Embracing the differences

The SOLO staff members have their ways of describing and dealing with differences (academic culture, organizational, legal, etc.) within the partnership.

For the consortium head “the ongoing struggle about differences and multiplicity

141

of perspectives is solved not through conflict, but with debate and reflexivity”

(interview, 27 October, 2015). Due to differences in legal frameworks in which SOLO operates and which to some extent may constrain JP departments’ choices in how programmes are structured and designed, a study director of University D sees flexibility as a “precondition for [SOLO] to work” (interview, 5 November, 2015).

A teaching staff member from University G believes that “the way of addressing [differences] is rather to make them transparent and to explain than to really find a homogenous way of doing it” (interview, 26 October, 2015).

The consortium head believes that “this insistence on difference is …[an] added value [in the programme].. and, [albeit unwritten], it is part of our quality strategy”

(interview, 27 October, 2015). The idea is that differences need to be embraced and many processes and practices do not necessarily have to be homogenized in order to provide a quality programme. For instance, integration of curriculum which takes place through an understanding of different approaches and perspectives is a sample of SOLO staff agency in creating a particular approach to quality. The faculty agree that a common project and the participants of it are “enriched by these gaps and differences” (Academic, University B, interview, 26 October, 2015), and that it is staff’s responsibility to explain those differences to students, so that they know how to respond, manage them and benefit. Differences are then not perceived as tensions (e.g., Academic, University A, interview, 7 June, 2016).

Different opinions, agendas, interests, cultures, understanding and mentalities about academic work and teaching are worked out through talking about it, adaptations to variations in practices, e.g. student workload and assessment and institutional forms of quality assessment.

Acceptance of and respect for differences is grounded in the institutional autonomy relating to financial and academic matters of PIs, to the extent they are not regulated nationally, and based on trust. Trust building is identified as one of the key principles of inter-institutional quality culture in JP quality practice (section 5.4). In the SOLO case, trust is built through getting to know each other (people, processes, how things work, and through academic research of colleagues at PIs) as well as learning from each other (exchange of experience, transfer of ideas, attitudes, approaches).

Understanding and dealing with differences is important as it affects ‘jointness’ in SOLO. One notable variation in the SOLO staff approach to quality is how

‘jointness’ is treated. As the coordinator pointed out, EU/EM structures “are really much in favour of jointness… in the context of what they understand” (Consortium

142

coordinator, interview, 20 October, 2015) which is not necessarily in line with consortium practices especially with regards to the study content that differs across PIs. In this particular EM case, ‘jointness’ does not mean complete curricular integration or homogenizing the academic environment, and procedures of academic assessment and student feedback. In fact, the whole programme is built around complementarities, varied specializations, differences, and interdisciplinary dialogue.

Some variations of academic culture, practices and understandings are prevalent in the everyday work situations. Some of these variations include (common) student assessment, a value of integrating internships into the curriculum, more curriculum transparency and common programme learning outcomes; these variations deserve a more in-depth engagement by the SOLO staff. Some of these issues like student assessment are deeply engrained in academic cultures of PIs. The value of internships and the need for them to become part of the curriculum is tainted either by national requirements (or absence of those), and institutional academic values.

As the respondents pointed out, a lot of differences remain. One interviewee stated:

“there are plenty of differences…it’s a constant process that we are trying to find something accepted by all solutions” (Administrator and academic, University C, interview, 26 January, 2016).

While curriculum coordination and transparency of content is understood to be important to assure the SOLO quality, the consortium does not aim at unified programme learning outcomes. The SOLO programme is built around some core elements and complemented by elements provided by each partner university. Such an approach to curriculum design may not be quite in line with ‘jointness’

promoted by the EM ideal and the idea of clearly defined and structured common study programme learning outcomes which is gaining momentum in the EHEA (an element of quality practice). The idealized value of ‘jointness’ promoted by the EM structures and JP networks takes a somewhat different shape in SOLO and may be specific to different JPs and contexts. As described by a SOLO staff member

‘jointness’ and integration of curriculum is “partly existing and partly made up”

(Administrative coordinator, University A, interview, 7 June, 2016) (for more detail see section 6.2). As a faculty member from University B noted “from our daily work, there is no way of really homogenizing it because all the programme at each and every partner institution, part of the national context or particular university context” (interview, 26 October, 2015). In her perception, this sort of homogenization is not only difficult to achieve but also “not really in the interest of

143

the programme” (ibid.). The consortium head confirmed that it is not in the PIs interest to diminish differences.