Exploratory Meeting of the Archipelago of Erasmus Humanistic Thematic
Networks
Bruxelles, 17 November 2003
Rue Belliard 7,
1040 Brussels
Meeting Room 5/14
Present: Peter Van der Hijden, Ettore Deodato (European Commission), Eric Ballhausen (Socrates TAO), Hanneke van Bruggen (ENOTHE), Ann Katherine Isaacs, Laura Burgisano (CLIOHNET), Peter Holz (ETNET), Constantin Spiridonidis (ENSHA), Roger Dale (GENIE), Marlise Mensink (ATHENA), Anne-Marie van Den Dries (CiCe2), Elena Lamberti (ACUME), Irina Kolotouchkina, Mike Goldsmith (EPISTEME), Eva Kulage, Lothar Cerny (ERIC), Richard Stiles (LE:NOTRE), Olivier Mentz (HERODOT), Laurinda Labreu (PHOENIX), Truus Ophuysen (‘Bologna. Higher Arts’), Wolfgang Mackiewicz (TNP3 ‘Language’), Fernando Galindo (LEFIS), Francesco Maffioli (E4).
Agenda:
1. Welcome
2. “From Berlin to Bergen”, Peter Van Der Hijden (Deputy head
of Unit)
3. Introduction to the Meeting, Ettore Deodato (Responsible
for Thematic Networks)
4. Short presentation of each TN and their calendar of activities
5. The TECHNO2004 experience, Francesco Maffioli (E4)
6. The Humanistic Education Area and Thematic Networks, Kathy
Isaacs (CLIOHNET)
7. Discussion of possible initiatives
8. Any other business
The meeting opens at 10:15 AM. It is presided by Ettore Deodato. Notes
are taken by Laura Burgisano, Kathy Isaacs and Marise Mensink.
1. Peter Van Der Hijden presents to the participants the salient
points of the recent Berlin Conference of European Ministers of Education,
with particular reference to their implications for the Thematic Networks.
Three main points are emphasised: the greater ‘seriousness’ of
this conference respect to Bologna and Prague; the importance of the doctoral
level, the entry of new countries.
More specifically:
a. Ministers have now set priorities, targets and deadlines
applicable to all countries. The two cycles must be in place by 2005; the
same is true of such tools as the Diploma Supplement which must be given
automatically, for free and in a widely known language to every student
by 2005. Quality assurance mechanisms must also be in place and actually
functioning in 2005. There must be common criteria and common procedures,
an agreed set of guidelines and evaluation of them, once again by the Bergen
conference of 2005.
b. For the doctoral as well, there must be transparency, quality
procedures, credits. There will be more taught elements in doctoral courses,
and hopefully more joint degrees. Furthermore more attention is being given
to ‘short’ courses, at whatever point in the first, second
and third cycle framework, examining inter alia the relationship of such
courses to LLL.
c. New countries from south-eastern Europe are included. There
is the possibility for Ministers from further countries to ask to be admitted
on the basis of a clear plan. Already Andorra, the Holy See and Russia
have asked for and gained admittance. There is funding available in TEMPUS
to assist with setting up links with Russia.
Overall there are three priorities: 1) Quality assurance; 2)
2 cycles and link to Quality Framework; 3) Recognition.
TNPs have roles in all topics. Background is Bologna, and more
generally Lisbon. The hope is that there be more and better jobs, more
researchers, more young people in HE, less drop outs and so forth. In order
to do this it is no longer sufficient to laud ‘great diversity’:
there must be a common understanding of reference points or ‘benchmarks’,
objectives to work towards. This is true of the mechanism of the Bologna
process where ministers are spurred on by fear of embarrassment if precise
goals set are not reached. There are four priorities: concentrating efforts
and investing more; lifelong learning strategy; qualifications framework;
annual reporting. Also important: see entire process as a whole (Bologna
for HE, Copenhagen for vocational training, all under the Lisbon umbrella).
All tools for transparency are essential.
The Thematic Networks have an important role, particularly
in establishing the overarching European Qualifications Framework, making
more transparent the degrees we have, opening doors between qualifications.
Passing from one to another will not be automatic, but must be possible.
