This article was downloaded by: [The University of Texas at El Paso]On: 19 August 2014, At: 17:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tertiary Education and ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20

The Devil in the Detail: Contradictorynational requirements and Bolognamaster degreesCristina Sin aa CIPES (Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies) ,PortugalPublished online: 05 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Cristina Sin (2013) The Devil in the Detail: Contradictory nationalrequirements and Bologna master degrees, Tertiary Education and Management, 19:1, 16-31, DOI:10.1080/13583883.2012.738241

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2012.738241

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Devil in the Detail: Contradictory

national requirements and Bologna

master degrees

Cristina Sin*CIPES (Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies), Portugal

(Received 29 May 2012; final version received 3 October 2012)

This article compares the national-level requirements for master degree provision in England,

Denmark and Portugal following the implementation of the Bologna Process, and ponders upon

the reconcilability of these requirements in cross-national initiatives (e.g. joint degrees). In all

three countries, master degrees have to comply with the national qualification frameworks,

which have been verified against the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Edu-

cation Area. Other regulations apply, however. In Denmark and Portugal, higher education

degrees are tightly regulated by legislation, while the Academic Infrastructure developed by the

Quality Assurance Agency in the UK acts as a broad reference for degree design, giving English

institutions a high degree of freedom. Findings reveal the existence of contradictory require-

ments which have arisen further to policy adaptations, made possible by the non-legally binding

character of Bologna and its loose policy mechanisms.

Keywords: master degree; Bologna Process; implementation; comparability; joint degrees

Introduction

The Bologna Declaration was signed in 1999 by the higher education ministers

from 29 European countries, officially launching the Bologna Process. Its over-

arching aim was the establishment of the European Higher Education Area

(EHEA) by 2010 through the pursuit of a wide range of objectives. Bologna’s

endeavours to generate more synergy between national higher education systems

have resulted in the transformations of the higher education sectors of signatory

*CIPES (Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies), Rua Primeiro de Dezembro 399,

4450-227, Matosinhos, Portugal. Email: csin@cipes.up.pt

Tertiary Education and Management, 2013

Vol. 19, No. 1, 16–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2012.738241

� 2013 European Higher Education Society

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

countries, including reorganisation of degree structures, new qualifications, quality

assurance reforms and increased emphasis on lifelong learning.

Two of the Bologna objectives which have received most attention have been

the adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees, and the adop-

tion of a two-cycle system (later the doctorate was added as a third cycle). None-

theless, during the following decade, it emerged that, although structural

convergence had increased, the Bologna Process would not achieve the extent of

degree comparability envisaged at the very start (Alesi, Burger, Kehm, & Teichler,

2005; Kehm & Teichler, 2006). An example of the variation still present in Euro-

pean higher education systems is the master degree. Howard Davies argues that

although a master template is emerging, great diversity still characterises its

provision (2009). Plausible explanations could be the flexibility embedded in the

generic qualification markers of the Framework for Qualifications of the European

Higher Education Area (FQ-EHEA)—Dublin descriptors and credit

ranges—respecting the idea of convergence which replaced harmonisation in the

move from the 1998 Sorbonne Declaration to the 1999 Bologna Declaration. This

flexibility has led to a range of national approaches to the implementation of

master degrees, as testified by several comparative studies in Bologna signatory

countries (Alesi et al., 2005; H. Davies, 2009; W. Davies, 2007; Tauch &

Rauhvargers, 2002).

Against this backdrop, the research concern of this article is to examine the

national requirements for the implementation of master degrees in England (the

UK will be referred to when requirements apply to the UK as a whole rather than

to England only), Portugal and Denmark, and the ensuing consequences for

degree comparability. First, Bologna Process policy mechanisms are considered in

the light of policy theories, as they provide an explanatory framework to under-

stand policy outcomes. Second, the evidence base is presented. Next, the Bologna

recommendations for the second cycle are considered. There follows a compara-

tive examination of several dimensions contained in national requirements in the

three countries: master typologies and titles; credit ranges; learning outcomes as

qualification descriptors; curricular aspects (e.g. degree composition, assessment

and so on). The conclusion reflects on the findings and the implications for com-

parability and joint degree initiatives.

Loose Policy

Cerych and Sabatier (1986) identify a number of factors that condition policy suc-

cess: goal clarity; adequacy of “causal theory” (i.e. the causal flow of processes to

reach the policy aims); appropriate policy tools; financial resources; and so on.

However, the assumption that the fulfilment of a range of conditions will lead to

the desired outcomes has been subject to criticism, including by Cerych and

Sabatier themselves who acknowledge the difficulty of applying top-down

implementation theory to higher education. They state that higher education

reform poses special challenges derived from the many autonomous actors present,

Contradictory National Requirements and Bologna Master Degrees 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

multiple interests and the diffusion of authority throughout the structure, render-

ing higher education “bottom-heavy”.

