Why is the recognition of credentials not just a matter of good will? Five theories and the Austrian case

ABSTRACT

We live in a period of heightened internationalisation of population movement for work, education, and varied forms of forced and voluntary migration. Recognition of qualifications earned by the individuals concerned is a key practical, social, and psychological issue for themselves, as well as impacting on prospective employers, host communities and nations, and a variety of political and cultural debates. This paper analyses the education and qualification system in Austria, a longstanding recipient country for migration, and develops a theoretical framework for classifying institutional procedures that can recognise foreign degrees and the results of both non-formal and informal learning. It argues that both technocratic objectives and moral claims for a quick (or centralised) simplification of these procedures are unrealistic but identifies complementary measures to improve the situation incrementally. Additionally, the paper compares five theoretical approaches – namely human capital theory, theories of credentialism and professionalism, neo-institutionalism, and systems theory – which provide different explanations for the function of credentials in education and their use in labour markets, and offer new perspectives on the contribution of credentials to cultural diversification and to socio-economic inequality. This comparison helps us to understand the potential of and the challenges for recognition in different sectors of qualification systems.

KEYWORDS:

• Recognition of qualifications/credentials
• validation of competences
• human capital theory
• credentialism
• professionalism
• neo-institutionalism
• systems theory

1. Introduction

Two particular globalisation-related phenomena have made the validation of competencies and recognition of foreign degrees challenges of epic dimensions. On the one hand, participation rates in primary, secondary, and tertiary segments of formal education have (in consecutive waves) grown exponentially on a global scale, especially since the second half of the twentieth century (Schofer & Meyer, 2005, as quoted in Baker, 2014, p. 24). On the other hand, annual net migration rates to developed world regions have risen at a similar pace during the same period of time (UN-DESA, 2016, p. 11).

Combining both phenomena – the expansion of the educated population and the growth of migration – reveals why validation and recognition are far from being marginal issues. The migration of educated and experienced people is growing globally, and hence the transfer of competencies and degrees has become significant in quantitative terms rather than being a rare exception. Consequently, validation and recognition create both opportunities and threats for individuals and employers, for educational organisations and professional authorities, as well as for welfare states. Having their qualifications recognised abroad may create new life chances for individuals, while a lack of recognition may lead to existential predicaments for migrants. Employers (or customers) may be interested in recognition if it helps them to overcome shortages of skilled labour (or service) but mistrust it if there seems to be a potential for expected standards to be undermined. Educational organisations and professional authorities welcome the recognition of their own qualifications abroad but are reluctant to recognise educational outcomes that were obtained outside their control. Welfare states may use recognition to multiply opportunities for the socio-economic integration of migrants but may fear the increase of qualification-based entitlements.

However, much of what can be said about the recognition of foreign qualifications can be said about the use of domestic qualifications as well. Within regional or national contexts, formal qualifications are increasingly being used to enhance individual career chances, to signal competencies to employers, or to moderate between inclusion and exclusion in relation to different functional domains and organisations of the welfare state. While only a few decades ago, the vast majority of jobs and occupational domains could be accessed without formal qualifications, nowadays they have become essential prerequisites for individual careers, for job recruitment, and for organising labour markets in developed economies, while the share of unskilled labour has been steadily declining.

Basically, a qualification draws a distinction which works as an inclusion/exclusion-mechanism by distinguishing between its holders and all others. Qualifications are used to establish further distinctions, such as complementary relationships between experts and clients (for example doctors and patients), to define a growing multitude of occupational domains and epistemic territories, or to defend professional privileges and the boundaries of political-administrative control. All of these spheres come with their own cultural understandings of norms, values, and rule-like assumptions about how to do things. These cultures differ within nation states, and even more across different countries.

Overall, as producers of qualifications, ‘universities and schools are possibly the most important generators of inequality in current world society’ (Stichweh, 2017, p. 18, our translation). This trend is enhanced by the international transfer of qualifications, which may cause inequality between native-born and foreign-born populations within national boundaries. On a global scale, it widens the gap between qualification-rich and qualification-poor individuals and groups. Global university rankings are initial indicators for the emergence of new hierarchies even within the top tier of qualifications. The ‘global competition for talent’ (Czaika, 2017) between ‘competing states’ (Bommes, 2003, p. 50) has already started and does not affect only migrants from poorer countries, but also the domestic populations of developed economies, which increasingly become involved in international competition. Depending on one’s perspective, failure to validate or recognise is often regarded either as a waste of human capital or as discrimination against migrants. However, both technocrats and observers of inequality seem to dismiss issues regarding validation and recognition merely as matters of good will or its absence and do not perceive the complex challenges involved. They do not differentiate between various functional types of validation and recognition, acting as if all forms were identical. Additionally, they observe validation and recognition only in the context of migration and may, therefore, have a limited understanding of the functions and effects of credentials in education and labour markets in general.

To overcome these limitations, we needed to develop an analytical framework that allows us to differentiate between various functional types of validation and recognition. We describe this analytical framework in the first part of our paper and use it to classify and compare the multitude of procedures we identified in the case of the Austrian education and qualification system. In the second part of our paper, we try to develop a more general understanding of functions and effects of credentials in education and labour markets. To this end, we summarise the main assumptions of five theoretical approaches: human capital theory, theories of credentialism and of professionalism, neo-institutionalism, and social systems theory. In the third part, we interweave these theoretical perspectives with the empirical realities of the Austrian case. This allows us to sketch some difficulties connected with recognition and validation and to distinguish the education and qualification system from the labour market whilst, at the same time, highlighting the nature and dynamics of credentialing regimes in Austria. The concluding section outlines implications derived from the study, based on our attempt to pick apart the complex epistemic world of qualifications.

2. Recognition of foreign degrees and validation of non-formal and informal competences in Austria

2.1. Demography and migration flows

According to OECD, migration can be regarded as an important economic driver for host countries due to the contributions of migrants to labour markets, the public purse, and economic growth (Dumont & Liebig, 2014). For the EU in particular, net migration is the main factor contributing to slowing down the massive decline of the EU working-age population in the next few decades, which has been projected in demographic forecasts (e.g. Eurostat, 2015). Additionally, free movement of people between the member states is regarded as a key mechanism for European integration, fostering economic development and social cohesion.

Similar to the OECD average, Austria has experienced a long-term increase in immigration, which dates back to the recruitment of ‘guest workers’ from Yugoslavia and Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s, alongside Austria’s role as a transit country for refugees from the East during the Cold War, the fall of the Iron Curtain, and the violent dissolution of former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Ever since, free movement within the European Union has gained in significance for migration flows to Austria, especially with the EU’s eastward enlargement since 2004, and the recent inflows of refugees in the wake of the Syrian crisis.

In contrast to the OECD and EU average, the share of foreign-born people in Austria exceeded 10% as early as the turn of the millennium and has risen faster since then compared to EU and the OECD average (see Table 1). Austria also features a different development with regard to the characteristics of permanent inflows (see Figure 1). Between 2005 and 2013, nearly two thirds of permanent migration was determined by free movement flows from other EU countries. This share goes far beyond the EU or OECD average. With 10% Austria also leads the category of humanitarian migration.