Aside from the general definitions of the first, second and third cycles,
competences, both general and subject specific must be created by those
who know the field. Setting up competence based qualifications does not
mean creating straitjackets, but reference points which allow describing – this
leads not to ‘harmonisation’
or uniformity, but to being able to describe, adding or subtracting,
a specific situation with reference to agreed upon reference points. This
process has been accelerated through Tuning; the TNs in implementing Tuning
are actually creating the bases for the common qualifications framework.
Thinking is now going on about the successor to Socrates: TNs will have
an important role in the future as well.
Ettore Deodato announces that there will be the Coordinators’
meeting on 29 January, and 30 January for the new projects.
At that time these issues will be discussed further.
A tour de table is proposed and carried out; the representatives
of the Thematic Networks introduce themselves and say a few words about
their TN (ENOTHE, CLIOHnet, LEFIS, TN3 Languages, ETNET21, ENSHA, CiCe2,
Bologna: Higher Arts, ACUME, GENIE, EPISTEME, ATHENA II, PHOENIX, ERIC,
LE:NOTRE, HERODOT...A series of themes are thus introduced, the internal
articulations of the TNs, the necessity and the difficulties of involving
students, strategies for reaching out beyond the confines of the Networks
themselves and so forth.
Ettore Deodato notes that many of the themes touched in the
tour de table – mapping of disciplines and competences, European
dimension, Tuning, research, Erasmus Mundus –
are related to the classic and basic tasks of the Thematic
Networks. The Commission supports ‘archipelagos’
because of the danger of verticality. There are multidisciplinary
groups among the TNs. At this point however broader groupings, archipelagos
or very big networks can be useful in extending the efficacy of the Thematic
Networks in various areas including research. These represent the possibility
of avoiding a map formed of separate, isolated. ‘atolls’. There
is an archipelago for scientific and technological disciplines; there is
a potentiality for a humanistic archipelago, being explored here; possibly
there will be a health science archipelago or similar. The archipelagos
should lead to bridges between the disciplines and possibly to common working
groups. The European Commission may support the archipelagos, through ordinary
or special lines of finance. It may be advisable to hold an annual meeting
all together. Tasks to carry out together can be producing a common description
of teaching/learning methods, quality assurance, Tuning methodology (this
will be explained further in January at the coordinators’
meeting). We can envisage a combined exercise, to identify
together the obstacles to cooperation among disciplines and to share results
of research.
Furthermore it can help to increase the visibility of the TNs.
Often we hear that many people are of aware of the TNs and their work;
the archipelago should be able to make them more visible.
Francesco Maffioli illustrates the first steps taken by the
Scientific and Technological archipelago.
The challenge is to focus not on the specific branches of the
sciences but rather on transversal problems. He illustrates the activities
of the Engineering TN, and then points out that the fate of the first activity
of the new archipelago is uncertain. There was a first small meeting in
March, then in June 2003 and finally in October. These set up the idea
of holding a conference or ‘forum’, including various persons
of each of the participating Networks plus some outside experts. The meeting
is to consist of plenary sections and five workshops on the following themes:
quality, the three cycle structure, visibility, the challenges of life
long learning, creating attractive learning environments, etc. The single
work groups have a secretary, a leader and a rapporteur. A less satisfactory
aspect is that of the finances. Since the meeting is not financed in an
official way it has been possible to organise it at the Tulip Inn with
a fee of 105 per person. The registration must take place by 15 December
and it is still to be seen whether the plan will be successful. There is
a site for the conference connected to the E4 web page (www.ing.unifi.it/TNE4.
Ettore Deodato points out that it should be possible to obtain
financial support through the Socrates ‘accompanying measures’.
Kathy Isaacs illustrates some ideas about the role of an archipelago
of humanistic disciplines. Certainly visibility is one important question.
The lack of visibility of TNs in general has been discussed many times.
An Archipelago of Humanistic TNs could present itself with greater force,
creating appropriate materials on the web and in print, showing altogether
the strength and the importance of the Humanistic Networks. The premise
for such activity however is a mapping of the humanistic area, a mapping
which first of all means deciding whether there is a humanistic area and
how it should be defined or conceptualised, and also what topics and disciplines
are linked to it more or less strongly, or should be linked to it or included
in it. One purpose of the mapping would be to see where there should be
humanistic TNs which are absent at present –
“mapping the holes”. In practice, there are many disciplines ‘lacking’:
if we take the Socrates list as an arbitrary starting point, we see that
the representation of the disciplines is partial and unbalanced. Should
an archipelago have a role in promoting the creation of the missing TNs?