Cerych and Sabatier’s approach has also been criticised for adopting a rational

understanding of organisations, neglecting implementation actors and

underestimating their capacities and strategies to adapt policy to their own

purposes (Gornitzka, Kyvik, & Stensaker, 2005). The approach assumes that

intentions are formulated at the highest level, arise from a coherent clear vision in

response to a problem and are followed by smooth enactment. Such a rational-

purposive model, as Trowler (2002) calls it, is often the view policy-makers tend

to adopt, failing to acknowledge the way stakeholders on the ground actually

respond to policies. Countering this linear view of policy, other frameworks of

understanding have been put forward which acknowledge the “messiness” of pol-

icy implementation and the variety of ways in which actors adapt and react to pol-

icy. These emphasise the complexity of the policy process, confounded by various

forces and interests operating simultaneously, and shaped through negotiation,

compromise and different interpretations (Ball, 1994; Bowe, Ball, & Gold, 1992;

Gornitzka, Kogan, & Amaral, 2005; Ozga, 2000; Reynolds & Saunders, 1987;

Trowler, 2002; Trowler, Saunders, & Knight, 2004).

The Bologna Process is an example of an educational policy which has been criti-

cised for adopting a rationalistic, linear implementation perspective, being little effec-

tive in achieving its intended outcomes (Amaral, Neave, Musselin, & Maassen,

2009; Gornitzka et al., 2005). Goal clarity, causal theory and dedicated financial

resources—factors identified by Cerych and Sabatier as leading to success—hardly

appear to apply to Bologna policy. Furthermore, Bologna is non-statutory, but

steered by loose policy mechanisms through the Open Method of Coordination.

Despite the momentum of the process, this method has proved inefficient in ensuring

actual coordination and convergence, as shown by Veiga and Amaral (2006). Ques-

tioning the efficiency of Bologna as a linear policy process, the authors show how

reforms pursued under its umbrella have actually been driven by national interests.

It is, therefore, an actor-centred approach that this article adopts, acknowledg-

ing that policy is interpreted and adapted by its recipients, made as it is enacted.

Three cases of national implementation of the master degree—shaped by national

tradition—are analysed in the context of the freedom of manoeuvre allowed by

Bologna, as a multi-national initiative steered by loose policy.

The Evidence Base

The three country cases—England, Portugal and Denmark—were chosen in order

to have different country profiles: first, regarding their perceived levels of engage-

ment with Bologna (high in the case of Portugal and Denmark and low in the case

of England); second, their pedagogic orientation (student-centred in England and

Denmark, and teacher-centred in Portugal); third, their geographic location.

The article draws on an analysis of policy documents related to Bologna: legisla-

tion, reference documents, reports, position papers and so on, in English, Danish

18 C. Sin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

and Portuguese. These documents were analysed in search of information on the

implementation of the master degree and the nationally set conditions for its provi-

sion. It must be noted that the scope of this article is limited to national policies

bearing on the implementation of the master degree. The institutional level, where

perspectives and actual enactment could reveal a different reality, is not considered

here.

Bologna Second-Cycle Recommendations

Trends 2010 notes the introduction of the master degree across Europe in the last

decade as a new, separate second-cycle qualification which has proved to be very

flexible and is defined differently depending on institutional and national contexts

(Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 19). A number of Bologna-related or European

reference documents characterise the degree: the conclusions of the 2003 Helsinki

conference on master degrees, the Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA, the

ECTS Users’ Guide (European Commission, 2009), and, for specific disciplines,

the Tuning project findings for master degrees. As suggested earlier, these refer-

ence points provide flexible high-level recommendations—credit ranges and learn-

ing outcomes—enabling national and institutional adaptation. Moreover, they are

non-prescriptive, since Bologna is steered by soft law rather than being a legal

agreement. A brief overview of these guidelines follows.

As regards credits, the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

(ECTS) is based on the principle that 60 ECTS credits are equivalent to the

workload of a full-time academic year of formal learning and the associated learn-

ing outcomes (European Commission, 2009). In England, a parallel credit system

exists, compatible with the ECTS, as explained in the sub-section on Credit ranges.

Further to a survey of master degrees in Europe, Tauch and Rauhvargers (2002)

recommended that the EHEA bachelor–master sequence should require, “nor-

mally the completion of 300 ECTS credits, of which at least 60 should be

obtained at the graduate level” (p. 7). The recommendation was based on evi-

dence of trends towards the master being commonly awarded after five years of

study (counting also the undergraduate years). The 2003 Helsinki conference on

master degrees, building on Tauch and Rauhvargers’ report, recommended that a

master should carry between 90 and 120 ECTS credits, with 60 normally assigned

to one academic year. It further stated the minimum requirements for master

degrees as 60 ECTS credits because, “as the length and the content of bachelor

degrees vary, there is a need to have similar flexibility at the master level” (Confer-

ence on Master-level Degrees, 2003, p. 5). The FQ-EHEA recommendation

states, too, that second-cycle qualifications typically include 90–120 ECTS credits,

with minimum 60 ECTS credits at the level of the second cycle. So does the

ECTS Users’ Guide (European Commission, 2009, p. 16).