Figure 1. Permanent inflows by entry categories, 2005–2013 (OECD/EU, 2015, p. 57).

Table 1. Foreign-born population, 2000–2001 and 2011–2012, in percent of total population (OECD/EU, 2015, p. 41).

		2000–2001	2011–2012	Difference
Foreign-born	Austria	10	16	6
	EU (13)	8	12	4
	OECD (22)	9	13	4

With regard to its status as an immigration country, Austria has been classified as a ‘long-standing destination with many low-educated migrants’ (OECD/EU, 2015, p. 29). While this may be true for international comparisons, this labelling blurs the rather bipolar structure of immigration to Austria, with larger shares of both low and highly educated migrants. This bipolarity is partly reflected in the composition of immigration by countries of origin. In 2014, 22% of all foreign residents in Austria came from EU 15 countries (mainly Germany), 24% from former Yugoslavia, 11% from Turkey, and 28% from ‘new’ EU member states (accession in 2004 or after) (Statistics Austria, 2015, p. 84).

2.2. Labour market integration and recognition

At first sight, indicators for the labour market integration of immigrants seem to be favourable in terms of international comparisons (see Table 1). Activity rates (share of the working-age population employed or job-seeking) of foreign-born people are similar, employment rates are better and unemployment rates are far better in Austria than in the EU or OECD average. However, compared to native-born, foreign-born workers show much lower activity and employment rates in Austria (Table 2).

Table 2. Indicators of labour market integration of immigrants in 2012–2013, in % of 15- to 64-year-olds (OECD/EU, 2015, pp. 83, 87, 89).

		Foreign-born	Native-born	Difference
Activity rates	Austria	73	77	−4
	EU (28)	73	72	1
	OECD (34)	74	70	4
Employment rates	Austria	67	74	−7
	EU (28)	62	65	−3
	OECD (34)	66	64	1
Unemployment rates	Austria	9	4	5
	EU (28)	16	10	6
	OECD (34)	11	8	3

Additionally, labour market outcomes differ considerably with respect to countries of origin. For the period 2004–2010, immigrants from EU15 countries outperformed native-born people in the Austrian labour market, while immigrants from lower-income countries lagged far behind (Krause & Liebig, 2011, p. 22ff).

Part of the problem lies in the importance of formal qualifications at all levels of the Austrian labour market, paired with difficulties in gaining recognition for foreign degrees. In 2014, 27% of immigrants with a foreign intermediate vocational degree (school diploma, apprenticeship exam) applied for recognition, with the shares being 33% for holders of upper secondary academic/vocational degrees (Matura) and 48% for those with tertiary degrees. Overall, only one fourth¹ of all immigrants in Austria who had completed their education abroad applied for recognition, and one fifth of the total had their degree recognised (Statistics Austria, 2015, pp. 51f).

Problems with the recognition of foreign qualifications in Austria have been highlighted by the OECD as long ago as 2011, especially as regards the small number of recognitions and a lack of transparency in the recognition system. For this reason, transparency and information about recognition as well as measures for the validation of prior learning have been recommended (Krause & Liebig, 2011, pp. 4ff).

2.3. Literature related to recognition and validation

While it is impossible to do justice to the vast amount of literature on recognition and validation, one can name some outstanding examples as possible links. These include, for example, many publications by the Migration Policy Institute,² which frequently discuss topics related to growing shares of highly qualified migrants and respective recognition policies. A supplementary issue of the Canadian Public Policy journal (Hawthorne, McDonald, & Sweetman, 2015) focuses on the nexus between occupational regulation and the recognition of foreign qualifications. A study carried out by the Independent Network of Labour Migration and Integration Experts (LINET) comprises eight country case studies, which cover policies for the recognition of migrants’ qualifications and competencies (Schuster, Desiderio, & Urso, 2013). Other studies (such as Colardyn & Bjornavold, 2005) focus on the validation of non-formal and informal competencies and their rooting in national qualification frameworks. In addition, there is a plethora of policy papers, which often focus on selected sectors or types of recognition.

This rich body of knowledge has not yet been consolidated. Much of the literature mirrors narrow political-administrative targets (e.g. either education or regulated professions, either qualification or competence) and the respective use of terms. Broader studies, on the other hand, tend to include a wider variety of policies, yet without analysing them in depth. Neither approaches permits the production of cross-sectoral overviews that distinguish and inter-relate different types of procedures in a comparative, analytical way.

2.4. Institutions with responsibility for recognition and validation

We started our research³ by generating a list of all institutions in Austria with responsibility for institutionalised forms of recognition and validation. Following Lachmayr (2008), we organised them into four pillars which are significant for the national education and qualification system, that is to say school (primary and secondary) education, higher education, apprenticeship training, and regulated professions.⁴ This last pillar was the most complicated one, since it had to be structured further into groups of occupations. Additionally, we found that different regulations apply depending where a qualification originates from, either EU- or non-EU countries (Table 3).

Table 3. Institutions with responsibility for recognition and validation in Austria in 2012 (based on Biffl et al., 2012).

	School education	Higher education	Apprenticeship training	Regulated occupations
			EU countries	Non-EU countries
Recognition	BMBF BMWFW(NARIC) Schools	Universities, FHS BMWFW (NARIC)	BMWFW	Liberal professions (44)
				Professional chambers	Universities, FHS
				Regulated trades (98)
				BMWFW	Regional trade authorities
				Non-medical health professions (23)
				Midwifery council	FHS, Universities
				BMG	BMG
					State governments
				Pedagogical occupations and civil service (18)
				All federal ministries	Universities, FHS
				State education authority	Univ. college of education
				State governments	State governments
				Agricultural and silvicultural occupations (5)
				BMLFUW	University of agriculture
				State governments	BMLFUW
					State governments
				Accounting occupations (4)
				Chamber of certified public accountants	Universities, FHS
				Parity commission	Parity commission
				Other regulated professions (4)
				State governments	State governments
Validation	State education authority Upper Secondary Schools Lower Secondary Schools	Universities, FHS	Regional administrative authority	BMWFW BMLFUW Regional chambers of commerce

2.5. Analytical framework for recognition and validation

In the next step, we collected the terms used in practice to label formal procedures for recognition and validation and tried to analyse them. To allow for consistent distinctions between different forms, we had to develop our own analytical framework, based on a careful selection and contextualised definition of terms. In part, we drew on definitions used in research literature or in policy documents from the EU. We also developed new terms from our empirical data, following the principles of comparative analysis as described by grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

2.5.1. Learning contexts: Formal, non-formal, and informal learning

The distinction between different organisational contexts is the key criterion for the classification of formal, non-formal, and informal learning. Formal learning can be defined as learning that takes place in traditional educational settings (such as schools or universities) which are part of a nation state’s sequentially structured formal education system. Non-formal learning also takes place in the context of explicit learning arrangements (such as adult education or staff training), but outside the sequentially structured formal system. In contrast, informal learning is based on the initiative of the individual learner and takes place outside organised educational settings (for instance via individual media consumption or via practical experience).⁵

2.5.2. Learning outcomes: Individual competences and formal qualifications

By interpreting definitions made by Cedefop⁶ (2008), we can distinguish between two types of learning outcomes: learning outcomes at the level of individual attainments or attributes and learning outcomes at the level of formal documents.

