Process of transfer and reception of Bologna Process ideas in the Cameroon higher education system

Abstract

The Bologna Process (BP), which created the European Higher Education Area, has had a profound impact on educational systems in Europe and beyond, as far as Cameroon. Through thematic analysis of interviews and text documents, this article examines the adoption of BP ideas in Cameroon with a focus on the transfer and local reception to the adoption. This article shows that the adoption in Cameroon is found to continue a process that began with the adoption of the BP at the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) by the CEMAC heads of state, leading to its subsequent imposition on universities in Cameroon. The present findings show that, although imposed on the universities, the adoption of the BP found some support in Cameroon because of its potential to resolve the country’s higher education challenges. However, because of Cameroon’s dual French and Anglo-Saxon education system, some interviewees expressed scepticism about the adopted approaches, primarily because they appeared French driven. The article highlights some of the complexities and tensions associated with introducing a borrowed model to a dual system of education such as that in Cameroon.

Introduction: The Bologna Process beyond Europe

The Bologna Process (BP) created the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by establishing a system of easily readable and comparable degrees across Europe, along with a system of credits to enhance student mobility and graduate employability (Bologna Declaration, 1999). This initiative has had a profound impact on not only Europe’s educational systems, but also those in Asia, Latin America and Africa (Knight, 2013; World Education News and Reviews, 2014). As analysed in Europe, the success of the BP stems from how it presented nation-states with a universal, educational model that became the new benchmark; hence, the BP was used to establish the legitimacy of European educational systems at the international level (Fulge et al., 2016). The BP is seen to have contributed to reconstructing, expanding and shaping the European identity by emphasising shared European values, making it attractive not only for European Union (EU) members but also for non-EU countries such as Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey (Kushnir, 2016).

Because of its efficacy as an educational policy, the BP has been introduced in Africa (Zgaga, 2006) and has influenced higher education reforms at the continental, sub-regional and national levels. At the continental level, the African Union Commission (AUC), in partnership with the EU Commission, has deployed the BP model to integrate African higher education through such programmes as the Nyerere Mobility Programme, the Pan-African University, the African Quality Rating Mechanism and Accreditation and Tuning Africa (Woldetensae, 2013). Drawing on lessons from the European experience, attempts are also underway to create the African Higher Education and Research Space (Mohamedbhai, 2013). At the sub-regional level, the BP’s impact has reportedly been greatest on the French-speaking African countries (Croché and Charlier, 2012) of the Maghreb, comprising Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia (World Education News and Reviews, 2007), and the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC), comprising Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.

The BP model has been celebrated as an effective policy for Africa by virtue of its problem-solving approach and the shared challenges faced by African and European educational systems in terms of expansion, employability, skills shortages (Teferra, 2005), integration and mobility of students (Hoosen et al., 2009). The BP model also became attractive for Africa because it was seen as a tool for enhancing comparability and cooperation with the EHEA (Vögtle and Martens, 2014), so replacing ex-colonial networks with global networks (Westwood et al., 2008). However, the transfer of BP to Africa has been criticised as a tool used by European countries for their hegemonic project on Africa’s higher education (Charlier and Croché, 2011) as a form of recolonisation in disguise (Khelfaoui, 2009), whose adoption in Africa is informed by ex-colonial ties (MacGregor, 2008).

This article examines the adoption of BP policies at the CEMAC sub-regional level with a focus on the process of transfer and reception at the national level in the case of Cameroon. The BP was adopted in the CEMAC region in February 2005 by the CEMAC heads of state under the title ‘Licence, Master, Doctorat’ (LMD) (Eta, 2015a; Eta and Vubo, 2016); Cameroon was represented by the speaker of the House of Assembly. The initiative aimed to establish the CEMAC Space for Higher Education, Research and Professional Training (Libreville Declaration, 2005). According to Croché and Charlier (2012), the version of the BP adopted in French-speaking Africa is based on the reforms in France, which introduced the BP as the LMD. Citing the LMD guide for Francophone African Higher Education institutions (published by the Association des Universités Africaines in 2008), Croché and Charlier (2012: 464) observed that the BP was confused by the reforms in France – specifically, when the guide stated that ‘in 1998, with the Bologna process, the European countries decided to make a commitment to the reform of Licence-Master-Doctorat’. Similarly, in Cameroon, the BP was referred to in text documents as ‘the LMD’ in French or ‘the Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD’ (BMP) in English. For example, the Ministry of Higher Education (2010: 15) used such phrases as ‘the BMP system in Europe’ and ‘the Bologna Declaration (June 1999): the birth of the BMP’. It has therefore been argued that the version of the BP ‘exported in [French-speaking] Africa is not the Bologna model, but certain French recipes for application’ that France has assimilated from the BP and presented to former colonies as higher education reforms, regardless of how other European countries have implemented the BP (Croché and Charlier, 2012: 465). It follows that the adoption of the BP as the LMD reflects a form of selective borrowing and adaptation.

According to the CEMAC Council of Ministers (2006), who were authorised by heads of state (as per the Libreville Declaration) to define the aims and means of achieving those goals (Eta, 2015a), the LMD seeks to improve and modernise the CEMAC region’s education systems, to develop university students’ professional abilities and to encourage students’ national, regional and international mobility. The LMD seeks to accomplish these aims by implementing a system based on a LMD/BMP degree structure, dividing training periods into semesters, setting up standard training programmes and courses and establishing a system in which credits can be earned and transferred (CEMAC Council of Ministers, 2006).

