1. Le contexte
La loi n°2009-1437 du 24 novembre 2009 relative à l’orientation et la formation professionnelle tout au long de la vie prévoit qu’un passeport Orientation et Formation doit être mis à disposition de toute personne. Il doit l’aider à structurer ses choix d’orientation, construire un parcours professionnel dynamique de court et moyen terme, faciliter la mobilité professionnelle. Outil de sécurisation des parcours professionnel, les passeports Orientation Formation doivent être largement diffusés et faire l’objet d’une pédagogie active. C’est pourquoi Pôle emploi a décidé de mettre en place un passeport Orientation/Formation largement diffusable à l’ensemble des actifs qui bénéficient de ses services. Ce support constitue un outil important pour réussir la mise en œuvre de l’offre de service orientation professionnelle de Pôle emploi.
2. Les objectifs du passeport Orientation/Formation proposé par Pôle emploi
Le passeport Orientation/Formation a pour fonction, pour une personne, de retracer et mémoriser les moments clés de l’expérience professionnelle et extra professionnelle, les compétences développées tout au long de sa carrière ainsi que ses formations initiale et continue.
Il lui permet de:
- recenser et identifier ses connaissances, compétences et aptitudes professionnelles,
- faire émerger ses centres d’intérêt, valeurs, qualités et contraintes personnelles,
- repérer les métiers qui l’intéressent,
- élaborer un projet professionnel en lien avec ses compétences et aspirations,
- bâtir sa stratégie de recherche d’emploi.
Ce n’est ni un CV, ni une carte de visite, mais aide activement à préparer un CV et un entretien d’embauche en aidant son propriétaire à cerner ses atouts et compétences valorisables.
Il est la propriété exclusive de la personne qui l’utilise.
3. Le contenu du passeport Orientation/Formation
Il est composé d’un guide pédagogique indissociable du passeport, lui-même constitué de fiches thématiques à remplir et facilement actualisables.
Les thèmes abordés dans le guide:
o Les moments clés de la carrière professionnelle (le contexte, les circonstances, le lieu, les objectifs et ce qui a été mis en œuvre dans le passé professionnel et extra professionnel),
o Les compétences et les formations (initiale et continue),
o Les centres d’intérêt et valeurs de travail (que l’on désire retrouver dans son activité professionnelle),
o Le projet professionnel et le plan d’action (pouvant inclure le cas échéant, un projet de formation).
Ce guide a été rédigé afin de faciliter l’appropriation directe de l’outil par la personne qui souhaite réaliser son passeport. Il est un des supports possibles des animations et explications portées dans le cadre de l’atelier « identifier ses atouts et compétences » et des prestations d’orientation « confirmer son projet professionnel » et « cap projet professionnel ».
Le passeport comporte 7 fiches qui permettent à la personne de retracer, d’analyser et d’élaborer un projet professionnel et/ou de formation:
o Fiche 1 : Votre expérience : les moments clés de votre carrière
o Fiche 2 : Vos choix professionnels
o Fiche 3 : Vos compétences
o Fiche 4 : Vos centres d’intérêts et valeurs de travail
o Fiche 5 : Vos formations
o Fiche 6 : Votre projet professionnel
o Fiche 7 : Votre projet de formation
4. Les prestations d’orientation professionnelle et le passeport Orientation/Formation
Réaliser son passeport Orientation/Formation est notamment proposé à l’ensemble des demandeurs d’emploi bénéficiaires des prestations d’orientation professionnelle. Si des personnes possèdent déjà leur propre passeport elles peuvent choisir le support qu’elles veulent utiliser.
Les participants utilisent les fiches du passeport comme support de synthèse et de réflexion. Le passeport peut être complété par des documents spécifiques à la prestation (résultats de mise en situation, d’enquête, de tests…) :
- Dans l’atelier « identifier ses atouts et compétences », le passeport est complémentaire au livret bénéficiaire. Il est renseigné ou mis à jour au fur et à mesure de l’avancement de l’atelier.
- Dans « Confirmer son projet professionnel (CPP) », le référent (prestataire ou Pôle emploi) informe le bénéficiaire que ce dernier doit recueillir tous les éléments produits pendant la prestation et les conserver dans son passeport Orientation Formation.
- Dans « CAP projet professionnel (CAP) », le référent (prestataire ou Pôle emploi) fournit au bénéficiaire un dossier, qui pourra être le « passeport Orientation Formation », lui permettant de conserver une trace de l’ensemble des travaux réalisés au cours de la prestation.
En revanche, le passeport, propriété du demandeur d’emploi, ne remplace pas le bilan de la prestation.
5. Le passeport Orientation/Formation et l’accompagnement de Pôle emploi
Le passeport, propriété du demandeur d’emploi:
- Est présent sur www.pole-emploi.fr pour permettre une appropriation en auto délivrance,
- Peut servir de support lors d'échanges avec le conseiller Pôle emploi si la personne le souhaite. Lui seul décide de l’utilisation des éléments qu’il contient.
En revanche, un recruteur ou un responsable d’entreprise ne peut exiger que lui soit présenté ce type de document.
6. La mise à disposition du passeport Orientation/Formation
Le passeport Orientation/Formation a vocation à être largement utilisé.
Une première dotation « papier » de 100000 passeports sera diffusée via routeur à toutes les agences entre le 6 et le 10 février, y compris les agences de services spécialisés.
Les commandes complémentaires se feront selon le schéma habituel dans « doc – sourcing » - référence 894 – dircom
Les directions régionales de Pôle emploi fourniront aux prestataires les exemplaires qui leur seront nécessaires pour la mise en œuvre des prestations qui leur sont confiées.
Une version électronique du passeport téléchargeable via « pole-emploi.fr » permet aux utilisateurs de le renseigner ou de le mettre à jour en toute autonomie. Toutefois la participation à l’atelier « identifier ses atouts et compétences» est fortement recommandée.
7. Les premières évolutions prévues
Le passeport sera intégré dans l’espace personnel du demandeur d’emploi courant 2012. Le directeur général adjoint
clients, services et partenariat, Bruno Lucas.
Télécharger la brochure de Pôle Emploi sur le Passeport Orientation/Formation.
Qu’est-ce que le Passeport Orientation/Formation ?
Le passeport Orientation/Formation est un document qui vous permet de faire le point sur vos compétences et votre projet professionnel. C’est un outil personnel que vous complétez vous-même au moyen de ce guide.
Si vous le souhaitez, vous pouvez travailler sur ce passeport avec l’aide d’un conseiller Pôle emploi dans le cadre de l’atelier « Identifier ses atouts et compétences ».
Quel est l’objectif du passeport ?
● Identifier et recenser vos connaissances, compétences et aptitudes professionnelles, acquises pendant votre parcours
● Faire émerger vos centres d’intérêts, valeurs, qualités et contraintes personnelles
● Repérer les métiers qui vous intéressent
● Elaborer un projet professionnel en lien avec vos compétences et aspirations
● Bâtir votre stratégie de recherche d’emploi
● Favoriser votre mobilité professionnelle
Vous pouvez enrichir votre passeport Orientation/Formation tout au long de votre parcours professionnel et y conserver vos entretiens professionnels, bilan de compétences, formations, stages, expériences professionnelles ou bénévoles…
Votre expérience: les moments clés de votre carrière
Vous avez exercé plusieurs métiers ou activités extraprofessionnelles? Certaines expériences vous ont plu, d’autres moins? Il est important de recenser ces « moments clés » afin d’identifier les caractéristiques que vous voulez retrouver dans votre futur emploi.
Quels ont été vos choix professionnels
Lors de votre vie professionnelle, vous avez pris des décisions, fait des choix volontaires ou par défaut qui ont pu avoir des conséquences positives ou négatives. Revenez sur ces choix « de carrière » en vous posant quelques questions:
1 Quel était votre choix ?
2 Quelles étaient les différentes options ?
3 Qu’est-ce qui vous a principalement motivé ?
4 Quelles étaient vos contraintes ? Comment vous êtes vous adapté ?
5 Aujourd’hui, à partir de votre expérience, quelles autres informations vous paraissent utiles pour prendre une future décision ?
Vos compétences
Après avoir détaillé vos expériences et vos compétences, faites un inventaire des formations (scolaires, supérieures, continue) dont vous avez bénéficié. Cette étape supplémentaire va venir compléter la liste de vos connaissances et compétences mais également, vous aider à identifier certaines formations futures.
Quelques définitions pour mieux comprendre :
Une compétence est constituée de connaissances théoriques, de savoir faire pratiques mis en oeuvre et maitrisés. Exemple : la compétence « savoir faire du pain » exige de connaître la recette (connaissances théoriques), d’avoir acquis « le tour de main » pour pétrir la pâte (savoir faire pratique) et de ne pas ignorer que la météo influence le temps de la levée (expérience).
Une compétence technique, c’est la maîtrise d’une expertise, d’une méthode ou de machines spécifiques à caractère technique acquise dans un domaine spécialisé. Cette expertise se fonde sur des connaissances techniques théoriques, pratiques et sur l’expérience. Exemples : réaliser un bilan comptable, déposer un moteur, faire une déclaration en douane, effectuer la paie...
Une compétence sociale, c’est être capable de communiquer et d’interagir d’une façon positive avec son entourage (relations de travail, famille...)
Une compétence transverse peut être utilisée quel que soit le secteur d’activité ou le métier. Exemples: capacité à travailler en groupe, respect des délais…
Vos formations
Après l’étude des moments clés de votre vie professionnelle, il faut maintenant établir la liste des compétences acquises pour mieux les valoriser. Essayez d’être le plus précis possible dans votre inventaire!
Vos intérêts et valeurs
On fait souvent mieux ce que l’on aime faire. Pour effectuer un choix d’orientation professionnelle qui corresponde à vos aspirations, il est essentiel de bien identifier vos centres d’intérêt et vos valeurs de travail...
Quels sont vos centres d’intérêts ?
Recensez vos centres d’intérêt est utile pour repérer les métiers ou les secteurs d’activité qui peuvent vous correspondre, ainsi que votre futur environnement professionnel.
Quelles sont vos valeurs ?
Qu’est ce qui compte le plus pour vous parmi les propositions suivantes ? Choisissez 3 ou 4 valeurs significatives pour vous et hiérarchisez-les:
-Statut (vouloir que mes qualités soient reconnues, être populaire, être estimé par les autres…)
-Pouvoir (prestige, influence, reconnaissance sociale)
-Risque, stimulation (relever des défis, surmonter des difficultés...)
-Liberté, indépendance (créativité, être autonome, indépendant et me distinguer des autres, choix de ses propres buts, être maître de mon emploi du temps....)
-Aide aux autres, solidarité (protection des autres, amélioration du bien être des personnes, soin aux
autres…)
-Sécurité (sécurité, stabilité pour la société, pour les individus…)
-Compétition (faire quelque chose d’excitant, d’audacieux où la concurrence est forte)
-Rémunération (avoir un revenu élevé)
Votre projet professionnel
Un passeport « Orientation/Formation » s’arrête généralement ici: la mise en valeur de votre parcours et de vos caractéristiques personnelles. Si vous recherchez le même emploi que celui que vous occupiez précédemment, l’essentiel est fait!
En revanche, si vous souhaitez vous orienter vers un nouveau métier, le passeport « Orientation/Formation » de Pôle emploi peut vous aider à travailler votre projet en vous guidant dans le plan d’action à mettre en oeuvre.
Votre projet professionnel
Vous souhaitez évoluer vers un autre métier? Décrivez à l’aide du tableau présent dans votre passeport la ou les pistes professionnelles que vous avez choisies. Cela vous aidera à prendre en compte toutes les caractéristiques de ces pistes afin de définir l’objectif professionnel le plus pertinent pour vous.
Votre plan d’action
Pour atteindre votre objectif professionnel, vous allez devoir élaborer un plan d’action et noter les différentes étapes qui vous attendent. Inscrivez-les dans le tableau présent dans votre passeport.
Votre projet de formation
Pour mener à bien votre projet professionnel, vous devrez peut-être suivre une ou plusieurs formations. Le guide pratique « Une formation, pourquoi? comment? » détaille les précautions et les possibilités de formation ouvertes aux demandeurs d’emploi (et aux actifs). Lisez-le attentivement et synthétisez dans votre passeport ce qui vous semble être votre besoin. Vous pourrez ensuite en parler à votre conseiller.
Voir aussi Rénovation du site Web Europass, Passeport formation: Réalité ou mythe, Un Passeport Orientation Formation pour les professionnels du Froid, Le e-PORTFOLIO: le CV du FUTUR, Corse: le Passeport Emploi, Le passeport orientation et formation - la fiche Unifaf, Passeport pour l'emploi 2011 – Des formations pour des métiers, Le Passeport Formation, Lancement du passeport compétences, Passeport Aquitain de Compétences, Voyage à travers le monde de l'entreprise: Passeport Formation, Un nouveau site réservé au Passeport Formation, Qu’est-ce que le passeport formation.

Dans un courrier adressé à l’ensemble des adhérents, Jean Pallière, Directeur Général d’Unifaf, revient sur les deux mesures prévues par l’accord de Branche 2011-05.
* La première disposition concerne exclusivement les associations de 10 salariés et plus: le versement minimum de cotisation à Unifaf au titre du plan de formation passe de 65% à 70% de l’obligation conventionnelle à compter de la cotisation assise sur votre masse salariale brute 2012 (à verser avant le 28/02/2013).
* La seconde mesure est ouverte à tous: quel que soit le dispositif mobilisé (plan de formation, période de professionnalisation ou DIF), Unifaf peut désormais financer, à votre demande, les salaires et charges du bénéficiaire de la formation. Il n’est donc plus possible pour Unifaf de prendre en charge les salaires et charges de remplacement. Cette mesure est applicable immédiatement.
Une note technique expliquant ces mesures est disponible en téléchargement ci-contre. Pour toute information complémentaire sur ces évolutions, n’hésitez pas à vous renseigner auprès de votre service régional d’Unifaf. Les coordonnées sont disponibles en cliquant sur la carte de France ci-contre. Note technique.
Congé Individuel de formation
Compte tenu de l'accord de Branche sur les dispositifs en cours d'agrément, les modalités de prise en charge du CIF vont évoluer courant 2012.
Pour être informé, consultez régulièrement l’actualité d’Unifaf. Aucune information ne sera communiquée par téléphone.
    Vous avez déposé ou demandé un dossier CIF-CDI ?
    Un courrier émanant de votre service régional Unifaf vous a été adressé, vous informant de l'évolution probable du dispositif.
    Vous souhaitez obtenir un dossier CIF-CDI ou un CIF-CDD ?
    Merci de bien vouloir adresser votre demande par écrit à votre service régional Unifaf.

Guest article by Eva Egron-Polak, Secretary General, International Association of Universities.
There is currently an omnipresent preoccupation with assessment and evaluation of higher education internationalisation.  This is a positive trend.  It attests to the interest in internationalisation at the level of policy makers as well as amongst institutional leadership and other stakeholders.  Second, it shines a spotlight on the ways and means that are being used to increase or strengthen the international dimensions of higher education and research.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, this trend fosters a critical analysis of what it means to internationalise teaching, learning, research and the overall higher education experience.  It also keeps alive the debate about why, how and how well different higher education institutions around the world pursue internationalisation.
Quite certainly, specialists in quality assurance and/or evaluation would take me to task for not drawing precise and clear distinctions between the myriad terms used to describe the practice in which we endeavour to make sense of our internationalisation efforts.  Indeed, each specific term—evaluation, assessment, review, audit, etc—depicts a process that may have a slightly different purpose and methodology. Ultimately, however, the aim is to know whether or not the internationalisation goals are being achieved; and if we fall short of that, why this is the case, and what is required to redress the situation.
Evaluation/assessment/auditing is part of institutional development and learning, and thus absolutely essential in higher education institutions.  When we apply these processes to internationalisation, however, the key is to ensure that the goals or objectives of internationalisation also become subjects of the assessment process.  It is not sufficient to undertake a ‘fitness for purpose’ evaluation of internationalisation; it is necessary to also assess the ‘fitness of the purpose’, both for the institution itself and for any international partners involved.
The International Association Universities’ (IAU) experience with institutional reviews of internationalisation is not long-standing or vast, yet.  IAU only recently developed and launched its Internationalization Strategies Advisory Service (ISAS). Our work in this area is, nevertheless, highly diverse since the ISAS projects to date have taken place in three different world regions.  And, despite the vastly dissimilar contextual realities in each university, each ISAS project still confirmed that the dominant understanding of internationalisation of higher education remains relatively narrow or only partial. Consequently, internationalisation tends to be implemented in a limited manner. And when institutions embark on an assessment, they are likely to focus on just a few, basic aspects, using a limited set of (usually quantitative) indicators, such as the number of international students on campus, the number of exchange partnerships, the teaching of foreign languages and the hosting of visitors from abroad.  Despite the clear importance of these indicators of internationalisation, are they really a mark that the goals of internationalisation have been achieved?  How much do they tell us about the impact of these actions on the learning that takes place?  How well can the academic community reply to the ‘why’ questions that can be raised about these actions, particularly when they require institutional investment?
Perhaps the most important value of the ISAS service lies less in the obvious results (such as the report and the data collected) and more in the process, whereby, for example, institutional committees learn what is actually going on in their university; groups form to discuss why certain internationalisation priorities and projects have or are being developed; and mutual learning takes place about what has been successful and what is failing.  Stimulating such on-going analysis of the ‘why, how and how well’ of the internationalisation strategy in turn leads to a much larger number of stakeholders with an improved understanding and commitment to internationalisation as an institutional policy in which they have a role, a stake and a responsibility.
Scholars, policy makers and practitioners agree that internationalisation of higher education is a complex and multi-facetted process which ideally permeates all aspects of the higher education enterprise.  If audits, evaluations and projects such as IAU’s ISAS and others can mobilise more institutional actors to focus on the fundamental academic reasons for internationalisation—and the impact it can and should have on the quality of learning, research and outreach—then they are valuable instruments to promote innovation and improvement, not simply labels that are pursued for prestige purposes.

ACA Annual Conference 2012: Tying it all together. Excellence, mobility, funding and the social dimension in higher education  Helsinki, 10-12 June 2012. ACA’s Annual Conferences have become a synonym for high-quality information, analysis and discussion on current policy and practice-related issues in the area of European and international higher education. They bring together central actors and decision-makers in higher education, such as rectors, vice-rectors, faculty and international relations staff, as well as policy-makers and practitioners from government departments, international institutions, non-governmental organisations and think tanks. And they offer opportunities for learning, exchange and networking at a high level.  
The 2012 Annual Conference, organised in collaboration with ACA's Finnish member CIMO, brings together a select group of leading thinkers to address, from a multiplicity of perspectives, the synergies between four hotly debated issues in higher education world-wide: internationalisation and mobility, excellence, funding and social inclusion. The two-day conference will take place in wonderful Helsinki on June 11 and 12, preceded by a welcome reception and a social programme on 10 June. This event should  draw over 300 participants from Europe and other parts of the world.