Individual learning outcomes can be defined as ‘[t]he set of knowledge, skills and/or competences an individual has acquired and/or is able to demonstrate after completion of a learning process, either formal, non-formal or informal’ (Cedefop, 2008, p. 120). In this article, we use the term ‘competence’ to comprise all individual learning outcomes, including knowledge and skills.

A formal qualification, in turn, can be understood as a document (certificate, diploma, title, or credential) issued by a competent body after an assessment process, which determines that a person has achieved individual learning outcomes matching certain given standards. A qualification can be accompanied by a legal entitlement, for example, to practise a regulated profession (Cedefop, 2008, p. 144) or to access a consecutive level in the formal education system.

Generally speaking, qualifications can be understood as bundles of individual competences. While both formal and non-formal learning processes are geared towards assessment processes and the attainment of certificates, informal learning processes take place without such clear-cut objectives for a final product.

The distinction between individual competence and formal qualification also makes clear that qualifications are generalised representations of individual competences. ‘Certificates do not only make acquired knowledge more visible, they also communicate its social recognition and its potential application’ (Kade, 2005, p. 505, our translation). Qualifications are a far-reaching reflection of what can be expected from the qualification holders. Their reach is limited by two factors: their prominence vis-à-vis potential recipients and the (territorial or functional) reach of their entitlements.

2.5.3. Validation and recognition

Cedefop defines the validation of learning outcomes as

[c]onfirmation by a competent body that learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and/or competences) acquired by an individual in a formal, non-formal or informal setting have been assessed against predefined criteria and are compliant with the requirements of a validation standard. Validation typically leads to certification (Cedefop, 2008, p. 199).

In principle, the term ‘validation’ could also be applied to the assessment of learning outcomes in formal education settings. However, in this article, we use it primarily for learning outcomes from non-formal and informal settings. Following recommendations made by the Council of the European Union, validation can be defined by one or more of the following steps (Council of the European Union, 2012, p. 2):

• identification of an individual’s learning outcomes;

• documentation of an individual’s learning outcomes;

• assessment of an individual’s learning outcomes;

• certification of the results of this assessment.

A distinction must be drawn between the validation of an individual’s learning outcomes and the recognition of qualifications awarded by (or in) an organisation (or country). Recognition in this sense can only be provided by (or in) another organisation (or country) (Cedefop, 2008, p. 130). While validation is based on the direct assessment of an individual’s competences, recognition is based on the assessment of documents and decides on the transferability of qualifications from one organisational (or national) context to another.

These basic distinctions are prerequisites for compiling a typology that relates three forms of recognition with three forms of validation (see Table 4).

Table 4. Typology of institutionalised procedures for recognition and validation, following Pfeffer and Skrivanek (2013).

Recognition of qualifications (acquired in formal learning contexts)	Recognition, full full equivalency with domestic qualifications same entitlements (e.g. access to universities)
	Recognition, partial substitute for parts of a qualification, restricted to specific purposes (e.g. credit transfer for parts of domestic curriculum)
	Evaluation expert opinion without claim of equivalency or similarity, no formal entitlement
Validation of competences (acquired in non-formal or informal learning contexts)	Formal validation equivalency with qualifications of the formal education system, same entitlements
	Summative validation certificates outside the formal education system
	Formative validation identification and documentation of individual competences, no standardised assessment or certificate

2.5.4. Qualifications recognition typology

Three types of recognition of foreign qualifications can be distinguished: the traditional form of full recognition, partial recognition, and the evaluation of qualifications by public agencies.⁷

Full recognition aims at confirming the equivalency of a foreign qualification with a domestic one. If successful, full recognition of a foreign qualification grants its holder the same entitlements as the domestic qualification, for instance, regarding general access to higher education or to regulated professions.

Partial recognition aims at a partial replacement of specific access requirements or the workload expected by curricula. This form of recognition is restricted to case-specific purposes and evaluated by the respective educational institution.

The evaluation of foreign qualifications is performed by public agencies of the receiving country. It covers the expert opinion of a trusted domestic agency with regard to the foreign degree, for example, concerning the approval of the issuing institution by public authorities in the country of origin. This expert opinion mainly has informational value and does not lead to formal entitlements.⁸

2.5.5. Validation of competences: Three types

Based on Colardyn and Bjornavold (2005, pp. 109ff) and Schneeberger, Schlögl, and Neubauer (2009, pp. 103f), we distinguish between formal, summative, and formative validation of competences that have been acquired in non-formal or informal learning contexts.

Formal validation aims at the assessment of competences with the purpose of awarding qualifications of the formal, sequentially structured education system, even if these competences have been acquired outside this context. Typically, forms of second-chance education are ways to obtain regular degrees via formal validation.

Summative validation assesses competences against pre-defined standards, but awards qualifications without a clearly defined status in the sequentially structured education system of a nation state. Typically, this form of validation is used for language courses, for in-house training of companies, or for the certification of individuals according to ISO-standards. A driving licence might serve as an additional example.

Formative validation is the most flexible form of validation, with the lowest threshold. It aims at the identification and documentation of individual competences in a descriptive way without assessing them against given standards and without issuing certificates.⁹

2.5.6. Legal consequences of recognition and validation

Comparing various types of recognition and validation, it is important to see that the different types have different legal implications. Both full and partial recognition entail legally binding outcomes and clearly defined entitlements. This also applies to formal and summative validation.

Interestingly, both the assessment of qualifications and the formative validation of competences are non-binding in legal terms and do not lead to any entitlements. However, they can supply structured, maybe even trustworthy information about an individual’s competences, which makes it easier to communicate these competences to actors in the labour market, and also to institutions of the education system.

2.6. Recognition and validation procedures in Austria

The typology developed above needs to be complemented with a differentiation of target areas for recognition and validation, in particular, different segments of the national education and qualification system. For the purpose of our study, we distinguish between school education, higher education, apprenticeship training, and regulated professions as relevant pillars of the Austrian system. The resulting analytical grid allows for establishing the location, comparison, and analysis of interrelations between existing practices (Table 3).

The largest number of procedures has been developed in the category of full recognition. In individual cases, detailed comparisons between a foreign and the domestic curriculum are complemented by additional exams (if deemed necessary by the competent authority) to assimilate the foreign qualification to domestic conventions.¹⁰ The more recent option for granting full recognition is the political-administrative decision based on intergovernmental agreements. In the case of regulated occupations, the four procedures defined by the directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications apply to qualifications from EU/EAA member states only, while qualifications from third countries are processed by a wider range of authorities (Table 5).