At the African continental level, research has focused on the influence of the BP model, examining its contents, rationales, prospects and challenges (Croché and Charlier, 2012; Khelfaoui, 2009; Sall and Ndjaye, 2007; Teferra, 2005) for Africa. At the national level, previous studies have examined the justifications, challenges and actual implementation of the BP model (Eta, 2015a; Eta and Vubo, 2016; Feudjio, 2009; Ngufor, 2009). Based on text documents, Eta (2015a) reported an account of how the LMD was adopted in the CEMAC region, along with justifications for its adoption in the CEMAC region and in Cameroon. In another study, Eta and Vubo (2016) investigated the adaptation and implementation of the BP degree structure and credit system in universities in Cameroon. However, given that the BP was adopted at the CEMAC sub-regional level through the LMD, little is known about the process of transferring BP ideas to individual national and institutional contexts. There is also limited knowledge regarding local reception of the BP model in individual countries. For that reason, the present article seeks to bridge this research gap by improving knowledge concerning the adoption of LMD in the CEMAC region generally, and specifically in Cameroon. The study has two objectives:

• to examine the transfer of BP ideas through the LMD system from the CEMAC sub-regional level to national and institutional levels in Cameroon; and

• to capture local responses to the adoption of BP ideas in Cameroon.

Among the CEMAC countries, Cameroon represents an interesting case study for this investigation because of its bilingual nature and its use of both French and Anglo-Saxon educational models (Eta and Vubo, 2016). Investigating the process of transfer and reception of the BP through the LMD in Cameroon serves to illuminate beliefs, attitudes and perceptions in relation to the adoption of such a borrowed model. The investigation also serves to highlight some of the complexities and tensions associated with the introduction of a borrowed model to a dual education system such as that in Cameroon.

Following a brief description of Cameroon’s dual education system, the introduction of borrowed models in a local setting is discussed. After outlining the methodology and analysis of the findings, those findings are discussed with regard to the process of transfer and local responses to adoption.

Cameroon’s dual system of education

Of the 10 regions that comprise Cameroon’s territory, eight are French-speaking and two are English-speaking. This bilingualism resulted from the simultaneous French and British colonial rule over Cameroon following the defeat of Germany in World War I. French Cameroon gained independence in 1960; British Cameroon became independent in 1961 and was reunited with French Cameroon, adopting both French and English as the country’s official languages. However, Cameroon’s bilingualism has been called into question in terms of the two languages’ relative status – for example, Ayafor has argued that the ‘geographic and demographic division of the country makes the English-speaking region a minority’ and gives French ‘a numeric ascendancy over English’ (2005: 129).

This bilingualism is also apparent in Cameroon’s operation of both the British and French education systems. For example, the University of Yaoundé I, which was Cameroon’s first and only university from 1962 to 1993, was established with assistance from the French government and utilised the French model (ADEA, 1999). Although originally conceived as a bilingual university (ADEA, 1999; Konings, 2009), its programmes were based on the French system, and teaching was mostly in French, leading to problems of access and poor performance among English-speaking students (ADEA, 1999). This problem was rectified by the 1993 reforms, which created an Anglo-Saxon-style university, along with four other French-modelled universities (ADEA, 1999; Eta and Vubo, 2016). As in other CEMAC countries, the universities modelled on the French system offered multiple degrees, including Diplôme d’études universitaires générales (DEUG), Licence, Maîtrise, Diplôme d’études approfondies (DEA), Doctorat de troisième cycle and Doctorat d’État. At the Anglo-Saxon university, there was a three-level BMP degree structure. While universities modelled on the French system operated a modular system and average grading, the Anglo-Saxon university employed the course credit system (Doh, 2008; Eta, 2015a; Eta and Vubo, 2016; Ngufor, 2009).

However, the concurrence of French and Anglo-Saxon systems of education presented challenges both locally and internationally. For example, at the local level, because the master’s degree did not exist in the French-system universities, the Maîtrise and the DEA were used at different points in time as equivalents for transfer from a French to an Anglo-Saxon university (Doh, 2008; Eta and Vubo, 2016) and were seen to be either below (Maîtrise) or above (DEA) the master’s degree. Internationally, the ‘Doctorat de troisième cycle’ awarded by Cameroon universities was confused with the traditional Anglo-Saxon PhD (Eta, 2015a). In addition to meeting international standards for the international recognition of certificates and graduates, adoption of the BP in Cameroon through the LMD system also helped to legitimise the harmonisation of the country’s French and Anglo-Saxon degree structures (Eta, 2015a), following unsuccessful earlier efforts at consolidation (Doh, 2008). As this study shows, reception of BP approaches in Cameroon was impacted by the linguistic divide, the relative status of French and English and the presence of two distinct education systems.

Introducing the borrowed model in the local setting

The search for solutions or ideas outside one’s organisation or country is what comparativists have termed ‘policy borrowing’: the deliberate and conscious adaptation of policies, ideas and practices from elsewhere (Phillips and Ochs, 2004; Steiner-Khamsi, 2012). Educational policy borrowing involves two key stages: adoption and adaptation (Phillips and Schweisfurth, 2008); these can be further divided into the cross-national attraction stage, the decision stage, the implementation stage and the internalisation/indigenisation stage (Phillips and Ochs, 2004).

Comprising impulses and externalising potential, the cross-national attraction stage highlights how motivation to borrow may lead to the search for a foreign model and externalising potential to borrow. The decision stage refers to how the borrowed idea is introduced in the national context and the measures that governments introduce to initiate the process of change. The implementation stage refers to how the borrowed model is adapted to contextual factors in the new system. Finally, internalisation/indigenisation relates to how the foreign model becomes internalised and absorbed in the borrower country.

The present article focuses on the adoption of borrowed models at the local level, which includes the cross-national attraction and decision stages from Phillips and Ochs’ (2004) model. For present purposes, the adoption of borrowed models is conceived as a process that includes motivation to adopt, the search for a suitable model (externalising potential), actual adoption and introduction to the local setting, measures to initiate the process of change and local actors’ engagement and response to the borrowed model.

