recognition instruments in europe

This article was downloaded by: [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam]On: 17 November 2014, At: 03:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Higher Education in EuropePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chee20

RECOGNITION INSTRUMENTS IN EUROPEKees KouwenaarPublished online: 02 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Kees Kouwenaar (1994) RECOGNITION INSTRUMENTS IN EUROPE, Higher Education in Europe, 19:2, 7-26,DOI: 10.1080/0379772940190202

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0379772940190202

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chee20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0379772940190202

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0379772940190202

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE. Vol. XIX. No. 2. 1994

Academic Recognitionin the New Europe

RECOGNITION INSTRUMENTS IN EUROPE

Kees KOUWENAAR

•The various academic recognition instrumentsin use in Europe are presented and described.These include the oldest ones, the Council ofEurope Conventions and then the so-calledPrague Convention, the two UNESCO Conven-tions concerning Europe, particularly theUNESCO European Convention, and mostrecently, the General Directives of theEuropean Union for recognition with regard toregulated professions. Because Europe has un-dergone major political and social changes

. since the first of these conventions was signed,and higher education itself has undergonegreat diversification, the time has come to

seriously consider the establishment of a jointCouncil of Europe-UNESCO Convention.Whereas the Council of Europe Conventions con-centrated on outcomes and the UNESCOEuropean Convention focussed on recognitionprocesses within the framework of a dividedEurope, a combined Convention should beoriented toward acceptance for given purposes. Itshould include the establishment of a code of con-duct and involve the participation of subject-oriented networks and a system of intermediateclassification. It should also rely on a combinedsystem of information networks.

INTRODUCTION

There are several reasons why the Coun-cil of Europe and the United NationsEducational, Scientific, and Cultural Or-ganization (UNESCO) have concludedthat it is appropriate to conduct afeasibility study into the possibility of ajoint Council of Europe/UNESCO Con-vention on the international recognitionof academic qualifications in the EuropeRegion. At present, one existingUNESCO Convention covers the EuropeRegion and a second one partially coversthe Europe Region (its MediterraneanMember States). At the same time, theCouncil of Europe has four Conventionsfor the Europe Region, with protocols

and no less than 3 declarations (withouta formal legal status) on how to interpretthese conventions. This situation tends tocreate more confusion than transparencyeven for experts in the field, not to men-tion the institutions of higher educationand the migrants themselves.

In addition, the now dormant PragueConvention (signed in 1972 and ratifiedin 1975) existed as a counterpart to theCouncil of Europe Equivalence Conven-tions, covering the former socialistcountries of Europe.

The development of higher educationin Europe and the number of countries

- 7 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

RECOGNITION INSTRUMENTS

adhering to the Council of Europe Con-ventions put further strains on theexisting conventions. The growingcooperation between the Council ofEurope and UNESCO within Europenow offers a good opportunity for un-dertaking a revision of all existing con-ventions.

In the framework of this article, oneadditional reason for revision of the cur-rent system of recognition conventionsmay be added. In addition to the diver-sification of higher education withinMember States and the important chan-ges in the political context, a revolution-ary growth.of international co-operation,exchange, and mobility in higher educa-tion has taken place. From a marginalelement it has become an essential part ofthe core business of many institutions ofhigher education in Europe. This realityhas given a new importance to the prac-ticability of the arrangements thatfacilitate co-operation and mobilitythrough recognition of academicqualifications.

The international recognition ofacademic qualifications has been a mat-ter of interest for the Council of Europeand UNESCO, but also for the EuropeanUnion. The Treaty of Maastricht men-tions recognition in article 126 as one ofthe topics for concerted action. TheEuropean Commission has recentlycommissioned a study into the inter-relationship between measures foracademic recognition and professionalrecognition. This study will providevaluable input for the feasibility studyfor a joint Council of Europe/UNESCOConvention.

CHANGES IN THE SCENE

Changes in Higher Education withina National Setting

The basic underlying premise of the ex-isting conventions of the Council ofEurope and UNESCO on recognition ofhigher education qualifications in theEurope Region is that at the time of theconclusion of the conventions, highereducation was, throughout the Region,similar enough in nature, functions, ob-jectives, level, and quality to warrantgeneral acceptability of the principle ofmutual recognition of diplomas. It mustbe noted that this underlying assump-tion had only a relative validity even inthe existing conventions: from the outset,the conventions of the Council of Europehave contained provisions that allowedMember States in practice to use a wholerange of measures and interpretations toexclude unfit qualifications. The laterDeclarations have only added to thischaracteristic.

The same is true for the UNESCOConvention of 1979. In fact, looking backat that period of a divided Europe, it maynot be too daring to conclude that theUNESCO Convention did not reallyhave the actual recognition of qualifica-tions as its main purpose. The main func-tion may well have been to keep onechannel of information and communica-tion open in the field of higher educationbetween parts of Europe very muchdivided and separated by ideologicalbarriers and social and economic block-ades. CEPES, itself one other channel forcommunication across the Iron Curtain,has come to see its function as theSecretariat of the Convention and its in-struments (a Regional Committee, Na-tional Information Bodies on Academic•Recognition and Mobility in the EuropeRegion - NIB) as an important part of its

- 8 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

mission. Nonetheless, the conventionsdid and do rest on the premise that tradi-tional university education in Europe(for UNESCO) or western and southernEurope (for the Council of Europe) issimilar enough throughout the Region toset the goal of mutual recognition and toformalize this goal in an internationallegal instrument. This basic premise haslost much of its validity when applied tothe whole of higher education in Europe.

Entrance Qualifications'

Massive growth, leading to fundamentalchanges in higher education in WesternEurope, was preceded in the 1960's and1970's by a similar process in secondaryeducation. The strict barriers between thepre-university type of schools for the socialand intellectual elite and other types forordinary people were removed. Theevolution of educational theory joined for-ces with the quantitative expansion andled to reforms of upper secondary educa-tion all over Europe: differentiation of sub-jects taught and enhanced opportunity tochoose from a range of subjects and areasof concentration in upper secondaryschool. As this general process took ondifferent hues in different Europeancountries, the result was growing differen-tiation in the body of knowledge withwhich school leavers entered universities.The relative stagnation of the educationsystem in the former socialist countriestended to exacerbate the differences acrossthe Iron Curtain.

