original scientific article UDC 378.016:172(497.4Ljubljana) received: 2014-06-20 THE HIGHER EDUCATION CITIZENSHIP CURRICULUM: AN ANALYSIS OF FIRST-CYCLE BOLOGNA STUDY PROGRAMMES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA Tomaž DEŽELAN University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: tomaz.dezelan@fdv.uni-lj.si Maja SEVER Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, Litostrojska cesta 54, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: maja.sever1@gov.si ABSTRACT The traditional view of higher education inherently assumes that students will become critical and deliberative citizens, capable of understanding and participating in society. There is an abundance of normative considerations regarding the role of higher education in democracy and in the creation of good citizens; however, empirical scrutiny of the curriculums for citizenship education in higher education is sporadic and limited. This article attempts to fill this gap by analysing higher education curriculums in terms of content, focusing on formal, rather than non-formal or informal, curriculums. Although this approach omits certain affective-behavioural and cognitive dimensions that are at least equally important as the formal curriculum, it does reveal (a) the scope and (b) the depths of citizenship content in the higher education curriculum. By applying the framework developed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement for the analysis of citizenship education, we analysed the entire set of undergraduate study programmes of the University of Ljubljana (Bologna first cycle). The analysis of 140 selected study programmes reveals (a) that disciplinarity is a strong predictor for the extent of coverage of citizenship content and (b) that the covered content is imbalanced in favour of civic society and systems, demonstrating a disregard for civic principles, civic participation and civic identities. Key words: citizenship education, higher education, curriculum enquiry, Slovenia, making of citizens, Bologna reform, disciplinarity EDUCAZIONE CIVICA NEL CURRICULUM DELL'ISTRUZIONE SUPERIORE: ANALISI DEI PROGRAMMI DI STUDIO DI PRIMO LIVELLO AI SENSI DELLE DIRETTRICI DEL PROCESSO DI BOLOGNA DELL'UNIVERSITÄ DI LUBIANA SINETESI Il concetto tradizionale dell'educazione civica include la convinzione che gli studenti diventeranno cittadini critici e deliberativi, che saranno in grado di comprendere i processi sociali e di parteciparvi. La letteratura e piena di pensieri normativi riguardanti il ruolo dell'istruzione superiore nella formazione di una societä democratica e di buoni cittadini, sono perd pochi gli studi empirici che analizzano il curriculum dell'educazione civica in questo livello d'istruzione. L'articolo cerca di colmare questo vuoto con un'analisi contenutistica dei curriculum dell'istru-zione superiore e ponendo l'accento sul curriculum formale e non formale o sull'apprendimento informale. Anche se con cid si lascia da parte la dimensione emozionale-comportamentale e quella cognitiva, che sono certamente importanti, questo approccio rivela sia l'ampiezza sia l'intensitä della presenza di contenuti civici. In base al quadro di ricerca per seguire l'educazione civica di IEA (Associazione Internazionale per la Valutazione del Rendimento Scolastico) abbiamo analizzato tutti i programmi di studio di primo livello ai sensi delle direttrici del Processo di Bo- logna, offerti dall'Universita di Lubiana. L'analisi di questi 140 programmi di studio ha mostrato che la disciplinarita e un annunciatore importante di contenuti civici nei curriculum d'istruzione superiore e che il contenuto presente si basa soprattutto sul sistema e sulla comunita civica, poiche raramente entra nei campi delle norme civiche, della partecipazione civica o delle identita civiche. Parole chiave: educazione civica, istruzione superiore, ricerca del curriculum, Slovenia, produzione di cittadini, riforma di Bologna, disciplinarita CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM ENQUIRY Citizenship education may be understood as an institutionalised form of the acquisition of political knowledge that takes place within formal educational frameworks, such as schools and universities, as well as within informal frameworks of various associational activities (Ichilov, 2003). In its specific or diffused form, citizenship education encompasses the entire triad of learning experiences: formal, non-formal and informal. Birzea (2000) stresses that curriculum provisions for citizenship learning may take the form of formal curricu-lums, non-formal curriculums or informal curriculums. Formal curricular provisions involve separate or specialised courses, integrated programmes and cross-curricu-lar themes; non-formal curricular provisions are realised through extra-curricular, co-curricular, extra-mural or other out-of-school activities organised by the educational institution and connected to the formal curriculum; and informal curricular provisions are carried out through incidental learning and a hidden curriculum. In general, when we discuss curriculums, we must bear in mind that a curriculum is, essentially, 'the plans made for guiding learning in the schools, usually represented in retrievable documents of several levels of generality' (Glatthorn et al., 2012, 4). A curriculum, therefore, includes both the plans designed for learning and the actual learning experiences (ibid., 5). It entails everything from the blending of viewpoints present in the development of the curriculum to the implementation of the programme in the learning setting, forcing administrators, teachers, students and decision-makers to act upon and react to a collection of personal understandings and perceptions of the events within the educational environment (Ennis, 1990, 79). Glatthorn et al. (2012, 12-17) proposes a model for observing a curriculum as a series of perspectives on the teaching and learning process. Their model is based on six different curriculum forms (i.e., the recommended curricu- lum, the written curriculum, the supported curriculum, the taught curriculum, the tested curriculum and the learned curriculum). Compared to the curriculums of primary and secondary education, higher education curriculums have several distinct characteristics. They draw content from a vast pool of subject-specific knowledge and are constructed in formats that are well established within individual disciplines (Coate, 2009). Their syllabi are normally composed of topics grouped either chronologically or sequentially into categories; moreover, each higher education curriculum is a social force in itself and a product of the interplay of academic considerations, internal and external constraints and power relations. Despite the undeniable social significance of higher education curriculums, until recently, the process of their construction by academic institutions has remained virtually uncontested. Specifically, the state has refrained from imposing the level of control typical of that found in primary and secondary levels of education. Coate (2009, 78) stresses that state control over higher education curriculums varies according to the level of study, with postgraduate and doctoral levels being allowed the greatest freedom. The least specialised levels of curriculums have the most stable content, while specialisations within higher levels of study allow for greater freedom over curriculum design. Higher education curriculums have been increasingly influenced by a myriad of actors with diverse interests, signifying the erosion of academic freedom to construct and implement study programmes. Coate (2009) describes the various orientations of these actors, which range from local orientations, aiming to develop and shape local concerns, to national and international