According to Phillips and Ochs (2004), the motivation to borrow originates in impulses such as internal dissatisfaction, political change or negative external evaluation. However, the motivation to adopt global models may also be political, and may be justified in terms of meeting international standards (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014), regardless of whether home-based problems exist. Such justifications for borrowing ‘qualify their value-based rationales for reform policy as universal and indispensable’ (Schriewer, 2000: 333). Policy borrowing motivated by compliance with international standards indicates that policy makers have begun from an already-existing solution and then looked for a local problem that fits that solution (Steiner-Khamsi, 2013). This serves to highlight that policy making is not a rational and linear process (Ball, 1998) in which policy makers consider the problem and alternative solutions and then select the best alternative (Rui, 2007) to solve the home-based problem. Instead, as will be discussed later, policy borrowing may begin with the adoption of a foreign idea before there is any examination of how that idea works in practice.

Policy borrowing can be described as voluntary, coercive or a combination of both (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000). Voluntary adoption is driven by a perceived need (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000), such as the need to meet international standards, which constitutes a type of political rationale for policy borrowing. On the other hand, coercive adoption is said to be externally induced or imposed by, for example, colonisers, donor agencies or international organisations (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000; Perry and Tor, 2008). Another dimension of coercive adoption, highlighted by Dolowitz and Marsh (2000), is the idea that although transfer is externally induced, adoption becomes obligatory because of a country’s membership in international organisations. For that reason, although participation in the BP is seen as voluntary, it could also be seen as coercive, as EU member countries feel obligated to adopt. It is in situations like these that Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) refer to policy transfer as both voluntary and coercive (see also Eta, 2015a). According to the literature, adoption of the BP in Africa reflects an imposition by European countries (Commission Universitaire pour le Développement, 2007; Khelfaoui, 2009; Sall and Ndjaye, 2007), where former colonial powers such as France provide financial support for their former colonies to align with the BP (Sall and Ndjaye, 2007). Adoption can also be seen as imposed by the African state on university officials (e.g. rectors), who then impose BP adoption on their universities (Khelfaoui, 2009).

The decision stage in Phillips and Ochs’ model of policy borrowing captures how a borrowed model is introduced in a local setting as an important phase of adoption. Examining the justifications for adoption of the LMD in the CEMAC region and in Cameroon, Eta (2015a) illustrated how ‘meeting international standards’ was used as a political rationale. In a bid to expand knowledge of the LMD in Cameroon, the present study focuses on the adoption stage of policy borrowing (cross-national attraction and decision stages) to illustrate how the BP was introduced in Cameroon. According to Phillips and Ochs’ (2004) model, the introduction of a borrowed model in a local setting may be theoretical (i.e. based on an abstract idea or policy), phoney (i.e. utilised by politicians because the idea would appeal to the electorate but with no intention of local implementation), realistic/practical (i.e. ideas that prove successful in one location are transferred to another) or quick-fix (i.e. quick political decisions by governments that may result in failure because of a lack of essential infrastructure or insufficient regard for contextual factors).

Regardless of how the borrowed model is introduced, mechanisms must be put in place to enhance diffusion in the local setting. According to Steiner-Khamsi (2004: 215), ‘issue networks are institutionalized in the form of associations, journals, newsletters, list-servers and conferences’. Chisholm (2007: 296) argued that conferences enhance interaction among different actors ‘for the transmission, circulation, consolidation, legitimation, rejection and diffusion of particular ideas’. In addition to conferences and seminars, production of policy documents at the national and institutional levels is also important.

The adoption of ideas from elsewhere requires local agents to learn about the borrowed model, which can lead to externalisation of the borrowing potential. Having examined the role of local agents in this process, Khelfaoui (2009: 28) concluded that in Africa, under the LMD system, the state assigns university officials to the ‘role of “explanation and discourse professionals”’. While European ‘expert[s] are sent to the African continent to help set up programs claiming compliance with the standards of Bologna’, university officials from Africa ‘go to Europe to immerse themselves in the techniques and methods of the reform’ (Khelfaoui, 2009: 26).

As noted earlier, under the international standard rationale for policy borrowing, the adoption of an idea precedes the search for externalisation of borrowing potential and how that idea works in other settings. The search may be influenced by language (as countries that speak the same language commonly borrow from each other), political linkages (among countries within the same political association) and perceptions of hierarchy (as less developed countries commonly borrow from more developed countries, and more developed countries borrow from similarly advanced countries) (Bray, 2007). This one-way directional borrowing can be traced back to the colonial era, where models of schooling were imported either from the colonising country or from other colonies of the same power (Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Bray, 2007). This accounts for the different school systems within the French, British, Portuguese and Spanish empires (Bray, 2007) and for dual school systems within the same country, as in Cameroon. To avoid negative lessons and facilitate multiplicity, lessons might also be drawn from more than one country, leading to the introduction of a hybrid or combination of lessons in the local setting (Well, 2005). However, the legitimacy of where the lesson is learned and the legitimacy of the person providing the lesson are as important as the lesson itself (Waldow, 2012), as these factors may impact on the local response to the borrowed model.

Methodology

To examine the transfer of BP ideas in Cameroon and local responses to its adoption, the present study draws both on text documents and on 62 interviews conducted between October and December 2013. Produced by the CEMAC Council of Ministers and by the Cameroon Ministry of Higher Education, the documents were central to capturing the objectives and main features of the LMD, as they were conceived at the regional and national level to enhance appraisal of how the LMD was received at the institutional level.

To gain an in-depth understanding of the transfer process and reception at the local level, the analysis of documents was supplemented by semi-structured interviews, conducted as part of an ongoing doctoral study of the adoption and adaptation of BP ideas in Cameroon. Interview questions for the doctoral project as a whole were informed by four themes: (1) adoption of the LMD and external influences; (2) introduction and diffusion; (3) implementation and (4) general perceptions. The questions in each theme were formulated to allow for follow-up questions, depending on the interviewees’ responses (Kvale, 2007; Rubin and Rubin, 2005). The interview themes and constituent questions were designed to capture aspects of the different stages of policy borrowing, informed by Phillips and Ochs’ (2004) composite model and more generally by a review of the literature on policy borrowing and transfer. Following a review of the literature on perceptions of LMD adoption in Africa (Eta, 2015b), the interview questions (especially those in theme four) were constructed to capture interviewees’ experiences and perceptions of the adoption, introduction and implementation of the LMD in Cameroon.

