Bridges of Knowledge – the optimal solution!

Statssekretær Jens Revolds tale ved SIU’s Biennial Conference: Rethinking Internationalisation of Higher Education: Evidence of Quality and Strategic Directions? Arranged by SIU  25. oktober 2007,   Solstrand Hotel, Os ved Bergen.

Bridges of Knowledge – the optimal solution!

Ladies and gentlemen! Dear friends! 

First of all: my sincere thanks to the Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Higher Education (SIU) for hosting this conference.  Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity – which, as it happens, is my first formal duty as State Secretary - to address you here today.  The topic is very important to all of us: The quality perspective of higher education. 

I was myself a member of of the NUFU committee (a subsidiary under the SIU-umbrella), in fact from as early as 1989 up to 1994 representing the University of Tromsø. As many of you know, NUFU is responsible for University cooperation between Norwegian universities and universities in the south. I also participated in NUFU start-up conference in Harare in 1991 chaired by Magne Lerheim.  

Given the size and geographical localization of Norway, it is ages since we learned that good connections and collaboration with our neighbouring countries and other areas of the world, are of great importance to our nations growth and prosperity. In earlier days, it was mostly attached to traditional industry goods and alliances in order to secure our borders and our freedom. This is of course still very important to us, but our future position as a welfare state is also increasingly dependent on how successful we are in a world-wide knowledge society. And as I said, we have lessons learned in the past, mostly through Nordic and European collaboration, but also from the growing world-wide market. As the internationalisation becomes stronger, we have to face the fact that we are indissolubly attached and dependent on our relationship with the rest of the world. This is also the case when it comes to higher education and research. Every institution for higher learning in Norway has a selection of international study programmes and international research possibilities – including development research and third world co-operation. These are activities necessary to attract good students and academics – and to pay back to our international partners in all fields and areas.

SIU is on behalf of the Norwegian authorities an active agent in this as it managing 25 smaller and up to very comprehensive international co-operation programmes of around 300 MNOKs annually. This is very impressive I must say, compared to a very modest start in 1991. 

Together, the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers engage in the most comprehensive regional co-operation to be found in Europe. Their political collaboration is based on common values and the will to achieve results that contribute to the dynamism of the Region and make it more effective and competitive. In an increasingly globalised economy, the Region is now developing even closer internal co-operation, and facilitating more freedom of movement for both people and companies, in an open and flexible Nordic market. As for higher education and research, we have a long tradition for collaboration both on institutional, regional and national level. Almost every Nordic higher education institution are participating in the Nordic mobility- and network programme Nordplus, founded in 1988. And from 2008, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania will join this programme on equal terms. We have several Nordic Centres of Excellence and recently, we have established an advisory body on Nordic research policy called NordForsk. I would also like to mention the Nordic Masters programme, starting this year. The response was so huge that we had to double the financial input at once. I think that the Nordic regional experience can be of interest and inspiration both to the rest of Europe and to other parts of the world. 

To be successful globally, is to compete with the best actors at all times – and therefore, the key word is quality. Internationalisation has been re-framed as a major instrument for the general objective of improving the quality of higher education, in both its teaching and learning aspects and in its research function. Internationalisation is also emphasised both as a means to ensure quality in higher education and a means to improve research quality in a much broader sense. In other words, the quality of national higher education and research shall be measured by international standards, and not with reference to national standards alone. 

We need quality in higher education in general – but preferably above average to be sure of success. And to me it is obvious that quality in higher education is closely related to internationalisation – and to openness, sharing, collaboration and competition. That is why Norway so strongly has supported and still is very much involved in the Bologna Process. The Process was of great importance for the Quality Reform in Norway and its implementation from 2003. We do believe in closer collaboration between European institutions both for students, academic staff and for the administrative staff as well. As politicians – we will do our very best to establish and ensure the framework needed. This is the idea of the creation of a European Higher Education Area within the year 2010. Furthermore, to avoid Europe being a future education fortress – so to speak, a global dimension was launched at the Bologna ministerial meeting in Bergen in 2005. As a result of this initiative, Norway chaired the Bologna Follow-up Working Group making a strategy document on how a European Higher Education Area could collaborate with the rest of the world. The Strategy was adopted by the ministers in London in May this year, and has five core policy areas: 

1.    Improving Information on the EHEA

2.    Promoting European Higher Education to enhance its world-wide attractiveness and competitiveness

3.    Strengthening Cooperation based on partnership

4.    Intensifying policy dialogue

5.    Furthering recognition of qualifications 

The Ministers have asked for a specific focus on information and the recognition of qualifications for the next two years. This work will be seen in relation to the OECD/UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education, and Norway will of course participate actively in this very important follow-up work. 

The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) is playing a central role in the shaping of the European higher educational landscape. The importance and potential of the organisation was spotted early on in its history by the European Ministers of Education - who in the 2001 Prague meeting invited ENQA to collaborate in establishing a common framework of reference for quality assurance.  