This flexibility has translated into diverse degree organisation models based on

the bachelor–master progression, as indicated by several comparative studies of

master degrees in Europe (Alesi et al., 2005; H. Davies, 2009; W. Davies, 2007;

Contradictory National Requirements and Bologna Master Degrees 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Tauch & Rauhvargers, 2002). Findings point to 3+2, 4+1, 4+2 and 3+1 patterns.

There is no consensus about the dominant model. Researchers mainly indicate the

prominence of 3+2 (W. Davies, 2007; Kehm & Teichler, 2006; Tauch, 2004), but

more recent research also mentions 4+2 (Birtwistle, 2009) or five or more years of

study (H. Davies, 2009). Howard Davies describes the length of the master as an

issue that “looms large in the minds of those implementing the changes” (2009, p.

33). Trends 2010 points to evidence of “an erroneous belief … in some quarters”

that the FQ-EHEA requires a 3+2 or 180 ECTS+120 ECTS model, or a cumula-

tive total of 300 ECTS for first and second cycle (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 60).

In addition to credit ranges, another aspect which distinguishes master pro-

grammes from other qualifications is the level of student attainment. Included in

the FQ-EHEA are the Dublin descriptors, criteria determining at which point in

their learning journey students reach the levels corresponding to the three cycles.

These indicate learning outcomes and competences for each cycle. For the second

cycle, students must demonstrate the following learning outcomes:

• Knowledge and understanding founded and building on the first cycle, providing

opportunity for originality in developing and/or applying ideas, often in a

research context.

• Application of knowledge, understanding and problem-solving abilities in new

environments within broader contexts related to their field of study.

• Ability to integrate knowledge, handle complexity and formulate judgements

with incomplete information, while reflecting on social and ethical

responsibilities.

• Ability to communicate conclusions, and the knowledge and rationale

underpinning these, to specialist and non-specialist audiences.

• Learning skills to allow them to continue studying in a largely self-directed or

autonomous manner (Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks,

2005).

Next, consideration will be given to how these overarching recommendations

have been transposed in the implementation of the master in England, Portugal

and Denmark.

National Regulations and/or Guidelines for the Post-Bologna Master

In England, the Bologna Process has not triggered changes to the degree framework,

already organised in three cycles. The one-year master degree, as a post-graduate

qualification, gained momentum in the 1980s in a context of political debate around

students’ preparedness to pursue Ph.D.s and around the purpose of postgraduate

education. The master was promoted as a means of facilitating a progressive transi-

tion from undergraduate degrees to the Ph.D. (Becher, Henkel, & Kogan, 1994).

There are no national legal prescriptions regarding degree design and delivery.

While enjoying a large degree of autonomy, English higher education institutions

must take into account the Academic Infrastructure, which is currently being

20 C. Sin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

reformulated into the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. The Academic

Infrastructure consists of a set of reference points developed by the Quality Assur-

ance Agency (QAA) comprising the national qualifications framework, subject

benchmark statements (mostly for bachelor programmes, although some exist for

integrated masters), guidelines for programme specifications and a code of practice

for the assurance of quality and standards. In addition, a recently elaborated docu-

ment, Master’s Degree Characteristics (Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2010),

offers guidance on the design and delivery of master degrees. It is, however, meant

not to “straightjacket current provision, but rather to reflect it”. (Note: In

England, the term “master’s” is used to designate the degree. However, given the

common European usage of the term “master”, this is the one used throughout

this paper, except in the case of publication titles containing “master’s” or direct

references to such publications.)

In contrast, both Portugal and Denmark passed legislation following the Bolo-

gna Process to regulate the three cycles and implement Bologna reforms, such as

the ECTS system or the Diploma Supplement. Higher education institutions must

comply with these legal requirements for the design and provision of degrees.

In Portugal, Decree-Law 42/2005 stipulated the use of ECTS and the Diploma

Supplement (Ministerio da Inovacao, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, 2005). Then,

Law 49/2005 (Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, 2005)

brought an amendment to the Basic Law of the Education System, replacing the

previous four academic degrees (bacharelato, licenciatura, master and doctorate)

with three (licenciatura, master and doctorate). To follow, Decree-Law 74/2006

(Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, 2006) regulated the organi-

sation of degrees according to the Bologna three-cycle structure, defined by stu-

dent competences based on the Dublin descriptors and by credit ranges.

In Denmark, ECTS was made compulsory in 2001 and the Diploma Supple-

ment in 2002 (Danish Rectors’ Conference, 2002). The 2003 University Act

(Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling, 2003) regulated the pro-

grammes universities could offer in agreement with the three Bologna cycles. These

were ECTS-based and structured as 3+2+3. Even though a 3+2 bachelor–master

structure had already existed in theory since 1993, it was not implemented in prac-

tice, since the great majority of students pursued a master. The 2004 Ministerial

order on bachelor and master’s programmes (candidatus) at universities (Ministeriet for

Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling, 2004b) defined in detail these two degrees

regarding purpose, organisation, entry requirements, types, curricula and so on.