Interviews were conducted with higher education stakeholders in Cameroon, including policy makers at the Cameroon Ministry of Higher Education (MHE) and university administrators and lecturers from five state universities: University of Yaoundé I, University of Yaoundé II, University of Douala, University of Dschang and University of Buea. These include the universities that existed in Cameroon before the LMD system was introduced in 2007, from both the English and French sub-systems. At that time, the sole Anglo-Saxon university was the University of Buea while the other four were French-oriented. Two sets of interview questions were developed: one for interviewees at the ministry and one for university administrators and lecturers. All questions were informed by the four themes outlined above.

Interviewees were selected using purposive and snowball sampling techniques (Newman, 2004). For purposive sampling, some interviewees were selected on the basis of an initial review of text documents related to the LMD in Cameroon (Eta, 2015a). As some of those selected were unable to participate in the study, snowball sampling was considered appropriate, in which the first group of interviewees identified others (Newman, 2004) who were willing to share their experiences and perceptions of the LMD adoption process in Cameroon. Of the 62 interviewees, three were policy makers from the MHE, 30 were university administrators and 29 were lecturers. Most of the policy makers and administrators were also university lecturers; two policy makers participated as both policy maker and lecturer, and 24 participated as both university administrator and lecturer. Interviews with policymakers and university administrators lasted between 46 and 127 minutes; interviews with lecturers lasted between 26 minutes and 68 minutes.

Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Guest et al., 2012; Namey et al., 2008) was used as an appropriate method for ‘identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 79). This method was considered appropriate for present purposes because of its flexibility, which allows for both an inductive, data-driven approach and consideration of relevant theories during the analytical process (Braun and Clarke; Guest et al., 2012). Thematic analysis is a useful tool for capturing the complexities of meaning (Guest et al., 2012) in interviewees’ perceptions of the adoption and transfer of BP ideas in Cameroon. The approach is well suited to large data sets because of its capacity to reduce extensive data by extracting only those of relevance to specific questions (Guest et al., 2012; Namey et al., 2008).

The first step in the analysis was to reduce the data set (Guest et al., 2012; Namey et al., 2008) to include only data of relevance to the adoption and transfer of the LMD system in Cameroon, introduction of the LMD system to the universities and perceptions of the adoption and transfer process. Preliminary themes were identified through a process of coding (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Guest et al., 2012). Recurrent themes (Attride-Stirling, 2001) related to the research objectives were retained and measured in terms of their frequency of occurrence across the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Namey et al., 2008). Quotations from documents and interviews have been used to support the themes discussed as a trend across the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Process of transfer of the LMD in Cameroon

Adoption of the LMD at national level

Adoption of the BP in Cameroon through the LMD system is a continuation of a process that began at the CEMAC sub-regional level with the signing of the Libreville Declaration in 2005. The interviewees recognised transfer of the LMD system to Cameroon as a commitment to CEMAC regional directives for adoption. As the Libreville Declaration had already been jointly signed at the CEMAC sub-regional level, Cameroon had to comply with that decision at national level. According to the interviewees, adoption was a political decision, as the university community was not consulted prior to the signing of the Libreville Declaration.

The LMD system has been introduced by a political decision. The heads of state of CEMAC decided without consulting the universities that all universities in CEMAC must move to the LMD system. So at the base, there were no consultations. The reason was not given to universities. The political decision has been taken that all universities in CEMAC must move to the LMD system and that universities must apply it. (Policymaker 1)

The above quotation highlights the perception that the transfer of the LMD to Cameroon was an imposition. This signals the coercive nature of policy borrowing, where the transfer was considered obligatory.

The adoption of the LMD system at the CEMAC level is binding. Where there is regional understanding, where parties sign, you are supposed to implement. When you say you are a member of an organisation and you sign up to its protocols, it is binding. (University administrator/lecturer 12)

The decision to adopt the LMD system had already been made by the head of state, and in Cameroon ‘it was announced by the head of state, in his 2007 message to the youths’ (Policymaker 1). In addition to the commitment to the CEMAC declaration, we identified theoretical, practical and quick-fix decisions related to the LMD system’s introduction to Cameroon as discussed below.

Transfer based on theoretical, practical and quick-fix decisions

The introduction of the LMD in Cameroon can be described as a theoretical decision, as interviewees recounted that the reform was not discussed with the university community prior to adoption. Based on the text documents and interviews, it became clear that CEMAC heads of state viewed adoption as a means of harmonising and modernising higher education in the region and enhancing cooperation within CEMAC countries and with Europe. In addition, general BP goals such as enhanced mobility, readability and comparability of degrees (through the adoption of a credit system, the BMP degree structure and the diploma supplement) and employability were theoretical concepts used to formulate concrete lines of action and the implementation guide of the LMD.

This was also seen to be a practical/realistic decision. We interpreted ‘practical/realistic’ as an acknowledgement that these ideas existed elsewhere, regardless of their success. For example, interviewees argued that Cameroon’s political decision to adopt the LMD along with other CEMAC countries was influenced by the BP’s status as a global trend.

This is a system which began in America, then spread to Europe and now to Africa. Heads of states of Central African decided that we should implement the LMD system in all universities in Central Africa in order to link with other universities and to ensure that our degrees are at the same level as the rest of the world. (University administrator/lecturer 9)

The CEMAC countries, including Cameroon, wanted to be part of the global trend because ‘we cannot be an island in the world. We are part of the global village’ (University administrator/lecturer 5). It was further noted that Cameroon could benefit from the LMD’s transformation of higher education (HE) systems in Europe.