orientations. National orientations usually entail aspirations related to nation-states and generally link to state-or nation-building processes (Sedmak et al., 2013, 227). In terms of international orientations, the Slovenian higher education system has been significantly influenced by its role as part of the Bologna Process, which has pushed for increased standardisation in curriculum outputs and improved programme comparability. The effects of the eroded freedom of academics to freely construct cur-riculums are manifold, ranging from increased confidence and transparency, which is welcomed in times of increased massification and privatisation of higher education in some systems, to increased bureaucratisation (see the article by Pavlin et al. on hybrid roles in this issue). For example, the objective-driven construction of curriculums promoted by the Bologna Process, in addition to the increased focus on learning outcomes, tends to put more weight on directly measurable outcomes of learning, rather than on the hard-to-grasp notions of transformative curriculums, such as self-confidence, critical distance and empowerment (see Barnett and Coate, 2005). To gain a glimpse of the extent and nature of citizenship education within higher education institutions, it is, therefore, vital to observe each institution and programme individually. Our attempt to do so focuses on the recommended and written curriculums1 of undergraduate-level programmes (first cycle Bologna) at the University of Ljubljana. Through this focus, we aim to identify the character of higher education curriculum in Slovenia from the perspective of 'making' democratic citizenry. HIGHER EDUCATION CURRICULUMS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION RESEARCH The characters of curriculums and, consequently, of education processes are critical factors in the development of individuals within society (Ross, 2002, 51). There are two distinct views on these processes: reflective and transformative. The former builds on Durkheim's functionalist tradition, which considers education a reflection of society—its imitation and reproduction. From this perspective, education is, in essence, a way of passing acquired knowledge and skills on to the next generation, thus ensuring the continuous self-replication of society. The transformative view, on the other hand, advocates the developmental role of education and its ability to help people overcome limitations at both the individual and the societal level (see Dewey, 1916). This view emphasises that education should not be judged only on the grounds of its returns in terms of production and training abilities, but also on the basis of its civic value for citizens and for society in general (Rawls, 1971). According to Williams (1961) and Apple (1990), by exerting control over the formulation and implementation of curriculums, political and economic structures minimise the possibility of societal and economic change and replicate existing social and economic inequalities. Providers of higher education have traditionally assumed that, as a result of the education, students will become critical and deliberative citizens, capable of understanding and participating constructively in their society and state (Arthur and Bohlin, 2005). The university's civic role has, therefore, traditionally gone handin-hand with its function of producing technically skilful and capable graduates. This split role of university education has, however, become distorted, since contemporary study experiences may well pass without a thorough or planned engagement of students in questions of character, civic obligation or democratic virtue. As a result of increased curricular control and quality assurance pressures, the consequent push towards an objective-driven curriculum, the trend toward narrow specialisation and the tougher financial constraints, it is not required or even not desirable for higher education institutions to include hard-to-measure content in their curricula. As a result of this increasingly technical transformation of higher education (ibid., 2), Biesta (2011, 47) calls for a shift from a knowledge economy to a knowledge democracy, thus signalling the university's vital role in contemporary society and the state. When examining the role of the university in the 'making' of citizens, there is a strong tendency among leading researchers in the field to focus on the importance of curriculums that help to create enlightened, informed and critical citizens (see Arthur and Bohlin, 2005; Barnett, 1997; Biesta, 2011; Barnett and Coate, 2005; Rowland, 2003). Several points must be considered when examining citizenship education in higher education curriculums. As has already been noted, the examination of a curriculum is a very complex issue, since, in essence, a curriculum is a phenomenon built from an interaction of person-based beliefs, values, undertakings and experiences (Ennis, 1990). There is no core curriculum that defines students' preparation for citizenship (Arthur and Bohlin, 2005, 3), and though we have signalled the growing control of non-academic actors over higher education curriculums, these curriculums still exist predominantly in the hands of academic institutions; that is, they are not yet fully subjected to the influence of the state and para-state actors. As a consequence, the wide variety of study programmes, levels, disciplines, subject areas and curricular frameworks makes the task of defining 'the' higher education curriculum, beyond the level of syllabi or course outlines, impossible (Barnet and Coate, 2009, 78). Moreover, in comparison to school curriculums, higher education curriculums still represent an extremely under-researched area (ibid.). Given that curricular information exists in the form of documents, events, behaviours, impressions and ex- 1 In line with Glatthorn et al. (2012), the recommended curriculum is suggested by academia, professional associations and policy-makers and identifies the skills and concepts that ought to be emphasised. The written curriculum, on the other hand, is designed to ensure the implementation of the educational programme and is a curriculum of control. periences (Ennis, 1990) and that a large-scale examination of higher education curriculums is virtually unmanageable, beyond an analysis of syllabi or course outlines (Coate, 2009), the most efficient way to examine the scope and nature of citizenship education in a higher education institution is to analyse its written curriculum. This is particularly true when the units under observation are enormous institutions with several hundred study programmes. We must note, however, that, in this case, we are observing just one (well-archived) face of the higher education curriculum, rather than the entire or holistic curriculum, as suggested by Glatthorn et al. (2012). Since the written curriculum is typically a set of retrievable documents concerning the educational process and specifying five components (i.e., a general rationale; the aims, objectives, and content for achieving those objectives; the instructional methods; the learning materials and resources; and the tests or assessment methods) (see Glatthorn et al., 2012, 10), we opted for an analysis of study programme descriptions containing the syllabi of all courses taught in the programmes. This curricular document is also the main document of control, since publicly certified higher education study programmes in Slovenia are accredited on the basis of their programme descriptions by the Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Given that this type of research involves, in essence, a curricular product and that it assesses the presence of content related to citizenship education in a single curricular document, this type of curricular inquiry may be considered a formal curriculum inquiry (see Harris, 1991; Short, 1991). ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK As a consequence of the abovementioned idiosyncrasies of higher education curriculums, there is a lack of systematic comparative studies of citizenship education within universities' study programmes. There exist numerous normative considerations on the role of higher education in democracy and the creation of good citizens (e.g., Arthur and Biesta, 2011; Bohlin, 2005; Crick, 2000; Delanty, 2001; Dewey, 1916); however, empirical scrutiny of the citizenship education curriculum in higher education is sporadic and limited, since the majority of studies are restricted to certain aspects of curriculums within certain higher education institutions, programmes, disciplines or states (e.g., Ahier et al., 2003; McIlrath and MacLabhrainn, 2007). The scarcity of comparative studies, which is primarily an outcome of the curriculum construction process in higher education (see Coate, 2009), does not extend to the body of research on primary and secondary education. On the contrary, scholarship on citizenship and education for these education levels has thrived in the past decade (Hahn, 2010, 5) as a result of various national and (more commonly) international initiatives that facilitated a number of recent comparative studies focusing on various aspects of intended and implemented curriculums (see Arthur et al., 2008; Banks, 2004; Georgi, 2008; Grossman and Kennedy, 2008; Torney-Purta et al., 1999). Of the truly international comparative studies, we must mention the largest and most comprehensive study on civic education to date, conducted under the umbrella of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). The IEA's data-oriented studies measured, not only knowledge, but also perceptions and attitudes (see Torney-Purta et al., 2001), thus allowing for assessments across three dimensions: a content dimension, an affective-behavioural dimension and a cognitive dimension (see Schulz et al., 2008). The content dimension proves quite useful in our examination of the University of Ljubljana's study programmes, as its extensive coverage of content allows us to map the potentially differing patterns of citizenship education covered in various content terms of the higher education curriculum. Obviously, a significant limitation arises from an exclusive focus on the content dimension of study programme descriptions; however, the conventional structure of the descriptions prohibited us from mapping the other aspects of the higher education curriculum. As a result, we adopted the four-domain content divide employed in the 2009 International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS). According to Schultz et al. (2008), the civic and citizenship content dimension consists of the following domains: 1) civic society and systems, 2) civic principles, 3) civic participation and 4) civic identities. Each of these content domains is divided into several content subdomains that precisely map the covered knowledge. In addition, supplementary key concepts facilitate a mapping of concepts and processes common to the subdomains within a given content domain, thus alleviating the dilemma regarding the classification of observed phenomena. First, the civic society and systems domain focuses on the formal and informal mechanisms and organisations that fortify the relations between citizens and their societies, as well as the functioning of those societies. This domain is divided into three subdomains: a) citizens, b) state institutions and c) civil institutions. The foci of the citizens subdomain are the relationship between individuals or groups of individuals and their societies, the primarily assigned and desired roles, the rights and responsibilities within society and the opportunities and abilities to support society's development (see, for example, Filipovič Hrast et al., 2012). The state institutions subdomain concentrates on institutions central to the processes of government and public policymaking (e.g., legislative bodies, governments at various levels, supranational/intergovernmental bodies, judiciaries, law enforcement, defence forces, civil services and electoral commissions). Finally, the civil institutions subdomain focuses on institutions that act as mediators between state institutions and citizens. Among these types of institutions, we generally include: religious institutions, trade unions, political parties, non-governmental organisations, pressure groups, mass media, educational institutions and other interest organisations. The second content domain—civic principles—refers to the shared ethical foundations of society and chiefly examines the support, protection and promotion of these foundations as civic responsibilities and motivations for participation. This domain is divided into three subdomains: a) equity, b) freedom and c) social cohesion. The equity subdomain focuses on the principle of fair and just treatment of all members of society, which transcends individual communities and derives from the notion of equality in dignity and rights. The freedom subdomain focuses on freedoms of (e.g., speech, belief) and from (e.g., in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and puts forward the responsibility of citizens to protect these freedoms within and beyond their communities. The social cohesion subdomain encompasses the belonging, sense of connectedness and common vision of both individuals and communities within a society. Civic participation, as the third content domain, concentrates on the nature of the processes and practices that determine citizens' participation. This domain deals with manifestations of citizens' actions, which can range from awareness through engagement to influence. Civic participation is divided into the subdomains of: a) decision-making, b) influencing and c) community participation. The decision-making subdomain focuses on active participation that directly results in the implementation of policies or practices and conventionally takes the form of taking part in organisational governance or voting. Influencing refers to informing and affecting the policies, practices and attitudes of others or of other groups, and it generally takes the form of engagement in public debates, demonstrations, policy development, the development of proposals, advocacy actions, ethical consumerism, corruption awareness actions, etc. The community participation subdomain includes participation in communities for the benefit of those communities, and it encompasses volunteering, participation in various forms of civil society organisations and staying up-to-date with relevant political and societal information. The fourth content domain—civic identities—denotes an individual's sense of being as an agent of civic action, including his civic roles and his perceptions of those roles. Since an individual's civic identity is connected to a variety of personal and civic relationships, this content domain postulates the existence of a multi- rather than a single-faceted civic identity, and it is composed of two subdomains: a) civic self-image and b) civic connectedness. Civic self-image encompasses an individual's civic roles and values, as well as his understanding of, attitude towards and management of these roles and values. Civic connectedness, on the other hand, focuses on an individual's sense of connection to his various communities and civic roles. It also includes a belief in and tolerance2 of diversity within and outside a community and an understanding of the effects of the different values and belief systems of communities on the members of those communities. For a detailed account of the presented content framework, please see Schultz et al. (2008). METHODOLOGY AND CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND Throughout their existence, universities have played a very important and multifaceted role in Slovenian society. Under the former Yugoslav regime, with its imperative of building a socialist society, universities faced immense pressure in terms of their designated participation in the construction of the economic, education and cultural system (Modic, 1969, 8). The period following Slovenia's independence (1991) marked an era of realignment of the university's role in Slovenian society, with the abolishment of state control over universities and of socialist pressures of indoctrination. Debates that had begun in the late 1980s and were already being championed by key intellectuals and universities themselves resulted in a normative framework that led to the autonomy of universities and other higher education institutions. Accordingly, universities came to be perceived as agents for the service of all society and enjoyed higher levels of trust (see Haček and Brezovšek, 2014). However, one crucial moment, in particular, seems to have fundamentally redefined the higher education system and revised the role of universities in contemporary Slovenian society: the Bologna reform. Zgaga (2009) stresses the importance of the Bologna reform in terms of citizenship education, since the Bologna model seems to shape universities based more on the requirements of the market economy than on personal development or the preparation of students for life as active citizens in democratic society. We can thus say that, as a result of the Bologna reform, a political decision induced by globalisation and Europeanisation, Slovenian higher education became increasingly dependent on market forces (see, for example, Zgaga, 2009, 184; Pavlin, 2014; Pavlin et al., 2013). The case selected—the University of Ljubljana—explores a university tradition that dates back to 1919. The University of Ljubljana enrols more than 50,000 students, making it one of the largest universities in Europe, with over 300 undergraduate and postgraduate study programmes (UL, 2013). Our examination of publicly available information from the faculties' and 2 For an extensive overview of the anatomy of toleration see Sardoč (2013). academies' websites showed that the University offers exactly 423 tertiary education programmes, with staff numbers amounting to approximately 6,000 individuals across 23 faculties and three arts academies. The selection of study programmes to be analysed consisted of the entire set of University of Ljubljana undergraduate programmes (Bologna first cycle) accredited by the Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and offered in the 2013/2014 academic year. A total of 140 first-cycle (level) Bologna study programme descriptions were analysed according to the presented research framework. To uncover and systematically analyse this set of unstructured data, the selected programme descriptions were manually coded in keeping with the adopted research framework using version 7.1.3 of the Atlas.ti software package. Accordingly, every reference to any of the concepts covered by the four civic and citizenship content domains in the analysed study programmes was coded as a presence. Since we also aimed to measure the intensity of the concepts present, we allowed for the possibility of multiple instances of a single code within one study programme, as long as two of the same codes did not appear within the same course syllabus. As a result, we were able to identify both the extensiveness and the intensity of the four content domains within the examined programmes. CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA'S CURRICULUM The 140 selected and analysed study programmes offered by the University of Ljubljana in the 2013/2014 academic year are distributed across 23 member faculties and three arts academies. On average, each member of the University offers more than five undergraduate Bologna study programmes (although the range between the faculties with the highest and lowest numbers of study programmes is quite large). For example, the Faculty of Arts offers 46 undergraduate study programmes, whereas several faculties offer only one. Comparison between programmes and faculties Since members of the University of Ljubljana (i.e., its faculties and academies) concentrate on scientific and pedagogical areas of one or several related scientific or artistic disciplines (Higher Education Act, Article 4), a breakdown of the results according to individual member appears to be the most natural. In addition, member faculties and academies also enjoy a comparatively high level of autonomy from the University, making this approach even more appropriate. Upon initial observation of the acquired results, several patterns may be discerned in terms of the general coverage of the four civic and citizenship content domains by the examined study programmes. First, there are clearly several frontrunners, offering study programmes that cover the four civic and citizenship content domains extensively. The first two are programmes of the Faculty of Law and the Academy of Music; these are followed by programmes of the Faculty of Administration, the Faculty of Economics and the Faculty of Social Work (see Figure 1). Three of these—the Faculty of Law, the Faculty of Economics and the Faculty of Administration programs, which tend to deal with the state's production and regulation capacities—have an asymmetric distribution of coverage in favour of the civic society and systems domain, while the study programmes of the Academy of Music and the Faculty of Social Work reveal a more balanced distribution of codes across the four observed domains. Second, in accordance with their general disciplinary orientations, a number of faculties cover civil and citizenship content only marginally. These faculties are from the disciplinary areas of the natural sciences and science-based professions (see Becher, 1994) (see Figure 1). Considering their disciplinary orientations, the position of these faculties as among the lowest in terms of coverage of civic and citizenship content is not surprising, since, epistemologically speaking, these disciplines are devoted to either a linear/hierarchical, atomistic and cumulative curriculum or a sequential and applied curriculum (Neumann, 2009, 497). Third, the positions of certain member faculties and academies are not in line with their anticipated positions, according to their disciplinary backgrounds. To begin with, the study programmes of the Academy of Fine Arts and Design, the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Education are ranked comparatively low and do not fulfil expectations related to the proximity of the liberal arts programme. Yet, it should be mentioned that the variety within the 46 undergraduate study programmes of the Faculty of Arts is extensive—from Comparative Linguistics, with the lowest score, to Sociology, which is ranked among the top 25 programmes in this case. In contrast, the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, with its two study programmes, covers civic and citizenship content relatively extensively, particularly when compared to those University members that do not have social science or humanities backgrounds. This is primarily a result of the Design Engineering programme and its nurturing of topics related to sustainability. When observing the 'civic society and systems' content domain, which was the most commonly dominant content domain across all of the study programmes, we find the same frontrunners, with the exception of the Faculty of Social Work. However, the composition of this domain varies significantly among the frontrunners—as, in fact, it does across all of the university members we examined. For example, the Faculty