LIST OF PANELS

There has been a steadily increasing interest in policy convergence in higher education in the last 15 years. The bulk of these studies originate from Europe, comparing either countries or regions in Europe (e.g. West and East, EU and non-EU), while a much smaller portion focuses on comparisons between Europe and US, on non-European countries or on convergence within countries with more complicated distribution of competence in the area of higher education (e.g. Germany, Spain, UK). Some studies argue that policies and systems of higher education are becoming more similar over time, while others point towards a complex mixture of patterns of convergence and divergence. Steps have been made towards providing partial explanations of such patterns – a combination of diffusion of global scripts (sometimes promoted by international organizations such as OECD and World Bank), Europeanization, policy transfer and policy learning on ‘the convergence side’ and local translation and editing, path-dependence and complexity of higher education change on ‘the divergence side’. However, what is lacking is (1) a clearer answer to the question ‘what we talk about when we talk about convergence’, and related to it (2) a comprehensive and robust theoretical framework that can be systematically tested. With this in mind, the panel invites contributions that analyse higher education policy dynamics in a comparative perspective, in Europe as well as beyond. The contributions may focus on one or more parts of the policy process – agenda-setting, decision-making, implementation and evaluation – mirroring the distinction made by Pollitt (2002) between discursive, decisional, practice and results convergence. Other approaches to conceptualizing and operationalizing convergence are welcome, e.g. the distinction between horizontal (sigma) and vertical (delta) policy convergence (Heichel et al., 2005; Heinze & Knill, 2008) may be of interest. With regards to mechanisms leading to a specific pattern of convergence/divergence, the contributions should specify as clearly as possible their theoretical underpinnings and expectations (formulation of explicit propositions/hypotheses is welcome).     Heichel, S., Pape, J., & Sommerer, T. (2005). Is there convergence in convergence research? An overview of empirical studies on policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 817-840. Heinze, T., & Knill, C. (2008). Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna Process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence. Higher Education, 56(4), 493-510. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9107-z Pollitt, C. (2002). Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review, 4(1), 471-492. doi: 10.1080/14616670110071847  

There has been a steadily increasing interest in policy convergence in higher education in the last 15 years; more than 2/3 of the total amount articles in the SSCI and A&HCI Web of Science databases focusing on the issue have been published since 2010. The bulk of these studies originate from Europe, comparing either countries or regions in Europe (e.g. West and East, EU and non-EU), while a much smaller portion focuses on comparisons between Europe and US, on non-European countries or on convergence within countries with more complicated distribution of competence in the area of higher education (e.g. Germany, Spain, UK). Some studies argue that policies and systems of higher education are becoming more similar over time, while others point towards a complex mixture of patterns of convergence and divergence. Steps have been made towards providing partial explanations of such patterns – a combination of diffusion of global scripts (sometimes promoted by international organizations such as OECD and World Bank), Europeanization, policy transfer and policy learning on ‘the convergence side’ and local translation and editing, path-dependence and complexity of higher education change on ‘the divergence side’. However, what is lacking is (1) a clearer answer to the question ‘what we talk about when we talk about convergence’, and related to it (2) a comprehensive and robust theoretical framework that can be systematically tested. With this in mind, the panel invites contributions that analyse higher education policy dynamics in a comparative perspective, in Europe as well as beyond. The contributions may focus on one or more parts of the policy process – agenda-setting, decision-making, implementation and evaluation – mirroring the distinction made by Pollitt (2002) between discursive, decisional, practice and results convergence. Other approaches to conceptualizing and operationalizing convergence are welcome, e.g. the distinction between horizontal (sigma) and vertical (delta) policy convergence (Heichel, Pape, & Sommerer, 2005; Heinze & Knill, 2008) may be of interest. With regards to mechanisms leading to a specific pattern of convergence/divergence, the contributions should specify as clearly as possible their theoretical underpinnings and expectations (formulation of explicit propositions/hypotheses is welcome). The decision on how to distribute the accepted papers into different sessions will be made in such a way as to facilitate the discussion of the underlying questions – what is convergence, how we can measure it and why/how specific patterns of convergence/divergence appear. The panel fits well with the second subject category (“Comparative public policy”), but also has the potential to contribute to categories 4-6 and 16. Heichel, S., Pape, J., & Sommerer, T. (2005). Is there convergence in convergence research? An overview of empirical studies on policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 817-840. Heinze, T., & Knill, C. (2008). Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna Process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence. Higher Education, 56(4), 493-510. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9107-z Pollitt, C. (2002). Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review, 4(1), 471-492. doi: 10.1080/14616670110071847