And this was done by agreeing on two well-known tools: a higher education system in three cycles (bachelor's, master's and PhD), based on competencies, and the ECTS (European Credit Transfer System), which facilitate mutual recognition and, therefore, the achievement of the initial objectives.
However, a very important third Bologna tool is rarely remembered: the ESG (European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance), i.e. quality assurance systems, the framework for ensuring the correct design, roll-out, improvement and recognition of university degrees.
Unlike the other two tools, in the case of international cooperation between universities for the development and design of joint international programmes, the ESG have become a sometimes insurmountable obstacle, due to the diversity of regulations in the field and their roll-out in each country.
With the honourable exception of the international joint master's degree programmes under the umbrella of Erasmus Mundus, which gives them a certain simplification in processing, the rest of the international joint degree initiatives were, until recently, the paradigm of duplicity and mutual distrust, if I may say so.
To address this issue, in 2012 the Ministers of Education, meeting in Bucharest, agreed to develop a common framework for quality assurance for joint programmes, the so-called European Approach, which is being progressively adopted by quality agencies across Europe. In Catalonia, it is reflected in the AQU Catalunya Guide to ex-ante accreditation of joint programmes using the European Approach and in the 2020 Ex-ante and ex-post Accreditation Recognition Protocol.
The pilot experience of the Autonomous University of Barcelona in the European Approach has been a new and unknown path, which we have travelled, along with AQU Catalunya and NVAO (Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie), for the verification of a joint master's degree with the University Leiden.
In order to analyse the benefits and possible improvements of this new approach, I will divide the verification process we have carried out into two parts: generating documentation, consisting of the programme report and the agreement, and the assessment carried out by the quality agencies and an external assessment committee (CAE).
In terms of documentation, the European Approach makes it easy for the degree report to be a single document prepared jointly and valid for all participating institutions and agencies. This avoids the duplication that ensues when each country prepares the documentation according to national requirements.
It must be said, however, that this report is more extensive than national regulations contemplate, because the standards agreed in the European Approach protocol must be met, and that, as it is in English, it obviously has to be translated subsequently to be sent to the Ministry together with the translation of the agreement.
At this point in the documentation, it would be necessary to at least make progress in the possibility of recognising English as the language of the documentation, and bring state regulations into line with the framework of the European Approach regarding the standards to be developed in the report.
As for the assessment process itself, this is where, in my opinion, the great advantage lies with the incorporation of a mixed CAE, with representatives of the various assessment agencies, and a visit (virtual in this case) of the CAE, with hearings with different agents involved in the degree.
Thus, we move from a linear “epistolary” relationship, through previous CAE assessment reports based on the report delivered, subject to more or less correct interpretations, followed by subsequent allegations from the coordinating university, also more or less successful, to a real, rich interactive analysis, which can provide nuances, clarifications and debates on any aspect that the CAE considers, including the perspective of the various agents and also members of the participating universities.
Obviously, the virtual format of the visit has facilitated varied and wide participation in the hearings, but at the cost of reducing their warmth and physical contact with the reality of the institutions. In future experiences, we must try to achieve the difficult balance between these two aspects.
It is therefore necessary to encourage national regulatory institutions to follow the path initiated by quality agencies and to incorporate this new framework into their regulations and guidelines, with full recognition, so that the aim with which it was created, simplification and the mutual recognition of quality processes in the European Higher Education Area becomes a reality.
To quote Dr Alexander Fleming, who is now more than ever in everyone's mind, "the more complex the world becomes, the more complicated it is to achieve something without the cooperation of others”.