The Bologna process and professions falling under the General system

Does convergence under the Bologna Process facilitate (or not) the recognition of professional qualifications?

The transparency between different higher education systems in the Bologna process has supported easier recognition for around a third of competent authorities. While the Bologna reforms support student mobility, they do not yet widely support the recognition of

qualifications in a way that facilitates free movement of fully-qualified professionals.

The element of the Bologna reforms that is the most widely-established and best-understood element of the reforms is the three-cycle structure. It has a value in exposing or making transparent fundamental differences in the structure and level of training and has to some extent led to restructuring of qualifications. Given that there is a correspondence between the bachelor and master cycles and levels d and e of the Directive, the task of ascribing these qualifications to Directive levels is a simplified and more consistent process as result of the Bologna reforms. This can be helpful for professional recognition purposes, but only in certain cases (where ascribing level in the context of Article 11 may in otherwise have been difficult) and only with certain parameters (it short-cuts the process for competent authorities marginally, but does not significantly alter the recognition process).

The added value for competent authorities has been in being able to use ECTS for basic comparative purposes across a wider cross-section of qualifications. It promotes

understanding of the applicant‟s qualifications where these are unfamiliar to the competent authority. The use of learning outcomes is much more contested and too early in its implementation to provide anything more than theoretical benefit in most cases for the time being. Competent authorities are rather split in terms of whether the competence-based approach is appropriate and beneficial to understanding and recognising foreign

qualifications. There are strong views on both sides here and any explicit incorporation of learning outcomes within the Directive would be likely to lead to less confidence in the system for a significant number of authorities involved at national level.

In the context of ECTS, its value is seen as providing complementary information for making the recognition decision rather than necessarily as a replacement measure for level/duration of study. There is not yet sufficient confidence in ECTS definition and credit allocation at institutional level for most competent authorities to be comfortable using it as a replacement measure. This is due to different definitions of workload and different approaches to the allocation of credit. More fundamentally, there needs to be much wider use of ECTS linked to learning outcomes in order to add value for those competent authorities interested in

outcomes-measures. The countries are working on this link to better facilitate recognition. 10.1.2 Which professions would benefit from easier recognition

For which economic sectors and related regulated professions would quicker and easier or even automatic recognition be most beneficial by 2020 and respectively 2030?

When looking at future priority professions for concentrating efforts to pursue easier

recognition, it is not possible or sensible to substantively distinguish between 2020 and 2030 as points for looking at future labour demand. This is simply because few employment forecasts are as long-term as 2030.

However, it is possible to use the available labour market information to suggest where demand is likely to rise or where a shortfall in supply may be met by increased professional mobility. When set in the context of how professional regulation maps across to sectors, it is apparent that current recognition activity is concentrated within a small number of sectors. Taking this into account, the following sectors and professions are all areas in which a case could be made for economic benefit resulting in better professional recognition:

▪

Health and social care is a sector that could benefit from better recognition of

professionals as significant growth is projected up to 2020 (both at an EU level and also from most of the national reports) and it is also a sector expected to experience

significant replacement demand due to an ageing workforce. It is also one of the largest sectors in the EU and one where there is already a high degree of professionals that currently apply for recognition. Despite this many countries are still experiencing difficulties in recruiting professionals, and these are expected to continue in the short to medium term, due to policy drivers and also increased demand. The professions where there is currently high mobility or that are currently experiencing skills shortages are psychologists, speech therapists, social workers, radiographers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, second level nurses, midwifes and technicians. Many of these professions would be good candidates for further support for professional recognition. In some cases, notably social workers and psychologists, there are additional barriers to achieving quicker and easier recognition relating to the extent of differences in the scope of practice between countries. Additional support for these professions may not therefore result in the same benefits being achieved as for the other professions – certainly in terms of trying to put a system of automatic recognition in place – or it may require support over a longer timescale.

▪

In addition, education is another sector that may benefit from better recognition as it is a large sector in the EU, and in many countries is expecting growth (albeit at a reasonably small scale). However, the demand for education professionals is higher due to an expectation of considerable replacement demand in the next 5-10 years. The shortages are expected to be greatest among higher secondary and tertiary teachers/lecturers and given that the sector currently benefits from a high number of applicants seeking

recognition, it is reasonable to expect this to increase in the future as demand rises and current patterns show an increase in the level of EU mobility. However, there are arguably more difficult challenges because education and training are both well- established at national level and very nationally-specific.