Master Typologies and Titles

As indicated earlier, Trends 2010 describes the master degree as a new and flexible

qualification displaying different national and institutional interpretations across

Europe. Consequently, it has been invested with various purposes, as corroborated

by the findings of the recent European master degrees survey which lists the

following types:

Contradictory National Requirements and Bologna Master Degrees 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

• Academic master and, respectively, professional master used in binary systems to

distinguish university-based programmes from professional degrees awarded by

non-university higher education institutions.

• Consecutive or continuation master, following immediately, or soon after, a bache-

lor qualification in the same discipline.

• Conversion master, undertaken in a discipline other than that studied for the

bachelor.

• Joint master, delivered by two or more higher education institutions.

• Lifelong master, used in some systems to designate second-cycle provision deliv-

ered separately from the consecutive master (Davies, 2009, pp. 12, 13).

The variety of designations is deemed to hinder transparency, hence Davies (2009)

identifies better readability as a priority. He proposes a series of markers indicating

the salient features of master programmes, and urges countries to start making

efforts towards their adoption so as to make the degree more transparent across

Europe (p. 69). In the three countries, the picture is as follows.

Great diversity characterises English master degrees. In 1996, the massive

growth and diversification of postgraduate degrees led to a postgraduate review

documented in the Harris Report. Voicing concerns about the profusion of qualifi-

cations and the confusion around nomenclature, this recommended eight qualifica-

tion titles. For master degrees, it suggested a small set of generic titles: “perhaps

MA and MSc, for postgraduate courses containing an element of personal work

which is externally examined” and “quite specific subject masters titles (for exam-

ple, MEcon, MPharm) for advanced taught courses lacking such an element”

(Harris, 1996, p. 4). Although having occupied a clear position since The Frame-

work for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

(FHEQ-EWNI) was elaborated in 2001, the master level comprises a variety of

degrees.

QAA’s Master’s Degree Characteristics (2010) states that there are no nationally

agreed types. Awards with similar titles can vary in nature both between institu-

tions and across disciplines, a reflection of institutional autonomy. However, it

identifies three broad types of masters (taught, research and professional):

• Specialised/advanced study master (Master of Arts [MA], MSc, MRes, integrated)

enabling students to focus on a particular aspect of a broader subject area in

which they have previous prior knowledge or experience; or on a particular sub-

ject area in greater depth than during previous study or experience (i.e. a new

discipline); and to learn how to conduct research (often with a greater emphasis

on structured learning as opposed to independent study).

• Research master (MPhil)—enabling students to undertake a research project.

• Professional/Practice master (MBA, MEd, etc.)—enabling students to specialise in

an area of employment related to a particular profession.

The MA granted by the University of Cambridge and University of Oxford is not

to be mistaken for a master degree, as it is not an academic qualification. It is nor-

22 C. Sin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

mally granted to graduates of these universities who hold a Bachelor of Arts, on

application, but requires no further study.

In Portugal, three types of degree are stipulated in legislation. First, Decree-Law

74/2006 distinguishes between university and polytechnic master degrees. The uni-

versity master envisages academic specialisation with recourse to research, innova-

tion or expansion of professional competences. The polytechnic master emphasises

professional specialisation. In addition, there are integrated masters (offered in

universities only) facilitating access to the practice of an established profession.

In Denmark, there is only one type of master degree in higher education provi-

sion: the candidatus, thoroughly regulated by the 2004 Ministerial order on bachelor

and master’s programmes (candidatus) at universities. Although it stipulates different

candidatus designations by discipline (e.g. cand.mag., cand.econ., etc.), all pro-

grammes belong to one category, are supposed to be research-based and have to

comply with the same requirements. Alongside the candidatus, there exists the

one-year professional master (master) which, although offered at the second-cycle

level, differs from the former in purpose, length, funding regime, access to further

study, etc. It is a vocationally oriented degree for adults in continuing education,

enabling them to study while working, of typically two years’ part-time study

(equivalent to a full-time year and 60 ECTS credits), and does not grant access to

a Ph.D. It also falls under different legislation.

This overview suggests that the typologies in the three countries have little

correspondence between each other. A diversity of unregulated degree types,

broadly classified as taught, research and professional, exist in England, against

the candidatus only, tightly defined by legislation, in Denmark. In Portugal, the

classification is between academic degrees, polytechnic ones and integrated degrees

(granting access to an established profession). Even when denominations suggest

similarity, these are misleading. Thus, the professional master in England, the

polytechnic master in Portugal or the professional master in Denmark can hardly

be claimed to be equivalent. It is also difficult to see, for instance, how the only

master degree in Danish higher education (candidatus), academic and research-

based, can map against some of the master types in Portugal and England.

