Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Diploma Thesis (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (4)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (2)
- Postprint (1)
Im Jahre 1999 unterzeichneten Bildungsminister aus 29 europäischen Staaten die sogenannte Bologna-Erklärung. Mit diesem Dokument wurde vereinbart, bis 2010 einen gemeinsamen Europäischen Hochschulraum zu schaffen. Trotz der rechtlichen Unverbindlichkeit der Erklärung erfolgten in den jeweiligen Unterzeichnerstaaten eine Vielzahl von entsprechenden Reformen. Dabei bestehen teilweise erhebliche Unterschiede im Umfang des zu beobachtenden innerstaatlichen Wandels. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, Erklärungsfaktoren für die Varianz dieses innerstaatlichen Wandels zu finden. Diese Untersuchung greift auf bestehende theoretische Arbeiten aus angrenzenden politikwissenschaftlichen Gebieten zurück, da zum Untersuchungsgegenstand Hochschulpolitik bis dato nur wenige systematisch-vergleichende und theoretisch-fundierte Arbeiten vorliegen. Der hier verwendete grundlegende Analyserahmen stammt aus der Europäisierungsforschung. Diese befasst sich mit den innerstaatlichen Auswirkungen von Integrationsprozessen auf europäischer Ebene. Zentrale Annahme ist dabei, dass lediglich eine Diskrepanz (misfit) zwischen europäischer und innerstaatlicher Ebene einen Effekt auf nationale Strukturen haben kann. Solch ein misfit kann entweder zu innerstaatlicher Ressourcenumverteilung oder aber Sozialisationsprozessen führen. Beides resultiert in innerstaatlichem Wandel. Ob es tatsächlich zu derartigen Prozessen kommt und damit auch ein innerstaatlicher Wandel zu beobachten ist hängt von bestimmten innerstaatlichen Faktoren (mediating factors) ab, die den Anpassungsdruck, welcher durch den misfit hervorgerufen wird, filtern. Dazu gehören die Anzahl von Vetopunkten im politischen System eines Landes, der Einfluss der zuständigen Ministerialbürokratie, die politische Kultur eines Landes und das Vorhandensein von norm entrepreneurs bzw. change agents. Außerdem werden zwei Kontrollvariablen auf Basis theoretischer Annahmen aus dem Bereich der vergleichenden policy-Forschung erhoben: der Grad der Wissensbasierung der Ökonomie sowie der globale Integrationsgrad des jeweiligen Landes. Für den Hypothesentest wird auf eine relativ neue Methode zurückgegriffen: die Multi-Value Qualitative Comparative Analysis (MVQCA). Durch die Aussortierung logisch überflüssiger Variablen wird dabei gewährleistet, dass eine hohe Anzahl von Variablen auf Basis relativ weniger Fälle zu untersuchen ist. Untersucht werden sieben Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union (EU), die einen hohen misfit in Bezug auf die Vorgaben der Bologna-Erklärung aufweisen. Schwerpunkt der Analyse bilden die Vorgabe einer zweistufigen Studienstruktur und der output der unterschiedlichen politischen Systeme. Insbesondere zwei Faktoren können dabei den unterschiedlichen Entwicklungsstand des Bologna-Prozesses im Falle eines hohen misfit tatsächlich erklären: die Anzahl der Vetopunkte in einem politischen System sowie der Einfluss der hochschulpolitischen Ministerialbürokratie auf den politischen Entscheidungsprozess. Diese Studie leistet damit einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Erforschung der hochschulpolitischen Anpassungsprozesse in Europa. Darüber hinaus zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass der verwendete Analyseansatz eine geeignete Grundlage für weitere Forschungsvorhaben darstellt. Gerade in Verbindung mit makro-qualitativen Methoden wie MVQCA.
A tale of many stories: explaining policy diffusion between European higher education systems
(2013)
The thesis ”A Tale of Many Stories - Explaining Policy Diffusion between European Higher Education Systems" systematically examines diffusion processes and their effects with regard to a rather neglected policy area – the case of European higher education policy. The thesis contributes to the slowly growing number of comparative and mechanism-based studies on policy diffusion and represents the first study on the diffusion of policies between European Higher Education Systems. The main aim is to contrast and compare testable and coherent explanatory models on the functioning of different diffusion mechanisms. Three sets of explanatory models on the relationship between variables triggering and conditioning diffusion mechanisms and their impact on policy adoption are drawn from mechanism-based thinking on policy diffusion: on learning, socialization, and externalities. These approaches conceptualize the policy process in terms of interdependencies between international and national actors. Explanatory models based on assumptions about domestic policies and the common responses of countries to similar policy problems extend this theoretical framework. The thesis is based on event history modelling of policy change and adoption in higher education systems of 16 West European countries between the yeas 1980 and 1998. Overall 14 policy items describing performance-orientated reforms for public universities ranging from the adoption of external quality assurance systems to tuition fees are examined. Empirically, the main research question is what international, national and policy-specific factors cause and condition diffusion processes and the adoption of public policies? Evidence can be found for and against all of the four theoretical approaches tested. In comparison, many of the assumptions related to interdependencies lack robustness, whereas the common response model is the most stable one. This does not mean that explanatory models based on interdependent decision-making are not suitable for analysing policy diffusion in higher education. Rather interdependency is a multi- dimensional concept that requires a comparative assessment of diffusion mechanisms. Some of explanatory factors based on interdependent decision- making are still supported by the empirical analysis though. From this point of view, the recommendation for analysing diffusion is to start with a model based on domestic politics, that is successively extended by explanatory factors dealing with interdependencies between international and national actors. Diffusion variables matter – but it is only one side of the tale on policy diffusion.