In the correspondence which led to holding this meeting to explore the
potentiality of the Archipelago we pointed out how the Tuning perspective
at present introduces a contradictory element in what until now has been
the Commission’s
‘road-plan’ for TNs. In the future TNs for all disciplines
are expected or advised to create and update pan-European criteria and
reference points for their area regarding t/l methods and contents and
curriculum design. Thus TNs would appear to be permanent actors on the
HE scene. At the same time however we know that TNs are supposed to have
a limited life span. Isaacs points out that there is widespread sentiment
among TN coordinators that a great deal is being asked of the TNs, that
the coordinators are asking a great deal of themselves and of their institutions
and partners, and it is not clear whether this is understood. The Archipelago
could make clearer what TNs are and provide a structure that would make
their value greater and easier to perceive.
Isaacs suggests what to her mind might be the results of the
day’s discussion: 1) a plan for achieving a higher degree of interaction
and reciprocal knowledge among the Networks; 2) a plan to involve partners
as well as coordinators in this interaction; 3) a plan for promoting the
area, ensuring that there are no un-navigable spaces between the atolls
and that the value of and the need for the humanities is recognised; 4)
a plan for increasing the visibility of TNs and, if possible, of the humanistic
TNs. Specific issues which should be taken up in her view are Tuning, the
relations with associations and stakeholders, the idea of that TNs should
be representative of disciplinary areas and in what sense, quality. Should
a conference be planned? Such as Techno TN 2004? Is that the path we wish
to follow? Should we promote national meetings of TNs? Linking the TNs
at the national level?
There is a first round of discussion. Anne-Marie van Den Dries
fears that the scenario for the proposed humanistic archipelago is vague
and is afraid that Tuning might make them static. Kathy Isaacs says that
actually Tuning foresees continually updating, and hence poses the problem
of how to create adequate dynamism, including in the way disciplines are
defined and organised. Mike Goldsmith thinks that we can learn from one
another and innovate. There is a range of common issues and we should work
particularly on learning strategies and methodologies. Visibility is another
important goal in which the archipelago could have a significant effect.
It is always surprising that many people are not informed about TNs and
their work. There should be a widening and deepening of knowledge about
the TNs, and an improvement in the ways of working with stakeholders and
professional bodies. Ettore Deodato welcomes all initiatives that may lead
to greater visibility. Associations are hard to interest. Wolfgang Mackiewicz
thinks that the archipelago is a good idea and should be put into effect.
In the first place it would be very useful to map out possible research
scenarios in ways that are innovative and have not been implemented yet.
Furthermore there is the question not so much of visibility as of impact,
that is impact at the institutional, regional and national level. On the
vertical level there are already important experiences; we can learn from
each other. However we must be very clear about defining our objectives
and work programme, defining exactly what we want to achieve. We can only
afford to commit ourselves to something that is useful. Truus Ophuysen
explains that the area of higher arts and music education, both as a teaching/learning
and as a scientific area is very different from the others. She emphasises
that the archipelago must respond to explicit needs. One of these is for
visibility. The example of the Tuning book printed in Spanish (and soon
Italian) is mentioned. The language issue is important in achieving widespread
impact.
1:00 p.m.: The meeting adjourns for one hour for lunch.
2:00 p.m.: The meeting resumes.
Eric Ballhausen informs the group that the deadline for the
accompanying measures is 1 March and that the grant can be used from 1
October. It would be wise not only to organise meetings, but also to ensure
some sort of permanent organisation and a website. Mike Goldsmith proposes
that we try to make a concrete proposal, thinking about the issues we must
deal with. Francesco Maffioli to break the ice suggests that there should
be a steering committee. Kathy Isaacs says that we can easily start with
a site in which there are all the logos and links to out own websites.
We could make a booklet with something about each TN and how they work
together. Marlise Mensink says that, with regard to Athena, the archipelago
can only be contemplated if there is a large added value, particularly
in the area of making us stronger competitors in the research funding competition.
And why not be more provocative and incisive? The archipelago could look
at the budget and ask why humanities are funded more poorly than other
areas. Ettore Deodato brings up the fact that it should become possible
in the future to strengthen the link between Education and Research. However,
there is a starting point, and a lot of difficulties. This is a final goal,
a direction in which to move. For now, the archipelagos are an hypothesis.