Credit Ranges

In England, a national system is in operation, with two credits corresponding in

everyday practice to one ECTS credit. The Higher Education Credit Framework for

England from 2008 was developed as a “permissive framework” to guide those

who wish to implement the use of credit. The application of national guidelines on

credit is a matter for individual institutions to decide on at their discretion. These

have freedom to opt for either UK or ECTS credits. The framework was designed

to align with the FQ-EHEA and refers to the Bologna developments associated

with the ECTS. It stipulates the typical minimum credit allocation for master

degrees as 180 credits (corresponding to 90 ECTS credits), of which at least 150

(75 ECTS credits) must be at master level. For integrated masters, the total

Contradictory National Requirements and Bologna Master Degrees 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

allocation is 480 credits (240 ECTS credits), with at least 120 (60 ECTS credits)

at master level. The credit framework is premised on the concept of learning out-

comes rather than years of study: credits assigned are based on the approximate

number of hours a typical student is expected to spend to achieve the intended

learning outcomes.

Master’s Degree Characteristics gives, however, indications of duration. Most

degrees (MA, MSc, and MRes) last one calendar year (12 months) of full-time

study, explaining the allocation of 180 credits (90 ECTS credits). Integrated

master degrees (common in science, mathematics and engineering) are awarded on

completion of a four-year programme (five years in Scotland) combining a bachelor

degree with study at master level. MPhil programmes, dominantly research-

oriented, last 12–24 months, while professional masters have a variety of durations.

In Portugal, Law 74/2006 stipulates that a master degree should comprise 90–

120 ECTS credits (3–4 curricular semesters). Exceptionally, it can comprise 60

credits (two semesters) “following a stable and internationally consolidated prac-

tice in that specialist field”. Additionally, the integrated master, awarded only in

universities, consists of an integrated cycle of studies of 300–360 ECTS credits,

normally lasting 10–12 semesters. Its duration will be determined by EU legal

standards or by consolidated practice in a profession within the EU.

In Denmark, according to the Ministerial order on bachelor and master’s

programmes (candidatus) at universities the candidatus is allocated 120 ECTS credits

(60 corresponding to one full-time year). The exceptions are degrees in Medicine

with 180 ECTS credits and Veterinary Medicine with 150 ECTS credits.

It is worth noting that, in both Denmark and Portugal, credits and duration char-

acterise degrees together. In contrast, FHEQ-EWNI (QAA, 2008) states that its

fundamental premise is: “that qualifications should be awarded on the basis of

achievement of outcomes and attainment rather than years of study” (p. 2), as was

also shown in the case of the credit framework and the linkage between credit and

outcomes. The shorter duration of the UK one-year master has faced criticism from

continental Europe (Kehm & Teichler, 2006; Tauch, 2004; Witte, 2006), except

the master in Scotland which was not deemed contentious given the Scottish 4+1

bachelor-master structure (Johnson & Wolf, 2008). However, Scottish students

leave secondary education and, therefore, enrol into higher education a year earlier

than in England, which leads to the longer duration of the undergraduate degree.

Such criticisms of the master’s duration generated anxiety in the UK about percep-

tions that the degree is light-weight and less rigorous (Europe Unit, 2004), and

about the threat that such perceptions might pose to the reputation and competi-

tiveness of UK higher education (Bone, 2008; Cemmell & Bekhradnia, 2008;

Davies, 2009; House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, 2007; Johnson

& Wolf, 2008; Smith, 2010; The Royal Society, 2008). Student achievement of

learning outcomes has been the main argument for the defence of shorter degrees.

Therefore, credits and duration could be issues of dissent. The three countries

present different patterns. While Portuguese legislation allows a flexible range of

90–120 ECTS credits, comparability between England and Denmark might be

24 C. Sin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

problematic for joint initiatives. An English master, while it could go up to 120

ECTS credits in theory, would face financial problems in practice, with students

having to pay additional fees, already unequalled in other European countries. A

Danish master would have no flexibility to reduce the amount of ECTS credits,

since 120 are stipulated in legislation.

Learning Outcomes

The national qualifications frameworks suggest that learning outcomes have been

implemented in the three countries alike. They have all been certified against the

FQ-EHEA, and demonstrate how the learning outcomes corresponding to national

master degrees match the Dublin descriptors for the second cycle (Danish Evalua-

tion Institute, 2009, p. 39; International Committee, 2011, p. 57; QAA, 2009, p.

52). Only small differences emerge in the formulation of the degree’s learning out-

comes: different groupings of learning outcomes; a greater emphasis on research in

the Danish framework; and a specific reference to employment in the English

framework through a discrete section on the “qualities and transferable skills” nec-

essary for this purpose. However, as Sin (2012) reports, master graduates’ research

skills and the purposes with which these are invested are understood differently in

the three countries.

As previously mentioned, learning outcomes emerge as the key qualification

descriptor in the UK. In addressing the criticism of shorter masters, “relatively

compressed” in relation to programmes elsewhere, a recent postgraduate review

(Smith, 2010) urges higher education institutions to demonstrate that the learning

outcomes of a one-year course are aligned with those offered elsewhere, and that

the UK degree is “both rigorous and challenging” (Smith, 2010, p. 40). Length,

therefore, does not appear as a favoured currency to describe qualifications in the

UK. It is by emphasising learning outcomes that one-year master degrees claim to

be on a par with longer degrees.