Differences with regard to admissionto university studies also had a morepractical and direct root in the quantita-tive expansion of the education sector.Universities could not cope with thenumber of applicants, and manycountries introduced a system ofnumerus clausus or numerus fixus. Al-though formally a strictly quantitative

measure, numerus clausus has also some-times been used as an additional selec-tion mechanism, thus creating a vacuumbetween the level of the school-leavingcertificate on the one hand and theentrance level of the universityprogramme on the other.

Institutions

The traditional comprehensive univer-sities have lost their position of monopoly.While it is true that the countries of centraland eastern Europe show a more tradition-al picture, they too are considering, plan-ning, and in some cases already openingprofessionally oriented institutions ofhigher education outside the traditionaluniversities. An overview of certain newerforms of institutions of higher education isprovided in Annex 1, below.

Programmes

The diversity within national systems ofhigher education is not restricted to theinstitutional level. Both within the tradi-tional universities and within their newcounterparts, one can find more and morenew forms of programmes of study, whichcan be quite far removed in set-up andobjectives from the traditional learningpaths of the university. This is true not onlyfor countries in which the counterparts tothe programmes of the Fachhochschulenwere set up within the universities them-selves, such as Spain and Italy. Europeanprogrammes, multidisciplinary program-mes, case-oriented approaches, short cycleprogrammes, short cycle advancedprogrammes, programmes for recurrenteducation, retraining for re-entry into thelabor market: all have come to enliven theuniversity catalogues. The diversity ofhigher education within the variouscountries can be seen as the reflection notonly of the massive growth and diver-

- 9 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


sification of the student population, butalso of the diversification of the demandthat a knowledge-intensive society andeconomy are making on the universitiesand other institutions of higher education.

Functions

In fact, taking one step backward fromthe various new programmes that havecome into existence across Europe, onemight conclude that higher (that is,university) education - having had rela-tively few but well structured functionsin the 1950's - is now faced with a multi-tude of new educational functions insociety of which the higher educationsector is only slowly becoming aware ata more abstract level.

In an attempt to sketch these changesfrom a functional point of view, onemight list the following educationalfunctions for the traditional university:

- to prepare a small group withinsociety for its leading positions;

- to develop in this group the abilityfor critical thinking and a capacityfor problem-solving in general;

- to train the next generation ofacademic researchers;

- to train professionals in fields inwhich a strong link between the ex-ercise of the profession and the fur-thering of the profession throughacademic research has traditionallybeen accepted.

Within Europe, with some exceptionsin the Scandinavian countries, the firsttwo functions were generally fulfilledthrough monodisciplinary studies. TheUnited Kingdom and Ireland have asomewhat singular position in that theyseparate the first two functions from thelatter in the Bachelor's degree as distinct

from Master's degree and professionalqualifications. In the same attempt tosketch general trends, one might identifyseveral new functions that have come toadd to the functions of higher educationover tl\e past decades:

- object-oriented or problem-oriented advanced specializationprogrammes beyond the confinesof individual academic disciplines;

- training programmes for profes-sions which require the applicationof existing knowledge and skills ina professional field rather than thequestioning or augmentation ofsuch knowledge;

- fprmalization of advanced learning. processes which were hitherto ex-

pected to take place through un-structured work experience in aprofessional or a research setting;

- recurrent education to counter theshortening lifetime of knowledgeand retraining to counter the in-

. creased pace of changes in the labormarket.

Governance

An overview of the situation in variouscountries shows that the landscape ofstate supervision and quality control inhigher education has evolved dramati-cally. In the 1950's, the universities ofcontinental Europe enjoyed, de facto, arelatively autonomous position, but for-mally, the legislative control over theireducational quality and their degreeswas well defined. Since the 1980's, mini-stries of education in several Europeancountries have come to understand thechanged requirements for quality as-surance in a higher education that hasexpanded in terms of volume and variety(Westerheijden, 1992; Westerheijden and

- 1 0 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

Van Vught, 1993). Performance in-dicators, peer reviews, academic audit,and visiting committees have becomeregular features of the European stage ofhigher education.

The changing modes for the super-.vision of society over its system of highereducation, which at the same time is be-coming more detached and more explicit,may also be viewed against the back-ground of the rise of private institutions ofhigher education. Some form of privatehigher education (with or without ap-proval and financial support from the na-tional government) has always been anelement of higher education in manyEuropean countries. But the expansion inthe West and the upheaval of society in theEast have made their existence far moreimportant in both qualitative and quan-titative terms. The demarcation line be-tween bona fide private institutions anddubious enterprises or downright degreemills has become a matter of considerableconcern.

Number of Countries Involved InInternational Academic Co-operation

In 1988,19 Member States of the Councilof Europe had acceded to one or more ofthe recognition conventions of that or-

. ganization. At the same time, 26countries of the Europe Region (plusAustralia) had acceded to the UNESCOConvention. To date, the number ofcountries that have acceded to theEuropean Cultural Convention has risento 38. The dissolution of the Soviet Unionhas changed the number of countriesbelonging to the Europe Region ofUNESCO to 54. Many of the formersocialist countries and of the newly inde-pendent states that formerly belonged tothe Soviet Union have witnessed and arewitnessing major reforms in their educa-tional systems.

Moreover, a general comparison be-tween the countries of western, central,and eastern Europe shows that major dif-ferences in societal and economic develop-ment also have their reflection within theeducational system. The countries ofcentral and eastern Europe still show con-siderable cross-country similarity. Buttheir entry on the stage of internationalco-operation in education at a considerablescale has added to the diversity. It is safe toconclude that the major political changesof the last 5 years have added enormouslyto the actual diversity among nationaleducational systems in Europe at large. Itis equally safe to conclude that this diver-sity puts strains on the ways in which theexisting recognition conventions can beput into practice.