Table 5. Official procedures for recognition and validation in Austria, based on Pfeffer and Skrivanek (2013).

	School education	Higher education	Apprenticeship training	Regulated occupations
				EU	Non-EU
Full recognition	Nostrification of foreign school and school-leaving certificates Equalisation of school-leaving certificates via treaties	Nostrification of foreign academic degrees Equalisation via treaties	Equalisation of foreign VET-degrees with final apprenticeship examination Equalisation via treaties	Declaration of cross-border provision of services Equalisation of qualifications Recognition of professional experience Automatic recognition based on coordination of minimum training conditions	Nostrification Equalisation
Partial recognition	Placement exams	Equalisation of school-leaving certificates via decision of university Recognition for study purposes	Recognition of school-leaving certificates as credit for final apprenticeship examination	Recognition of school-leaving certificates as credit for a trade authorisation
Evaluation	Evaluation of foreign certificates	Evaluation of foreign academic degrees
Formal validation	External school-leaving certificates School-leaving certificates as a comple­ment to apprenticeship External completion of compulsory school graduation	University entrance exam Occupational qualification as access criterion	Extraordinary admission to final apprenticeship examination
Summative validation				Professional title (e.g. engineer) Master’s degree – qualification examination – business-venture examination – trainer certificate
Formative validation	Competence Check for refugees

Procedures for partial recognition are comparatively less diversified, and they are the responsibility of either individual educational institutions or local professional authorities.

In contrast, the evaluation of foreign qualifications is a centralised responsibility, performed at the level of national ministries. Especially for academic degrees, it has proven highly successful in quantitative terms.

Fewer procedures exist for the validation of individual competences acquired in non-formal or informal learning contexts. Most of these can be found in the formal validation category, either as forms of exams for second-chance education, so as to attain formal qualifications, or as new forms of access to university.

Apart from the multitude of certificates from non-formal education and training providers which are not listed here, the most prominent examples of summative validation can be found in the field of regulated occupations, which mainly deal with different forms of validation of professional experience.

For a long time, only a few isolated examples of formative validation existed in Austria. In 2015, an instrument with a broader scope – the competence check for refugees – was established by the Austrian Public Employment Service (AMS). The competence check is a comprehensive procedure that identifies and documents all vocational experiences and formal qualifications. Based on this documentation, the AMS also refers its clients to other institutions, either for formal recognition, or for further education and training (Pfeffer, 2017).

2.7. European initiatives to improve the mobility of qualifications and competences

Austrian regulations for the recognition of foreign qualifications and the validation of competencies are marked by national peculiarities. However, they must be placed in the wider context of European initiatives to improve the mobility of qualifications and competences (Biffl & Pfeffer, 2013). International agreements make recognition much easier. In the long run, they may even reduce the need for formal recognition of such agreements for the partner countries involved. They aim at systematically expanding the reach of qualifications which would otherwise be national/domestic only. The development of harmonised degree structures and transnational qualification frameworks, as well as the introduction of joint transparency instruments, support these goals and aim at reducing the technical barriers to recognition by developing joint terminologies, degree architectures, and measuring-units for educational achievements.

These international treaties, regulations, and recommendations, such as the Lisbon convention on recognising qualifications concerning higher education (Council of Europe & UNESCO, 1997) and the directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications (European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2005), or recommendations for the validation of non-formal and informal learning, directly influence procedures on the national level.

Furthermore, the Bologna process¹¹ (for higher education) and the Copenhagen process (for vocational education and training) aim at a harmonisation of qualification systems by introducing similar degree structures. Transnational qualification frameworks, such as the qualification framework for the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA) or the European Qualification Framework (EQF)¹² aim at locating qualifications in the (sequential) order of a comprehensive grid, to allow for an easier comparison and transfer of qualifications.

Transparency instruments, such as the European credit transfer and accumulation system (ECTS) and the European credit system for vocational education and training (ECVET), aim to make students’ workloads comparable, while the Europass (comprising curriculum vitae, language passport, Europass mobility, certificate and diploma supplement) standardises the format of qualitative descriptions of individual achievements (European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2004).

Many of these European initiatives have also led to the establishment of national infrastructures, such as contact points for the recognition of qualifications obtained from tertiary education (ENIC NARIC¹³) or contact points for the directive 2005/36/EC.

2.8. Recent developments to improve recognition and validation in Austria

Partly inspired by European initiatives, but mainly in response to challenges and opportunities in the domestic political context, the topic of recognition and validation has gained more prominence in Austria since 2011.

Interestingly, two ministries that have no formal responsibility for recognition and validation in the qualification system have invested in the improvement of information. The Ministry of the Interior commissioned a study to produce an overview of recognition and validation procedures (Biffl, Pfeffer, & Skrivanek, 2012), which formed the basis for the creation of a multilingual online information tool¹⁴ and a widely distributed booklet.¹⁵ In parallel, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs established contact points for people with qualifications gained abroad,¹⁶ which offer personal guidance and counselling to help them navigate through the multitude of different institutions and regulations. These measures were institutionalised by the federal framework Act for the recognition and assessment of foreign qualifications, which was adopted in 2016.

Another trend can be seen in the form of diversification through new procedures which complement existing forms of recognition and validation. The successful example of evaluating foreign university degrees inspired the development of similar mechanisms for school and vocational degrees. Another example is the establishment of the competence check for refugees, which constitutes an important innovation in the field of formative validation.

What seems to be comparatively more difficult is the implementation of overarching frameworks or the development of comprehensive strategies. Legislation regarding the national qualification framework in Austria was passed only in 2016, while its establishment was proposed as far back as 2005. Similarly, a national strategy for the validation of non-formal and informal learning is still being worked on, while it had already been proposed in 2012 (Pfeffer & Skrivanek, 2016). In both cases, implementation requires interference in existing institutional arrangements and the respective power structures. This carries the potential of conflicts with stakeholders (for instance, providers of qualifications, professional, and public authorities) and unclear gains for policy-makers.

3. Recognition and validation from different theoretical perspectives

To understand the recognition of qualifications and the validation of competences beyond legal and procedural matters, it is helpful to learn more about a range of theoretical approaches, which differ in their perspectives on the issue, and which illustrate in more depth the plethora of philosophical and practical issues that migrants and organisations must confront. We chose some of the most prominent: human capital theory, theories of credentialism and professionalism, neo-institutionalism theory, and social systems theory. They differ right from their starting positions: human capital theory regards human ability as a form of capital that can be developed; credentialing theory questions the (sometimes loose) relationship between the form of the qualification and the competencies it represents. The theory of professionalism investigates professions as a way of institutionalising formal knowledge. Neo-institutionalism explores the spread of qualifications across more and more occupations, while systems theory tries to understand the rationale of qualifications from within the education system.

