To understand the current role of higher education institutions for developing fine art students in particular and students in all other subjects in general, brief explanations of the recent historical developments in higher education and different significant policy frameworks on European-level are recommendable. In saying this, the traditional image of higher education is, according to Bathmaker (2003) and Sheikhneshin (2008), of an elitist sector for a minority of academically successful people. This image is based on social class inequalities with origins reaching back to the Renaissance (Bathmaker, 2003). The perceived roles of higher education in the traditional way meant a mutual recognition of the members of the ‘academic guild’ and a common language (Barnett, 2000) as well as teaching and searching for truth (Smith and Webster, 1997). The purpose was to expose students to the best thinking and knowledge in the world, to
1
In accordance with the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF), the national credit transfer system for education qualification in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales since 2011, “university level” in UK is given at level 4 and higher (The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2013). Scotland has its own system, the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.
46
develop them to understand their world in a critical way, and in promoting active debate about social values (Coffield and Williamson, 1997). However, according to Ashton and Green (1996), this traditional multi-purpose image has faced strong challenges due to the changing economic context with an increasing level of knowledge-driven economies in a more and more globalised environment. The need increased for an “educational upgrading of societies” (Sheikhneshin, 2008, p. 194) and for educating the large majority of the workforce into a highly skilled labour force as the “central lever of economic growth” and global competitiveness (Ashton and Green, 1996, p. 1; Vogel, 2012). Changes to the nature of work mean that employers seek new skills and qualities in graduates to successfully respond to market needs (Castells, 2001; Bathmaker, 2003).
In this context, students are expected to experience significant personal and financial benefits from participating in higher education due to an access to (better) career progression opportunities in the labour market (DfES, 2003). Consequently, policy makers of some countries such as the UK give students a greater share of the responsibility for their education by bearing significantly more costs towards their participation in higher education, for example, in bearing higher tuition and other fees (DfES, 2003, 2004; Greenaway and Haynes, 2003). “Higher education is therefore seen to be a shared investment between the individual graduates and the state, with both clearly benefiting from continued expansion.” (Tomlinson, 2008, p. 50). The financing of educational systems in Europe and abroad differ from one another in this context. For example, while tuition fees of up to 9,000 British pounds per academic year are charged for studying a bachelor’s degree at a UK institution, German institutions charge only a few hundred Euros in total for the degree. The German higher education sector still benefits from high public funding.
Due to this, the consequences of “massification” (Altbach et al., 2009, p. vi), meaning the expansion of student numbers in higher education, are significantly different in Europe and abroad. Findings by Voss et al. (2007) and Tomlinson (2008) clearly show in the context of massification that students perceive their academic qualifications (degree) as not enough to successfully compete in the labour market because too many qualified and certified people compete for too few job opportunities. The students therefore claim to be equipped with additional skills to successfully meet the challenging market
47
requirements (Freedman and Stuhr, 2004) and to gain the expected financial benefits in the labour market (Shephard, 2008; Tomlinson, 2008).
This massification places enormous financial pressure on the higher education sector of those countries where students financially bear large parts of their education. With restructuring the “’social contract’ between higher education and society” (Altbach et al., 2009, p. xii), higher education has become more and more a private good in these countries. Declined public funding has forced the higher education sector to generate larger percentages of their own revenue and to develop new strategies for saving costs and new sources of funding, e.g. by increasing class sizes and teaching loads, while simultaneously reducing teaching quality (Altbach et al., 2009, p. xiii).
Considering this, the impact of the “’consumers’ of education” (Altbach et al., 2009, p. xi), the educational stakeholders, such as students, parents, academic staff, employers, and governments, on higher education content and quality has significantly increased. Evans (1999) and Harvey (2000) stress the real challenge of HEIs to manage the shift of the traditional balance of power, which saw them as educational providers in the driving seat to ones participating in the learning experience as key stakeholders and educational demanders. Thus, higher education went from searching and teaching for truth and developing critically thinking knowledge carriers to professional education with graduates equipped with skills employers and themselves need for sustainable growth in challenging market environments (Grubb and Lazerson, 2005; Sheikhneshin, 2008; Vogel, 2012).
The political frameworks that significantly influence this change and hence the new role of higher education across Europe and abroad include two recent policy developments: firstly, the European Union’s strategy for jobs and growth (Lisbon Strategy), initiated in the year 2000 in Lisbon, and secondly the higher education reforms, initiated by the Bologna Process in the years 1999 and 2005 (Keeling, 2006).
The Lisbon strategy for jobs and growth is based on the European Union’s aim to make the EU the leading knowledge-based economy on earth (Lisbon European Council, 2000). To achieve this ambitious policy objective, the critical role of the higher education sector was highlighted (European Commission, 2005; Keeling, 2006; Vogel, 2012). Parallel to the Lisbon strategy, an intergovernmental agreement among European state
48
members called the Bologna Process was reached to achieve two major outcomes of higher education: firstly, higher education attainment and completion, and secondly the employability of graduates (Bologna Working Group, 2005; Adam, 2008; Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2015; European Commission, 2015). The Bologna Process understands employability as “the ability to gain initial meaningful employment, or to become self-employed, to maintain employment, and to be able to move around within the labour market” (Working Group on Employability, 2009, p. 5). In this context, the current key role of higher education is “to equip students with the knowledge, skills and competencies that they need in the workplace and that employers require; and to ensure that people have more opportunities to maintain or renew those skills and attributes throughout their working lives.” (Working Group on Employability, 2009, p. 5). This definition and understanding of the key role of higher education clearly defines degrees at universities within the Bologna Process as vocational education and trainings (e.g. NCIHE, 1997; CVCP, DfEE and HEQE, 1998; Grubb and Lazerson, 2005; Polin and Rich, 2007; Adam, 2008; Cappellari and Lucifora, 2008; Fry et al., 2009, Working Group on Employability, 2009; Allman et al., 2011; Powell et al., 2012; Baum et al., 2013; Goddard and Vallance, 2013; Holland et al., 2013; Universities UK, 2014; QAA, 2016a).
Translated into the context of this study, this consequently means that students studying for a bachelor's degree in fine arts may expect, per strategy objective of the Bologna programme, to be equipped with the skills required by employers as well as required for a professional career as practising artists and finally for also being able to make a living in this profession (Polin and Rich, 2007). This educational objective is valid for all fine art students, regardless of their (current) professional self-understanding and commercial motives for making art.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask the question of what skills are relevant for fine artists’ professional preparation at HEIs in the context of the Bologna Process.
3.1.5.2.2 The Identification of Crucial Professional Skills for Practising Fine Artists