In Portugal, the implementation of the Bologna Process also involved the adop-

tion of a learning outcomes approach, not traditionally characteristic of Portuguese

higher education. The term competences (rather than learning outcomes) is

employed for the results of student learning. Competences receive extensive atten-

tion in official documents. For instance, Decree-Law 74/2006 makes repeated

mentions to their centrality in the new organisation of studies, and states that:

a core issue in the Bologna Process is the transition from a passive education para-

digm based on the acquisition of knowledge to a model based on the development of

competences, both generic—instrumental, interpersonal and systemic—and specifi-

cally associated with the training area. (Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Ensino

Superior, 2006, p. 6)

At the same time, this shift is identified as a challenge for institutions. Each of the

three cycles is then characterised with respect to the envisaged student competenc-

es based on the Dublin descriptors.

Contradictory National Requirements and Bologna Master Degrees 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

In Denmark the 2004 Ministerial order on bachelor and master’s programmes (can-

didatus) at universities requires programme specifications to indicate “academic and

vocational skills acquired during the programme”. The revision of programme

specifications based on learning outcomes altered the focus from the input compo-

nents of degrees (i.e. content) to student learning output. While a student-centred

pedagogic mindset was already present in Danish higher education, Bologna came,

however, to articulate the concept of learning outcomes. According to the self-certifi-

cation report for the national qualifications framework, institutions: “have, to a

greater or lesser extent, gained experience in transforming level descriptors into

tangible learning outcomes for individual programmes, modules and courses”;

however, many find this exercise “very demanding and difficult” (Danish Evalua-

tion Institute, 2009, p. 30).

Therefore, the learning outcomes as defined in national qualifications frame-

works do not appear to represent obstacles to degree comparability or the creation

of joint degrees. However, practical aspects, i.e. the extent to which they are

understood, valued and embedded, might pose some challenges.

Curricular Aspects

This section discusses requirements related to degree composition and curriculum.

It is not exhaustive, but emphasises those aspects which add national specificity

and might represent obstacles to comparability and joint degrees.

In England, the institutional autonomy principle applies again. Master’s Degrees

Characteristics states that providers will define the curricular content depending on

the degree’s intended purposes, referring to the traditional research/taught distinc-

tion: degrees awarded on the basis of an independent research project vs. those

where structured learning represents the majority of the curriculum. However,

master degrees may draw upon a combination of delivery methods as appropriate

to the programme’s overall aims (QAA, 2010, p. 7). In relation to teaching, learn-

ing and assessment methods, these will be identified in programme specifications

and are normally supported by an integrated teaching, learning and assessment

strategy, demonstrating the appropriateness of the methods used in relation to the

intended learning outcomes.

In contrast, in Portugal and Denmark, legal regulations act much more like a

straightjacket. In Denmark, the Ministerial order on bachelor and master’s programmes

(candidatus) at universities stipulates that master degrees are research-based pro-

grammes. They comprise the central subject with a minimum of 90 ECTS credits

(including the thesis) and an elective subject with minimum 10 ECTS credits.

The thesis must amount to minimum 30 ECTS credits, but can go up to 60 if it

is experimental in nature. The thesis must document skills in applying academic

theory and methods to a specific academic subject. Master programmes must con-

sist of modules which have to ensure student choice between skills profiles relevant

to a variety of professions.

26 C. Sin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

In Portugal, the master programme must contain a specialised course consisting

of: (a) an organised set of curricular units amounting to minimum 50% of the total

number of credits and (b) a scientific dissertation, or original work project, or pro-

fessional work placement with minimum 35% of credits. This contrasts with the

research-based nature of the Danish thesis. In order to obtain accreditation, pro-

Table 1. Differences in the implementation of the master degree

England Portugal Denmark

Qualification

descriptors

90 ECTS (at least 75 at

M level)

90–120 ECTS

(exceptionally 60 in

fields with established

practice)

120 ECTS (60 for one

academic year)

One full calendar year 3–4 semesters 2 years

Learning

outcomes—central

descriptor

Learning

outcomes—discourse

rather than embedded

practice

Learning outcomes—new

practice, still challenging

Credit linked to

learning outcome

Credit linked to

duration

Credit linked to duration

Types Taught (M.Sc., MA,

MRes, integrated)

University master

(academic)

Academic

master—candidatus

(theoretical/methodological

knowledge and skills)

Research (M.Phil.) Polytechnic master

(professional)

Professional masters

(MBA)

Integrated masters

(access to practice in

established profession)

Professional master

(vocational, in continuing

further education, no access

to Ph.D.)—1 year

Curriculum Providers to define

curricular content and

methods of delivery

according to

programme aims

Specialised course

delivered as

curricular units

(min 50% of

credits) + independent

component (min 35%)

Central subject, including

thesis (min 90 ECTS)

+ elective subject (min 10

ECTS)

Broad scope for

independent

component: scientific

dissertation,

original work project or

professional work

placement

Thesis—research-based

(30–60 ECTS); application

of academic theory and

methods to a specific

academic subject

Modularity optional Curricular units Modular composition

External examiners

(maintenance of

academic standards)

External examiners

only for independent

component

External examiners to assess

1/3 of ECTS allocation

(impartiality)

Public defence

Contradictory National Requirements and Bologna Master Degrees 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

grammes must undertake a self-assessment and demonstrate the coherence between

the learning objectives, curricular structures and teaching and assessment methods.

