Higher education in Europe is highly shaped by the Bologna Process (BP) and its consequences, which needs critical review and research. The BP, applied through the OMC, needs to ‘tackle the modernization and advancement of [HE] across Europe through agreeing on common objectives that are then transposed onto the national level by a way of policy convergence across states participating in the process’ (Klemenčič, 2015). If not, the OMC and its effectiveness become risks when promoting widening access for underrepresented groups. Reflecting on the meaning of cultural hegemony (with references to the findings) using Gramsci’s (1971, 1977, 1978) view, some of the consequences of the BP policy’s design in relation to the development and outcomes of HE can be revealed. What critical viewpoints from research have been delivered, based on experiences, observations and evaluation, concerning the Bologna Process over time? A thematic analysis reveals the critical reasoning behind the BP, in which various authors in n=48 papers have elaborated on and problematized aspects of the BP in terms of what to avoid and/or have characterized aspects related to the BP that are not desirable. The findings of this analysis are further discussed in terms of the advancement of European higher education policy and beyond on equal terms. According to Gramsci, social forces are influenced by the production and transnational flows of capitalism, which focuses on capital and labour. In this system, higher education becomes a commodity (Brown, 2015; Marginson, 2010) and the meaning of employability can take different forms (Simons, 2015). Based on the findings, epistemological questions arise, and tensions between educational standards on the one hand and plurality, heterogeneity and individual development on the other, become an issue. Drawing from the idea of diversification, in line with Sursock and Smidt (2010), standardization might hinder desirable, creative or novel development in higher education, and the results indicate that structural and strictly standardized policy conditions could limit possibilities for negotiation concerning desirable development on equal terms. In contrast, supporting the strategizing of a future European HE system open to multiple variations and innovative developments should be a desirable goal in order to avoid the pitfalls of systemic drivers of standardization and a lack of margin for negotiations.

•Brown R (2015) The marketisation of higher education: Issues and ironies. New Vistas 1(1): 4–6. •Gramsci A (1978) Selections from Political Writings (1921–1926), translated and edited by Quintin Hoare. London: Lawrence and Wishart. •Klemenčič M (2015a) Editorial: Ahead of 2015 Bologna Ministerial Conference – A new agenda for the European Higher Education Area. European Journal of Higher Education 5(1): 1–3. •Klemenčič M (2015b) Internationalisation of higher education in the peripheries: The ‘gear effect’ of integrated international engagements. In: Beekens E, Magnan MS, Söderqvist M and van Liempd HG (eds). Handbook of Internationalisation of Higher Education, Berlin: RAABE Verlag, pp.2.1–11. •Marginson S (2010) How universities have been positioned as teams in a knowledge economy world cup. In: Blackmore J, Brennan M and Zipin L (eds) Re-positioning University Governance and Academic Work. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp.17–33. •Mavelli L (2014) Widening participation, the instrumentalization of knowledge and the reproduction of inequality. Teaching in Higher Education 19(8): 860–869. •Stein S and Andreotti V (2017) Higher education and the modern/colonial global imaginary. Cultural Studies, 17(3): 173–181