of Law's programme includes no reference to the citizens content subdomain and little reference to the civil institutions subdomain; however, it is pervaded with references to state institutions and, particularly, to the key concepts of Total Civic society and systems Civic principles Civic participation Civic identities Total Civic society and systems Civic principles Civic participation Civic identities Faculty of law 146,00 129,00 6,00 5,00 6,00 Faculty of arts 11,70 3,65 0,46 1,80 5,78 Academy of music 122,50 48,50 16,50 16,00 41,50 Faculty of electrical engineering 11,00 9,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 Faculty of administration 102,00 99,00 1,00 0,50 1,50 Faculty of mathematics and physics 10,60 5,00 0,00 4,20 1,40 Faculty of economics 82,75 70,83 2,50 8,17 1,25 Faculty of maritime studies and transport 10,00 7,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 Faculty of social work 70,00 12,00 20,00 26,00 12,00 Faculty of civil engineering and geodesy 7,75 4,75 0,00 1,75 1,25 Faculty of social sciences 34,08 27,33 1,08 2,17 3,50 Faculty of sport 6,50 2,50 1,00 0,75 2,25 Faculty of mechanical engineering 29,00 18,00 0,50 7,50 3,00 Academy of fine arts and design 6,20 2,60 0,00 1,80 1,80 Biotechnical faculty 18,22 17,22 0,00 0,22 0,78 Faculty of chemistry and chemical technology 6,00 3,40 0,00 1,60 1,00 Faculty of education 14,13 2,00 1,63 3,25 7,25 Faculty of health sciences 6,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 Faculty of theology 14,00 8,00 0,00 1,00 5,00 Faculty of medicine 5,00 1,00 0,00 1,50 2,50 Academy of theatre, film, radio and television 13,75 3,00 0,75 5,00 5,00 Veterinary faculty 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 Faculty of architecture 13,00 12,50 0,00 0,00 0,50 Faculty of computer and information science 3,50 1,50 0,00 1,00 1,00 Faculty of natural sciences and engineering 12,67 7,67 0,00 3,67 1,33 Faculty of pharmacy 3,50 1,50 0,00 1,50 0,50 Figure 1: Coverage by University of Ljubljana members of the four civic and citizenship content domains in their undergraduate study programmes (per programme offered) that domain (e.g., Constitution, democracy, rules/laws, the economy, treaties, etc.). In contrast, the Academy of Music's programmes thrive in terms of the civil institutions content subdomain, but contain few or no references to the citizens and state institutions subdomains. The Faculty of Social Sciences' programmes, which cover civic and citizenship content to a lesser degree, reflect the most balanced overall coverage of the subdomains and their key concepts. In terms of programmes that refer to the observed content the least, we again find the same faculties and repeat the same disciplinarity rationales as we did above. What is striking is that several university members from the humanities and social sciences are ranked surprisingly low. This is the case for the Academy for Theatre, Film, Radio and Television and for the Academy of Fine Arts and Design. However, it is also true for the Faculty of Education, which has the most significant impact on the entire education system through its 'production' of teachers for primary and secondary educational levels, as well as for school subjects related to citizenship education. The virtual absence of references to citizens and state institutions in these programmes may be characterised as alarming from the citizenship education viewpoint and is in line with concerns expressed by the 2012 Eurydice study (EC, 2012). In the case of the 'civic principles' content domain, an entirely different picture emerges. First, there is generally much lower coverage of civic principles across the entire list of study programmes and, consequently, the observed university members. As a result, several institutions offer programme(s) that do not explicitly refer to concepts related to civic principles. To be precise, 14 fall into this category, most representing the natural sciences, engineering and technology, or medical and health sciences. The highest ranked are the Faculty of Social Work and the Academy of Music, which were also frontrunners in the previously examined domain of civic society and systems. The only university member from outside the field of humanities and social sciences whose study programmes reflect coverage of civic principles is the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, which includes a reference to equity. Social science faculties (i.e., Faculty of Law, Faculty of Economics and Faculty of Administration) ranked very highly in terms of their overall coverage of the content domains, as well as of the civic society and systems domain; however, in the case of the civic principles content domain, they reflected a very moderate degree of domain coverage. In addition, in all three cases, their curriculums referred only to the 'freedom' subdomain, thus indicating the primarily liberal orientation of those references to freedom of and freedom from (i.e., the liberal tradition of citizenship). When we look at the third content domain—'civic participation'—the ranks are very similar to those of the civic principles domain. Again, the programmes of the Faculty of Social Work and the Academy of Music are the strongest in terms of the content domain, which is referred to only modestly in other study programmes. Both excel in civic participation, due to their frequent references to key concepts—particularly that of cooperation/collaboration, which refers to the beneficial effects of citizens acting together in pursuit of a community's common goals. Likewise, the two university members following the two top ranked ones are the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Economics, which, in addition to referencing the key concepts (i.e., negotiation in the case of the Faculty of Law and cooperation/collaboration in the case of the Faculty of Economics), also refer to the concept of negotiation as a peaceful mode for the resolution of differences essential to community well-being. On the other hand, the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering is again ranked surprisingly high, with a comparatively high number of references to collaboration and cooperation as concepts indicating the civic participation content domain. The same holds true for the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, as well as for the Academy of Theatre, Film, Radio and Television. The fourth content domain of 'civic identities' reflects an entirely different pattern than those portrayed by the other three domains. First, only one university member—the Academy of Music—covers the topics related to civic identities in any significant way. To be precise, the Academy of Music's study programmes include many references to the concept of self-image and, to a lesser degree, to the concept of civic connectedness. Significant references to individuals' experiences, understandings and attitudes related to their civic and citizenship values and roles (i.e., their civic self-images) are also made in the Faculty of Social Work's study programme, which is the second-highest in the ranking. These two are followed by a number of social science and humanities faculties, all of which moderately cover the domain of civic identities. The other faculties only sparingly refer to concepts within the domain, indicating that citizenship as a civic identity is, surprisingly, not well represented in the University of Ljubljana's higher education curriculum. When we examine the levels of the individual study programmes offered by the University of Ljubljana, the emerging picture is more or less replicated. Of the top 20 undergraduate Bologna study programmes, no fewer than 18 derive from the area of the social sciences, while the remaining 2 derive from the arts and humanities. The first two out of