They [countries in Europe] pooled their resources and came up with these objectives that have transformed their system and made it what it is today […]. The CEMAC heads of state saw that we can benefit from their approach. (Policymaker 3)

Introduction of the LMD system in Cameroon was also based on a quick-fix decision. For example, interviewees noted that the system’s solution-oriented nature in tackling challenges facing the Cameroon higher education system (such as employability issues, student’ mobility, harmonisation of the dual-degree structure and international readability of degrees) meant that the reform was suitable for Cameroon. Despite its solution-oriented nature, interviewees also indicated that the LMD was adopted in Cameroon without adequate preparation for implementation in terms of infrastructure, human resources, course design and credit allocation. For example, one interviewee expressed the following view in relation to credit allocation.

At the time when we were about to award the first degrees, there was a crisis. The number of credits did not match 180 because they had not anticipated many things, and so, they had to make some ‘adjustments’ as they called them. […]. Courses that were initially worth 2 credits were skyrocketed to 4 credits in order to compensate for the gap. This shows that they were not prepared, and there is nothing as bad as not being prepared. (University administrator/lecturer 16)

Diffusion of the LMD in Cameroon

In Cameroon, LMD was not a matter of adoption, as it had already been adopted at the CEMAC level. Rather, the issue was how best to disseminate the ideas and prepare the universities for implementation. On 16 May 2006, the Cameroon MHE signed a decision creating the operational bodies for implementation of the LMD (Ministry of Higher Education, 2006). This was followed by another decision on 19 October 2007 that defined LMD objectives and established provisions for its implementation (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007). The objectives aligned with those formulated by the CEMAC Council of Ministers (2006), emphasising adoption of the Licence, Master and Doctorat 3+2+3 degree structure; the credit system; and the enhancement of mobility and graduate employability through professionalisation (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007, 2010). Formulation of these texts can be seen as the first step towards dissemination of LMD ideas in terms of interpretation and guidance, including specific and general objectives and anticipated changes.

Conferences organised by the MHE to familiarise university administrators and other stakeholders were an important tool in diffusion of the LMD. According to interviewees (policymakers), the 2010 conference held in the Cameroon capital city of Yaoundé under the theme “Refondation Curriculaire pour un Universitié Camerounaise Compétitive au 21st Siècle” sought to define guiding principles for adoption of the 3+2+3 degree structure, as well as discussing comparability of qualifications and how to enhance graduate employability. In the view of these policymakers, the importance of that conference was that it brought together national HE stakeholders and international delegates. The latter included two ‘Bologna experts’, one from Ireland and one from Belgium, who shared the UK and Belgian experiences of the BP. The presence of ‘English-speaking and French-speaking “[Bologna] experts” was because we wanted to maintain a linguistic balance during the conference’ (Policymaker 1):

…not to copy what obtained in those countries; rather, it was intended to gain a better insight into what the Bologna Process was all about, straight from the horse’s mouth. It was an opportunity for us to understand some of the problems that these countries were facing in implementing the Bologna Process. (Policymaker 1)

The conference highlighted the international nature of the BP and was instrumental in the further dissemination of BP ideas in general and the LMD in particular. By providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences among national and international actors, it also served to emphasise that LMD was an ongoing process.

Introduction of the LMD at institutional level

The second step was that a deadline was given to universities – 2007 – to move to the LMD system. But we all know that the deadline was only a formality. (Policymaker 1)

Following adoption of the LMD at CEMAC sub-regional level and its subsequent introduction in Cameroon, universities were instructed by the MHE to begin implementation in 2007, as captured in the quotation above and in MHE (2007, 2010) documents. Given that the 2007/2008 deadline was a formality, some universities respected it while others began implementation of the LMD in the academic year 2008/2009. As the interviews confirm, the universities that respected the deadline were those already familiar with BP ideas, such as the University of Buea.

Buea already had the 3+2+3 degree structure and the credit system. Buea was already in the BMP system because it was built in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. (University administrator/lecturer 19)

This also applied to universities whose rector was Anglo-Saxon-trained, such as the University of Yaoundé I.

…at the time of the implementation of the LMD, Madam Njuema, the American-trained first vice chancellor of the University of Buea was rector of the University. She managed to put up the Anglo-Saxon model at the University of Buea and managed it for many years. She had first-hand knowledge of the LMD (University administrator/lecturer 10).

Creating new experts and externalising potential

Given that adoption of the BP through the LMD was a borrowed idea initiated beyond the university, there was a need to create experts to manage implementation. University administrators were charged with the responsibility of sensitising their university communities and managing implementation of the LMD system. This led to the creation of university committees to oversee implementation. Informed by the MHE documents, interviewees noted that university-specific texts were produced by LMD committees to guide implementation of the LMD at the various universities. To sensitise and prepare university communities for implementation, seminars and workshops were organised. Members of the implementation committees became the ‘new experts’ in LMD, assigned to different faculties to familiarise and educate the community.

In 2006, the rector asked us to organise seminars to sensitise the university community to the system. We held a series of seminars for all of the university’s faculties and schools. All members of the operating unit had to go to one of the schools or faculties of the university to explain what the LMD was all about and the difference between the LMD and the old system. (University administrator/lecturer 11)

According to the interviewees, members of the LMD committees gained expertise by attending conferences organised by the MHE and by familiarising themselves with the CEMAC and MHE guidelines. Some of the committee members had already been exposed to BP philosophies because they had studied in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Nigeria, or in European countries where some BP ideas already existed (e.g. Germany). Some interviewees believed that knowledge of these systems translated into a reasonable understanding of LMD requirements. These committee members were therefore considered a significant resource for guiding LMD implementation within the universities.