The Level and Intensity of Internation-al Academic Co-operation

International co-operation and exchangehave always been an essential element ofthe university culture in Europe. Butuntil quite recently, this internationalismwas almost exclusively linked toacademic research and academic (profes-sorial) staff, leaving the students almostuntouched. Similarly, the migration ofskilled workers and professionals withan educational background in highereducation was limited in scope. The lastdecade has witnessed landslide changesin this respect, mainly triggered by themajor programmes of the EuropeanUnion such as ERASMUS, COMETT,and TEMPUS, and by the creation of theSingle Market and the EuropeanEconomic Area. Although the target of10% student mobility of the ERASMUSProgramme has only been reached forcertain sectors, the figures clearly show atremendous increase in international co-operation and exchange in higher educa-tion and a growing number of

- 1 1 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


internationally mobile graduates fromhigher education. This phenomenon isnot limited to the countries of theEuropean Union or of the EuropeanEconomic Area: institutions, students,and graduates from central and easternEuropean countries increasingly lookupon the whole of Europe as the stage onwhich they play. It is indicative that thepublic service of the Dutch NationalAcademic Recognition InformationCentre (NUFFIC) is at the moment heavi-ly dominated by requests for agreementsfrom central and eastern Europeancountries.

Concluding Remarks

Comparability as the underlying as-sumption for a legal instrument in inter-national recognition of academiccredentials has been replaced by diver-sity within and among national systemsof higher education. This diversity hasled to a basic incomparability within andamong these systems. The character ofinternational relations within Europehas changed its focus from thediplomatic / political / legal frameworkto the economic/social framework. Con-tacts between states and governmentshave changed into contacts betweensocieties and peoples. The combined ef-fect of increased diversification in highereducation and closer interrelationshipsbetween the various societies andeconomies have raised fears of loss ofquality as a result of too flexiblemechanisms for recognition of foreignacademic credentials. Thus, the growingdiversity of higher education, togetherwith the more pervasive character of in-ternational academic co-operation and ofinternational academic mobility, make itat once more difficult and more neces-sary to create adequate and therefore

more flexible mechanisms for the recog-nition of foreign academic credentials.

One may wonder if the inter-nationalization of society will not even-tually lead to convergence in that whichdifferent societies require from theireducational systems, and thus lead toconvergence instead of diversity on theinternational scene of higher education.But.the strong link between the system ofeducation and national cultural identitywill make this process lengthy and tardy.

GENERAL SKETCH OF THEEVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT OFEQUIVALENCE, RECOGNITION,ACCEPTANCE

Equivalence

The European universities are generallyan invention of the nineteenth century,nationalism being the overriding ideol-ogy and political principle. Within thisnationalistic concept of higher educa-tion, academic degrees were to a largeextent seen as the expression of the na-tional educational culture, used mainlyfor national purposes. Academic re-search has always, of course, been inter-national by nature. But it was conductedby professors, or at the very least, byresearchers who had completed the doc-toral degree or several doctoral degrees.The international character of researchhad little or no impact on the internation-al recbgnition of academic qualificationsbelow the doctoral degree. The fact thatmany formal equivalence agreements weresigned worldwide in the first half of thecentury, as many as 138 agreements be-tween 1945 and 1960 (UNESCO, 1970), ismore a demonstration of political spiritthan of effective instruments facilitatingreal and flexible recognition of academicqualifications.

- 1 2 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

The notion that under certain condi-tions a foreign academic degree or titleshould be acceptable has never beenfully absent. University education inother countries may have been seen asdifferent, strange, and probably not al-ways as suitable as that of the nationalsystem; nevertheless, the universitysystem of all countries in Europe hasalways known some mechanism to ac-cept foreign graduates on a par with theoffshoot of the national university sys-tem. This mechanism, however, re-quired a careful scrutiny of the foreigndegree and educational programme.Only if such scrutiny had taken placeand if it had proven that the foreigneducational programme contained allelements of the corresponding nationalprogramme and to the same extent,level, and quality, could recognition ora declaration of equivalence be con-sidered. So the course content of thehome degree had to be fully covered bythe foreign educational programme.

But more than the content had to beconsidered. Regardless of course con-tent, it would never do, of course, togrant a foreign degree holder some kindof formal right which exceeded the rightsthat pertained to the degree in his or herhome country. An example: if a foreigndegree was seen to be an exact match ofa degree which in the receiving countrywould qualify the holder as a teacher, itwould still not be enough to qualify theforeign degree holder as a teacher in thehost country. He or she would have to bequalified as a teacher in the homecountry as well, or else, admission to theteaching profession would not be pos-sible, regardless of the fact that theeducational programmes were identical.Needless to say, foreign degree holderscould never claim rights beyond therights of the holders of the national de-gree. An example: if a foreign degree

which at home qualified for teaching wasseen to be an exact match to a degree thatwould not qualify for teaching in the hostcountry, it would of course be unthink-able to admit the foreign degree holderas a teacher.

The whole concept of declaration ofequivalence had a close resemblance tothe proverbial Procustian bed. Therewas an ideological foundation for thisattitude. Access to higher educationwas seen as a privilege, based on theintellectual capacity of those few whowere able to meet the stringent require-ments of the university. It was deemedfair in this context that foreign studentsbe asked to fold themselves into theeducational system of the host countryand the host institution. These couldimpose their regular requirements infull force on foreign students and haveno flexibility whatsoever towards thedifferent backgrounds of the latter(Guiton, 1977, p. 9). There is some ironyin the observation that recognition ofacademic qualifications in the tradi-tional universities before World War IIwas difficult, even though theacademic programmes and functionswere fairly similar. The low level ofexchange at the level of students maybe an adequate explanation.

The instigators of such strictness inrecognition of foreign educationalachievements can be found at nationalas well as at institutional or departmen-tal level. The proverbial professor whosees himself as the centre of his scien-tific universe is matched by nationalregulations which inhibit universitiesfrom making interinstitutional agree-ments on the mutual recognition andtransfer of credit in student exchangeschemes (Cox, .1977, p. 50).. In fact,education laws in Belgium werechanged after the introduction of the

-13-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ERASMUS Programme to allow for themandatory recognition of the studyabroad period in this programme.