The exact image of what they are or can be is in the process of being created.
Richard Stiles comments on the fact that more exchange of information
has taken place during lunch than in the annual coordinators’ meetings.
As to the problem of visibility he makes the suggestion (to which everyone
agrees) that the Commission write a letter to the Rectors of the universities
that coordinate Thematic Networks and to those of the partner institutions,
in which the importance and the significance of the TNs is explained and
underlined. Anne-Marie van Den Dries takes up the point of the possibility
that an archipelago would have of doing effective lobbying on broad issues.
She also sees a potential in organising Joint degrees and Quality Assurance
procedures. Elena Lamberti believes that evaluation, visibility and credibility
go hand-in-hand, and proposes a general affirmative programme for the Humanities.
If each TN already does this to an extent, the archipelago would be more
effective. The archipelago should make it possible to involve more people.
Richard Stiles says that the lobbying potential is very important. Carefully
prepared Network of Excellence projects have not been successful, in part
because too closely focussed on single disciplines. The archipelago should
lobby for the Seventh Framework programme. Francesco Maffioli reminds the ‘humanists’ present
that the problems they see apply to basic research in general; there is
a tendency not only of the EU but also of national and other research funders
to be more generous with applied research. But if funding to basic research
is cut there will be basic problems. It is important to ensure that this
issue is understood. This is a problem taken up by the ESF. There is a
white paper on this matter. Truus Ophuysen further comments the white paper
on research and emphasizes the importance of effective lobbying. Wolfgang
Mackiewicz comes back to the problem of ‘added value’. What
it that an archipelago can do better that would make it worthwhile? Visibility,
exchange of know-how and information. Its task would be to clarify the
function of the humanities in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century.
A conference could be organised to look at ourselves from the outside.
Some disciplines are disappearing very fast; an overview is urgent.
Mike Goldsmith reminds the group that TNs are supposed to succumb – or
rather become independent of Commission funding – at some stage.
The archipelago may be a good way to go ahead and to become self-sustaining
but connected with the other TNs. Francesco Maffioli illustrates the long
term story of E4, starting from stage of organising student mobility: the
panorama is fast-changing and dynamic. It is necessary to consolidate the
education-research link. Kathy Isaacs emphasises the fact that research
and education should be linked all along the educational process and not
just in the third or doctoral cycle. This represents an area in which Europe
as a knowledge space can and must distinguish itself. There needs to be
a change in values; as TN coordinators she thinks we are all aware that
a high value is placed by our colleagues on ‘Research’ with
a capital R, and very little on ‘education’. But we also know
that the two go together and without excellent teaching learning strategies
the researchers of tomorrow will be mediocre, limited specialists, and
not well-prepared wide-ranging thinkers. Peter Holz emphasizes that the
archipelago will make sense and be viable only if it is ‘needs driven’.
That is if it responds to real needs. These real needs, new or increasing
needs, are for example towards proper integration of the new central and
eastern European partners: also there are areas where activities in research
and education lie between different Faculties, that is where innovation
takes place, and the archipelago should deal with the areas of innovation.
It might be that one of the Networks each year organises a meeting in which
these matters are discussed. Wolfgang Mackiewicz points out that there
are processes in act which are not really predictable (he cites the example
of Cottbus), so the archipelago must be attentive to change and act in
a rapidly changing scenario.
The issue of how to ensure visibility within the institutions
is touched upon again. Marlise Mensink urges the discussants to be concrete.
Wolfgang Mackievicz says that workshops should not be permanent fixtures,
the important thing is to find ways of getting things done, and how to
use the results to maximum benefit. It is important to impact at local,
regional and national level. Workshops should be devoted to particular
themes, such as, what research in the humanistic field has a meaning in
the EU agenda?
Conclusion of the meeting.
It is decided that a small group should be set up to formulate
a proposal to be communicated to all participants. The small group should
meet during the Coordinators’ meeting at the end of January and use
that occasion to discuss the way to go forward with all the participants.
Volunteers are called for. In the end, the small group is formed of
Ann Katherine Isaacs
Elena Lamberti
Marlise Mensink
Anne-Marie van Den Dries
Constantin Spiridonides
The meeting closes.