In learning about the LMD and further developing their expertise, members of the LMD committees searched for externalising potential. In Cameroon, this search took two forms, the first of which involved committee members travelling to certain European countries to learn about the BP. This complied with the CEMAC recommendation that three experts from each CEMAC country should be trained at North America and European universities, and that these experts would then train university lecturers in their respective countries (CEMAC Council of Ministers, 2005). Our interview data suggest that, in Cameroon, the search for externalising potential occurred mainly during the implementation stage, as opposed to the cross-national attraction stage in Phillips and Ochs’ (2004) model, indicating the non-linear nature of policy borrowing. This is because the construction of the problem was not based entirely on an internal impulse that Cameroon or the CEMAC countries should adopt the LMD. Rather, it reflects a political motive to conform and converge to a global trend, where use of the BP model to harmonise higher education in the CEMAC region sparked a borrowing of BP ideas. In other words, a ‘global’ solution was introduced to Cameroon that aligned well with the local problem, and the solution preceded construction of the problem to fit the global solution. At the time of the interviews in 2013, the search for externalisation of borrowing potential was still ongoing. As one policymaker indicated, trips to learn about the Nigerian HE system were planned for 2014 because Nigeria had been operating on the ideas contained in the LMD prior to their adoption in Europe.

In selecting the learning destination of the BP, university administrators indicated that they had visited universities in Europe where they had themselves studied or with which they cooperated. Because Cameroon is bilingual, language was also seen to influence the choice of countries visited; while French committee members noted that they visited countries where French was widely spoken (such as France and Belgium), English-speaking members visited English-speaking and Scandinavian countries (such as Sweden), where it was possible to interact in English.

The search for externalising potential also entailed inviting BP experts to Cameroon to share their experiences of the BP. This also conformed to the CEMAC directive that university lecturers should be trained by experts from North America and Europe (CEMAC Council of Ministers, 2005). The 2010 conference organised by the Cameroon MHE and attended by two BP experts from Belgium and Ireland is one example of lessons brought to the learner in the search for externalising potential. In addition, interviewees noted that experts (mostly French speaking, from France and Belgium) were sent by the MHE to talk about the BP at LMD seminars and workshops at the different universities. Coupled with the dual system of education in Cameroon, this meant that conceptions of the LMD at the different universities were informed by the universities’ own ethos as well as by MHE guidelines and lessons from other countries.

Transition from the existing system to the LMD system

Our analysis of the documents and interviews indicates that Cameroon’s adoption of the BP through the LMD was a case of selective borrowing and local interpretation – for instance, it was acknowledged that the LMD is essentially the BP.

We know it is the Bologna Process. We know it is from Europe, but we could not call it the Bologna Process. We had to give it a new name to make it look different. We must not tell the world that we have simply copied what they are doing in Europe. No, we had to give it a new name to avoid cases of resistance. (University administrator/lecturer 21)

Certain features of the BP were emphasised more than others in the LMD. For interviewees, the most important aspects of the LMD for Cameroon were the BMP degree structure, the credit system, graduate employability and mobility. Even when these issues were emphasised, some were differently interpreted at the French and Anglo-Saxon universities. (See Eta and Vubo (2016) for a translation of the BP degree structure and credit system in the French and Anglo-Saxon universities in Cameroon.) Employability was also interpreted in terms of professionalisation, emphasising the need for practical training and training for specific professions (see Eta, 2017).

Despite local interpretations, introducing the LMD system at universities in Cameroon required significant changes. For example, interviewees noted that curricula had to be revised from content centred to student centred and from theory based to practice based, as well as being enriched with employability-enhancing content. It also meant that the credit system had to be introduced at the French-inspired universities, where no such system had previously existed. At the University of Buea, which operated on the credit system, credits had to be upgraded.

Introduction of the LMD system also meant that intermediate degrees had to be eliminated at the French-inspired universities. (For more on the credit system and degree structures, see Eta (2015a) and Eta and Vubo (2016).) Steps also had to be taken to enhance inter-programme and inter-university mobility and to transition from the existing system to the LMD. According to the MHE (2007, 2010), implementation of the LMD system was to begin on an experimental basis in 2007 at the first year of the bachelor’s and master’s level. Students registered in the second and third years were to continue their training in the old system.

From the interviews, we identified two transition measures. Under the first of these, universities introduced the LMD system in the first year and moved progressively on to the second and third years, following the MHE guidelines. These universities applied implementation of LMD to first-year students in 2007/2008 or 2008/2009 while the remaining students followed the old system. This measure was identified for universities that had eliminated the DEUG (such as the Universities of Yaoundé I and II) or for those that had never used the DEUG system (such as the University of Buea). This meant that first-year students at universities from both sub-systems had a new curriculum and upgraded course credit allocations (for the University of Buea) or introduced credits (as in the case of the French-inspired universities). In contrast, students in the second and subsequent years followed the old curriculum and had a lower credit allocation (the University of Buea) or followed the modular system (French-inspired universities).

Under the second transition measure, universities introduced the LMD system for first- and second-year students at bachelor level while third-year students followed the existing system. Interviewees noted that these were the universities that maintained the DEUG system; their understanding was that the third-year students had completed their first two years of study and had already been awarded the DEUG. As reported by interviewees, the challenge for these universities, then, was to ensure that all students in the third year graduated within a year; if they failed, they were to be assigned to the LMD system. This challenge arose because third-year students were operating on the modular and average system rather than on the credit system. Failure to graduate meant that all courses they had taken were to be assigned credits; in most cases, these were not equivalent to the credits required by the LMD system as calculated by the number of hours required to obtain a credit. Consequently, most students ended up repeating some courses or taking more courses than they had expected after being moved to the LMD system.

Local responses to adoption

As captured in the interviews, transfer of the BP through the LMD system has generated a range of reactions in Cameroon. This section discusses the responses of policy makers, university administrators and lecturers.

Imposed or voluntary adoption

One major theme captured in the data was the question of whether LMD adoption was imposed or voluntary. For some interviewees, adoption of the BP through the LMD system by CEMAC heads of state was imposed or at least influenced by France by virtue of colonial history. Some interviewees justified this perception on the premise that, as in the CEMAC region, the title ‘LMD’ was used to refer to reforms associated with the BP in France. Interviewees also reported that it was mostly French experts who visited universities in Cameroon to talk about the BP (regardless of whether the experts were from Belgium or France).