This paper aims to address these problems by dealing with theoretical and methodological questions concerning the national effects of the Bologna Process and the role national factors play in determining the impact of these effects. Altogether the purpose of the paper is to serve as a starting point for future research – both as a guide for systematic and comparative empirical work on higher education, but also for further theoretical and methodological reasoning concerning research on (higher) education policy. As higher education research so far particularly lacks an approach allowing for a competitive and systematic falsification of theoretical arguments by clearly indicating testable and specific hypothesis as well as variables behind the research design (Goedegebuure/Vught 1996) we propose to fall back on neighbouring disciplines, namely social science to improve and enhance the analysis (Slaughter 2001: 398; Altbach 2002: 154; Teichler 1996a: 433, 2005: 448). Several strands of research have to be considered – namely literature on Europeanization as well as insights and approaches of studies dealing with cross-national policy convergence. Taking into account the non-obligatory and mainly intergovernmental character of the Bologna Process the main focus of the paper is on factors related to the effects of transnational communication. The inherent goal is to extend the research agenda on higher education (McLendon 2003: 184ff) and to leave behind the restriction of to analyse only a few cases by striving for a research design that allows for systematic testing and sufficient explanations of cross-national policy convergence at the interface between the Bologna Process and domestic factors.
This chapter focuses on the contributions of German scholars to two of the three main research questions that have defined EU studies. Leaving aside the debate on the drivers of European integration, i.e. European integration theory, we will discuss the «governance turn» Fritz Scharpf, Beate Kohler-Koch, Arthur Benz, Ingeborg Tömmel and others promoted in studying EU institutions as well as the more policy-oriented approaches by Adrienne Héritier and again Fritz Scharpf and their students. We will then address the ever-growing literature on Europeanization on how EU policies, institutions and political processes have been affecting the domestic structures of member states, membership candidates, as well as neighborhood and third countries. In this context, German scholars also contributed to EU studies in what could be coined in methodological rather than substantial terms. Whereas Thomas König, Gerald Schneider, and others promoted the application of quantitative approaches, scientists like Bernhard Ebbinghaus and Markus Haverland dealt with general questions on research designs like case selection and causal inference. Finally, we will also discuss German contributions to diffusion research. The European Union as a most likely case for the diffusion of policies has attracted considerable attention by scholars dealing with the question of when and how policies spread across time and space. So it comes as no surprise that EU studies as well as diffusion research mutually benefitted from each other. In this regard, German scientists like Katharina Holzinger, Christoph Knill, Tanja Börzel, Thomas Plümper, Thomas Risse and others played a prominent role, too.
Mechanism-based thinking on policy diffusion. A review of current approaches in political science
(2011)
Despite theoretical and methodological progress in what is now coined as the third generation of diffusion studies, explicitly dealing with the causal mechanisms underlying diffusion processes and comparatively analyzing them is only of recent date. As a matter of fact, diffusion research has ended up in a diverse and often unconnected array of theoretical assumptions relying both on rational as well as constructivist reasoning – a circumstance calling for more theoretical coherence and consistency. Against this backdrop, this paper reviews and streamlines diffusion literature in political science. Diffusion mechanisms largely cluster around two causal arguments determining the desires and preferences of actors for choosing alternative policies. First, existing diffusion mechanisms accounts can be grouped according to the rationality for policy adoption, this means that government behavior is based on the instrumental considerations of actors or on constructivist arguments like norms and rule-driven actors. Second, diffusion mechanisms can either directly impact on the beliefs of actors or they might influence the structural conditions for decision-making. Following this logic, four basic diffusion mechanisms can be identified in mechanism-based thinking on policy diffusion: emulation, socialization, learning, and externalities.
Although there is a growing interest of policy makers in higher education issues (especially on an international scale), there is still a lack of theoretically well-grounded comparative analyses of higher education policy. Even broadly discussed topics in higher education research like the potential convergence of European higher education systems in the course of the Bologna Process suffer from a thin empirical and comparative basis. This paper aims to deal with these problems by addressing theoretical questions concerning the domestic impact of the Bologna Process and the role national factors play in determining its effects on cross-national policy convergence. It develops a distinct theoretical approach for the systematic and comparative analysis of cross-national policy convergence. In doing so, it relies upon insights from related research areas — namely literature on Europeanization as well as studies dealing with cross-national policy convergence.