assurance do you have in your institution? Internal External For teaching × × For research × × For other activities × × Decreased × × Not yet, what kind of plans you have × × SECEB Documents 60 In your opinion, what are or should be the main criteria for the quality assurance in our programmes? a) % of graduates with a job in the field after 3 years b) Number of applicants / study places available c) Above average teachers evaluation by students d) Research evaluation by an independent research body e) Degree of internationalization of the field f) Interest of the board of trustees of the university g) Explicit interest of the labour market in relation other education alternatives h) Other: ........................................................................................ Do you organize specific Life-Long Learning activities in you programme? a) Yes b) No What kind .................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................... How many foreign students do you have? ......% How many full time professors do you have in your programme? ...... What are main sources of funding for your programmes? a) public, mostly national b) public, mostly regional c) public, mostly local d) private e) mix of private and public 61 SECEB Documents RESPONDENTS South West University ‘Neofit Rilsky’, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria • Cultural Studies (Bachelor) — 120 ECTS • Cultural management in European context (Master) — 220 ECTS Janacek Academy of Music and Performing Arts, Brno, Czech Republic • Theatre Management (Bachelor) — 180 ECTS • Theatre Management (Master) — 120 ECTS • Dramatic Arts-specialization: Theatre Management (PhD) Estonian Academy of Theatre and Music, Tallinn, Estonia • Cultural Management (Master) — 120 ECTS Estonian Institute of Humanities of Tallinn University, Estonia • Cultural Management (Master) — 80 ECTS Sibelius-Academy, Helsinki, Findland • The Arts Management, Helsinki (Master) — 150 ECTS • The Arts Management , Kuopio (Master) — 150 ECTS Cultural Policy, University of Jyväskylä, Finland • Cultural Policy (Master) — 120 ECTS • Cultural Policy (PhD) Helsinki Polytechnic Stadia, Finland • Arts and cultural event management (Bachelor) — 240 ECTS Jyväskylä University of Applied Sciences, Finland • Music Management (Bachelor) — now 270 ECTS, in 2008: 240 ECTS Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences, Finland • Cultural Management (Bachelor) — 240 ECTS Sydväst Polytechnic, Finland, Degree Programme in Cultural Management • Cultural Management (Bachelor) — 240 ECTS SECEB Documents 62 Arts Academy at Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland, Degree Pro gramme in Media Arts, Specialisation in Media Management • Media Management, Medianomi (Bachelor) — 240 ECTS Humak University of Applied Sciences, Finland • Degree Programme in Cultural Management (Bachelor) — 240 ECTS Université Lyon 2, France • Développement culturel et Direction de Projets - Management of Cultural Projects (Master) — 60 ECTS Université Catholique de l’Ouest, Angers, France: Institut d’Arts, Lettres et Histoire • Management du patrimoine, des arts et de la culture spécialité patri moine, spectacle vivant et action culturelle (Master) — 120 ECTS Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Grenoble, France • Direction de Projets Culturels - Management of Cultural Projects (Master) — 120 ECTS Université Michel de Montaigne, Université Bordeaux-3, France • Gestion de l’Action Culturelle (Bachelor) — 60 ECTS • Conception de projects et mediation culturelle (Lifelong learning - LLL) Université de La Rochelle, France • Master 2 professionnel Développement Culturel de la Ville — 60 ECTS Université de Paris X, France • Master 2 professionnel Conduite de projets culturels - Connaissance des publics — 60 ECTS Université Robert Schuman, France • Master “Politique et gestion de la culture” — 60 ECTS Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts et Techniques du Théatre (ENSATT), France • Administration, production et communication du spectacle vivant (Mas ter) IUP, Université 3 d’Arles, France • Licence de Gestion / Parcours Management Général et Administra • 63 SECEB Documents tion des Institutions Culturelles — 60 ECTS • Administration des institutions culturelles (Master Professionnel I) — 60 • Administration des institutions culturelles (Master Professionnel II) — 60 Université Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, France • Master Stratégies du Développement Culturel (Bachelor, Master) Université de Haute-Alsace, France • Administration et Gestion des Entreprises Culturelles (Licence profession nelle) — 60 ECTS Institut für Kulturpolitik, Universität Hildesheim, Germany • Kulturwissenschaften (Diploma) Fachhochschule Potsdam, Germany • Culture Management (Diploma) — 340 ECTS Hochschule Bremen (University of Applied Sciences), Germany • Masterstudiengang Musik- und Kulturmanagement — 60 ECTS Hochschule Zittau/Görlitz (University of Applied Sciences), Germany • Arts and Management (Bachelor) — 180 ECTS • Arts and Management (Master) — 120 ECTS City University London, United Kingdom • Arts Management (Master) Goldsmiths University London, United Kingdom • Arts Administration and Cultural Policy (Master and PhD) Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom • Arts Management and Administration (Bachelor: combined honours in Arts and Cultural Management) Queen Margaret University College, United Kingdom • Performance Production and Management (Bachelor) — 240 ECTS • Cultural Management and Policy (Master of Science) — 90 ECTS • Festival Producing and Management (Master of Science) — 90 ECTS SECEB Documents 64 University of Genova • Internatational Culture Management (Master) University of Bologna, Italy • Graduate Degree in Innovation and Organization of Culture (GIOCA) — 120 ECTS Culture Management and Sociologu Department, Latvian Academy of Culture, Latvia • Culture Management (Master) — 120 ECTS • Culture and Media Management, International Programmes (Master) — 140 ECTS Vilnius Academy of Fine Arts, Lithuania • Unesco Chair for Culture Management and Culture Policy (Master) Hogeschool Holland/INHOLLAND University, Netherlands • Bachelor programme in Economics, specialisation Leisure Management — 240 ECTS Telemark University College, Norway • Culture and administration (Bachelor, Master) Jagiellonian University, Institute of Public Affairs, Chair of Cultural Management, Poland • No information on title (Bachelor, Master, PhD) Maria Curie-Sklodovska University, Lublin, Poland • Pedagogy with specialization • Cultural Animator and Manager (Bachelor) • Cultural Animator and Manager (Master) ISCTE Business School (University), Portugal • Mestrado em Gestão Cultural (Master) — 120 ECTS Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Portugal • Pós-Graduação em Gestão Cultural (Master) The Saint-Petersburg State Theatre Arts Academy, Performing Arts Management Department, Russia • No information on title (Bachelor, Master, PhD) 65 SECEB Documents University of Arts, Belgrade, Faculty of Drama Arts, Serbia • Cultural Management, Radio & Theater production (Bachelor) — 240 ECTS • Cultural Policy & Management (Master) — 120 ECTS • Management & Production in Theatre, Media & Culture (Master) Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts in Bratislava, Slovakia • Theatre Management (Bachelor) — 60 ECTS per year • Theatre Management (Master) — 60 ECTS per year • Theatre Arts — specialization Theatre Management (PhD) Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia • Degree Programmes at Bachelor, Master, PhD level University of Barcelonam Spain • Official Master on Cultural Management (Master) — 90 ECTS • Master on Cultural Institutions & Entrepreneurs Management (Lifelong learning - LLL) — 50 ECTS • Post-graduate Diploma on Cultural Tourism (LLL) — 25 ECTS • Post-graduate Diploma on Performing Arts Production (LLL) — 25 ECTS • Post-graduate Diploma in International Cooperation & Management (LLL) — 25 ECTS • Post-graduate Diploma on Cultural Policies and Management (LLL) — 25 ECTS Universitat de Barcelona, Spain • Gestió del patrimoni Cultural (Master) — 90 ECTS Södertörn University Collage, Sweden • No information on title (Bachelor) — 180 ECTS SECEB Documents 66 67 SECEB Documents
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz