The Bologna Process is known for its expansion and its swift and far-reaching transformations of higher education architectures (Ravinet, 2008; Robertson, 2009). Since 1999 the Bologna Process has moved from a declaration of intent to an extensive mobilization of 47 countries. But how come that the process gained this kind of momentum; how is it that those 47 countries were mobilized to radically change existing education systems without passing any laws at the European level?

The initiation of the Bologna Process in 1999 is accompanied by a shift in the design of governing from (‘hard’) government to (‘soft’) governance. Governance is a system of rule that use mobilizing techniques and persuasive incentive structures drawing actors to co-opt themselves into the process and thereby actively involve themselves in the distribution of (hegemonic) power. This new mode of governance is put into operation through new monitoring practices, standardizing devices and performance measurements. In order to grasp the character of this ‘soft’ governance and thus the agency dimension of the Bologna Process, this paper analyzes the policy ontology of the Bologna Process – that is the ‘quality’ and constitution of the ways in which it works – and the infrastructure of the policy ontology – that is the mechanisms that the ontology comprises for generating change (Brøgger, 2016; Dale, 2009).

The policy ontology of the Bologna Process can be seen as ‘monitored coordination’, also known as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). The OMC is not to be mistaken for a specific policy in itself, rather this monitored coordination constitutes the way in which polices work and are put into operation in the Bologna Process. The OMC presents the ambition to harmonize the European higher education system through intergovernmental collaboration and extensive standardization as a main technology to govern performance. Standardization, such as the  modularization and outcome-orientation of the curriculum, is a form of steering and governing that enables ‘governing at a distance’ (Lawn, 2011; Rosenau, 1992).

This paper argues that the new education standards spread by being circulated through the Bologna Process’ follow-up mechanisms that work as a material-affective infrastructure of the policy ontology (Brøgger & Staunæs, 2016 (In press)). In order to ‘work’, governance needs an infrastructure (Lawn & Segerholm, 2011). The material-affective infrastructure can be seen as the way in which the policy ontology materializes or manifests itself. Infrastructure is that upon which something else works – a type of ‘path-dependence´ (Busch, 2011; Star & Bowker, 2006); in this case paths through which the new standards are circulated. In the OMC the circulation happens through comparisons of national performance data in, for example the Bologna Stocktaking Scorecards. The (in)famous multicolored scorecards use powerful color-coded visuals to compare the progress of implementation of the Bologna standards between member states. The paper argues that the scorecards are affectively wired and work as “a podium where badges of honor and shame are awarded” (Gornitzka, 2005). The scorecards color coding (spanning from green for excellent performance to red for poor performance) works as an alert system that seems to mobilize and modulate certain affective registers making agents want to move from the reddish ‘alert colors’ to the successful green colors (Massumi, 2005; Wetherell, 2012). In this way, the monitoring contributes to an affective politics of naming, shaming and faming that propels the implementation of standards. Through these material-affective processes, governance without government is produced. Member states are made to co-opt themselves into the process through the extensive use of benchmarking and best practice exercises and through this process member states – including experts and peers – become efficient standardizers themselves actively producing and monitoring standardized performance requirements. 

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press. Brøgger, K. (2014). The Ghosts of Higher Education Reform. On the organisational processes surrounding policy borrowing. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 12(4), 520-541. Brøgger, K. (2016). The Rule of Mimetic Desire in Higher Education: Governing through naming, shaming and faming. British Journal of sociology of Education, 37(1), 72-91. Brøgger, K., & Staunæs, D. (2016 (In press)). Standards and (self)implosion. Theory and Psychology. Busch, L. (2011). Standards. Recipes for Realities. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press. Dale, R. (2009). Studying Globalisation in Education: Lisbon, the Open Method of Coordination and beyond. In R. Dale & S. Robertson (Eds.), Globalisation and Europeanisation in Education. Oxford: Symposium Books. Gornitzka, Å. (2005). Coordinating policies for a 'Europe of knowledge'. Emerging practices of the 'Open Method of Coordination' in education and research. Arena working papers, 16. Lawn, M. (2011). Standardizing the European Education Policy Space. European Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 259-272. Lawn, M., & Segerholm, C. (2011). Europe through experts and technologies. In J. Ozga, P. Dahler-Larsen, C. Segerholm, & H. Simola (Eds.), Fabricating Quality in Education. Data and Governance in Europe. London & New York: Routledge. Massumi, B. (2005). Fear (The Spectrum Said). Positions: east asia cultures critique, 13(1), 31-48. Ravinet, P. (2008). From Voluntary Participation to Monitored Coordination: why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process. Europan Journal of Education, 43(3), 353-367. Robertson, S. (2009). Europe, Competetiveness and Higher Education: an evolving project. In R. Dale & S. Robertson (Eds.), Globalisation & Europeanisation in Education (pp. 65-83). UK: Symposium Books. Rosenau, J. N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In J. N. Rosenau & E.-O. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2006). How to Infrastructure? In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media. Social Shaping and Social Consequences of ICTs. London: SAGE. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding Policy Borrowing and Lending. Building Comparative Policy Studies. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2012. Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education. New York: Routledge. Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and Emotion. A New Social Science Understanding. London: Sage.