3.1. Human capital theory

The roots of human capital theory can be traced as far back as Adam Smith, who distinguished four types of fixed capital (generating profit without any change of ownership): machines, buildings, land, and the acquired abilities of members of society. Smith directly compared these abilities with machines and argued that the acquisition of abilities, for example, via education, always involves costs. Both for the individual and for society, investment in these abilities can repay at a profit (Smith, 1776).

In the second half of the twentieth century, human capital theory gained new prominence, as it was popularised by scholars such as Shultz (1961), Becker (1975), and Mincer (1974). Not surprisingly, these scholars took an economic perspective by focusing on the analysis of costs and benefits. While in theory, many different aspects of human capital can be discussed (such as physical features, natural talent, education, social status, health), practical research focused primarily on abilities acquired in formal education, especially on the correlation between the costs of education (regarded as investment) and ‘its economic benefits in terms of private income, organisational gains, or public tax revenues (regarded as returns on investment).

In principle, human capital theory assumes direct links between education, productivity, and earnings. Frequently, this correlation has been measured for national economies by comparing levels of education with either earnings profiles related to age or with earnings obtained during the first year at work (Jamil, 2004). This core assumption is also frequently applied by human resource managers, who take employees’ formal qualifications as an indicator to assess the competitiveness of organisations or by development policies investing in formal education to foster nations’ economic development. Furthermore, it serves as a basis for talks about ‘brain gain’ or ‘brain drain’ in the context of migration between regions or countries.

Convincing as this core hypothesis of human capital theory may seem, one must concede that it is a rather positivistic approach that takes education ‘at its face value’ (Baker, 2011, p. 7), suggesting that education imparts clearly defined competences to individuals and that employers recruit on the basis of perfect information about applicants’ competences. Later revisions of the theory, therefore, downplayed the idea of a direct link. Partly acknowledging the problem of the intangibility of competences and of employers’ uncertainty, additional concepts were introduced, focusing on qualifications’ ‘signalling’ capacity (for graduates, on the supply side) and on their ‘screening’ capacity (for employers, on the demand side) (Brown, 2001, p. 22).

Research in human capital often discovers relations between education and revenues. However, one should not confuse statistical correlations with causal relations. Often, other earning determinants (such as gender, demographic factors, or social status, differences between the contents of qualifications or technical measuring problems) are neglected in human capital research (Jamil, 2004).

3.2. Credentialing theory vs. ‘credentialism’

While human capital theory focuses on competition between individuals, credentialing theory is more concerned with competition between status groups. Rooted in Max Weber’s stratification analysis, this school of thought observes how formal qualifications are instrumental for the formation of education-based status groups. By applying formal qualifications as access criteria for positions in specific occupational fields, the supply of candidates for these positions is reduced and access is monopolised for holders of these qualifications. In line with this argument, incumbents of positions involved in recruitment seek candidates with similar, school-taught dispositions, rather than specific work skills and competences that might be regarded as a means of reducing uncertainty in organisational recruitment practices¹⁷ (Brown, 2001, pp. 20f). From this point of view, formal qualifications can be seen as a form of social credit that symbolically facilitates exchange under conditions of social uncertainty (Weber, 1922/1978 as cited in Brown, 2001, p. 26).

In the 1970s and 1980s, when educational expansion was often termed ‘credentialism’ and viewed with much scepticism, for example, regarding the potential dangers of educational inflation and the perceived decline in the academic ambitions of the expanded student population, Collins revitalised Weber’s approach for his research into the Credential Society (1979). He argued that competition among status groups led to the stratification of professional and bureaucratic labour markets, and that these status groups were more concerned with the accumulation of cultural capital and social exclusion than with meritocratic competition for improved productivity, marketable skills, and competences (Brown, 2001, p. 24).

Credentialing theory also deals with the formalisation of qualifications. It can be argued that degrees are formal abstractions of something else (such as competences, cultural dispositions, and so on), but they are not identical with what they represent. These abstractions are formal claims of individual, yet standardised attributes (such as competence or trustworthiness), which are normally accepted by other parties (such as employers). Qualifications omit unnecessary information (e.g. assignments or homework); nevertheless, precisely, this feature of formalisation offers technical advantages for communication about graduates across different organisations. ‘Much of the ability to question the substance of students’ claims of competence and trustworthiness is left behind with former teachers when they graduate, and employers subsequently accept degrees as legitimate formal abstractions’ (Brown, 2001, p. 27). As a result, the authority of qualifications defends degree-holders against unauthorised scrutiny.

Another important observation on credentialing theory is that the way in which qualifications operate differs between various contexts, especially between bureaucratic and professional labour markets. In the bureaucratic labour market, qualifications tend to serve signalling purposes on the part of the applicant, and screening purposes on the part of the employer, in a competitive environment. In contrast, professional employment tends to be characterised by mechanisms of self-recruitment and self-regulation in ways that reduce competition between members of the respective status group, while access to the occupation is rigidly controlled (Brown, 2001, p. 28).

With regard to the perception of credentialing theory in academia, it should be mentioned that it used to be employed as a tool for the general critique of education and its expansion. ‘Education gone awry’ (Brown & Bills, 2011, p. 136) and ‘education as a myth’ (Baker, 2011, p. 6) seem to have been guiding assumptions in crucial sections of research on this topic. Hence some authors explicitly counteract this practice by calling for a ‘moratorium’ on moral narratives about the perceived decay of education (Brown & Bills, 2011, p. 136) or by laying ‘credentialism’ and the negative bias towards credentialing to rest (Baker, 2011, p. 6).

3.3. Theory of professionalism

Social scientists such as Parsons (1968), Abbott (1988), or, more recently, Stichweh (1997) and Freidson (1999) have been studying professions for more than a hundred years. Historically speaking, the first professions emerged in medieval universities, in close relation to particular bodies of codified knowledge, for instance, about the human body (medicine), human relations with others (law), and human relations with God (theology). These distinct forms of knowledge had practical implications, not least for medical treatment, legal regulation, or pastoral care, and established the relationship between performance roles and client roles as particular professional-client relationships. Especially in the early days of professions, faculties ‘functioned as academic and professional corporations at the same time, controlled the right of admission to professional practice and thereby established a professional monopoly for the respective region’ (Stichweh, 1997, p. 95).

By defining ‘professionalism’ as ‘the occupational control of work’, it becomes possible to distinguish it from alternative forms of control, such as ‘consumer control’ and ‘managerial control’ of work. Occupational control of work is based on a recognised body of knowledge and skills and established by the control of the labour market via the use of credentials, which are acquired in training programmes that are segregated from labour markets. Consumer control is based on the idea of a free market and concerned with organising exchange, while managerial control is based on administration and concerned with command (Freidson, 1999, p. 118).