Recognition

Equivalence in its strictest sense will notgo very far in furthering internationalmobility of holders of academicqualifications. In the words of Mr. EdwinCox, "..no diploma, no qualification, nocourse of study, is 'equivalent' to anyother..."; "... equivalence... is effectivelythe recognition of a diploma, qualifica-tion or course of study for a specific pur-pose"(Cox, 1977, p. 13). Recognition 'fora specific1 purpose' means that non-equivalent qualifications may be recog-nized to a certain end if the foreignqualification fits the specific purpose inspite of the differences with the nationalqualification. Recognition is thus the keyword in a more functional approach. Inpractice, the functional value of educa-tional qualifications in a national contextis not so much in the exact body ofknowledge and specific skills which thequalification represents. For(self)employment as well as for furtherstudy and research, it is more importantto have acquired the general ability tolearn, to analyze, to adapt to changingcircumstances, to solve problems, and toapply the general principles of the par-ticular trade, profession, or academic dis-cipline, in other words, to have acquiredmeta-cognitive abilities or meta-cogni-tion. Even in subjects such as medicineand law, the ability to apply general prin-ciples and to update and to adapt one'sknowledge to one's specific environmentis the most important condition foracademic and professional success. Re-quired country-specific knowledge andskill may be a barrier to full recognition,but focus on meta-cognition could leadto improvements in current practice. In

the context of the international recogni-tion of academic qualification, improve-ment means that more importance has tobe attached to the general level of sophis-tication and depth which is representedby a specific degree in a given subject,than to the - sometimes nationally biased- facts and techniques that constitute thespecific study programme.

Equal Value

But the concept of recognition does not doaway with the idea of equal value. Nation-al authorities, academic staff at highereducation institutions, and recognitionspecialists are all eager to ensure thatrecognition of foreign qualifications oflesser value is avoided. If there is incom-patibility in level and function betweenthe foreign and the national qualifica-.tion, the natural tendency is to recognize.the foreign qualification at the level of thenearest lower national qualification.There are strong psychological impedi-ments against recognition at a level of anational qualification if it is valued abovethe foreign qualification. This principleof sometimes less, but never more than isdue is defended as a mechanism todefend the national standards of educa-tion and their evaluation abroad: if wewere to accept the inferior qualification inquestion at our level, we would be acceptingthat our superior qualification is in fact onlyof the level of the foreign qualification.

Over the decades since World War II,there has been a growing awareness ofthese basic premises of internationalrecognition. "The use of the term'equivalence' to apply, to the admissionof foreign students into higher educationin another country is in itself plainlymeaningless, since no educational sys-tem can be 'equivalent' to any other savein its most superficial aspects. In relationto higher education, it is possibly

- 1 4 ' -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

preferable to talk of 'admissibility' oreven of'acceptability"' (Halls, 1971). .

Networks

When the Council of Europe decided in1976 to set up a network of national in-formation centres, they were called Na-tional Equivalence Information Centres. Butin the Convention on the Recognition ofStudies, Diplomas, and Degrees concerningHigher Education in the States Belonging tothe Europe Region, which was adopted inDecember 1979, recognition is explicitlystated in the first Consideration as theguiding principle of the Convention: "...the concept of recognition should beemployed... which makes it possible toevaluate the level of education reached...." And when in 1983 the Council ofMinisters of the European Communitiesdecided to have a Community networkof information centres in this field, it wasnamed the network of National AcademicRecognition Information Centres.

In fact, the concept of recognition hasvirtually replaced that of equivalencesince the beginning of the 1980's in al-most all documents, except those refer-ring to earlier arrangements such as theCouncil of Europe Conventions. Itshould perhaps be pointed out that theconcept of recognition was introduced inboth European Convention no. 32 (1959)on the recognition of periods of univer-sity study and in European Conventionno. 15 (1953), which uses the expression"recognize as equivalent". However, it isnot clear to what extent a conscious andoperational distinction between theterms equivalence and recognition wasmade at that time.

Within the ERASMUS scheme of theEuropean Union, recognition of a studyabroad period within the context of aninterinstitutional co-operation

programme is one of the key elements ofthe entire programme, while main-tenance of educational diversity(precluding equivalence) is another keyelement of ERASMUS and all actions ofthe European Union in this field.

Acceptance.

Equivalence, which requires an exactmatch in content as a precondition forrecognition, has been gradually replacedby Recognition, which requires a match infunctions and general level of theacademic qualification. This process wasstarted in analytic comments on the in-ternational recognition of academicqualifications and was gradually ac-cepted during the 1970's and 1980's asthe leading principle in formal texts atnational and international level. How-ever, the increased intensity of interna-tional co-operation and exchangebetween educational systems, which willremain highly diverse, calls for evenmore flexible attitudes toward the recog-nition of foreign qualifications. A moretolerant and less mathematical approachtoward the match in functions andgeneral level is required. Until now, thetacit implication of recognition of aforeign qualification at the level of a na-tional qualification was, in mathematicalterms: if A equals B, then B equals A. Ineducational terms: if foreign qualifica-tion A is recognized at the level of nation-al qualification B, then nationalqualification B is of no other .level thanforeign qualification A. •

Mathematics

The fear of this kind of reversed equationoften induces the competent authoritiesto withhold recognition of a foreignqualification if it is deemed even slightlyinferior in function and /or general level

- 1 5 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


to the corresponding national qualifica-tion. Recognition is withheld for fear thatthe international reputation of the na-tional qualification would suffer in theprocess. Recognition is also often with-held because of internal dichotomies anddiscussions. An example in the context ofthe Flemish community of Belgium andthe Netherlands: the Dutch view theirHBO-qualification as superior to thequalification of the non-universityqualification of the short type (HOKT) inthe Flemish community. The Flemishview their non-university educationqualification of the long type (HOLT) assuperior to the Dutch HBO-qualification.If the Dutch accepted the HOKT as com-parable to HBO and the Flemish ac-cepted the HBO as comparable to theHOLT, the fear then is that the resultwould be an equation of the FlemishHOKT to the Flemish HOLT, whichwould be problematic within theFlemish system. In mathematical terms: •

if HOKT = HBO

and HBO = HOLT

then HOKT = HOLT

The internationalization of educa-tional processes and products requiresthat this mathematical approach torecognition subside to one moredominated by "approximation of func-tions and general level" and of accep-tance as the guiding principle inrecognition of foreign academicqualifications. To return to the Flemish-Dutch example, one could even repre-sent the "acceptance" approachmathematically:

in fact:

HOKT HOLT

if HOKT HBO

and HBO = HOLT

then it does not in any way follow that

HOKT = HOLT

maybe equally valid.