best 20—Administration and Law—focus on law, legality and the state, making them prime examples of coverage of the civic components of citizenship. Barring the musical arts, music education, social work and political science programmes, all others in the top 20 derive from economics, offering another 'face' of the civic society and systems content domain. As put forward by the Crick report, economics programmes cover knowledge and understanding of the economy (public and personal), including issues related to public services, taxation, public expenditure and employment, and provide an important context for understanding key aspects of society. Moreover, the political science, economics and legal and administration programmes virtually all target the knowledge and understanding aspect of citizenship education, which is primarily concerned with the abovementioned economic aspects of society, as well as society's political aspects, including issues related to government, law and the Constitution. The three exceptions to this rule (i.e., musical arts, music education and social work) target other aspects of society (i.e., social and moral) to a greater extent and go beyond the conventional political literacy strand of citizenship education to cover social and moral responsibility and community involvement (ibid., 40). The overall rankings of the Bologna undergraduate study programmes reveal, therefore, one anticipated but still very important fact: that certain disciplines—or, more specifically, certain fields of science within higher education—nurture civic and citizenship content to a much higher degree. In order to substantiate and develop this claim, we engaged in a disciplinary overview of the examined study programmes, which we present in the next section. Disciplinary view The flow of knowledge from higher education to the world of work can be viewed as future professionals' preparation for understanding new situations, recognising the relevancy of different areas of knowledge to particular situations, focusing precisely on the knowledge needed for a particular decision or action, and having the capacity to transform previously acquired explicit knowledge to suit new situations prior to or during performance (Eraut, 2006, 49). One of our key questions, therefore, relates to the extent to which curriculums should be structured by scientific disciplines or professional areas: that is, whether higher education should focus on professional domains or try to shape students' personalities (Teichler, 1996, 155). Disciplines, as bundles of knowledge (see Clark, 1983), represent one of the most important determinants of higher education curriculums, since they embody different knowledge forms and reflect both epistemological approaches and the social aspects of knowledge communities (Neumann, 2009, 487). As associations among knowledge, learning and instruction within organisations, disciplines form the most important basis for academic organisations, hence making disciplinarity and disciplinary categorisations very useful for making meaningful comparisons across disciplines (Neumann, 2009, 493). Deliberations on disciplines sometimes appear to be centred on epis-temological considerations, such as concepts, aims and methods (see Toulmin, 1972), or on the idea of social groupings (see Whitley, 1984). However, Becher (1994, 152) claims that substantive content cannot be artificially separated from social behaviour. Disciplinarity, therefore, inherently combines the epistemological and social and, in essence, involves three important strands: the nature and structure of knowledge, organisational structures within universities to accommodate disciplines, and the role of disciplines in teaching and research (Neumann, 2009, 493). In autonomous studies, Biglan (1973) and Kolb (1984) (the former focusing on the nature of the subject matter of research, and the latter focusing on styles of intellectual enquiry) almost homogeneously discern four main intellectual clusters—or, in Becher's terms, 'academic tribes'—of academic disciplines and professional fields. These can be used to distinguish separate disciplines and professional groupings (Becher, 1994: 152). Biglan (1973) labels the clusters as hard pure, hard applied, soft pure and soft applied; Kolb (1984), in contrast, describes them as abstract reflective, con- crete reflective, abstract active and concrete active. These groupings match the educational groupings of the natural sciences and mathematics (hard pure; e.g., physics, chemistry), the humanities and social sciences (soft pure; e.g., history, anthropology, political science), the science-based professions (hard applied; e.g., engineering, agriculture) and the social professions (soft applied; e.g., education, law, management studies)(see Becher, 1994: 152). As universities educate and induce students into a subject-matter way of thinking and style of enquiry, each discipline provides students with its own cognitive map for discovering, understanding and discussing knowledge (Neumann, 2009, 497). As in the case of the structure of knowledge and organisations, the disciplinary effect on teaching and learning is significant. Neumann (ibid.) stresses that socialisation into a discipline (and, to a lesser degree, into an institution) is particularly intense at the graduate level, making disciplinary classification particularly relevant to our analysis of study programmes. As a result, we classified selected study programmes in accordance with Biglan/Becher's hard soft, pure applied typology, which seems to be dominant in the sociology of knowledge and science with regard to the analysis of disciplines (see Becher, 1994; Biglan, 1973; Kolb, 1984; Neumann, 2009; etc.). When analysing the ordered study programmes, coded to the four clusters of disciplines, or 'academic tribes' (Becher, 1989), we may discern several straightforward trends. First, the soft pure and soft applied Civic identities 0,89 Civic participation fc,56 Civic principles Civic society and systems Total 0,00 89 7,3 Hard-pure 6,4 I 1,07 17,20 27,27 Soft-pure 1,39 1,79 0,04 9,11 12,32 Hard-applied 86 ,86 1,72 21,16 31,60 Soft-applied Figure 2: Coverage of the civic and citizenship content domains by University of Ljubljana undergraduate study programmes, according to the Biglan/Becher classification of disciplines (per programme offered) 9 clusters of disciplines reflect considerably higher levels of the civic and citizenship content domain, indicating the relevance of pure-applied divide (see Figure 2). Namely, the stronger consensus in terms of the hard sciences in this case reflects a consensus regarding the absence of civic and citizenship content and its related inquiry paradigm (see Biglan, 1973). On the other hand, Kolb's (1984) distinction also holds true, since the concrete (soft) disciplines tend to be more motivated and involved in new experiences. This is certainly the case with regard to the rationale of 'making' citizens, which is far more common in the soft disciplines. The main difference between study programmes in terms of the hard-soft divide originates from higher levels of coverage of civic society and systems content and of civic identities content, showing that hard disciplines struggle to 'keep up' in terms of political literacy and civic identity (i.e., a sense of social and moral responsibility). Civic principles, including equity, freedom, and social cohesion, are, on the other hand, very marginally covered across the spectrum, and are covered to a somewhat greater degree only by soft applied disciplines (primarily law and social work). Overall, the hard pure and soft applied disciplines met both the worst and best anticipations with regard to their coverage of civic and citizenship content, since the former cluster focuses on creating