Trying to understand how professional positions are established, Freidson (1986, pp. 63ff) also described the overlaps and mutual dependencies between these different forms of control. With regard to bureaucratic control, he found that state agencies contribute to the emergence of professional positions, either by occupational licencing (granting the privilege of exclusive practice, for example, in regulated, non-professional occupations, such as air control, contractors, insurance agents, or security guards) or by statutory certification, a weaker form of state intervention, which merely secures the right to use a title. Private occupational licencing is done by professional associations and testifies the qualifications of candidates. Frequently, legal regulations for certain procedures require the contribution of (privately) licenced professionals, and thereby create a demand for credentials. Last but not least, institutional credentialing (the legal right to operate, for example, for schools or hospitals) is often based on and generates the need for individual credentials. Certain occupations (teachers, nurses) would not survive as individual entrepreneurs and depend on the internal labour markets of organisations which, in their turn, attract a sufficient number of individual clients to secure stable incomes.

3.4. Neo-institutionalism

According to neo-institutionalism, the expansion of credentialing must be seen as a result of the quantitative expansion of formal education and its qualitative impact on society. ‘Educational attainment of diplomas and their use in the labor market have come to replace all traditional forms of status attainment, and for most in postindustrial society the educational credential is the only path to adult status’ (Baker, 2011, p. 11). This transformation is based on four fundamental beliefs:

• Equality of opportunity as social justice

  Education offers the opportunity to achieve, which makes educational performance (represented by qualifications) the dominant criterion for the ascription of merit;

• Development of modern individuals as a collective good

  Formal education aligns human development and societal development, a process that is objectified with the aid of qualifications;

• Dominance of academic intelligence

  Academic intelligence, composed of cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, interpreting, reasoning, critique, and innovation, has been identified as the dominant human capability and prevails over physical and/or vocational skills. Formal qualifications become generalised indicators for these cognitive abilities;

• Diversity of (academic) qualifications as a synonym for the diversity of specialised knowledge and expertise

  For an ever-increasing number of occupations, expertise is being formalised in educational programmes and qualifications. In return, qualifications are seen as requirements for access to occupations and for legitimately enacting specialised knowledge, which tightens the connection between qualification and expertise (Baker, 2011, pp. 11ff).

Following these considerations, Baker develops a concept of four basic forms, in which the further spreading and unfolding (also known as the ‘institutionalisation’) of credentialing is fostered:

• Horizontal institutionalisation across occupations refers to the focal trend behind credentialing, namely the spreading of formal qualifications across more and more occupations. The decline of job offers in occupations with low qualification requirements, which is accompanied by a growth in the number of occupations with high qualification requirements, is an indicator of this trend;

• Vertical institutionalisation within occupations refers to the trend that credentialing intensifies within occupational fields, as more and more job-types are controlled via qualifications. This form of institutionalisation is frequently fostered by occupational licensing and certification activities on the part of occupational associations; this can cause an intensification of educational requirements, such as career-long education, the influence of occupational bodies on curricula, or the transition from non-educational to educational credentials within occupations;

• Forward ordering of educational credentialing refers to the widely held credo that education and the attainment of qualifications should precede actual work experience. Educational institutions often even organise and control initial occupational experiences, for example, via internships;

• Backward ordering of educational credentialing refers to the opposite sequence, namely work experience followed by supplemental educational experience and a qualification that validates and certifies the practical experience. Executive MBAs serve as an example of this form (Baker, 2011, pp. 14ff).

This institutionalisation and expansion of formal education and credentialing in society goes hand in hand with a diversification of fields of expertise (and the related occupations), but also with changes in the content of existing qualifications (Baker, 2011, pp. 9, 13). Even if the name of a certain qualification may remain the same for a longer period of time, its content is, it is to be hoped, adapted to advances in expert knowledge.

3.5. Systems theory

Unlike other theoretical approaches that focus on the external effects of credentials (qualifications and so forth) in the labour market, systems theory begins its analysis of the need for credentials from within the education system.

‘Selection is first and foremost an inevitable result of the intention to educate in a correct, supportive and socially acceptable way’ (Luhmann, 2002, p. 69, our translation). Commenting on learning behaviour and results, and confirming or correcting the way in which educational content is appropriated by the learner, are crucial parts of the educational process. Without this selection, learning would rely on mere socialisation, which is intention-free and undirected. Additionally, selection is a prerequisite for the creation of educational settings and their diversification. Exams and grades are more formalised forms of selection; they force the educator to deal with the individual learner. They also create pressure towards consistency and fairness, both with respect to social comparisons and with respect to the stability of criteria (Luhmann, 2002, pp. 63f).

Selection always relies on comparisons, for example, between existing and potential future levels of competence on the part of the individual learner, between different candidates for enrolment in an educational offer, or between the achievements of different learners during a course of studies. Initially, these comparisons took place mainly within the limits of the classroom. Networks of formalised assessments emerged at a comparatively late point in time. This development is related to the establishment of homogeneous age cohorts and consecutive school classes in the nineteenth century, which created the problem of transfer from one class to another. Decisions on transfer were based on grades that added up to annual school certificates. These organisational artefacts formed the basis for new forms of comparisons, which did not require the kind of familiarity with the individual person that can be gained in classroom interaction. Increasingly, the scope and purpose of comparisons became an issue (Luhmann, 2002, pp. 65f).

While the transfer from one class to the next is an inner-organisational problem, the transfer between different educational institutions is an inter-organisational one. This is obvious especially in the case of access to universities. In continental Europe, final exams at secondary schools and their respective certificates (such as the ‘Abitur’ in Germany or ‘Matura’ in Austria) emerged as dominant access entitlements, while other countries preferred entrance exams to regulate access to universities. In both cases, teaching in schools was increasingly geared towards the requirements of these determining exams (Luhmann, 2002, pp. 65f).

The creation of age cohorts and the establishment of standardised access regulations (based on academic merit, which increasingly replaced other criteria, such as social status) led to the homogenisation of the population admitted to educational settings. New entrants are treated as more or less equal in their starting conditions, which allows the education system to record resulting differences (in academic achievements) as results of its own (imparting) activities, differences that can be marked with the help of its own selection mechanisms (exams and grades). This fiction of a level start corresponds with the ideal of equality that was established in the eighteenth century and – in principle – refuses to accept any form of inequality other than that based on individual merit (Luhmann, 2002, p. 127).

A remarkable effect of this emerging network of formalised selections is the fact that selections form the memory of the education system, which makes it possible to forget about details of the selection process, sometimes even about the actual knowledge and skills demonstrated for a certificate. It is only the results of selections that are kept in mind, which makes it possible to connect past selections (grades, transfer decisions) with future selections (subsequent exams) (Luhmann, 2002, p. 67). As a consequence, certificates create connectivity between different educational settings.

By way of selection, formal education has become a central moderator for chances in a person’s later life, even if it cannot rigidly determine future careers. Education has changed the mode of social integration from ancestry to career. Achieving at school or university helps to acquire a good starting-position for future careers. However, there is no rigid connection between education and the labour market, because selection rationales differ considerably in the education system and in the economy: jobs are scarce, while grades and degrees are not. For the individual, focussing on their personal career can serve as a connection between education and work, even if not all careers in society are structured by degrees from the formal education system (Luhmann, 2002, pp. 70ff).