An explanatory analogy to the prin-ciple of acceptance in the recognition offoreign academic qualifications might befound in the world of competitive sports.Teams and players of different in-dividual quality are fit to play within thesame league. If the differences in qualityare too large, separation into differentleagues becomes necessary. But withinthe margins of one league, differences inquality or level are accepted without theconnotation that the champions and run-ners up are contaminated by the slightlylesser competitiveness of the rank-and-file of that league.

General Directives

There is a growing awareness in Europeof the need for more flexible approachesto recognition of academic qualifica-tions. An important example of accep-tance is found in the General Directives ofthe European Union on recognition ofacademic qualifications for professionalpurposes. The original policy of theEuropean Union with regard to free ac-cess to regulated professions was ex-pressed in the series of Sectoral Directivesfor various professions which wereagreed upon as of early 197CS. Based onextensive negotiations on an agreedcommon professional profile and corecurriculum, political agreement wasreached on the mutual recognition ofacademic qualifications as entrance re-quirements into specific regulatedprofessions. The processes involvedwere lengthy and cumbersome. In viewof the set targets for the Single Marketand the magical date of 31 December1992, the European Union shifted itspolicy during the second half of the

- 1 6 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

198CS. The result was the first GeneralDirective, taking the produit fini insteadof the comparability of content as itsstarting point. The assumption was thatunless it was proven differently, personswho are qualified for a profession in oneMember State are equally qualified forthat profession in all other MemberStates. The first General Directive waslimited to academic qualifications of atleast three years of higher education. Itwas supplemented with an additionalGeneral Directive covering all otherqualifications giving access to regulatedprofessions and providing bridges be-tween the two systems.

The system for recognition of educa-tional qualifications with regard to accessto regulated professions within theEuropean Union contains various aspectswhich are important with regard to legalinstruments for recognition at the level ofthe Council of Europe and of UNESCO:

- the basic premise is that thequalification is held to be valid inthex)ther countries concerned;

- the burden of proof that a qualifica-tion is truly not fit for recognitionlies with the host authorities; it is nolonger up to the migrant to provethat the foreign qualification is upto national standards;

- the freedom of the competentauthorities to prove unfitness forrecognition is limited: differencesin content are only valid reasons ifthey concern "key elements of theprogramme" and differences involume are only valid reasonswhen the difference in course dura-tion is one year or more;

- when unfitness for immediaterecognition is proven, the com-petent authorities may not reject theapplicant but are obliged to allow

the applicant to make up for thedeficiencies through an adaptationperiod or an aptitude test;

- the competent authority mustrender its decision on recognitionwithin a specified period: fourmonths after the complete applica-tion has been registered.

Signs of Acceptance

The General Directives are important in-dicators that the principle of acceptance isgaining some ground in Europe. But theyare not the only ones. The recent Decreeon the recognition of foreign qualifica-tion within the Flemish Community ofBelgium explicitly refers to the principleof acceptance as the guide to recognition.The report of the NEICs East EuropeDiplomas (NEED) Working Party, bylisting degrees with comparable func-tions while refraining from exact equa-tions or recognition tables, makesimplicit use of the underlying conceptsof acceptance. The initiative within theindividual NARIC's to formulate ageneral list of mutually acceptableuniversity degrees in Europe has provennot to be feasible at the present time. Itnonetheless shows that the underlyingprinciple is acknowledged in many of thenational centres of experts on recogni-tion of academic qualifications.

One might argue in favor of a far olderexample of acceptance as the guidingprinciple for the recognition of foreignqualifications. The Equivalence Agreementbetween the Netherlands and theFederal Republic of Germany, concludedin 1083, which states the broad academicrecognition of all programmes in highereducation has remained unchanged andeffective through very important chan-ges in the educational systems: reductionof nominal course duration, incorpora-

- 1 7 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


tion of non-university education into thehigher education framework, and drasticchanges in admission to doctoralprogrammes. It must be noted that accep-tance in recognition is probably easier toattain between countries and education-al systems that are close in bothgeographical and educational terms.

Selection

It is important to note that the capacity toapply such a flexible paradigm to recog-nition may depend on the circumstanceswhich rule normal admission proce-dures to further study or professionalactivity. If admission to a studyprogramme or a professional activitydepends on nothing more than the ap-propriate qualification, then this require-ment puts a heavy weight on therecognition of foreign qualifications asthe substitute for the required qualifica-tion: recognition of varying foreignqualifications will lead in these cases toenforceable but possibly unwarrantedadmission. If admission, however, is theresult of both the required qualificationand a personalized selection based onqualitative criteria, the recognition of thequalification is far less consequential andthus easier to give. The personal selectionmechanism can be used to ensure thatonly qualified persons will be admittedto the study programme or the profes-sional activity. This analysis should notlead to the conclusion that admission tostudy programmes and professional ac-tivities all over Europe, should beremodelled towards a combination offormal requirements plus individualselection. Rather, it might lead to the con-clusion that wherever individual selec-tion is part of the admission process,recognition of foreign educationalqualifications can and should be flexibleand tolerant towards diversity.