Since then the organisation’s position within the Bologna Process has been further strengthened, both through substantial inputs, such as the drafting of "Standards and Guidelines” and formally through being accepted as a consultative member of the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG). 

Establishing The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT), was an important step in the work on quality assurance in Norway. Significant greater autonomy in managing and organising its activities had been given to the higher education institutions through the Quality Reform. It gave the higher education institutions freedom to establish new study programmes within certain limits. 

However, the right to establish new programmes presupposes that the quality assurance system of the institution has been approved by NOKUT. This kind of quality assurance system places the responsibility for quality assurance on the universities and colleges themselves. 

This is, in my opinion, very important, because this places the responsibility of quality as well as the quality development in higher education firmly with the institutions themselves. Quality assurance should, and must be, the responsibility of the higher education institutions; not the responsibility of an agency, not the responsibility of the Ministry, but rooted in the institutions themselves, and in the various departments and sections which constitute the institution.   

Increased institutional autonomy in Norway has been followed by a much stronger emphasis on quality in higher education. The two go hand in hand, and the establishment of NOKUT and the formalised procedures of quality assurance in Norwegian higher education, are the results. NOKUT marks the loosening of ties between political and purely academic decisions.  

This does not in any way take away the fact that the overall responsibility for the quality of the Norwegian higher education system as a whole lies with the Ministry. We are responsible for the system and for making certain that the system works as intended.  

This is one of the reasons why we have decided that an evaluation of NOKUT will be carried out in 2007, we need to make sure that the system we have established works accordingly to plan. The evaluation has two objectives: The first objective is to examine whether NOKUT meets the “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area” adopted by the higher education ministers at the ministerial meeting of the Bologna Process in Bergen in May 2005. The second objective is to evaluate the national role of NOKUT in the Norwegian educational system. It is important to scrutinize the system, in order to make sure that, after nearly 5 years in operation, the system works as intended. Maybe there are simply adjustments that need to be made, but if there are, this might be the way to find them! 

Moving to the European arena, the Bologna ministers stated in the London Communiqué in May 2007, that the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) have been a powerful driver of change in relation to quality assurance, and we encouraged continued international co-operation amongst quality assurance agencies.  

Aristotle said about friendship: “Wishing to be friends is quick work, but friendship is a slow ripening fruit.” I believe this to be a fair statement when it comes to cooperation as well, and particularly so when it comes to international cooperation. On my own account I would like to add the need for a certain amount of determination and meticulous work in order to achieve results. The work ENQA is doing in promoting European co-operation in the field of quality assurance is not a banal thing, but an important stitch in the continuing patchwork of keeping Europe a learned and peaceful place. 

The global educational landscape is changing, in a way that could well be described as a tectonic shift. Within two decades the global higher education enterprise could have more than doubled in size, being predominantly based in what today we call developing countries, and present a greater diversity of both providers and provision. Meaningful academic relationships are those that give real and equal access to global knowledge resources and networks. We want first-class universities, and that must be achieved through a full membership in the academic world with its strict standards and benchmarks. We must apply the same quality standards and expect the same high-class output in whatever country the institutions are. This is, after all, the only way to make sure that partnerships have the quality effects for both partners. The second aspect is the relations with global education policy. Norway has ambitions to make a difference in education. We are actively involved in UNESCO and its “Education for All” programme, we try to make the GATS negotiations on education more development friendly, we play an important role in the OECD education activities and we have been in the forefront in the European Bologna Process, in particular the work on its Global Dimension, as mentioned. 

So, notwithstanding the tremendously important work being carried out and which continues to be carried out on quality assurance in a European perspective, I would strongly argue for a continued and increased focus on the global dimension of higher education and quality assurance. The “new” and huge rising economies, like China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia, is a challenge in many aspects. They are offering low-cost labour, but also well developed high quality education programmes and research opportunities. They will be more and more attractive to European students and academic staff. 

But there is obviously a need for enhanced higher education co-operation with non-European countries. This should, in my opinion, be one of the core perspectives now and especially after 2010 – when we more or less have an established European Higher Education Area. 

How will the world ensure the quality of such a vast enterprise? How are governments to protect their citizens from fraudulent providers and bogus qualifications, especially when they emanate from another country? Cross-border higher education makes students particularly vulnerable.  How can we create an international ethic of integrity and quality assurance?  What about brain drain, brain gain or brain circulation in this international perspective of education and research? I am sure that these questions will find some answers in your discussions the next couple of days. 

To conclude this key note: My most important message is that  we must face internationalisation of education and research – with the same standards of quality as we have always strived for at home. It is only through international collaboration we can develop and ensure the best quality education and research systems for students, academics and administrative staff. There are many options for how and when – but I am sure that Bridges of Knowledge – all over the world – is the optimal solution. 

All the best for the SIU Conference! Thank you for your attention.