4. Applying theory to the Austrian case

When applying these different theoretical approaches to the case of the Austrian education and qualification system (and its institutional procedures for recognition and validation), it would not be wise to ignore any of them. Rather than being mutually exclusive, different theories of credentials and qualifications seem to complement each other, since each of them emphasises a different aspect of the phenomenon. In many cases, they also arrive at similar conclusions.

4.1. Education and meritocracy

Both neo-institutionalism and systems theory highlight the importance of education for modern society. Baker (2014) talks about ‘[t]he schooled society’, while Luhmann describes the emergence of education as a distinct function system of world society. They both agree that meritocratic achievement in education has become the dominant and most legitimate form of selection for access to opportunities to work and social status, which nowadays largely substitutes for traditional forms of status attainment, such as ancestry.

Human capital theory tends to fit well into this assumption of legitimacy and contributes an economic argument, since it regards a country’s population as capital to be developed strategically by means of education. Consequently, development policies at the individual, national, and international levels contribute to the expansion of the education system. However, following the theory of professionalism, it is clear that this approach focuses on market-driven forms of consumer control of labour markets, which neglects both professional and bureaucratic forms of control.

As can be seen in the Austrian case, legitimacy and economic rationales (also described in terms of the improved integration of migrants into the labour market to increase their economic contribution) also form the crucial arguments for initiatives to foster the recognition of qualifications and the validation of competences. These are arguments that need to be made to counteract political tendencies aimed at restricting social integration to the native population only.

4.2. Epistemic communities and qualification monopolies

Based on professionalism, it is clear that professions tend to organise themselves as guardians of distinct bodies of knowledge. It is an important contribution of credentialing theory to highlight the competition between groups (rather than individuals) as the driving force for the spreading of qualifications. However, it is crucial to understand that this spread does not lead only to vertical stratification, as Collins (as cited in Brown, 2001, p. 24) has argued. Following Baker (2011, pp. 14ff), horizontal segmentation between qualifications and groups is at least as important. Qualifications serve as tools to mark distinct areas of expertise and thereby establish epistemic communities. As a side effect, they also try to define monopolies for the holders of the respective degrees, especially if they involve entitlements.

In the Austrian case, this tendency is most obvious for the regulated trades, for example, when plumbers and floor-tilers separate distinct professional domains from each other, even if their areas of expertise appear to be overlapping or closely related. However, similar observations can be made between different types of schools or between traditional universities and universities of applied sciences with regard to their insistence on the peculiarities of their education programmes and degrees. This makes it difficult to transfer competences across the borders (contents and standards) of their particular qualifications. Distinctiveness of qualifications is part of their competitive advantage, especially if it can be supplemented with unique entitlements.

This distinctiveness shows a strong tendency towards qualification monopolies. Apart from the emergence of distinct epistemic communities related to the subject matter and practices related to qualifications, there are at least three mechanisms supporting this tendency towards qualification monopolies: the public funding of education, the public administration as an employer of graduates, and degree-awarding powers granted and controlled by public authorities. The spatial scope of these authorities also determines the scope of qualifications and their entitlements. The institutional arrangement of regulations for recognition and validation we identified in the Austrian case reflects the scope of different qualifications: some are regional, while others are national. Recognition can be seen as a way to overcome these spatial limitations and to increase the validity of qualifications.

To a certain extent, qualification frameworks try to extend the range of qualifications and overcome horizontal differentiation by bringing qualifications into a sequential status hierarchy and by reducing the horizontal segmentation of educational tracks. This is easier in comprehensive school systems with tracking in higher grades, for instance in Anglo-Saxon countries as against countries with early tracking and specialisation, such as Germany and Austria. Apart from this, the question must be raised as to what types of individual competence can be acquired in a sequential way that justifies consecutive educational programmes and degrees and what types of competence are simply different in a non-commensurable and, hence, non-sequential way. Similar to what Baker (2011, pp. 11f) terms academic intelligence, we believe that literacy, understood as the ability to select and consume, but also to write and produce knowledge resources, is such a gradable/expandable competence that needs to be developed throughout one’s entire educational career (Pfeffer, 2014). However, in order to develop literacy, specialised and/or context specific expertise is needed too, which means expertise that qualification frameworks can represent only in part.

4.3. Competences and qualifications

Following the aforementioned line of thought on credentialing theory, one can argue that the value of qualifications in the labour market has more to do with assumptions about school-taught dispositions than with concretely defined skills, knowledge, and competences. We would add that membership in a distinct epistemic community – represented by a qualification – can be seen as part of the abstraction necessary to transform qualifications into a form of social credit. Rather than checking for details of individual competences, which anyway cannot be understood by non-members, certified membership in an epistemic community nurtures the belief in general compliance with the standards of this community.

In line with these thoughts on abstraction, systems theory forces us to take a closer look at the internal rationale of the education system and at the ways in which individual competences are developed and translated into standardised qualifications. As has been argued before, exams, grades, and certificates first of all serve educational purposes. Even in this context, they serve as abstractions, based on comparisons. Only as a collateral option can they be used as social credits in other social domains.

This reliance on comparisons clearly shows that individual competences are intangible goods that are hard to identify. If qualifications supply more information about a person’s membership in distinct epistemic communities than about concrete competences, it is the context for comparison that matters, for instance, the national or regional shape of this community. Even if qualifications from different countries carry the same denomination, this denomination does not necessarily represent the same set of competencies. The content of degrees (the set of competences) often varies across different educational institutions, regions, and countries. Moreover, it is also subject to change over time. Cross-national comparisons, qualification frameworks as well as statistics on the ‘over-qualification’ of migrant workers, tend to abstract from these differences.

Our own research on the Austrian education system clearly reveals that institutional actors, such as providers of formal education programmes and qualifications, but also providers of particular expert organisations (hospitals or schools), are the main stakeholders in the recognition of foreign degrees and in the validation of non-formal and informal competences. As a result, these institutions tend to compare foreign degrees with their own degrees, and non-formal and informal competences with competences represented in their degrees. However, as long as they rely on this kind of comparison and the requirement to adapt to domestic (not necessarily better) standards and patterns, traditional institutions tend to be blind to new competences or different qualifications.

Additionally, educational institutions find it difficult to validate competences acquired in other contexts, even if they strongly resemble those imparted in their own teaching system. This is related to the – still dominant – input-oriented definition of qualifications and the two major forms of examination. Initiatives on the European level, such as the Bologna process or the European Qualifications Framework, are trying to trigger a paradigm shift towards an output-oriented description of qualifications. The latter would focus on the definition of competences to be achieved by graduates. In practice, this goal is still a far cry from realisation and, therefore, from established, commonly shared terminologies for describing individual competences. Hence, qualifications are kept on a level of rather abstract credits for social trust.¹⁸

Furthermore, educational institutions still strongly depend on two archetypical forms of learning arrangements, namely lectures and seminars, which also determine their ability to examine competencies. Tests for lectures are based on (some form of) the reproduction of knowledge imparted by the teacher, while tests in seminars rely on regular presence in the classroom. Both forms of examination are rather unsuitable for testing competences acquired in contexts outside the certifying institution.