Non-Traditional Programmes

The past 40 years have witnessed an in-creasing variety of institutions andprogrammes of higher education. Dif-ferent patterns were followed accordingto national, regional, or sectoral cir-cumstances. This greater degree of diver-sity in the non-traditional programmesin higher education (with the exceptionof professional programmes in the tradi-tional universities, such as medicine andteacher training programmes) makes iteven harder to reach international agree-ment on recognition than for the tradi-tional university programmes. On theother hand, it is clear that the non-tradi-tional programmes, both within and out-side the universities of Europe, were setup in response to very specific needsfrom society and the economy. As aresult, they are often far better defined interms of specific objectives and learningoutcomes that the traditional academicprogrammes in the traditional univer-sities. This concreteness of objectivesmay provide a good starting point to usethe concept of acceptability for mutualrecognition of educational qualificationswhich vary considerably in form andshape, but share the objective and tar-geted learning outcomes. An overviewof educational programmes leading toqualifications in nursing and in teachingin academic subjects in upper secondaryschool is listed in Annex 2 as an exampleof different approaches to functionalityof education for professional activities.

LESSONS FROM THE PAST

To what extent have the existing conven-tions become operationalized? What havebeen their strengths and weaknesses?Which important developments should bereflected in a new joint Convention?

- 1 8 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

Existing Conventions

Some remarks can be made on the valueof the system of conventions in general.The conventions have served as a legalframework for equivalence: no countrythat adheres to the conventions canrefuse recognition of foreign academicqualifications on the single ground thatforeign qualifications are unacceptableas a matter of law or principle. Nocountry that adheres to the Conventionof 1959 can refuse holders of foreignacademic qualifications the right to carrythe title as it is carried in the country oforigin, as long as the name of the award-ing institution is mentioned.

The conventions have also created aframework for the establishment of a net-work, or rather various networks, ofspecialists at national level in the area ofrecognition of foreign academic -qualifications. One of the formal reasonsfor these networks was to report on theimplementation of the conventions. Inpractice, they have fulfilled a number ofeven more valuable functions: the ex-change of information on educationalprogrammes and their recognition ineveryday practice; discussion of and attimes solution of technical problems inrecognition; and last but not least, thecreation of an atmosphere of growingmutual trust and confidence in foreigneducation. Joint meetings of the networkshave forced the notion on the participants thatone cannot expect the authorities in another'country to treat foreign academic qualifica-tions with more flexibility, tolerance, andtrust than one is prepared to exert oneselfwhen examining foreign qualifications: "dounto others as you would have others do untoyou" is a very appropriate description of themental process involved.

Council of Europe

Turning to the individual conventions, itcan be said that the Convention of 1953,dealing with admission to universitystudies after upper secondary school, hasbeen very successful. Part of the successundoubtedly can be attributed to the factthat the existing diversity in highereducation is least reflected in the sectorof admission to university study. Partcan also be attributed to the fact thatadmission to an educational programmeof 3 or more years (for which drop-outrates are considerable anyway) con-stitutes only a minor risk in comparisonwith admission to higher studies, re-search, or professional activities. TheConvention is generally adhered to inmost countries; however, the variousdeclarations show that countries needand take the necessary flexibility in theinterpretation of the Convention. Thediscussions on the second Declaration tothis Convention have shown the impor-tance of such flexibility in interpretation.The Federal Republic of Germany ex-plained in this context that without anadditional Declaration the Germanauthorities had no other options thaneither to accept a diploma under the Con-vention without any possibility for addi-tional requirements or to reject it totallyas not falling under the Convention at all.The German wish to follow the prin-ciples of the Convention as much as pos-sible was honored in the SecondDeclaration through the clauses on"general and specific admissibility".

As the Conventions of the Council ofEurope on study periods (1956) and finalqualifications (1959) touch directly uponthe institutional autonomy of the univer-sities, their impact has been relativelylimited. The 1959 Convention refers to"similar" national qualifications, leaving itto the host authorities to decide on what is

- 1 9 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


"similar". It provides for a "supplemen-tary examination" when "certain subjects"have not been included in the original ex-amination. The recent Convention (1990)on study periods can be seen in the generalframework of legal provisions. It requiresacceding Members, when necessary, toadapt existing laws and regulations toallow interinstitutional recognition arran-gements where these were previouslyblocked by formalities.

All Conventions of the Council ofEurope share a focus on recognition out-comes as the main subject of agreement. Inview of the diversity described above, it issmall wonder that the phrasing of therecognition outcomes is rather vague andgives wide scope for evasive interpreta-tions and superficial or absent implemen-tation within the acceded Member States.The relative success of the 1953 Conven-tion can probably be attributed to the rela-tively unproblematic subject rather than tothe Convention itself.

UNESCO

The concept and structure of theUNESCO Convention of 1979 can beseen to take a positive step in anotherdirection: that of a focus on the recogni-tion process as the subject of internationalagreement. Not only does the UNESCOConvention explicitly take recognition asits basic concept, it mentions variousaspects of the recognition process by whichinternational agreement will lead to bet-ter results in recognition outcomes withoutthe trapping dilemma of unacceptablyspecific agreements versus harmlesslyvague ones on specific recognition out-comes. Instead, it focuses on agreementon the elaboration of a common ter-minology and of similar evaluationcriteria, on improvement of informationand documentation exchange, and ondefined and transparent procedures for

applicants for recognition at nationallevel. It does not yet focus onmechanisms to create transparency ofcourse content to facilitate recognition offinal degrees as well as study periods.The Diploma Supplement and CourseCredit Transfer Systems were not yetfully developed at the time.

But notwithstanding this flexible ap-proach and focus on recognition processesalong with recognition outcomes, theUNESCO Convention has had very littleimpact on everyday recognition practicewithin the Europe Region. The mainreason for this situation is probably that theConvention was a political instrument forcontacts between two opposed blocs.There was little or no intention to providefor mutual recognition. There was little orno international mobility of students, staff,or graduates between the blocs. In addi-tion, the agreements on recognition processeswere in themselves not very specific: theywere agreements to agree, but no details onwhat to agree on.