Conversely, others believed that LMD adoption at the CEMAC sub-regional level was voluntary because it worked to harmonise education in the region and enhanced collaboration with the European system, in line with the practical/realistic decision-making argument. In addition, it was noted that the BP was going global.

LMD is the CEMAC version of the European Bologna Process. But even the Europeans borrowed it from the Americans … It is voluntary because it is important for CEMAC countries to adapt to the world – for Cameroon to adapt to the world. I don’t see it as something that was imposed. Once Europe adopted the Bologna Process, following America, it was important for everybody to move to that direction. (Policymaker 3)

Some interviewees were uncertain whether adoption was imposed or voluntary, or whether it was influenced by any specific country. However, for these interviewees, colonial history was used to explain why the adoption was seen to have been influenced by France.

I cannot say that it was voluntary or that it was imposed. The head of state took the decision and imposed it on us. Since I am not the head of state, I cannot say. When you are in politics, you don’t know what is voluntary and what is not. It also cannot be said that this is an influence from one particular country. As CEMAC is made up of French-speaking countries, many people think that this decision was influenced by France. I don’t know. I cannot confirm it. What I am saying is that because politics is a matter of mutual influence, the question should not be whether it was imposed or voluntary. The question should be whether it has benefits for us. (Policymaker 1)

There was consensus among the interviewees that the transfer and introduction of the LMD in Cameroon and its universities was imposed by the country’s government. There was also consensus that, whether imposed or voluntary, the BP is beneficial for Cameroon. As described by interviewees, those benefits align with our interpretation of theoretical, practical/realistic and quick-fix decision making as already discussed. As practical/realistic decision making, interviewees observed that the BP was a global trend in higher education and that Cameroon should not be left behind. As a theoretical or quick-fix decision, interviewees felt that the BP offered an opportunity to harmonise Cameroon’s dual-degree structures. It was also seen to address the issue of graduate employability (which has been a major problem for higher education in Cameroon) and to tackle transferability issues (inter-university transfer), which universities in Cameroon have struggled with for a long time. It shortened the duration of study, especially for a PhD (from about 12 years to 8 years). At international level, adoption was seen to facilitate easy readability of degrees issued by Cameroon’s universities.

To adopt or not to adopt

Although some interviewees perceived that the BP was imposed on institutions of higher education in Cameroon through the LMD, most reported (surprisingly) that they would have voted in favour if consulted prior to BP adoption, specifically because of the multiple benefits associated with implementation as discussed earlier. In addition, interviewees noted that Cameroon needed to move away from a curriculum inherited at independence towards a more modern system – one that considers the country’s changing needs and complies with other systems of education around the world.

However laudable the ideas, some interviewees questioned the motives behind BP adoption in Cameroon; specifically, they questioned whether Cameroon would have adopted BP had France not adopted it first. It was noted that Cameroon did not have to emulate European solutions, however realistic, to address its higher education challenges, especially as the two contexts differ in various ways. Some interviewees, especially from the Anglo-Saxon university, saw it as a quick-fix decision, observing that the LMD guidelines as stipulated in the MHE document failed to consider the dual systems of education in Cameroon. Instead, the guidelines aligned more with the practices of French-inspired universities prior to adoption. Some interviewees also noted that voting for LMD adoption did not necessarily indicate that universities were ready for implementation, again indicating a quick-fix decision.

If readiness means that there was a need for a change then yes, we were ready. Were all the enabling factors in place? That is a different issue. Were we ready in terms of resources – manpower and material? More was needed. Were we ready in terms of capacity building, ensuring that teachers have the required competences, knowledge and skills to implement the LMD and to evaluate it? No. I don’t think we paid enough attention to all the factors that had to do with implementation. (University administrator/lecturer 29)

For most of the interviewees, then, the universities rushed into implementation of the LMD without fully understanding what it entailed and without adequate resources for successful implementation. Although the ideas contained in the LMD were considered beneficial for Cameroon, the feeling was that universities needed more time to prepare for implementation. Some interviewees noted that implementation of LMD was rushed precisely because it was externally induced. However, though seen as a quick-fix decision, the perceived level of readiness differed between the University of Buea and the French-inspired universities. According to interviewees, the GPA, credit system and BMP structure were considered everyday concepts at the University of Buea, but these were relatively new ideas for the French-inspired universities.

Beyond the question of whether or not to adopt the LMD system, interviewees expressed their views about the approach set out in MHE documents, especially regarding the degree structure and credit system in the Anglo-Saxon university. For example, the Ministry of Higher Education (2007) stipulated that universities were to award three degrees – bachelor’s, master’s and PhD – but are also allowed to issue DEUG and Maîtres upon request. The master’s degree was divided into Master I and Master II (which some interviewees saw as representing the Maîtres and DEA in French universities), with different conditions for entry. The credit system was also seen to allow for compensation, as in the modular and average systems in the French-inspired universities. That system of compensation did not oblige students to pass all courses within a module. (For more on this, see Eta and Vubo (2016).

However, English-speaking interviewees in general, and those from the University of Buea in particular, were sceptical of the provisions proposed at national level. These were said to be French inspired, an adaptation of the BP and of practices already in existence at the University of Buea. Most English-speaking interviewees believed that adoption of the BP through the LMD system helped to legitimise and was used to glorify the Anglo-Saxon model of education in Cameroon as an internationally accepted system. However, those interviewees (especially those from the Anglo-Saxon university) also believed that to adopt a French-inspired approach was to assimilate the Anglo-Saxon model of education.