As regards student assessment, the Danish Ministerial order on examinations in

university programmes (Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling, 2004a)

contains detailed provisions. For example, it states that at least one-third of the

programme’s ECTS allocation must be assessed through examinations, with the

participation of external examiners appointed by the Ministry. This also applies to

the thesis. In England too, the external examiner system is an established feature.

However, the purpose of external examiners in the two countries appears to have

different nuances: to safeguard impartiality in the former and to maintain aca-

demic standards in a highly autonomous sector in the latter. In Portugal, special

rules govern the assessment of the scientific dissertation/original work project/pro-

fessional work placement. This must be publicly defended and the jury must be

composed of three to five members, experts in the field.

Table 1 offers a summary of the aspects examined in this article where differ-

ences have been observed in the regulations or expectations that master degrees

are supposed to meet.

Conclusions

The article has highlighted some differences in national-level provisions which act

as regulations or guidance for master degree design and delivery. These have been

examined further to the implementation of the master degree in England,

Denmark and Portugal in the context of the Bologna Process. First, the different

nature of provisions has been noted, statutory in Denmark and Portugal against

guiding reference points in England. Autonomy is a powerful steering principle in

English higher education institutions, hence the degree of flexibility regarding

programme design and delivery within the expectations set by the Academic

Infrastructure. In contrast, legal stipulations in Portugal and Denmark act more as

a straightjacket, constraining to some extent institutional freedom related to

programme design.

In the light of Bologna’s ambitions for increased cooperation among signatory

countries, these findings have implications for degree comparability and collabora-

tion initiatives such as joint degrees. When getting down to the practical task of

designing the degrees, their curriculum and methods of delivery, academics are

likely to be faced with different national requirements, similar to the ones high-

lighted in this article, which are not always easily reconcilable. Some examples are

the external examiner provision in England and Denmark, missing in Portugal

except for the thesis; the limited correspondence between the types of master in the

three countries, especially since in Denmark only one type of tightly regulated higher

education degree exists, which is research-orientated, hardly accommodating more

vocationally oriented masters in England or Portugal; or different understandings of

the independent component, having a broad scope in Portugal (dissertation, work

placement or project) and applying to an academic research thesis in Denmark.

28 C. Sin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

In addition, such nationally defined requirements usually represent criteria for

programme accreditation. A recent initiative addressing the accreditation of joint

degrees comes to confirm the difficulties posed in this area by often conflicting

national regulations. The European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA) has

recently elaborated a framework for a single accreditation procedure to assess joint

programmes as a whole, which will then inform national agencies’ decisions (Euro-

pean Consortium For Accreditation (ECA), 2012). Although the single framework

aims to facilitate the accreditation of joint degrees, the different national require-

ments will, nonetheless, persist, and degrees will have to meet these.

Despite having the Bologna second cycle as a common reference, differences

such as those exemplified in this article have arisen further to policy adaptations in

national settings, made possible by the non-legally binding character of Bologna

and the Open Method of Coordination. National higher education traditions, pri-

orities, constraints and understandings of master degrees have led to different

implementation models, invalidating an “engineering” approach and a linear policy

implementation model in the Bologna Process. This article has only taken the case

of three national contexts. However, bearing in mind the sheer number of Bologna

signatory countries, more clashing regulations are likely to exist as documented in

the ECA report (ECA, 2012). A paradox and a challenge become, therefore, obvi-

ous. How can a pan-European initiative meant to increase convergence and coop-

eration have the opposite effect, resulting in apparently irreconcilable differences

in practical terms? How can these be addressed in order not to hinder collabora-

tions such as joint degrees? These aspects require careful reflection on the part of

policy-makers. Maybe more flexibility and fewer constraints, guidance rather than

regulation and more trust in academic professionalism, under an accommodating

European qualifications framework for higher education degrees.

References

Alesi, B., Burger, S., Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2005). Bachelor and master courses in selected

countries compared with Germany. Bonn: Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Amaral, A., Neave, G., Musselin, C., & Maassen, P. (2009). European integration and the gover-

nance of higher education and research. London: Springer.

Ball, S.J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post structural approach. Buckingham: Open Uni-

versity Press.

Becher, T., Henkel, M., & Kogan, M. (1994). Graduate education in Britain. London: Jessica

Kingsley.

Birtwistle, T. (2009). Towards 2010 (and then beyond)—The context of the Bologna process.

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 55–63.

Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks. (2005). A framework for qualifications of

the European higher education area. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Science, Technology

and Innovation.