Some Thoughts in Connection withA Possible New Joint Convention

Framework

Conventions for the recognition ofacademic qualifications, whether exist-ing or envisaged; are legal, political, anddiplomatic arrangements. It should beborne in mind that recognition ofacademic qualifications is a very com-plex phenomenon, which can be lookedat from different angles. In terms of ap-proaches, one can distinguish thelegal /political / diplomatic approachfrom the socio-economic approach, theeducational approach, and thepsychological approach. Various actorsplay their roles, each with their own ob-jectives: international organizations, na-tional authorities, educational

- 2 0 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

institutions, professional bodies and as-sociations, experts, and last but not least,the individual migrants.

Parallel to this distinction betweenactors, one can identify recognition ofindividual educational careers, of fixedstudy programmes, of arrangementsfor recognition at the level of institu-tions, and of sectors or of national sys-tems of higher education.

The impact of recognition in societymay differ as it moves from academicrecognition to recognition for entranceto regulated or non-regulated profes-sional activity. Recognition is in-fluenced by the geographical context;.neighboring countries will show a dif-ferent recognition practice than others;the European Union, the EuropeanEconomic Area, Europe as a whole, andthe northern hemisphere each con-stitute different geographicalframeworks for recognition ofacademic qualifications, each with realinfluence on daily practice.

An envisaged new joint Conventionfor recognition within Europe shouldbe constructed to aim for an optimalresult within the limits of these variousframeworks.

European Directives

An envisaged new Convention shouldincorporate as much as possible from thepositive elements in the General Direc-tives for recognition with regard to regu-lated professions within the MemberStates of the European Union. To repeatthe key elements briefly:

- A foreign qualification should beaccepted, unless the authorities ofthe host country demonstrate aserious deficiency concerning dif-ferences in key elements of thestudy programme and/or differen-

ces in course duration of one yearor more.

- When unfitness for immediaterecognition is proven, the com-petent authorities should allow theapplicant to make up for thedeficiencies through an adaptationperiod or an aptitude test.

- The competent authority mustdeliver its decision on recognitionwithin a specified period.

Code of Conduct

The focus in the UNESCO Conventionon processes of recognition, in addition tofocus on outcomes of recognition, could becarried one positive step forward in anenvisaged new joint Convention by ad-ding a provision in the text that accedingMember States will establish and publish(within a reasonable period, for instance,two years) a code of conduct to be fol-lowed by competent authorities andtheir advisors with regard to the proce-dures, underlying concepts, methodol-ogy, and transparency involved inrecognition at national level.

A code of conduct should take intoconsideration texts such as the Prin-ciples of Good Practice in Academic Recog-nition Procedures, adopted by theFourteenth Session of the CC-PU (Ber-lin, 19-21 March 1991), and the paper bythe NARIC Secretariat on CommonParameters for Comparing Higher Educa-tion Intermediate and Final Qualificationsin EC Member States with, in an appen-dix, a Draft Code of Conduct (9th NARICmeeting, Leiden, 1988).

International agreement on the con-tent of such a code of conduct isdesirable, but not essential. Recognitionprocesses in Europe would alreadyprofit greatly if all migrants wouldhave access to these published national

- 2 1 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


codes of conduct. A model for suchcodes of conduct could be developed,practised, and given wide notificationthrough the network of European Na-tional Information Centres and theNARIC network of the EuropeanUnion.

Subject Oriented Networks

The recognition processes and outcomesmay be furthered by trans-European sub-ject-oriented associations of academicsand/or professionals. Already a tendencyfor such associations to emerge can be dis-cerned, leading to discussions on interna-tionally accepted educational andprofessional profiles. Such voluntary as-sociations of individuals are of course farbeyond the immediate scope of a Conven-tion as an international, intergovernmentallegal instrument. A Convention could con-tain a provision, however, that accedingMember States will, whenever necessary,,accommodate existing regulations to aconsensus on recognition matters reachedthrough such trans-European associationsof academics and/or professionals. Aprecedent for such a provision has beengiven in European Convention no. 138,which requires acceding Member States toaccept recognition reached through inter-institutional arrangements.

Intermediate Classification

The matching of diverse and complex sys-tems can often be facilitated by real ortheoretically constructed intermediateclassification systems. The European Cur-rency Unit (ECU) is an example in thefinancial sphere; the European Com-munity Course Credit Transfer System(ECTS) is an example in higher education.

The validity of ISCED, the existingeducational classification system used

by UNESCO, has often been contestedbecause it is used in practice as a nor-mative system based upon rather quan-titative classification criteria. UNESCOis aware of this problem and has in-itiated a revision procedure with a spe-cial accent on specific problems ofclassification relating to post-secon-dary and higher education and part-time vocational education. The revisedversion is expected to be available in1995.

Undoubtedly, an" internationally ac-ceptable classification system of educa-tional qualifications would bring greatadvantages to the international recog-nition of educational qualifications. Itwould have to meet with at least twoessential requirements: it would haveto focus far more on the function of thequalification, and it would have to beseen and accepted as a strictly neutralintermediate between national sys-tems. No central pressure should beexerted on how the linkage betweennational qualifications and the inter-mediate classification should bedefined/Under these conditions itmight be envisaged that a new Conven-tion could contain some reference to anintermediate classification. Possibly aprovision in the Convention might beforeseen by which adhering MemberStates agree to set up a joint project toestablish such a non-normative clas-sification and adhere to it with regardto recognition matters. This wouldmean in practice that, for internationalpurposes only, adhering MemberStates would define their own nationalacademic qualifications in terms of theintermediary classification and thatrecognition statements would containreferences to the classification.

- 2 2 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

ANNEX I: EXAMPLES OF NON-TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONSOF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE

Belgium:

Bulgaria:

Denmark:

France:

Hungary:

Germany:

Greece:

The Netherlands:

Norway:

Portugal:

Romania:

Slovenia:

Spain:

Switzerland:

Instellingen voor Hoger Onderwijs buiten de universiteit/lnstitutsSupirieures non universitaires

Poluvisschi instituti

Ingeniorhajskoler and Handelshejskoler

Instituts Universitaires de Technologie, Instituts UniversitairesProfessionnalisis, Ecoles d'inginieurs, Ecoles de commerce et de gestion

Foiskola

Fachhochschule

Technologika Ekpaideftika Idrimata (TEI)

Hogescholen

DistrMshogskoler

Instituto polite'cnico

Colegii universitare -

ViSjaSola

Escuelas Universitarias

Hb'here Technisdie Lehranstalt and Hohere Wirtschafts- und Verwal-tungsschule

United Kingdom: Colleges of Higher Education

This summary, which is not exhaustive, is based partly on the Preliminary Report ofthe NEED Working Party (October 1993) and on the NARIC publication, AcademicDegrees and Diplomas in European Higher Education (Bonn: Zentralstelle furauslandisches Bildungswesen, 1993).

