European Commission DG EACFinal Report

External evaluation of Erasmus institutional and national impact

The evaluation focuses on the impact of the second generation of the European Policy Statements included in the Erasmus institutional contracts from the academic year 2000-01 and comparison of the second generation of EPSs with the fi rst generation of EPSs and on the impact of Erasmus on National Higher Education systems and policies since its launch in 1987.

Programme evaluated: Erasmus (1987 – 1994) Socrates I, Erasmus (1995-2000) Socrates II, Erasmus (2000-2006) Nature of Evaluation : ex post and intermediate Date of Submission: November 2004

Reinout van BrakelJeroen HuismanAnneke Luijten-LubMattijs MaussenMarijk van der Wende

1

Table of contentsExecutive summary 8

Sommaire 13

1 Introduction 191.1 Evaluating the impact of ERASMUS 19

1.1.1 The subject of investigation 191.1.2 Legal framework of the study 191.1.3 Focus of the evaluation 19

1.2 ERASMUS then and now 201.2.1 What happened before ERASMUS? 201.2.2 ERASMUS 1987-1994 211.2.3 At about the same time … (1987-1994) 221.2.4 1995-1999 SOCRATES 221.2.5 At about the same time … (1995-1999) 241.2.6 2000-2006 SOCRATES II 241.2.7 At about the same time … 25

2 Methodology 262.1 Conceptual framework for the impact of ERASMUS on institutions 26

2.1.1 The analysis of EPSs 272.1.2 The impact of the EPS on the institution 27

2.2 Indicators for measuring the changes 282.3 Conceptual framework for the national impact of ERASMUS 282.4 Data collection at the institutional level 29

2.4.1 Analysis of the EPSs 302.4.2 Desk research 322.4.3 Web-based survey/ Interactive Dialogue 322.4.4 Group interviews 33

2.5 Data collection at the national level 332.5.1 Desk research 332.5.2 Interviews 34

2.6 Strengths and limitations of the evaluation design 34

3 EPS analysis 363.1 Introduction 363.2 Substance of the goals of the institutions 36

3.2.1 Content of goals 363.2.2 Reasons for engaging in internationalisation 383.2.3 Clarity of major goals 383.2.4 Linkage of major goals 393.2.5 Evolution of second-generation goals 40

3.3 What are the main priorities? 413.3.1 Main priorities related to teaching and studying 413.3.2 Main priorities relating to services and other tasks 423.3.3 Main priorities related to faculties/departments/fi elds 433.3.4 Main priorities related to target groups 43

3.4 Relationship between goals and environment 44

2

3.4.1 Institutional mission or goals 443.4.2 Country coverage 453.4.3 Choice of partner institutions 463.4.4 International environment/ European environment 46

3.5 Instruments to achieve goals 473.6 Activities 49

3.6.1 Relationship with other programmes 50

4 Institutional impact 514.1 Introduction 514.2 Factors that infl uence the formulation of EPSs 51

4.2.1 National and international factors 514.2.2 European developments 524.2.3 International developments 524.2.4 Institutional factors 534.2.5 Management involvement within your institution 544.2.6 Involvement of external players 55

4.3 Evolution of internationalisation and the European Policy Statement 554.3.1 What types of changes were made to the EPSs of the second generation? 574.3.2 Why were these changes made? 584.3.3 Importance of the EPS 604.3.4 Communication concerning the EPS 614.3.5 How is the EPS used as part of the presentation of your institution? 62

4.4 Impact on education 644.4.1 Impact on education - Teaching and studying 644.4.2 Impact on education - Groups 654.4.3 Impact on education - Non-mobile students 65

4.5 Impact on management 664.5.1 Specifi c tasks of the International Offi ce 684.5.2 Quality assurance 68

5 Institutional impact: conclusions 695.1 Introduction 695.2 Changes in content and formulation of EPSs 69

5.2.1 How have the EPSs of higher education institutions changed as compared with the fi rst genera-tion of EPSs? 69

5.2.2 What changes have taken place in the process of establishing EPSs? 705.2.3 To what extent has Europeanisation/ internationalisation become an integrated part in policy

developmentand implementation? 715.2.4 To what extent has the teaching and learning environment changed? 725.2.5 How has the involvement of people in teaching/research changed? 73

5.3 Changes in the secondary process: administration 745.4 Effectiveness and impact of the EPSs 75

5.4.1 What are the general effects of EPSs within the institution? 755.4.2 How has strategic planning within the institutions evolved? 76

5.5 Utility 775.5.1 How does the impact of the programme compare with the needs of the target population? 775.5.2 To what extent have the EPSs taken into consideration the mainstreaming of equal opportuni-

ties? 775.5.3 Are social partners and regional and local authorities involved in programme activities? 78

5.6 How sustainable is the impact of EPSs? 78

3

6 Summary of fi ndings:the impact at national level 796.1 Introduction 796.2 Summary of fi ndings per country 79

6.2.1 Flanders 796.2.2 Wallonia 796.2.3 Portugal 796.2.4 Greece 796.2.5 Denmark 806.2.6 Liechtenstein 806.2.7 Spain 806.2.8 France 806.2.9 Sweden 806.2.10 United Kingdom 816.2.11 Norway 816.2.12 Ireland 816.2.13 Germany 816.2.14 The Netherlands 816.2.15 Austria 826.2.16 Italy 826.2.17 Finland 82

6.3 The impact of ERASMUS at national level 826.3.1 Effectiveness and impact 826.3.2 Utility 856.3.3 Sustainability 85

7 Recommendations 877.1 Introduction 877.2 Recommendations in line with the new Integrated Programme 87

7.2.1 A more substantial programme 877.2.2 A simpler programme 887.2.3 A more decentralised programme 89

7.3 Recommendations related to the European Policy Statement 907.3.1 The European Policy Statement (EPS) 907.3.2 The European Policy Statement: blessing or burden? 907.3.3 Back to the basics: why was the EPS invented? 917.3.4 EPS within the core processes of the institution 917.3.5 Alternative solutions to support the development of vision and strategy 927.3.6 Alternative solutions to support Management of improvement and change 937.3.7 Market and sell 93

