Academic Understandings of and Responses to Bologna: a three-country perspective Cristina Sin Introduction Research into the Bologna Process has mainly focused on its impact on Member States’ higher education systems, on countries’ drivers for reform, and on national level take-up and implementation of its objectives (Yag ˘ci, 2010; Ravinet, 2008; Gorga, 2008; Heinze & Knill, 2008; Kupfer, 2008; Witte, 2006; Huisman & van der Wende, 2004; Kwiek, 2004; Malan, 2004). Another topic of research interest has been the convergence of national higher education systems as Bologna’s overall aim, especially addressed by the Trends reports, or of individual components of national systems, for instance degrees (Alesi et al., 2005; Tauch, 2004; Kehm & Teichler, 2006; Davies, 2007; 2009). Until the late years of the decade following the Bologna Agreement, academics and institutions were the neglected actors in the implementation of the Process. Neave and Amaral’s examination of Bologna documents and reports (Neave & Amaral, 2008) identifies a sequence of methodological phases in the evaluation of the implementation of Bologna, with the institutional field gradually moving into the foreground after 2007. Whereas enthusiasm permeated earlier Trends reports, the new spotlight on institutional implementation tempered it, highlighting the difference between the national level adoption of Bologna principles (usually through legislation) and their actual enactment in institutions. The authors thus state that ‘increasing concern at progress on the institutional level has ousted the boundless confidence that earlier accompanied the registration of consensus and the response it generated at the level of individual higher education systems’ (Neave & Amaral, 2008, p. 59).Therefore, the key role of institutions in enacting the changes envisaged by Bologna has gradually come to be acknowledged. Trends 2010, for instance, mentions that ‘emphasis should be placed on institutional responsibility in the further implementation of the Bologna Process’ (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 9). Kogan, too, states that ‘true indicators of change must include the substantive content of higher education, that is, the work and values of academics’ (Kogan, 2005, p. 58). Attention to the institutional/academic level has indeed begun to emerge, such asVeiga’s research into the institutionalisation of the EHEA in four countries and four disciplines (Veiga, 2010) or recent research into physics bachelor and master programmes in the context of the Bologna Process (Kehm & Alesi, 2010; Kehm & Eckhardt, 2009). This article contributes to the empirical base by gauging the perceptions of Bologna among academics and their impact on their work. Policy implementation theories illustrate tensions between top-down and bottom-up approaches, between structure and agency (Cerych & Sabatier, 1986; Ball, 1994; Trowler, 2002; Gornitzka, Kogan & Amaral, 2005). In considering academic responses to Bologna, this study is framed by bottom-up theories acknowledging actors’ perceived issues when faced with new educational policies, and strategies developed to deal with them according to actors’ objectives and European Journal of Education,Vol. 47, No. 3, 2012 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.