ANNEX 2: NURSING STUDIES IN EUROPE

Belgium

HOKT

ASB

Denmark

Schools of Nursing {sygeplejeskole)

diploma (sygeplejerkse)

The NetherlandsHBO Verpleegkunde

MBO Verpleegkundige-A

Gegradueerde in de verpleging/infirmier

Ziekenhuisverpleging/Brevet d'infirmier

- 2 3 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Poland

Academy of Medicine (Akademia Medyczm)

Medical Lyzeum

Sweden

Colleges of Health Sciences

University Diploma in Nursing

United KingdomBachelor of Nursing

Diploma in Nursing of the National Nursing Examination Board in-service(Entrance to the profession is through the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery,and Health Visiting leading to qualification as a Registered General Nurse.)

ANNEX 3: EXAMPLES OF TEACHER TRAINING IN EUROPE

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

Germany

Hungary

Norway

Poland

university education (5 years)

teacher training is incorporated into the university programme

university education (4-5 years)


1 year supervised teaching and examination or

pedagogical institutes (5 years)

1 year supervised teaching and examination

university education (5 years) _

5-months' post-initial teacher training Paedagogikum




teacher training: Vorbereitungsdienst (1.5-2 years)


teacher training is incorporated into the university programme (1year)


6-12 months' post-initial teacher training


teacher training is incorporated into the university programme or

higher pedagogical institutes (5 years)

(Both routes qualify for the degree of Magister.)

- 2 4 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEES KOUWENAAR

Slovak Republic -

Spain

Sweden



1 year supervised teaching and examination or

pedagogical institutes (5 years)

1 year supervised teaching and examination


1 year post-initial teacher training


12 months' post-initial teacher training

ANNEX 4: THE DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS

The evaluation of a university degree ordiploma for purposes of internationalacademic recognition often requires ad-ditional information about the duration,content, and assessment of the studiesleading to' it. Several factors have com-bined to increase the importance of such -additional information: the expansion ofnumbers, the multiplication of institu-tions, the diversification of courseprogrammes, the decentralization ofresponsibility for recognition, and thegreat mobility within the Europeanhigher education community.'

Consequently, in 1986, the RegionalCommittee of the UNESCO Conventioncommissioned two experts to draw up aproposal for a Diploma Supplement whichwould contain the information needed tomake recognition possible. Co-operationwas established with the Council ofEurope and the Netherlands Organisationfor International Co-operation in HigherEducation (NUFFIQ. In March 1988, theCC-PU of the Council of Europe declaredits general support for the development ofa model academic Diploma Supplement inthe UNESCO framework and asked itsdelegates to contribute actively to the finalstages of its preparation. After consult-ation with higher education institutionsand recognition experts, a draft was drawn

up and tested at several internationalmeetings. In September 1988, at its fourthsession, the Regional Committee adoptedthe proposal.

The Diploma Supplement is meant togive information on the educational careerof the holder in a standardized and inter-nationally understandable form. It is notmeant to standardize the information onhigher education itself. This informationshould be given according to the standardsand definitions of the country in which theeducational qualification was obtained.The term diploma in diploma supplementshould be viewed in its wide significationof credential of higher education, thus com-prising all kinds of documents certifyingthe completion of a period of study inhigher education: degrees, undergraduateand postgraduate diplomas, certificates ofeducation, and so on.

In the Netherlands, the DiplomaSupplement was adopted at the nation-al level in 1989-1990, and since thattime, NUFFIC has been involved in anadvisory capacity in the production ofdiploma supplements by institu tions ofhigher education in the Netherlands. Inthe past three years, NUFFIC has con-tinued its activities in the field:

- 2 5 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


- It published a manual on how tomake a Diploma Supplement ac-cording to the UNESCO/Councilof Europe model (the third editionof the manual will be printed thisyear).

- It sent a letter and a short question-naire (July 1990) to the universitiesand professional colleges whichhave adhered to the manual, re-questing feedback as to its useful-ness, problems, and progress.

- It organized, in March 1991, an in-formation-exchange Workshop (ap-proximately 20 institutions wererepresented).

As for the present, NUFFIC is work-ing, along with a Dutch software firm, todevelop a module within an existingsoftware programme for studentregistration and monitoring to producethe Diploma Supplement. Further cost-benefit analysis and marketing researchis under way.

REFERENCES

COMMITTEE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION INTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, F.A. VANVUGHT, D.F. WESTERHEIJDEN. QualityManagement and Quality Assurance in EuropeanHigher Education: Mechanisms. Brussels: Com-mittee for Higher Education in the European Union,1993.

COX, Edwin H. Academic Recognition ofDiplomas in the European Community: PresentState and Prospects. Collection Studies, EducationSeries No. 10. Brussels, 1977.

GUITON, Jean. De l'Equivalence des diplômesà l'évaluation des compétences: procédures etpratiques courantes, voies nouvelles. Paris:UNESCO, 1977.

HALLS, W. D. International Equivalences inAccess to Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO, 1971.

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, CUL-TURAL, AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION.Methods of Establishing Equivalences betweenDegrees and Diplomas. Paris: UNESCO, 1970.

WESTERHEIJDEN, D. F. Systems of QualityAssessment in European Higher Education.Enschede: Center for Higher Education PolicyStudies-CHEPS, 1992.

- 2 6 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vri

je U

nive

rsite

it A

mst

erda

m]

at 0

3:27

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

recognition instruments in europe

Documents