Bone, D. (2008). Internationalisation of higher education: A ten-year view. London: Department

for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

Bowe, R., Ball, S., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in

policy sociology. London: Routledge.

Contradictory National Requirements and Bologna Master Degrees 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Cemmell, J., & Bekhradnia, B. (2008). The Bologna process and the UK’s international student mar-

ket. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.

Cerych, L., & Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: The implementa-

tion of higher education reforms in Europe. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Conference on Master-level Degrees. (2003). Conclusions and recommendations of the conference.

March 14–15, Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.uta.fi/opiskelu/opetuksen_tuki/

bolognan_prosessi/Master_revised.pdf

Danish Evaluation Institute. (2009). Self-certification. Verification of compatibility of the Danish

National qualifications framework for higher education with the framework for qualifications of the

European higher education area. Copenhagen: Danish Evaluation Institute.

Danish Rectors’ Conference. (2002). Danish universities. Copenhagen: Danish Rectors’ Confer-

ence.

Davies, H. (2009). Survey of master degrees in Europe. Brussels: European University Association.

Davies, W. (2007). Mastering diversity. London: UK Higher Education Europe Unit.

European Commission. (2009). ECTS users’ guide. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications

of the European Communities.

European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education. (2012). Assessment framework for

joint programmes. The Hague: European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education.

Europe Unit. (2004).Masters degrees and the Bologna process. London: Europe Unit, Universities UK.

Gornitzka, A., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (2005). Reform and change in higher education. Analysing

policy implementation. Dordrecht: Springer.

Gornitzka, A., Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2005). Implementation analysis in higher education.

In A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Reform and change in higher education.

Analysing policy implementation (pp. 35–57). Dordrecht: Springer.

Harris, M. (1996). Review of postgraduate education. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council

for England.

House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. (2007). The Bologna process. Fourth

Report of Session 2006–07. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

International Committee. (2011). The framework for higher education qualifications in Portugal.

Report of the International Committee on the Verification of Compatibility with the Qualifi-

cations Framework of the European Higher Education Area.

Johnson, S., & Wolf, A. (2008, September 7–12). Qualifications recognition across borders. Paper

presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Educational Assess-

ment, Cambridge.

Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2006). Which direction for bachelor and master programmes? A

stocktaking of the Bologna process. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(4), 269–282.

Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling. (2003). Ministerial Order concerning the Act

on Universities (the University Act). Copenhagen: Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og

Udvikling.

Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling. (2004a). Ministerial order no. 867 of 19/08/

2004. Ministerial order on examinations in university programmes. Copenhagen: Ministeriet for

Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling.

Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling. (2004b). Ministerial order no. 338 of 6 May

2004. Ministerial order on bachelor and master’s programmes (candidatus) at universities. Copen-

hagen: Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling.

Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior. (2005). Law No. 49/2005, of 30 August.

Lisboa: Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior.

Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior. (2006). Decree-Law No. 74/2006, of 24

March. Lisboa: Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior.

Ministerio da Inovacao, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior. (2005). Decree-Law No. 42/2005, of 22

February. Lisboa: Ministerio da Inovacao, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior.

30 C. Sin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Buckingham: Open Uni-

versity Press.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2008). The framework for higher education qualifications in

England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2009). Verification of the compatibility of the framework for

higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) with the

framework for qualifications of the European higher education area (FQ-EHEA). Gloucester:

Quality Assurance Agency.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2010). Master’s degree characteristics. Gloucester: Quality

Assurance Agency.

Reynolds, J., & Saunders, M. (1987). Teacher responses to curriculum policy: Beyond the

“delivery” metaphor. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 195–214).

London: Cassell Educational.

Sin, C. (2012). Researching research in master’s degrees in Europe. European Educational

Research Journal, 11(2), 290–301.

Smith, A. (2010). One step beyond: Making the most of postgraduate education. London:

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher education.

Brussels: European Universities Association.

Tauch, C. (2004). Almost half-time in the Bologna process—Where do we stand? European

Journal of Education, 39(3), 275–288.

Tauch, C., & Rauhvargers, A. (2002). Survey on master degrees and joint degrees in Europe.

Geneva: European University Association.

The Royal Society. (2008). A higher degree of concern. London: The Royal Society.

Trowler, P. (2002). Higher education policy and institutional change: Intentions and outcomes in

turbulent environments. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Knight, P. (2004). Change thinking, change practices. A guide to

change for heads of department, subject centres and others who work “middle-out”. Paper written

with support from: The LTSN Generic Centre, The UK Evaluation of the LTSN and The

HEFCE Innovations project “Skills plus”.

Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2006). The open method of coordination and the implementation of

the Bologna process. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(4), 283–295.

Witte, J. (2006). Change of degrees and degrees of change. Comparing adaptations of European higher

education systems in the context of the Bologna process (Ph.D. thesis). CHEPS/Twente

University, Enschede.

Contradictory National Requirements and Bologna Master Degrees 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 17:

12 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

4