4

Index of Tables and FiguresBox

Box 1-1 The overall objectives of the SOCRATES programme 23Box 1-2 The EPS in the context of the ERASMUS programme 23Box 1-3 Recent changes, the introduction of the ERASMUS University Charter 25Box 3-1 Quotes on objectives (information retrieved from EPS documents). 38Box 4-1 Quotes on reasons for changing the EPS 59Box 4-2 Quotes on the EPS 61Box 4-3 Examples of communication channels used for communicating the EPS. 62Box 4-4 EPS used as part of the general presentation 62Box 4-5 Limited infl uence of EPSs 66Box 4-6 Benefi ts of the requirement to submit an EPS 67Box 4-7 Roles and responsibilities of International Offi ces 68

FigureFigure 2-1 The EPS and its framework 26Figure 2-2 Policy development at the national level 29Figure 3-1 Clarity of major goals 39Figure 3-2 Linkage of major goals 40Figure 3-3 Prioritisation of goals 41Figure 3-4 Improvement of infrastructure and services 43Figure 3-5 Inclusion of other countries 45Figure 3-6 Co-operation with partners in home country 48Figure 3-7 Activities in fi rst and second generation of EPSs 49Figure 4-1 How would you describe the process of formulating the EPSfor the second generation (i.e. EPS handed in during 1999-2001) 56Figure 6-1 Impact of Erasmus and other policies/factors on national governments’ policies 86Figure 7-1 92

TableTable 2-1 Indicators used in assessing institutional impact 28Table 2-2 Overview of evaluation questions and instruments 30Table 2-3 Number of second-generation EPSs submitted and reviewed 31Table 2-4 Number of respondents who logged on to the web survey 32Table 3-1 Major European goals stated in 1st and 2nd generation (in %, multiple response possible) 37Table 3-2 Clarity of specifi c goals (in %) 39Table 3-3 Continuity and change; fi rst versus second generation (in %) 40Table 3-4 Types of teaching- and learning-related goals stated – 1st and 2nd generation (in % of institutions stating such goals, multiple responses possible) 42Table 3-5 Emphasis on certain disciplines (in % of institutions stating such emphasis, multiple responses possible) 43Table 3-6 Priorities relating to specifi c groups 44Table 3-7 Country coverage 45Table 3-8 Reasons for choice of countries 46Table 3-9 Reasons for choice of partner institutions 46Table 3-10 Relationsh ip between Socrates and other activities 47Table 3-11 Important activities 48

5

Table 3-12 Percentage of EPSs that contain a reference to other actions (multiple responses possible) 50Table 4-1 Factors that infl uence internationalisation policy 51Table 4-2 Infl uence of European policies 52Table 4-3 Infl uence of international developments on policies 53Table 4-4 Infl uence of competition on policies 53Table 4-5 Importance of activities for the institution 53Table 4-6 Management involvement 54Table 4-7 Involvement of external players in formulating policies 55Table 4-8 Evolution of internationalisation in the past 5 years a ‘0’ meaning marginal or ad hoc and a ‘100’ meaning centralor systematic 55Table 4-9 Frequency of review, discussion and revision regarding EPSs 57Table 4-10 Position of the EPS within the policy process 60Table 4-11 Importance of requirement for other initiatives 63Table 4-12 Added value of the EPS 64Table 4-13 Importance of objectives over the past 5 years 64Table 4-14 EPSs and the impact on education 65Table 4-15 Involvement of groups 65Table 4-16 Impact on non-mobile students 65Table 4-17 Impact on management 66Table 4-18 Number of institutions that (intend to) use quality assurance measures 68Table 7-1 Recommendations 87

6

Index of AnnexesAppendices 95

APPENDIX A Country Reports 961.1 Introduction 961.2 Flanders/Belgium 96

1.2.1 Regarding the statements 981.2.2 Respondents (group interview, 22-10-2003, Brussels) 98

1.3 Wallonia/Belgium 991.4 Portugal 100

1.4.1 Regarding the statements 1011.4.2 Respondents 102

1.5 Greece 1021.5.1 Regarding the statements 1031.5.2 Respondents 104

1.6 Denmark 1041.6.1 Regarding the statements 1061.6.2 Respondents (group interview 18-2-2004, Copenhagen) 107

1.7 Liechtenstein 1071.7.1 Regarding the statements 1071.7.2 Respondent 107

1.8 Spain 1081.9 France 109

1.9.1 Regarding the statements 1101.9.2 Respondents 111

1.10 Sweden 1111.10.1 Regarding the statements 1131.10.2 Respondents 114

1.11 United Kingdom 1141.11.1 Regarding the statements 1151.11.2 Respondents 116

1.12 Norway 1161.12.1 Regarding the statements 1171.12.2 Respondents 118

1.13 Ireland 1181.13.1 Regarding the statements 1201.13.2 Respondents (group interview, 01-12-2003, Dublin) 121

1.14 Germany 1211.14.1 Regarding the statements 1231.14.2 Respondents 124

1.15 The Netherlands 1241.15.1 Regarding the statements 1261.15.2 Respondents 126

1.16 Austria 1271.16.1 Regarding the statements 1291.16.2 Respondents 129

1.17 Italy 1291.18 Finland 131

1.18.1 Regarding the statements 1321.18.2 Respondents 133

7

APPENDIX B Bibliography 134

General 134

Belgium/Flanders 135

Belgium/Wallonia 135

Portugal 136

Greece 136

Denmark 136

Spain 136

France 137

Sweden 137

United Kingdom 138

Norway 138

Ireland 139

Germany 139

The Netherlands 140

Austria 141

Finland 141

APPENDIX C Glossary 143

Glossary of terms 143

APPENDIX D Storyboard Analysis tool: EPS documents 145

APPENDIX E Survey Institutional impact 159

APPENDIX F Site visit reports 169

APPENDIX G Methodological notes 185

APPENDIX H Terms of Reference 186

8

Executive summaryFocus of the studyThis evaluation investigates the impact of ERASMUS on higher education institutions and national (govern-ment) policy-making. ERASMUS is the higher education action of SOCRATES that seeks to enhance quality and reinforce the European dimension of higher education, to encourage transnational co-operation between universities, to boost European mobility in the higher education sector and to improve transparency and aca-demic recognition of studies and qualifi cations throughout the Community.