theories to explain observations, while the latter is involved in new experiences and the use of theories to solve problems and make decisions (see Kolb, 1984). A closer look at the first content domain—civic society and systems—reveals patterns similar to those described in the overall coverage of the four examined domains. To be precise, the soft disciplines again prove more likely to include citizenship content in their curric-ulums. In addition, applied disciplines, whether hard or soft, also tend to cover the citizenship content domain more extensively, although certain differences in their coverage of the subdomains and key concepts should be stressed. First, despite the fact that the identified key concepts represent the dominant mode of coverage in all four clusters of the analysed study programmes, a particularly high share of identified content was present in cases of hard pure, hard applied and soft applied disciplines. The soft pure cluster, in contrast, paints a different picture, since references to state and civil institutions are equally present. When examining the dominant concepts within this domain, we note that soft applied disciplines concentrate on economy, rules and laws—concepts tied closely to economists, lawyers and administrators—while soft pure disciplines, apart from economics, focus on globalisation and democracy. The hard disciplines, in contrast, were more likely to extensively cover the economy and sustainable development, with the latter representing a unique feature of the hard disciplines. An examination of the second content domain—civic principles—accentuates the hard disciplines' limited coverage of civic and citizenship content. In fact, neither the hard pure nor hard applied clusters of disciplines offered a significant degree of content related to civic principles in the curriculums under scrutiny. On the other hand, while soft clusters of disciplines offer considerably higher degrees of civic principles content, this is still negligible compared to their coverage of the civic society and systems domain. Disregarding the low overall level of civic principles coverage, it appears that the soft applied disciplines tend to cover more of the domain's content in their curriculums, primarily through the concepts of freedom promoted by economics and law curriculums and the concept of social cohesion promoted by the curriculum for future social workers. The civic participation content domain presents a somewhat different image. In general, we observe quite similar (low) levels of coverage for all four clusters of disciplines, with the hard applied disciplines involving slightly more modest coverage and the soft applied disciplines involving more extensive coverage. In addition, the soft disciplines reflect higher levels of the concepts related to influencing and community participation. Moreover, the dominant contents covered are the key concepts for this domain, including the omnipresent concept of collaboration/cooperation. This concept presupposes common actions in pursuit of the fulfilment of community goals. Further, the soft pure and soft applied clusters of disciplines also cover negotiation and self-efficacy within the key concepts, leading to a far greater variety within the soft disciplines in terms of third content domain coverage and, at the same time, confirming the tendency of a shared inquiry paradigm (see Biglan, 1973). In the case of the civic identities content domain, a significant discrepancy in the coverage of civic and citizenship content in favour of the soft disciplines is, again, clear. This time, the coverage is more extensive in the case of the soft pure, rather than the soft applied, disciplines; however, this can be explained by identity's role as more of a reflective issue than an issue endogenous to active intervention. To be precise, the coverage in favour of soft pure disciplines is an outcome of the greater number of references to civic connectedness: the sense of connection to different civic communities. CONCLUSION We may conclude that our acquired results generally confirm our initial expectations. First, the soft disciplines did prove to include more civic and citizenship content in their study curriculums, and the applied disciplines did prevail over pure ones in terms of greater community involvement and civic participation. It is primarily the curriculums for 'making' social professionals that covered the most content: economics curriculums, in terms of economy and freedom; legal and administration curriculums, in terms of rules, laws and state institutions; and social work curriculums, in terms of civic identities and civic principles. With regard to the hard disciplines, programmes for 'making' science-based professionals reflected higher levels of civic and citizenship content than pure programmes, which focused more on reflection than on active experimentation and involvement (see Kolb, 1984). In terms of the civic and citizenship domains covered in the examined study programmes, there is a clear discrepancy in favour of civic society and systems, particularly with regard to state institutions and key concepts related to law and the economy. In contrast, citizens' roles, rights and responsibilities and civil institutions were primarily lacking in the written curriculum. This sort of disregard for civic principles, civic participation and civic identities clearly shows that the examined study programmes reflect, at best, curriculums for education about citizenship. That is, they focus narrowly on providing sufficient knowledge and understanding of the structures and processes of government and political life, but fail in the sense of educating through citizenship or for citizenship, since they give students no chance to learn by practicing the role of citizens or by engaging in active and sensible participation in the roles and responsibilities they will encounter in their lives as adult citizens (see Schulz et al., 2008). The overall impression of this study is that citizenship education is, to a large extent, a coincidental feature of Slovenia's higher education curriculum. At best, to use Ross' (2002) terminology, we can say that some level of content-driven citizenship education is present in the curriculum and that a minimal number of objectives are focused on citizenship and on the processes beneficial to the creation of good and responsible citizens. To speak in terms of the reflective versus transformative divide, we may conclude that the character of the Slovenian higher education curriculum for the creation of a democratic citizenry, if it exists at all, is highly reflective and rests upon knowledge of the functioning of the polity and its key societal subsystems. DRŽAVLJANSKA VZGOJA V VISOKOŠOLSKEM KURIKULU: ANALIZA PRVOSTOPENJSKIH BOLONJSKIH ŠTUDIJSKIH PROGRAMOV UNIVERZE V LJUBLJANI Tomaž DEŽELAN Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija e-mail: tomaz.dezelan@fdv.uni-lj.si Maja SEVER Statistični urad Republike Slovenije, Litostrojska cesta 54, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: maja.sever1@gov.si POVZETEK Tradicionalnemu pogledu na državljansko vzgojo je inherentno prepričanje, da bodo študenti postali kritični in deliberativni državljani, ki bodo sposobni razumevanja družbenih procesov, kakor tudi participacije v njih. V literaturi je normativnih razmišljanj o vlogi visokega šolstva pri ustvarjanju demokratične družbe in dobrih državljanov na pretek, ni pa mnogo empiričnih študij, ki bi analizirale kurikul državljanske vzgoje na tej ravni izobraževanja. Članek skuša zapolniti omenjeno vrzel z vsebinsko analizo visokošolskih kurikulov ter s poudarkom na formalnem in neneformalnem kurilulu ali priložnostnem učenju. Čeprav se s tem izpuščata emocionalno-vedenjska ter kognitivna dimenzija, ki sta enako pomembni, pa ta pristop razkriva tako širino kot intenzivnost prisotnosti državljanskih vsebin. Na podlagi raziskovalnega okvira za spremljanje državljanske vzgoje Mednarodne asociacije za evalvacijo izobraževalnih dosežkov (IEA) smo analizirali vse bolonjske študijske programe prve stopnje, ki jih ponuja Univerza v Ljubljani. Analiza teh 140 študijskih programov je pokazala, da je disciplinarnost močan napovedovalec prisotnosti državljanskih vsebin v visokošolskih kurikulih ter da je prisotna vsebina osredotočena predvsem na državljansko skupnost in sistem, saj le redko posega na polja državljanskih načel, državljanske participacije ali državljanskih identitet. Ključne besede: državljanska vzgoja, visokošolsko izobraževanje, raziskovanje kurikula, Slovenija, proizvajanje državljanov, bolonjska reforma, disciplinarnost BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahier, J., Beck J., Moore, R. (2003): Graduate citizens?: issues of citizenship and higher education. London, Routledge/Falmer. Apple, M. W. (1990): Ideology and the Curriculum. 