Legitimacy of the experts and externalisation of borrowing potential

Interviewees also reacted to the legitimacy of the ‘experts’ – whether Cameroonian or international – and of the country from which lessons were drawn. French-trained experts or those who travelled to France to learn about the BP were seen to have limited knowledge or understanding of the LMD system. As the BP was considered an Anglo-Saxon system of education, interviewees (mostly English speaking) believed that lessons should instead be drawn from the United Kingdom, the United States or even Nigeria rather than from France. According to these interviewees, learning from France meant relearning from a system that has informed the Cameroon HE system since independence and which had proved limited in addressing Cameroon’s current needs. Some interviewees (mostly English-speaking lecturers from the French-inspired universities) who had studied and held teaching positions at Anglo-Saxon universities believed they had a better understanding of the LMD system than most university administrators who had studied in France and sat on the implementation committees.

Those called upon to manage the LMD system are not competent. It would appear that they have summoned those with no mastery of the system to manage its implementation, and that is the source of most of the misconceptions about the LMD. Some of us who studied in the UK or America, or even Nigeria, are better informed about the system. They should have asked me or Dr. X and Dr. Y [names deleted] to tell them how it is done rather than sending people to France or asking people from France to tell us about it, when they, too, are just learning about it. (Lecturer 26)

Although the LMD was introduced in Cameroon as a new system of education, the ideas associated with the LMD were not considered new, as the University of Buea already had the 3+2+3 degree structure and operated on the American course credit system. For that reason, some interviewees observed that rather than learning from France, universities in Cameroon should have learned the ‘real thing’ from the Anglo-Saxon University of Buea.

They simply needed to go to Buea and ask the guys in Buea for a blueprint, which could have been disseminated to all state universities. But because the other universities are French-inspired, they would rather go to France. And that is why, in the French universities, you would still hear things like DEUG, Maîtres, Master I and Master II. They say they have the credit system, but they are running the credit system in the same way as the old modular system. (Lecturer 19)

Conclusion

The present article had two objectives. The first was to examine the process of transfer of BP ideas to Cameroon by means of the LMD. Adoption of the BP in Cameroon was a cross-regional (Eta, 2015b) process that started with adoption at the sub-regional level by CEMAC heads of state, leading to its subsequent imposition on universities in Cameroon. This confirmed Khelfaoui’s (2009) observation that the transfer of the LMD system to universities in Africa was imposed on university officials by the government. As Cameroon felt compelled to transfer because of its commitment to CEMAC, the process could be viewed as coercive. However, in line with Eta (2015a), the transfer could equally be seen as both coercive and voluntary, as Cameroon is a member of CEMAC, and they jointly adopted the BP through the LMD system.

Based on Phillips and Ochs’ (2004) decision stage of policy borrowing, the introduction of the BP in Cameroon through the LMD system was discussed as a combination of theoretical, realistic/practical and quick-fix decisions. As a theoretical decision, BP guiding principles such as harmonisation, mobility, readability and comparability of degrees and employability guided the formulation of the LMD system. As a practical/realistic decision, the BP was seen as a success story that was transforming HE in Europe, with the potential to enhance cooperation and convergence with the European system and to resolve challenges facing HE in Cameroon. As a quick-fix decision, the implementation was seen to be rushed, with insufficient cognisance in its adoption and transfer to Cameroon’s dual system of higher education of provisions seen as more French driven.

Because the LMD was adopted at CEMAC level, the question of LMD in Cameroon was not about adoption; rather, it was about disseminating and preparing the groundwork for its implementation in the universities. At national level, this involved the production of documents to guide the implementation process and through national conferences. At the institutional level, preparing the universities entailed the creation of implementation committees (who became the new experts) to sensitise university communities to LMD.

The universities’ search for externalising potential took two forms: committee members travelled abroad to learn about the BP, and ‘Bologna experts’ visited Cameroon to share their experiences of the BP. The search was conducted mainly during the implementation stage rather than during the cross-national attraction stage as proposed in Phillips and Ochs’ (2004) model. The transfer of the LMD to Cameroon can be interpreted as a linear process that began with its adoption at CEMAC level before its subsequent transfer and imposition on Cameroon’s universities. However, from a policy-borrowing perspective, its introduction in Cameroon also confirms that policy borrowing is not always a rational or linear process that proceeds from problem to solution (Ball, 1998; Steiner-Khamsi, 2013). In the case of Cameroon, policy borrowing began from a form of ‘globalised solution’ adopted at CEMAC sub-regional level as an appropriate fit to the national problem; this fit was then used to justify and legitimise the adoption of BP in Cameroon.

The article’s second aim was to examine local responses to the adoption of the BP through the LMD in Cameroon, which was discussed under three themes: imposed or voluntary adoption, to adopt or not to adopt, and the legitimacy of the experts and externalising potential. Although some interviewees felt that adoption of the LMD at CEMAC level was imposed or influenced by France, others viewed the adoption as voluntary, and others again were uncertain whether it was voluntary or imposed. These differences among interviewees’ perceptions may reflect their lack of involvement in the adoption process; based on assumptions, their perceptions became their reality, which may have influenced their reception of the LMD. Although many interviewees agreed that LMD was forced on the universities, LMD itself received overwhelming support, as almost all interviewees (60 out of 62) indicated that they would have voted for adoption if their opinion had been sought prior to adoption.

However, interviewees were sceptical about the quick-fix manner in which the LMD was implemented, without allowing universities to adequately prepare. In addition, some interviewees expressed scepticism about the adopted provisions; these were said to be French-oriented, aligning with prior practices in the French-inspired universities despite the dual French and Anglo-Saxon systems of education in Cameroon. In addition, the Anglo-Saxon university was created to cater for the needs of English-speaking students, who often faced difficulties in the then French-modelled university. For that reason, English-speaking interviewees viewed the adoption of the more French-inclined LMD as interference with the English system’s mission and a means of assimilating the Anglo-Saxon system of education to the French system. Most English-speaking interviewees therefore questioned the legitimacy of the French-oriented LMD, confirming Waldow’s (2012) observation that in cases of policy borrowing, the legitimacy of the lesson provider is as important as the lessons provided.