At the institutional level, the study focuses on the impact of the second generation of European Policy State-ments (EPSs) included in Erasmus institutional contracts (IC) from the academic year 2000/2001 onwards and on institutional policy and organisation, and compares this second generation of EPSs with the fi rst generation of EPSs. All 30 countries participating in the SOCRATES programme are included.

At the level of nation states, the focus of the study is on the impact of ERASMUS on national higher education systems and policies since its launch in 1987. The 15 Member States of the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (in the framework of the European Economic Area agreement) are covered in this study.

The European Policy Statement (EPS) outlines the institutional strategy for all European co-operation activities and gives a context to the activities which the institutions apply to funding under the IC. The purpose of the EPS is to encourage institutions to adopt a coherent policy for their European co-operation activities, to achieve a more durable impact and to ensure more effective use of available funds. In addition, it aims at set-ting out briefl y the university’s policy on transversal issues such as the integration of disabled persons, equal opportunities, contributing to the fi ght against racism and promoting socio-economic cohesion. EPSs usually extend over a three-year period in the fi rst instance, with EC support being allocated on an annual basis, sub-ject to regular review.

The impact of EPSs on institutional policy and organisation is dependent on a number of factors. Therefore a conceptual framework on the possible impact of EPSs was developed which includes both context, input and output indicators. Contextual factors include international, national and regional factors that infl uence the for-mulation of institutional policies. Outcomes include changes in the teaching, education and support functions. All data collection mechanisms were structured around this framework.

MethodologyThe fi rst part of the evaluation at the institutional level consisted of an analysis of the EPSs of the second gen-eration and–- if applicable – of a comparison with the fi rst generation of EPSs. After an analysis of the actual EPS documents and a comparison with the outcomes of the fi rst generation of EPSs, the second step of the evaluation was the actual impact of the EPS. This evaluation looked at changes that have taken place in the content of the teaching programmes, the people involved in the teaching programmes and the actual support structure and the policy process. In total , survey invitations were sent to 1,493 different institutions. Group in-terviews were conducted in order to supplement the EPS analysis and the survey.

Data collection at the national level was based on a semi-longitudinal design, since the environment in which national policies are developed have changed in the past fi fteen years. Also, the ERASMUS programme itself has changed. The overall analysis starts with an analysis of the relevant internationalisation policies in the re-spective countries. This analysis bears on policy documents and secondary literature. The basic questions guiding the document analysis were as follows:• What have been the objectives of national policies regarding internationalisation?• What is their relationship to the overall national policies regarding higher education?

9

• What have been the instruments (including regulations and funding arrangements) used to achieve the objectives?

• Why have these objectives and instruments been chosen (e.g. how have governments perceived environmental changes and how have they reacted to these changes?)

• Particularly (and most important), how have governments reacted to or anticipated – in their policies – the ERASMUS programme?

The preliminary fi ndings of the desk research were used as an input for (group) interviews with those (that were) involved in policy-making on a national level.

Key conclusions at the institutional level 1

• 70% of the institutions emphasise continuity and further improvement with regard to the European goals and activities of the institution. By comparison with the fi rst generation, the top 5 goals of the EPSs have not changed.

• Recognition of qualifi cations through the ECTS is given more attention now as compared with the fi rst generation (53% now as compared to 31%).

• Student and staff mobility are mentioned in the vast majority of EPSs (84%). However, student mobility is stated much more and more extensively than staff mobility.

• Most EPSs (73%) do not contain a specifi c argument for selecting partner institutions.• Improving partnership confi guration is mentioned as an important goal (50% of the EPSs). This includes

involving more countries and institutions, but also enhanced co-operation with the same institutions and co-operation concerning more fi elds. Most interviewees did not make any effort to decrease the number of bilateral agreement, although some did have strict procedures as regards allowing new agreements.

• Not much information can be found as regards the arguments for co-operation with specifi c countries (58% lack information). If institutions elaborate on specifi c choices, they often concern regional cross-border co-operation with neighbouring countries.

• Reasons for engaging in internationalisation named most in the EPSs are: 1) preparing students for the international labour market / employability; 2) recognition of degrees / harmonisation; and 3) to become an attractive institution that is well-known.

• Language training is often stated to be an important factor for the success of exchanges and for the value of graduates in the international labour market (68%).

• When asked for the main driving forces behind the formulation of institutional policies regarding internationalisation, institutions indicate that the Bologna Declaration (61%) and the EU education policy (69%) have had a very strong infl uence.

• The accession countries tend to experience a higher infl uence of EU policies on their institutional policies than the current Member States; 81% of the accession countries report a very strong infl uence versus 65%.

• When asked for external forces that stimulate institutions to strive for internationalisation, institutions feel slightly more infl uenced by pressure to co-operate with other institutions than by pressure to compete with other providers.

• A clear leadership role is attributed to the International Offi ce when it comes to internationalisation (87% state that they have a strong or very strong infl uence) and to Deans and Rectors (75%). Overall, the management of the institutions recognises the importance of internationalisation. They are involved in various ways: either by approving policies or supporting an international offi ce with resources or by promoting the programmes through various communication channels.

• Many institutions say that the Bologna Declaration is one of the reasons for changing their EPS. The infl uence of EU education policy is still very strong; however many interviewees with a longer experience say that the biggest impact on internationalisation came with the fi rst generation of EPSs.

1 Conclusions at the institutional level are based on four sources: an EPS-analysis including 400 policy documents, a survey, interviews and site visits.

10

• The most important reasons for changing the EPSs are: more precise and specifi c goals and priorities; new international strategies; the Bologna process; changing the curriculum to a competence-based curriculum; Bachelor-Master structure; opportunities as a result of accession to the EU; more and different activities developed; and mergers.