2nd ed. London, Routledge. Arthur, J., Bohlin, K. E. (2005): Citizenship and higher education: the role of universities in communities and society. London, Routledge Falmer. Arthur, J., Davies, I., Hahn, C. (eds.) (2008): The SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy. London, SAGE. Banks, J. A. (ed.) (2004): Diversity and Citizenship Education: global perspectives. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Barnett, R. (1997): Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buchingham, SRHE & Open University Press. Barnett, R., Coate, K. (2005): Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead, Open University Press. Becher, T. (1994): The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 2, 151161. Becher, T. (1989): Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham, Open University Press. Biesta, G. J. J. (2011): Learning Democracy in School and Society: Education, Lifelong Learning, and the Politics of Citizenship. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei, Sense Publishers. Biglan, A. (1973): The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 3, 195-203. Birzea, C. (2000): Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Lifelong Learning Perspective. Strasbourg, Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation. Clark, B. (1983): The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Coate, K. (2009): Curriculum. In: Tight, M., Mok, K. H., Huisman, J., Morphew, C. (eds.): Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education. Routledge, New York, 77-90. Crick, B. (2000): In Defence of Politics, 5th edn. London, Continuum. European Commission (2012): Citizenship education in Europe. Brussels, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Delanty, G. (2001): Challenge knowledge: The University in the Knowledge Society. Buckingham, Open University Press. Dewey, J. (1916): Democracy and Education. New York, Macmillan. Ennis, C. D. (1990): Analyzing Curriculum as Participant Perspectives. Journal Of Teaching In Physical Education, 1990, 9, 79-94 Eraut, M. (2006): Professional Knowledge and Learning at Work, Knowledge, Work and Society/Savoir. Travail et Societe, 4, 3, 23-42. Filipovič Hrast, M., Hlebec, V., Kavčič, M. (2012): The social exclusion of the elderly: a mixed-methods study in Slovenia. Sociologicky časopis, 48, 6, 1051-1074. Georgi, V. B. (ed.) (2008): The Making of Citizens in Europe: new perspectives on citizenship education. Bonn, Bundeszenstrale für politische Buildung. Glatthorn, A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., Bo-schee, B. F. (2012): Curriculum Leadership: Strategies for Development and Implementation Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif, SAGE Publications. Grossman, D., Lee, W., Kennedy, K. (eds.) (2008): Citizenship Curriculum in Asia and the Pacific. Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, and Springer. Haček, M., Brezovšek, M. (2014): The processes of democratisation and trust in political institutions in Slovenia: comparative analysis. Annales, Series historia et sociologia, 24, 1, 1-12. Hahn, C. L. (2010): Comparative civic education research: What we know and what we need to know. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 6, 1, 5-23. Harris, I. (1991): Deliberative Inquiry: The Arts of Planning. In: Short, E. C.: Forms of curriculum inquiry. Albany, State University of New York Press, 285-308. Ichilov, O. (2003): Education and Democratic Citizenship in a Changing World. In: Sears, D. O., Huddy, L., Jarvis Oxford, R. (eds.): Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York, Oxford University Press, 637-669. Kolb, D. (1984): Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall Inc. Marshall, T. H. (1950): Citizenship and social class, and other essays. Cambridge [Eng.], University Press. McIlrath, L., MacLabhrainn, I. (2007): Higher education and civic engagement international perspectives. Aldershot, England, Ashgate. Modic, R. (ed.) (1969): Petdeset let slovenske univerze v Ljubljani 1919-1969. Ljubljana, Univerza. Neumann, R. (2009): Disciplinarity. In: Tight, M., Mok, K. H., Huisman, J., Morphew, C. (eds.): The Rou-tledge International Handbook of Higher Education. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Pavlin, S., Uršič, M., Hočevar, M. (2013): Changing the context of researchers work in academia. Annales, Series historia et sociologia, 23, 2, 365-376. Pavlin, S. (2014): The role of higher education in supporting graduates' early labour market careers. International journal of manpower, 35, 4, 576-590. Rawls, J. (1971): A Theory of Justice. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Ross, A. (2002): Citizenship Education and Curriculum Theory. In: Scott, D., Lawson, H.(eds.): Citizenship education and the curriculum. Westport, Conn, Praeger, 45-62. Rowland, S. (2003): Teaching for Democracy in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 1, 89-101. Sardoč, M. (2013): The anatomy of toleration. Annales, Series historia et sociologia, 23, 2, 203-214. Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B., Kerr, D. (2008): International Civic and Citizenship Education Study: Assessment Framework. Amsterdam, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Sedmak, M., Medaric, Z., Zadel, M. (2013): Challenges in researching interethnic relations from an intercul-tural perspective. Annales, Series historia et sociologia, 23, 2, 215-227. Short, E. C. (1991): Understanding Curriculum Inquiry. In: Short, E. C.:Forms of curriculum inquiry. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1-23. Teichler, U. (1996): Responses by Higher Education Institutions to Challenges of the World of Work. In: Teichler, U.: Higher Education and the World of Work - Conceptual Frameworks, Comparative Perspectives, Empirical Findings. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., Schulz, W. (2001): Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries. Amsterdam, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., Amadeo, J. A. (eds.) (1999): Civic Education Across Countries: twenty-four national case studies from the IEA civic education project. Amsterdam, The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Toulmin, S. (1972): Human Understanding, Vol. 1. Oxford, Clarendon Press. University of Ljubljana (UL) (2013): University. Http://www.uni-lj.si/university/ (12. 11. 2014). Whitley, R. (1984): The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford [Oxfordshire], Clarendon Press. Williams, R. (1961): The Long Revolution. London, Chatto and Windus. Zakon o visokem šolstvu [Higher Education Act]. Uradni list RS, št. 32/2012. Zgaga, P. (2009): Higher education and citizenship: "the full range of purposes". European Educational Research Journal, 8, 2, 175-88.