5. Conclusions

The main feature of credentials and qualifications is to foster the comparison of competences or at least to harmonise expectations about those formally graduated. Since this feature works over longer distances, it makes credentials important tools for individuals to detach themselves from local ties and dependencies. Thereby, credentials become important facilitators of mobility and migration.

The international transfer of qualifications confirms this trend on the one hand, while problems for recognition also demonstrate the communicative limitations of credentials on the other. The transfer of qualifications (and their recognition) does not just affect the rights and interests of individuals, but also changes the scope, structure, and composition of the labour force, occupational markets, and professional domains. As a result, it also alters – formerly regional or national – education and qualification systems. Depending on the main control mechanisms in different segments of systems, a range of actors and interest groups with sometimes conflicting targets is involved (including education providers, professions, managers, the state, or consumers).

Overall, it seems clear that the mobility of competencies and qualifications will gain even more importance in future, not just in the wake of (forced) migration, but also due to the internationalisation of work-flows and the expansion of educational markets. Very plainly, these developments have cultural and political implications. In Europe in particular, major initiatives have been set up to expand the national reach of qualifications via the introduction of joint degree structures, qualification frameworks, and the promotion of student mobility. For example, the international harmonisation of forms, structures, and names of formerly regionally or nationally determined, distinct degrees is claimed to be a merely formal act; however, this may lead to a harmonisation of contents and quality standards. Some actors fear potential levelling effects of this harmonisation and a loss of regional control, while others warn of international status hierarchies and/or an over-specialisation of curricula. Also within national education systems, internationalisation increasingly challenges the notion that public educational institutions are the main providers of education and that they are funded by national or regional public purses. These developments include the internationalisation of educational programmes, the international composition of student bodies, but also the disruptive emergence of globally accessible online learning programmes.

Focussing on recognition can serve as an excellent analytical tool in two respects: for investigating the function of qualifications and their effects for specialised labour and, on the other hand, for understanding the emergence and further development of the education system.

Our work on this paper has made clear to us that the recognition of credentials is not just a matter of good will. Quite obviously the massive growth of migration and of the international transfer of qualifications makes the world more complex and contributes to institutional re-arrangements between global and local perspectives, between public and private interests, and between educational privileges and equality of opportunities. Part of this growing complexity is the emergence of new actors in communication about competencies and qualifications, such as job advisers, head-hunters, public employment agencies, (public and private) consultancy services for recognition, and still others. Migration can be seen as an important driver of innovation, as the Austrian examples ‘evaluation of qualifications’ and ‘competence check for refugees’ demonstrate.

Beyond the emergence of new actors and services, one can also observe effects on traditional educational institutions, namely the growing trend towards unbundling the tasks of teaching/imparting on the one hand, and of testing/validating/certifying on the other hand. This distinction is the main challenge for the recognition of foreign qualifications. Currently, educational institutions receive funding predominantly for their teaching services and consequently lack significant incentives to engage in recognition. However, it would be in the public interest to change this situation, to increasingly sponsor the testing of competencies and qualifications acquired abroad, and their transfer into local contexts, as a distinct task. Additionally, it could also be a strategic option for national and regional educational institutions to position themselves as ‘importers’ of foreign qualifications and/or as ‘gatekeepers’ and ‘safeguards’ of local standards. In any case, the international transfer of qualifications offers many new opportunities for some actors in the field but will involve losses for others.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their encouraging feedback and generous advice, as well as Ricca Edmondson and Beata Sokolowska for their constant support throughout the entire process and for helping us to make the text more readable. The authors take the sole responsibility for any errors or deficits left.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. This figure does not contain cases of automatic recognition based on international agreements, for example in medical professions or higher education entrance qualifications.

2. Cf. www.migrationpolicy.org/research.

3. In its early stages, our research was commissioned by the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI). See Biffl et al. (2012).

4. In a European context, professions are regulated when specific formal qualifications are a legal requirement to access and exercise a profession. The Regulated Professions Database of the European Union (http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/index.cfm) lists 213 regulated professions in Austria, while the so-called ‘occupations lexicon’ of the Austrian Public Employment Service (www.berufslexikon.at) defines 1790 different occupations. Hence, regulated professions form just one section of all listed occupations.

5. This differentiation of learning contexts largely follows the Recommendations of the Council of the European Union on the validation of non-formal and informal learning (Council of the European Union, 2012a), which is based on classifications provided by UNESCO and Eurostat. However, it deviates substantially from the frequently used definition by Cedefop (2008).

6. Cedefop, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, is an agency of the European Union. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/.

7. Usually, the recognition of qualifications is based on the comparison of curricula and of the time a student has been involved in a subject matter (input), but not on the direct test of competencies (output).

8. For instance, the evaluation of a foreign law degree does not grant access to the regulated profession of lawyers in Austria, but may allow membership of the unregulated occupation of legal advisers. The evaluation of a degree by an authority may be more trustworthy than a mere translation of documents.

9. What can (but need not) be standardised is the form of documentation or the reference to other institutions for additional training, assessment and certification. However, many examples of formative validation lack these links or references, and rather work as stand-alone solutions in their own right.

10. The term ‘nostrification’ can be translated as the process of ‘making it ours’. The search for ‘equalisation’ pursues the same goal in a less rigid way.

11. Both the Bologna and the Copenhagen process were initiated by multinational agreements among the responsible ministers of different European (EU-member and non-member) countries, in 1999 and in 2002, respectively. In both cases, the ministers responsible meet twice a year in order to report on outcomes and to further develop and coordinate subsequent steps in ongoing processes. The European Commission is supportive, but not in charge of these processes of mutual coordination. For more information, see, for example, www.ehea.info/ or www.eqavet.eu/gns/policy-context/european-policy/copenhagen-process.aspx.

12. https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/search/site?f%5B0%5D=im_field_entity_type%3A97.

13. The European Network of Information Centres (ENIC) was established by UNESCO and the Council of Europe in an effort to implement the Lisbon recognition convention. The ENIC network works closely with the network of National Academic Recognition Information Centres (NARIC), a structure initiated by the European Union. In some countries ENIC and NARIC centres are merged. See also http://enic-naric.net/.

14. Cf. www.berufsanerkennung.at.

15. In particular, the young deputy minister for integration used these initiatives to make a name for himself by shifting the focus of the Austrian debate on migration from ‘security’ to ‘performance’.

16. Cf. www.anlaufstelle-anerkennung.at.

17. Strong evidence of these mechanisms has been shown by Rivera (2011) for elite professional-service employers in the US.

18. In this respect, they are not so different from brands in the commodity market, which transport images that can be detached from the product’s actual content or quality.