• Only a minority of institutions (16%) wrote a new EPS after the fi rst generation. The majority seemed to make few changes to the document. One out of ten indicated that they do not review or revise the document at all.

• When asked for a refl ection on the development of internationalisation within the institutions, recipients clearly stated that there has been a development in the last 5 years from an ad hoc-marginal strategy (where little activity takes place and is not based on clear decisions) in internationalisation policies to a central-systematic strategy (where there is a large volume of international work and the international mission is explicit and followed through with specifi c policies and supporting procedures).

• The following objectives have become more important in the last 5 years: Europeanisation/internationalisation of curricula; number of incoming/ outgoing students; improvement in the quality of teaching/learning for mobile students/ quality assurance.

• The majority views the EPS as an important document (an average of 50% rates it as important for various decisions and initiatives). 15%-20% of the institutions state that the requirement of submitting an EPS is not important or of limited importance for decisions and initiatives.

• Most institutions agree (67%) that the requirement of submitting an EPS helped to increase European awareness and co-operation. Also, half of the institutions (53%) state that it led to the creation/reinforcement of administrative services for international relations. It helped less in stimulating students to study abroad or in starting the institution’s co-operation with other parts of the world.

• After an initial ‘revolution’ in the process, institutions that have established procedures for internationalisation are consolidating the process.

• It seems that more and more effort is going into optimising the support structure, into lowering barriers for students and into improving reputations. The requests from many institutions to allow and support administrative staff exchange is a refl ection of this trend.

• Some institutions indicated that it has become more diffi cult to interest students and staff in the exchange programmes. Often this has a fi nancial reason, although the mentality of students and staff also plays a role.

Key conclusions at the national level• The ERASMUS programme, particularly in the fi rst years of its existence in the respective higher education

systems, has contributed to making internationalisation part of mainstream higher education policy (see below: the indirect impact on national policies). The contribution – compared to the Bologna process – was, however, much more focused on mobility.

• The rationale for (or strategic approach to) internationalisation changed over time: from a stress on educational and academic rationales, a shift is noteworthy towards an economic rationale stressing the role of an internationalised higher education system in building a competitive national economy and of higher education as a marketable service in other countries. In this evaluation, the change of rationale could not be connected to the ERASMUS programme as such. The change of rationale seems to be much more connected to ‘nationally mediated changes’ and ‘global warming changes’.

• An important fi nding is that the national policy documents and the interviews in all countries indicated that the impact of ERASMUS is mainly visible at the level of the higher education institutions, at both the structural and cultural levels.

• The growing internationalisation activities of both students and higher education institutions (connected both to ERASMUS and other internationalisation policies and programmes) increased the awareness of national governments regarding the importance of internationalisation.

• In those countries where internationalisation was already high on the political agenda of either the government or the higher education institutions, in such countries (e.g. Sweden, Norway, and UK) the impact of ERASMUS was considerably less than in some of the other countries.

11

• Policy documents and interviews hardly specify which particular national policies were connected to specifi c elements of the ERASMUS programme, freeing additional mobility funds for students within and outside the ERASMUS programme being one of the few exceptions. The opinion was, however, that the programme in general led to refl ections on domestic internationalisation policies.

• Some clear examples of the interconnectedness between ERASMUS and specifi c national policies (e.g. cross-border co-operation policy in the Netherlands, Flanders and a few German Länder) and the NORDPLUS initiative of the Scandinavian countries) can be identifi ed.

• There are scarcely any signs in the fi ndings of this study that ERASMUS has contributed to co-operation in the fi eld of higher education at the national level beyond integration of internationalisation policies into mainstream higher education policy.

• Policy documents and respondents emphasised that ERASMUS has contributed to a turn towards Europe. In Sweden, this related to the then current emphasis on co-operation with the US; in Ireland the focus was on other Anglo-Saxon countries; in Portugal many internationalisation activities were geared towards Latin America; and in Liechtenstein the focus used to be on the German-speaking neighbours.

• When respondents were asked what would be state of the art regarding internationalisation if ERASMUS had not been launched, quite a number of respondents were hesitant about answering this question. On being pressed to overcome this hesitance, the majority indicated that certain internationalisation policies would possibly have been set in motion at a later stage or at a slower pace.

Recommendations regarding the objectives of ERASMUS• There seems to be a limited need for the further expansion of ERASMUS beyond its initial objectives and

instruments. If there should be a role for ERASMUS or other EU instruments, the evaluation suggests that there are two important conditions to be fulfi lled: the instruments should be of such a nature that they can be easily adapted to and integrated with national policies; and the instruments should be targeted – insofar as they have not yet contributed to it – towards the achievement of the Bologna objectives.

Respondents’ recommendations and suggestions The main recommendations and suggestions of respondents are related to the following themes:• Programme content (what it offers the institutions)

- More fl exibility as regards duration. If we are to speculate on the future of ERASMUS, its focus on relatively short-term stays in other European countries deserves particular attention.

- More fl exibility in bilateral agreements - More opportunities to co-operate with countries in other continents, such as North America or Asia. - More support mobility for non-academic staff. - The gap between research and education should be overcome. Research partnerships should be

deepened and extensively used for exchanges of students and the establishment of joint curricula. This could boost mobility.

- Newcomers to the programme should receive special incentives and attention.• Procedures

- Simplifying procedures- Adequate balance between accountability and the amount of administrative effort

• Communication- The EPS is used as a starting point for marketing and communication. If it is used as part of a

broader communication strategy, it is regarded as a helpful tool for determining which universities are interesting.

• Financial aspects- ‘More money’ is the most obvious (and often expressed) need of the institutions.