Theme
There are conferences galore focused on the internationalisation of higher education and on international mobility. There is no shortage of events dedicated to world-class universities or “excellence”, to use a trendy expression. Gatherings to address questions of funding for higher education and on social issues at the tertiary level are likewise not in short supply. But these issues are usually only addressed separately and with little to no reference to one another. Rarely are the various relevant higher education themes discussed together. This leads to a reduction of perspectives, to a “single issue view” of higher education.
The 2012 ACA Annual Conference tries to avoid this mistake. It attempts to take a “holistic” view, by tying all these themes together and thus exploring their relevance to one another. For example, what is the relationship between social commitment and “excellence”? Or, to put it differently, can a university both cater to disadvantaged groups in society and be world-class? Does it perhaps even boost academic performance to provide wide access and be socially inclusive? What is the link between internationalisation (and mobility) and funding? Are the best-performing institutions strong in both respects, as Jamil Salmi claims? Is a lack of funds always a disadvantage, or could it also be an incentive for radical reform?
These are just a few of the many questions (and “synergies”) which the ACA Annual Conference will explore. Leading specialist from Europe and beyond will analyse the interrelations between the issues of internationalisation, funding, social commitment and “world class”, and guide participants through the channels linking these issues.

Agence Europe-Education-Formation France (2e2f), one of ACA’s two French members and a national agency for the Lifelong Learning Programme, has announced news of a series of festivities to celebrate the 25th anniversary of ERASMUS in the French context. A number of events will be hosted by 2e2f at its headquarters in Bordeaux, while additional ERASMUS celebrations are expected to be held across France over the course of 2012.
In addition, and together with other partners, 2e2f is gearing up for the preparation of the fifth annual “University meets Business” event on 15-16 March in Paris. Nearly 6 000 participants are expected to attend this gathering, which, amongst other things, will address the issues of international university rankings and excellence.
2e2f - Erasmus 25th anniversary. University meets Business.

On 1 January 2012 Denmark took over from Poland the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU). The Polish Presidency was held at a time of serious economic and financial challenges; however, attention was paid during this period to the higher education agenda. Polish efforts to strengthen cooperation with Eastern Partnership countries, particularly with regard to mobility issues and broader access to programmes funded by the EU, were especially notable.
As for the Danes, this is the seventh time they take the helm of the Union since their accession in 1973, but their first time in this role since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which significantly changed the EU legislative process and the balance of power between EU institutions. The Danish minister for European Affairs, Nicolai Wammen, announced the official presidency programme on 6 January 2012 during a press conference in Copenhagen. The programme is governed by 4 core priorities:
    a responsible Europe;
    a dynamic Europe;
    a green Europe; and 
    a safe Europe.
The programme also outlines the priorities in the fields of education and research. While research objectives seem to enjoy slightly greater visibility within the programme, due to their innovation potential and perceived impact on economic growth, the presidency declares it will “work for placing greater focus on the correlation between research, innovation and education”. In the area of education, the presidency will strive to ensure more coherence between the Strategic Framework for Education and Training (ET2020) and the Europe 2020 strategy, and will put particular emphasis on strengthening the link between education and training and employment. As for research, efforts will focus on negotiating an amendment to the regulation on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and a proposal for the Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) to facilitate the future functioning of the EIT.
The presidency stresses more generally that the negotiations for the Multiannual Financial Framework will receive particular attention in the coming six months, being one of the biggest agenda items for the period. In this respect the presidency will work to ensure that the Erasmus for all proposal will “contribute to making EU programmes within the education, youth and sport sector more user-friendly for students, educational institutions and companies” and that the Horizon 2020 programme “provides researchers, knowledge institutions and companies with easier access to funding”.
The Danish Presidency will end on 1 July 2012, when the EU Presidency will be handed over to Cyprus, with whom Denmark already cooperates in the EU troika (together with Poland—the immediate past presidency holder). Danish EU Presidency.

By Georg Krücken. Abstract: Higher education systems in Europe are currently undergoing profound transformations. At the macro-level, there is an increase in the number of students enrolled, subjects of study offered, and university missions that have gained legitimacy over time. At the second level changes are evident at the level of university governance. New Public Management reforms have put into question the traditional mode of governance that was based on the interplay of strong state regulation and academic self-governance. Under the current regime, new actors like accreditation and evaluation bodies or boards of trustees are emerging. At a third institutional level, profound changes can be observed at the university level itself. The university as an organization is transforming into an organizational actor, i.e. an integrated, goal-oriented, and competitive entity in which management and leadership play an ever more important role. In the following paper empirical evidence for social inclusion, new modes of governance and the organizational actorhood of universities will be presented. Furthermore, I will outline an agenda for comparative research. Although the United States is in all three respects a forerunner of what we are observing in Europe, the label “Americanization” is misleading. Instead, a global frame of reference as well as national path-dependencies need to be taken into account.Download this document.
Higher education systems in Europe are currently undergoing profound transformations. At the macro-level of society we can see an increasing inclusion of persons, subjects of study, and university missions. The second level where we can find changes is at the level of university governance. New Public Management reforms have put into question the traditional mode of governance that was based on the interplay of strong state regulation and academic self-governance. In this process, new actors like accreditation and evaluation bodies or boards of trustees are emerging. A third level where profound changes can be observed is at the university level itself. The university as an organization is transforming into an organizational actor, i.e. an integrated, goaloriented, and competitive entity in which management and leadership play an ever more important role. Although the United States is in all three respects a forerunner of what we are observing in Europe, the label “Americanization” is misleading. Instead, universities. Second, “inclusion” is a global trend in higher education that cannot be limited to Europe. Rather, European universities are part of this global trend.
Both points, the long-term historical development and the global character of “inclusion” are illustrated in the quantitative analysis by Meyer and Schofer (2007). What we cannot see in their macro-statistical data is the diversification of the student body that underlies the dramatic inclusion of people in the higher education sector. The diversification, on the one hand, relates to the social class background of university students. Since the late 1960s an increasing number of students with a working class background have gained access to universities (Trow 2010). Nevertheless, strong social inequalities remain, as aptly described by sociologists like Pierre Bourdieu. Although there is cross-national variation, social inequalities continue to be a persistent feature of all higher education systems, not only in Europe, but world-wide (Shavit et al. 2007). In Germany, for example, recent statistics indicate that 83 children out of 100 parents who have an academic degree enroll at universities, compared to only 23 out of 100 enroll whose parents do not have an academic degree.
Inclusion relates not only to social class, but also to gender. Researchers provide evidence of the historical and global dimension of this change (Ramirez and Wotipka 2001). Only about a hundred years ago women were not entitled to be enrolled at most European universities. In 1862 Paris became the first place to allow the enrolment of women in Europe and it took decades for other European universities to follow suit. Nowadays, we have a rather equal balance of male and female students enrolled at university in most European countries. In fact, women now outnumber their male counterparts in many institutions. In this regard, the inclusion process is far more advanced in relation to gender than social class background. Strong inequalities persist, however, with regard to the career trajectories of women at university. While the “glass ceiling” has become the dominant metaphor to describe the persisting inequalities between men and women in business firms, in higher education the “leaky pipeline” seems to be an equally appropriate metaphor to describe the persisting inequalities that limit the inclusion of women in academic careers. Both metaphors describe the experience for many women in the university environment. The “leaky pipeline” metaphor describes the equal inclusion of women in higher education at the undergraduate level (though choice of major can still be gendered), but equity is called into question when it comes to full professorships or even the presidency of universities. But here strong national variation can be observed as the so-called “She Figures” by the European Commission clearly indicate (European Commission 2009).
A second more general aspect of inclusion is related to the subjects that can be studied at universities. In his famous book from 1930 Abraham Flexner, one of the harshest critics of American universities, praised European universities for limiting university studies to the sciences and the humanities (Flexner 1930). He supported the fact that subjects like journalism, public health or business studies, which at that time were being institutionalized within American universities, were still unthinkable in most European universities. This has changed, too.
In European universities many fields of studies such as engineering, social work or teacher education that were previously taught outside the realm of universities yet are now a taken-for-granted aspect of university studies. For instance, health care is currently becoming a part of higher education studies in more and more European countries. Historically, there has been a similar trend in engineering and business studies. As Lars Engwall, Matthias Kipping, and Behlul Üsdiken have shown, in a wide range of European countries academic business studies to a great extent emerged in specialized schools that stood apart from the traditional university sector (Engwall et al. 2010).
The same holds true for engineering. Engineering did not gain academic recognition before the end of the 19th century and from a historical perspective it is striking to see how important engineering disciplines have become within less than a century. The global dimension of the increasing inclusion of subjects worthwhile of study at university has been broadly described by David Frank and Jay Gabler (2006) in their book “Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the Twentieth Century”. Here, a general trend toward the scientization or academization of society is evident. With regard to Europe, I foresee that the Bologna process will further accelerate the inclusion of subjects of study. At Master’s level, in particular, one can observe more and more specializations that go far beyond the traditional disciplinary studies. Likewise, the organizational format of universities is expanding, as is evident when considering the integration of formerly independent research institutes into the higher education system. This is particularly apparent in France, but also in other European countries.
A third aspect of the far-reaching and ongoing inclusion processes concerns the missions of universities. Following the German von Humboldt model, which was influential across very different regions of the world, universities basically have two missions – teaching and research, and social benefits ultimately result from universities’ focussing on these two missions. Over time, and especially over the last two decades, more and more university missions have been explicitly formulated and become legitimate parts of what it means to be a university. The most prominent one is the so-called “third academic mission”, i.e. the direct contribution of universities to economic development. Teaching and research contribute only indirectly, and due to high levels of uncertainty one can hardly know in advance what the exact contribution of academic research and teaching to economic
development will be. With the “third academic mission” universities have become an integral part of regional, national, and global innovation systems.
Many policy-initiatives in Europe focus on strengthening the link between universities and their socio-economic environments. One need only consider the Lisbon strategy, with its aim to make the European Union the most competitive and dynamic economic region of the world. I foresee that this will not be the end of the inclusion of further societal missions for universities. For example, some European and American universities already claim to be spearheading a global trend toward “ecologically sustainable development”.
GOVERNANCE
The second level where we can find change is at the level of governance. In recent years in most OECD countries - and especially in Continental Europe - the traditional forms of university governance have come under pressure. There has been a considerable loss of confidence in the capacity for self-governance by the academic community. At the same time, strong state regulation has become subject to a fundamental ideological critique, in higher education as in other domains. In Europe, New Public Management reforms have led to changing modes of inter-organizational steering as well as institutional governance of universities. Concepts and instruments borrowed from the corporate sector play an important role here. Despite all the differences among countries and their universities, the relationships between universities and the state, as well as with other social actors, are undergoing profound changes and new governance regimes are being established. We can currently observe changes regarding four aspects in the governance of European higher education. These four aspects reinforce one another and have become increasingly important in a diverse range of European countries (Paradeise et al. 2009; Jansen 2007).
Firstly, the traditional mode of governance as exercised by the state is evolving. Instead of direct and top down regulation of the concrete behaviour of universities and their members, the state is increasingly taking a more supervisory and “steering at a distance” approach, in which more indirect ways of governance play a larger role. The management by objectives approach, for example, is of importance here, i.e., objectives are defined by the state, ideally in cooperation with the universities. The manner of reaching these objectives, however, is left to the universities. Please note that state regulation is not decreasing in this process. The state continues to play a strong role in university governance. Careful analyses of the Bologna process, for example, show the persistent strength of state regulation in Europe (Amaral et al. 2009).
Second, we can see an amazing increase in the number of actors involved in university governance, one which goes far beyond the traditional dualism of state governance and academic self-governance that is so well-known in Europe (Clark 1983). This makes the picture much more complex than twenty years ago. For instance, we see in all European HE systems an increase in the number of accreditation and evaluation bodies both with regard to teaching and research. Additionally, institutional boards or boards of trustees are currently being established. There is a lot of controversy around this issue as well as very heterogeneous practices among European universities.
Third, Europe is increasingly becoming a relevant level for university governance. The Europeanization of higher education has been spurred first and foremost by the so-called Bologna process, which aims at a common European higher education area. The importance of the Bologna process has been stressed by many analyses, and am in agreement. I would, however, rather stress the symbolic value of “Bologna”. From my point of view, the Bologna process is less a hard-wired rational political decision-making process leading naturally to outcomes upon implementation. Bologna is rather a myth or a symbol that different actors can invoke in order to pursue actions which otherwise would have been less probable. The Bologna process, in other words, grants legitimacy to a variety of actions in European countries, actions that do not directly derive from the explicit political statements, goals and procedures to be found in the policy documents. By invoking the Bologna myth, different and sometimes contradictory attempts at change get the symbolic value and societal legitimacy they require.
Fourth, competition as a distinct mode of governance is becoming more important. Competition in higher education is different from competition in the business area. Peers, i.e. other competitors on the supply side, play a decisive role, while actors on the demand side for academic goods (like firms or potential students) play a more indirect role. In the university sector, evaluation by other academics and ranking tables, which are at least in part also based on academic judgements such as peer review, shape competitive processes over scarce resources such as money and prestige. Historians and sociologists of science have shown that competition among scientists had been deeply embedded in scientific life for centuries. However, competition among scientists is currently aggravated through rankings, evaluations, and indicators of all kinds.
Likewise, competition is seen to be of prime importance as a mechanism to stimulate research excellence within EU member states and at the EU level. In a recent Open Method of Coordination (OMC) Working Group, representatives from 17 EU member states agreed on the importance of fostering competition by a variety of instruments, including benchmarking processes and sharing of best practices (CREST 2009). Furthermore, we can currently witness the transformation of university organizations into competitive actors that increasingly behave like strategic actors, and less like loosely coupled systems. This leads me to the third level where we can observe profound changes: the transformation of universities into organizational actors.
See also ‘Americanisation’ of European universities is not on the cards.

The University of Oslo is hosting a three day conference on 12-14 September 2012 with a focus on academic disciplines and interdisciplinarity. Is academia becoming interdisciplinary? Or do disciplines still condition our research and teaching in profound ways? Is disciplinarity perhaps even an inherent operative mode of modern academia? If so, how and to what extent should our institutions provide for interdisciplinarity?
We cordially invite contributions. The deadline for abstracts is March 15. Please consult the call for papers for a more elaborate formulation of the conference theme.
Many of the most exciting and influential academic ventures today are interdisciplinary. Consequently, as academics we increasingly find ourselves working at epistemic intersections where disciplinary identity may recede into the background, while an interdisciplinary “field,” problem, or theoretical perspective takes center stage. Yet with few exceptions our universities – with their faculties, schools and departments – remain largely structured on the basis of the established disciplines. The peer review system, too, is predominantly disciplinary. Thus while research interests may tempt academics across disciplinary borders and into foreign territories, many eventually return to discover that when their academic careers are concerned, discipline is king.
Difficult and rewarding
Although interdisciplinarity is often treated as a recent arrival – full of fresh promise – , the situation described above is actually quite old. Interdisciplinarity has been around for almost a century now. One could even argue that it is as old as disciplinarity. Looking back at this history – spanning both successful ventures such as biochemistry, cultural studies and area studies, and also many less successful and now forgotten ones – we can learn a number of lessons. Perhaps most importantly: Interdisciplinarity is not like entering the great wide open. Rather than offering an escape from structures and strictures, interdisciplinarity is about adding more layers and connections – increased complexity, more topics, multiple perspectives, colliding vocabularies. As Stanley Fish has put it in the title of an essay on the topic, “Interdisciplinarity Is So Very Hard To Do.” And because applicable quality standards are not readily at hand, there is an increased risk that results may be meager, or worse, dilettantish.
On the other hand, when it works, interdisciplinarity yields huge rewards for all parties involved. It is intellectually stimulating for researchers and students; it allows new topics to be analyzed; it allows intercourse (or at least courtship) between otherwise incommensurable paradigms; it produces not only new knowledge, but new kinds of knowledge, in the process invigorating traditional academia; and in many cases also reaching out to society at large.
Persisting disciplines
Nevertheless, the disciplines persist as the main structural principle of academia. Which makes one wonder: What are disciplines, anyway? Clearly, they are historical constructs, but what made them emerge, and what makes them so endurable? Which functions do the serve? Should they be studied as  fields (Bourdieu), as communication systems (Luhmann, Stichweh), as tribes (Geertz, Becher/Trowler), as fractal patterns (Abbott), as epistemic cultures (Knorr-Cerina), or what? Is the "matrix" of established disciplines primarily a coercive arrangement – a Weberian iron cage, a Foucauldian panopticon? Or is it rather a bulwark against a rising tide of dilettantism and science skepticism?
The current situation can be seen as a standoff in which neither the disciplines nor interdisciplinarity gains. If so, the relevant and pressing question is: Are there workable alternatives (functional equivalents) on the horizon by which academia can be reformed? However, it is also possible to view the situation not as a problem at all, but rather as a normal and fruitful interplay, conducive to academic evolution. If successful, interdisciplinary ventures become disciplines in their own right (gender studies, biochemistry) and the rest are either terminated after a while, or kept on as permanent exceptions (usually in the form of centers), all of which is testament to the self-regenerating powers of academia. If so, the relevant question is perhaps: How can universities make this process run more smoothly?
The conference will explore these and related questions, dealing with disciplinarity/ interdisciplinarity in research as well as in higher education.
Papers
We invite papers on all topics related to the reflections above, including, for instance:
• The historical emergence and evolution of the disciplines
• The history of individual interdisciplinary fields (e.g. cultural studies, biochemistry)
• The fruitful interplay between disciplines and interdisciplinarity
• The problematic tensions between disciplines and interdisciplinarity
• Disciplines/interdiciplinarity and academic careers
• Disciplines/interdisciplinarity in higher education
• Disciplines/interdisciplinarity and society (media, politics, the economy, etc.)
• The future of disciplines/interdisciplinarity
In conjunction with Sheila Jasanoff’s keynote lecture, there will be a thematic session on the historical development and current disciplinary status of Science and Technology Studies (STS). We invite proposals for papers on any aspects of this topic. Deadline for abstracts: March 15, 2012. Abstracts of 1-2 pages can be mailed to vidar.grotta@ped.uio.no.

Democratising knowledge for global development: the role of European higher education institutions, edited by Han Aarts, Tor Halvorsen and Peter Taylor.
This book is number 23 in the EAIE's series of Occasional Papers, and was published in September 2011. All EAIE members attending the 2011 EAIE Conference will receive a free copy at the conference, members not attending will receive a copy by post. Order a copy.
Edited by Han Aarts, Tor Halvorsen and Peter Taylor, ‘Democratising knowledge for global development: the role of European higher education institutions’ is a collection of papers by leading experts exploring one critical question: How can (European) higher education contribute to global human development? Several key themes are addressed by the contributors, including European higher education’s commitment to engaging with partner institutions in the Global South; rethinking ‘globalisation at home’; rethinking ‘knowledge for development’; and seeking new modalities for collaboration and engagement.
In the current period of rapid globalisation and a transformation of the European research university, higher education institutions (HEIs) are encouraged to anticipate what may be expected of them as conscious players in the public domain. This publication aims to highlight some of the key areas and approaches to be considered.