▪

The engineering sector (particularly civil and electrical engineering) is also an area that could benefit from better recognition as it is an area where there has historically been major labour shortages and where there is already a high level of mobility. However, the risk to increased mobility is that this may increase labour shortages in some countries, where professionals in some countries may move to others where there are better working conditions. This is not a major issue at present as only a small proportion of the EU professional workforce currently migrates to work in other countries, but it may change in the future as mobility is projected to increase. There are also competing views within the civil engineering profession as to the efficacy of attempts to promote

convergence or harmonisation of training. It is another area in which an outcomes-based approach could address current perceived barriers where the training inputs differ between countries. There is also extensive existing work within the sector to support mobility and, significantly, much of this work draws on the Bologna tools. Engineering professions are therefore worth targeting to supporting easier recognition.

However, many other growth areas are either unregulated or have an evolving regulatory situation that makes it difficult to suggest it is a priority area. This is particularly true for green technologies, which current research tells us is likely to create a high number of jobs in the next 5-10 years. However, most countries are unclear if this is likely to lead to either

increased regulation of the workforce or labour shortages as the policy response is currently at its infancy in most EU countries. There is therefore little evidence to suggest that labour shortages are expected in the next 5-10 years, although this situation may change in the future. Another sector expected to experience significant growth is ICT. There are significant labour shortages here. Yet the professions that are in greatest demand (software engineers, web designers, IT and telecoms management) are unregulated and current policy

developments do not see this situation changing in the near future.

The over-arching recommendation would be to focus on currently regulated professions. In particular, those professions outlined above within the healthcare sector and engineering professions are where the future benefit is likely to be greatest. These professions could

provide a focal point for any work to establish a new approach to common platforms for easier or better recognition.

10.1.3 Other methods to achieve convergence

Do alternative approaches to convergence linked to EU educational reforms facilitate (or not) the recognition of professional qualifications?

EU educational reforms do not directly lead to convergence of qualifications. This is not the aim of the Bologna process either, which promotes transparency and comparability of diplomas. Where convergence is taking place, it is a voluntary, „bottom up‟ process. If anything, the evidence supports a potential divergence in qualifications contents as a result of the Bologna process. There is a deep scepticism among a range of stakeholders in most professions that convergence in training contents is an achievable and desirable ambition anyway. In fact, there seems to be two opposite movements: on the one hand, voluntary convergence regarding certain core requirements/standards in a given field of study and, on the other hand, diversification as a result of market forces to provide greater choice.

This is why, even though there is no realistic basis for recognition based on learning outcomes, it was felt by a significant portion of competent authorities to provide a more realistic basis for convergence, but only in the future. All Bologna countries have agreed to have national Qualification Frameworks with learning outcomes-based approach to be integrated by 2012. This is a long way off in most professions – given the variable use of learning outcomes to date, the lack of understanding around how common learning

outcomes (at a detailed level) could be agreed between countries and, most significantly for competent authorities, doubts about the assessment and quality assurance of the

achievement of learning outcomes.

Much of the implied or theoretical convergence under the Bologna process would be „bottom up‟ anyway – the result of institutional reform across higher education supported by systemic change, particularly through improved quality assurance and accreditation of qualifications and institutions Developments across institutions are uneven and while significant steps have been taken across Europe on accreditation and quality assurance, this work is ongoing. Even with the existence of European standards and guidelines for quality assurance, it is important to note that it will be some time before there is anything approaching commonality in national approaches.

It is much easier to see the potential impact of more „top down‟ work led by sectors at European level to set common frameworks (professional standards, training standards) and the accreditation of qualifications or institutions. This work is voluntary in nature, which provides credibility to the outputs produced (as does the fact that the methods deployed to set common frameworks/approaches is generally high-quality). The difficulty with these top- down approaches is that there can be a tension between the European professional dimension and either the professions in particular countries or national authorities. It is difficult for this work to have traction with training or recognition practice on the ground. This says more about the challenge of implementation than the quality of approach. It is notable that sector work generally deploys the Bologna tools, accepting that outside of the

recognition arena; they provide the common currency for qualification design and standards- setting. This perhaps also provides a rationale for thinking that any new approach to

common platforms proposed by the Commission could use the Bologna tools, such as learning outcomes.

10.2

The Bologna process and doctors

In document Revised Final Report - Study evaluating the Professional Qualifications Directive against recent educational reforms in EU Member States (Page 156-158)