• Bologna and other changes impacting ERASMUS- Many of the issues relating to the ERASMUS programme are addressed in the context of the Bologna

process

12

Recommendations based on an analysis at the institutional levelBased on an analysis of the EPS documents, the survey and the case studies, overall recommendations can be formulated as regards three issues:• The function of the EPS. The catalyst function that the EPS used to have seems to have withered in the

second generation. Therefore the following recommendations can be made:- Require an EPS only for those higher education institutions that enter the ERASMUS programme; for

others it may become optional.- Broaden the function and use of the EPS beyond ERASMUS activities and include other EU-level

activities• Simplifying procedures and greater fl exibility

- Strict bureaucratic ex ante procedures may be replaced by ex ante random checks- Improve the fl exibility of (particularly) mobility: fl exibility of duration, fl exibility in bilateral agreements,

fl exibility in choice of exchange countries• Broadening ERASMUS and fi ne-tuning in line with the Bologna process

- Broaden internationalisation in the ERASMUS programme beyond mobility- Increase incentives in the area of ‘non-student mobility’ issues (e.g. joint curricula, staff exchanges,

recognition of periods abroad)- Integrate internationalisation efforts in the area of education with those in the area of research- Fine-tune the ERASMUS programme in line with the Bologna process and the general trend whereby

internationalisation activities are currently based much more on an economic rationale

Recommendations for (national) policymakers• Stimulate the national governments to create alternative sources/mechanisms of fi nancing for student

mobility (they need to clearly demonstrate that internationalisation is a priority - at the moment the burden is entirely on the universities).

• Investigate possibilities for harmonising the national fi nancial rules at European level (e.g. taxation system). • Strive to implement a uniform ECTS system.• The exchanges and participation in joint curricula could be enhanced if the total time students are allowed

for study is suffi cient. Currently, some countries are very hard on students taking too much time to graduate. This is a major barrier for students.

13

SommaireObjectif de l’étudeLa présente étude d’évaluation analyse l’impact d’ERASMUS sur les établissements d’enseignement supérieur et la prise de décisions politiques nationales (par le gouvernement). ERASMUS, l’organe d’action de SOCRA-TES dans le domaine de l’enseignement supérieur, s’est fi xé différents objectifs : améliorer la qualité de l’enseignement supérieur et renforcer sa dimension européenne, encourager la coopération multilatérale entre les universités, accroître la mobilité européenne dans le secteur de l’enseignement supérieur et améliorer la transparence et la reconnaissance académique des études et des qualifi cations au sein de la Communauté européenne.

Au niveau institutionnel, l’étude cible sur l’impact de la seconde génération de Déclarations de politique eu-ropéenne (EPS) incluses dans les Contrats institutionnels d’Erasmus (IC) à partir de l’année académique 2000/2001, sur la politique et l’organisation institutionnelles, et compare cette seconde génération d’EPS à la première. Les 30 pays participant au programme SOCRATES sont inclus dans l’étude.

Au niveau des États nations, l’étude met l’accent sur l’impact d’ERASMUS sur les systèmes nationaux d’enseignement supérieur et sur les politiques correspondantes depuis son lancement en 1987. Les 15 États membres de l’Union européenne ainsi que l’Islande, le Lichtenstein et la Norvège sont couverts par cette étude dans le cadre de l’Espace économique européen.

La Déclaration de politique européenne (EPS) défi nit les grandes lignes de la stratégie institutionnelle pour toutes les activités de coopération européenne et offre un cadre aux activités pour lesquelles l’institution fait appel à un fi nancement en vertu des IC. L’EPS a pour objectif d’encourager les institutions à adopter une poli-tique cohérente dans leurs activités de coopération européenne, de réaliser un impact plus durable et d’arriver à une utilisation plus effi cace des fonds disponibles. Elle se propose, par ailleurs, d’esquisser la politique uni-versitaire sur les questions multilatérales comme l’intégration des personnes handicapées, l’égalité des chanc-es, la lutte contre le racisme et le renforcement de la cohésion socio-économique. Dans un premier temps, les EPS couvrent généralement une période de trois ans, le soutien de la CE étant accordé sur une base annuelle et revu à intervalle régulier. L’impact des EPS sur la politique et l’organisation institutionnelles dépend de plusieurs facteurs. Un cadre con-ceptuel sur l’impact potentiel des EPS a donc été élaboré, comprenant des indicateurs en termes de contexte, d’entrées et de résultats. Les facteurs contextuels comprennent les facteurs internationaux, nationaux et ré-gionaux qui infl uent sur la formulation des politiques institutionnelles. Les résultats concernent les change-ments survenus au niveau des méthodes pédagogiques, de l’enseignement et du soutien. Tous les mécanis-mes de collecte des données ont été bâtis autour de ce cadre.

MéthodologieLe premier volet de l’évaluation au niveau institutionnel comprenait une analyse des EPS de seconde généra-tion et, le cas échéant, une comparaison par rapport à la première génération d’EPS. Après avoir analysé les documents de l’EPS actuel et avoir comparé les résultats de la première génération d’EPS, la seconde étape a consisté à évaluer l’impact actuel de l’EPS. La présente évaluation étudie les changements survenus au niveau des programmes éducatifs, des enseignants participant à ces programmes, de la structure actuelle de soutien et du processus politique. Une invitation à participer à l’étude a été transmise à un total de 1 493 institutions différentes. Des interviews de groupes ont également été menées pour compléter l’analyse de l’EPS et l’étude.

La collecte des données au niveau national reposait sur un concept semi-longitudinal, du fait que l’environnement dans lequel les politiques nationales sont élaborées s’est modifi é au cours des quinze dern-

14

ières années. Le programme ERASMUS a, lui aussi, changé. L’analyse générale débute par une analyse des politiques d’internationalisation correspondantes dans les pays respectifs. Cette analyse porte sur les docu-ments de politique et les données complémentaires. Les questions fondamentales qui ont régi l’analyse des documents sont les suivantes :• Quels étaient les objectifs des politiques nationales en matière d’internationalisation ?• Quelle est leur relation avec les politiques générales nationales en matière d’enseignement supérieur ?• Quels instruments ont été utilisés (y compris la réglementation et les mesures de fi nancement) pour

atteindre ces objectifs ? • Pour quelle raison ces objectifs et ces instruments ont-ils été choisis (par exemple, comment les

gouvernements ont-ils perçu les changements d’environnement et comment y ont-ils réagi ?) • En particulier (ce qui est le plus important), comment les gouvernements ont-ils - dans leurs politiques -

réagi ou anticipé sur le programme ERASMUS ?Les résultats préliminaires de l’étude sur documents ont servi de fondement aux interviews (de groupes) des personnes qui participent (ont participé) à la prise de décisions politiques au niveau national.

Principales conclusions au niveau institutionnel 2

• 70 % des établissements insistent sur la continuité et l’amélioration en ce qui concerne les objectifs européens et les activités de leur établissement. Les 5 objectifs prioritaires des EPS n’ont pas changé par rapport à la première génération.

• La reconnaissance des qualifi cations à travers le système européen de transfert de crédits (ECTS) bénéfi cie d’un surcroît d’attention par rapport à la première génération (53 % aujourd’hui contre 31 % auparavant).

• La mobilité des étudiants et des enseignants est mentionnée dans une large majorité d’EPS (84 %). Toutefois, la mobilité des étudiants est mentionnée nettement plus souvent que celle des enseignants.

• La plupart des EPS (73 %) ne comprennent pas d’argumentation spécifi que pour la sélection d’établissements partenaires.

• L’amélioration des conditions de partenariat est citée comme un objectif essentiel (50 % des EPS). Elle comprend la participation d’un plus grand nombre de pays et d’établissements, mais aussi une coopération renforcée avec lesdits établissements et une coopération dans un nombre supplémentaire de domaines. La plupart des participants interrogés n’ont rien fait pour réduire le nombre d’accords bilatéraux, bien que certains possèdent des procédures formelles permettant d’établir de nouveaux accords.

• On dispose de peu d’informations concernant les arguments en faveur d’une coopération avec des pays spécifi ques (manque d’information de 58 %). Si les établissements se basent sur des choix spécifi ques, ils concernent souvent une coopération transfrontalière avec des pays limitrophes.

• Les raisons les plus fréquemment invoquées dans l’EPS en faveur de l’internationalisation sont 1) préparer les étudiantes au marché international du travail/l’employabilité, 2) la reconnaissance/harmonisation des diplômes et 3) devenir un établissement attrayant et jouissant d’une vaste notoriété.

• La formation linguistique est souvent citée comme un facteur essentiel de réussite des échanges et comme une valeur ajoutée pour les diplômés sur le marché de l’emploi (68 %).

• Quand on les interroge sur les principales forces motrices qui infl uent sur la formulation de leurs politiques institutionnelles en faveur de l’internationalisation, les établissements invoquent comme éléments majeurs la Déclaration de Bologne (61 %) et la politique de l’UE en matière d’enseignement (69 %).

• Les états en voie d’adhésion tendent à subir une infl uence plus marquée des politiques de l’UE sur leurs politiques institutionnelles que les États membres actuels : 81 % des états en voie d’adhésion parlent de très forte infl uence contre 65 % chez les anciens.

• Quand on les interroge sur leurs motifs externes en faveur de l’internationalisation, les établissements déclarent se sentir plus obligés de coopérer avec d’autres établissements que de concurrencer d’autres fournisseurs.

2 Les conclusions au niveau institutionnel résultent de quatre sources : une analyse de l’EPS comprenant 400 documents de politique, une étude, des interviews et des visites sur le terrain.

15

• Un rôle clair de leadership est attribué à l’offi ce international lorsqu’il est question d’internationalisation (87 % parlent d’infl uence forte à très forte), ainsi qu’aux doyens et aux recteurs (75 %). En général, la direction des établissements reconnaît l’importance de l’internationalisation. Ils interviennent de différentes façons : soit en approuvant les politiques ou en soutenant un offi ce international par des moyens fi nanciers, soit en encourageant les programmes à travers différentes fi lières de communication.

• De nombreuses institutions affi rment qu’elles ont changé leur EPS en raison de la Déclaration de Bologne. L’infl uence de la politique de l’UE en matière d’enseignement est encore très marquée ; toutefois, de nombreux établissements interrogés jouissant d’une longue expérience déclarent que l’impact majeur sur l’internationalisation est venu avec la première génération d’EPS.

• Les principales raisons de changer les EPS sont : des objectifs et des priorités plus spécifi ques, de nouvelles stratégies internationales, le processus de Bologne, l’évolution du programme d’études vers un programme d’études basé sur les compétences, la structure bachelier-maître, le potentiel qui découle de l’adhésion à l’UE, des activités plus nombreuses et plus diversifi ées, ainsi que des fusions.

• Seule une minorité d’établissements (16 %) a remplacé la première génération d’EPS par une nouvelle. La majorité semble avoir apporté des modifi cations mineures au document initial. Un établissement sur dix indique qu’il n’a pas l’intention de réexaminer ni de revoir ce document.

• Quand on les interroge sur le développement de l’internationalisation au sein de leur établissement, les personnes interrogées affi rment que cette évolution est apparue au cours des 5 dernières années – d’une stratégie ponctuelle marginale (peu d’activités sont réalisées et elles ne reposent pas sur des décisions claires) dans le domaine des politiques d’internationalisation vers une stratégique centralisée systématique - (un volume important de travail international est réalisé et la mission internationale est explicite et suivie à travers des politiques spécifi ques et des procédures de soutien).

• Les objectifs suivants ont bénéfi cié d’une priorité accrue au cours des cinq dernières années : l’européanisation/internationalisation des programmes d’étude, le nombre d’étudiants entrants/sortants, l’amélioration de la qualité des méthodes pédagogiques /l’apprentissage pour les étudiants mobiles/l’assurance-qualité.

• La majorité considère l’EPS comme un document important (en moyenne 50 % le jugent important pour les différentes décisions et initiatives). Entre 15 et 20 % des établissements déclarent que la nécessité de soumettre une EPS n’est pas ou peu importante pour les décisions et les initiatives.

• La plupart des établissements conviennent (67 %) que la nécessité de soumettre une EPS a contribué à renforcer la prise de conscience et la coopération européenne. De plus, la moitié des établissements (53 %) affi rme que l’EPS a mené à la création/au renforcement des services administratifs chargés des relations internationales. Il a moins contribué à encourager les étudiants à se rendre à l’étranger ou à inciter l’établissement à coopérer avec d’autres régions du monde.

• Après une « révolution » initiale du processus, les établissements qui disposent de procédures d’internationalisation sont en train de consolider ce processus.

• Il semble que des efforts croissants soient consacrés à l’optimisation de la structure de soutien, à l’abaissement des barrières pour les étudiants et à l’amélioration de la notoriété. La demande de nombreux établissements en faveur de l’échange de personnel administratif traduit cette tendance.

• Certains établissements indiquent qu’il est désormais plus diffi cile d’intéresser les étudiants et le personnel aux programmes d’échange. Des raisons fi nancières sont souvent invoquées, bien que ce soit aussi une question de mentalité chez les étudiants et les enseignants.

Principales conclusions au niveau national• Le programme ERASMUS, en particulier durant ses premières années d’application dans les différents

systèmes d’enseignement supérieur, a permis d’intégrer l’internationalisation à la politique générale en matière d’enseignement supérieur (voir ci-dessous : Impact indirect sur les politiques nationales). Sa contribution – comparée au processus de Bologne – est toutefois restée plus axée sur la mobilité.

• Le raisonnement en faveur de l’internationalisation (ou son approche stratégique) a évolué au fi l des années et on a assisté à un glissement des motifs éducatifs et académiques vers des motifs économiques, en insistant sur l’importance d’un système d’enseignement supérieur internationalisé pour la mise en place

16

d’une économie nationale compétitive, en tant que service commercialisable auprès des autres pays. Dans la présente évaluation, le changement de motifs n’a pas pu être attribué au programme ERASMUS en lui-même. Ce changement semble nettement plus résulter de « changements induits au niveau national » et de « changements liés au réchauffement climatique ».

• Une conclusion importante est que les documents de la politique nationale et les interviews menées dans tous les pays montrent que l’impact d’ERASMUS est avant tout visible au niveau des établissements d’enseignement supérieur, sur le plan aussi bien structurel que culturel.

• Les activités croissantes dans le domaine de l’internationalisation parmi les étudiants et les établissements d’enseignement supérieur (liés à ERASMUS et aux autres politiques et programmes d’internationalisation) ont permis de renforcer la prise de conscience des gouvernements nationaux quant à l’importance de l’internationalisation.

• Dans les pays qui avaient déjà inscrit l’internationalisation parmi les priorités soit de leur gouvernement soit de leurs établissements d’enseignement supérieur (la Suède, la Norvège et le RU, par exemple), le programme ERASMUS a connu un impact nettement plus limité que dans d’autres pays.

• Les documents de politique et les interviews distinguaient à peine les différentes politiques nationales liées à des éléments spécifi ques du programme ERASMUS, une des rares exceptions étant le dégagement de fonds supplémentaires en faveur de la mobilité des étudiants dans le cadre du programme ERASMUS et en dehors. L’impression était toutefois que le programme en général a entraîné une réfl exion sur les politiques intérieures en matière d’internationalisation.

• On peut toutefois citer une série d’exemples manifestes d’interconnexion entre ERASMUS et les politiques nationales spécifi ques : la politique de coopération transfrontalière entre les Pays-Bas, la Région fl amande et certains Länder allemands, par exemple, et l’initiative NORDPLUS des pays scandinaves.

• Les conclusions de la présente étude ne font ressortir quasiment aucun signe de contribution d’ERASMUS à la coopération dans le domaine de l’enseignement supérieur au niveau national, mise à part l’intégration des politiques en matière d’internationalisation dans la politique générale d’enseignement supérieur.

• Les documents de politique et les personnes interrogées ont souligné qu’ERASMUS avait contribué à leur faire amorcer un virage en direction de l’Europe. En Suède, ce mouvement est lié à l’accent actuellement mis sur une coopération avec les Etats-Unis ; l’Irlande a pour objectif les autres pays anglo-saxons ; le Portugal mène de nombreuses activités en matière d’internationalisation axées vers l’Amérique latine et le Lichtenstein met l’accent sur ses voisins germanophones.

• Quand on a demandé aux personnes interrogées quelle serait la situation actuelle en matière d’internationalisation si ERASMUS n’avait pas été lancé, un grand nombre d’entre elles a hésité à répondre à cette question. Après avoir insisté, la majorité a déclaré que certaines politiques d’internationalisation auraient probablement été lancées à un stade ultérieur ou à un rythme moins accéléré.

Recommandations concernant les objectifs d’ERASMUS• Le besoin d’expansion future du programme ERASMUS au-delà de ses objectifs et de ses instruments

initiaux s’avère limité. Si un rôle devait être attribué à ERASMUS ou à d’autres instruments de l’UE, l’évaluation suggère que deux conditions essentielles soient remplies : ces instruments devraient être de nature telle qu’ils puissent facilement être adaptés et intégrés aux politiques nationales ; et ces instruments devraient être soigneusement axés vers la réalisation des objectifs de Bologne – dans la mesure où ils n’y contribuent pas encore.

Recommandations concernant la teneur et la portée d’ERASMUS Beaucoup de personnes interrogées lors des interviews et de l’étude ont émis les recommandations suivantes:• Une fl exibilité accrue en termes de durée • Une fl exibilité accrue dans le cadre des accords bilatéraux • Davantage de possibilités de coopération avec des pays d’autres continents, comme l’Amérique du Nord

ou l’Asie.

17

• Un soutien accru envers la mobilité du personnel non universitaire. Un meilleur fi nancement des activités administratives.

• L’écart entre la recherche et l’enseignement devrait être surmonté. Les partenariats dans le domaine de la recherche devraient être approfondis et utilisés de façon intensive pour les échanges d’étudiants et la mise en place de programmes d’étude conjoints. La mobilité s’en trouverait stimulée.

• Les nouveaux venus au programme devraient bénéfi cier de mesures d’incitation particulières et d’un surcroît d’attention.

Suggestions en vue d’améliorer les aspects opérationnels d’ERASMUSMises à part les recommandations qui bénéfi cient, à notre avis, d’un large soutien, de nombreuses autres sug-gestions ont été émises afi n d’améliorer le programme : • Les fonds attribués à chaque établissement d’enseignement supérieur devraient se présenter sous forme

de « bourse globale » basée sur un plan de travail préliminaire + un budget librement préparé par chacun (inutile d’utiliser un formulaire ou d’appliquer des conditions de sélection restrictives).

• Les accords institutionnels bilatéraux d’ERASMUS devraient être remplacés par une Lettre d’Intention, d’une validité supérieure à un an, servant d’accord-cadre entre les établissements partenaires.

• Le processus de sélection et d’évaluation des demandes devrait être plus transparent. • Le calendrier de soumission des contrats devrait être amélioré : la totalité des contrats importants arrive

pendant les vacances.

Recommandations et suggestions de personnes interrogées Les principales recommandations et suggestions de personnes interrogées se rapportent aux thèmes suivants:• Contenu du programme (que propose-t-il aux institutions)

- Davantage de fl exibilité dans la durée. Si nous devons réfl échir à l’avenir d’ERASMUS, son accent sur des séjours relativement courts dans d’autres pays européens mérite de retenir l’attention.

- Davantage de fl exibilité au sein des accords bilatéraux. - Davantage de possibilités de coopération avec des pays d’autres continents, tels que l’Amérique du

Nord et l’Asie.- Davantage de soutien pour la mobilité du personnel non enseignant. - Le fossé entre la recherche et la formation doit être comblé. Les partenariats de recherche devraient

être approfondis et utilisés intensément pour des échanges d’étudiants et la création de curriculums communs. Ceci pourrait accroître la mobilité.

- Les nouveaux venus dans le programme devraient bénéfi cier d’incitants et d’une attention particulière. • Procédures

- Simplifi er les procédures- Un équilibre adéquat entre la responsabilité la quantité de travail administrative.

• Communication- L’EPS est utilisé en tant que point de départ pour le marketing et la communication. S’il s’intègre dans

une stratégie de communication plus large, il est considéré comme un outil utile afi n de déterminer l’intérêt des différentes universités.

• Aspects fi nanciers- ‘Davantage d’argent’ est le besoin le plus évident des institutions (et le plus souvent exprimé)

• Bologne et les autres changements qui ont un impact sur ERASMUS- De nombreuses questions liées au programme ERASMUS sont traitées dans le cadre du processus de

Bologne

Recommandations basées sur l’analyse au niveau institutionnel Sur la base de l’analyse des documents EPS, tant l‘enquête que les études de cas, des recommandations d’ordre général peuvent être formulées pour trois questions : • La fonction de l’EPS. Le rôle de catalyseur de l’EPS semble s’être délité à la seconde génération. Par

conséquent, les recommandations suivantes peuvent être faites:

18

- N’exiger un EPS que pour les institutions de formation supérieure qui rejoignent le programme ERASMUS; pour les autres, cela pourrait devenir optionnel.

- Elargir la fonction et l’utilisation de l’EPS au-delà des activités d’ERASMUS et y inclure d’autres activités au niveau communautaire

• Simplifi cation des procédures et fl exibilité accrue- Les strictes procédures bureaucratiques ex ante peuvent être remplacées par des contrôles aléatoires

ex ante - Améliorer la fl exibilité de la mobilité (surtout) : fl exibilité dans la durée, fl exibilité dans les accords

bilatéraux, fl exibilité dans le choix des pays d’échange• Elargissement d’ERASMUS et réglage fi n du processus de Bologne

- Etendre l’internationalisation au sein du programme ERASMUS au-delà de la mobilité - Accroître les incitants dans les domaine de la ‘mobilité des non étudiants’ (par exemple, curriculums

communs, échange de personnel, reconnaissance de séjours à l’étranger) - Intégrer les efforts d’internationalisation dans le domaine de la formation et dans le domaine de la

recherche. - Procéder au réglage fi n du programme ERASMUS dans le contexte du processus de Bologne et de la

tendance générale selon laquelle l’internationalisation des activités est de plus en plus fondée sur des considérations économiques.

Recommandations à l’égard des décideurs politiques (nationaux)• Encourager les gouvernements nationaux à créer des sources/mécanismes de fi nancement alternatifs pour

la mobilité des étudiants (ils doivent clairement montrer que l’internationalisation est une priorité – à l’heure actuelle, cette charge repose entièrement sur les établissements d’enseignement supérieur).

• Étudier les possibilités d’harmoniser la réglementation fi nancière nationale au niveau européen (système fi scal, par exemple).

• S’efforcer de mettre en place un système d’ECTS (Système européen de validation d’acquis) uniforme.• Les échanges et la participation à des programmes d’études conjoints pourraient être renforcés si les

programmes n’étaient pas trop chargés dans leur totalité. Certains pays se montrent aujourd’hui très sévères à l’égard des étudiants qui mettent trop longtemps à obtenir leurs diplômes. Cet aspect représente un obstacle majeur pour les étudiants.

19

1 Introduction1.1 Evaluating the impact of ERASMUS

1.1.1 The subject of investigation

This evaluation investigates the impact of ERASMUS on higher education institutions and national (government) policy-making. ERASMUS is the higher education action of SOCRATES that seeks to enhance quality and rein-force the European dimension of higher education, to encourage transnational co-operation between universities, to boost European mobility in the higher education sector and to improve transparency and academic recogni-tion of studies and qualifi cations throughout the Community. ERASMUS provides mobility grants to thousands of students and teachers but aims also at enhancing the European dimension of studies for those students and teachers who do not directly participate in exchanges. In this context, intensive programmes, the development of new and/or improved curricula through transnational co-operation and the development and consolidation of pan-European thematic networks are strongly emphasised. ERASMUS is open to all types of higher education institutions and addresses all disciplines and levels of studies up to and including the doctorate level.

1.1.2 Legal framework of the study

The SOCRATES programme is based on Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty on European Union. Article 149 pro-vides that the Community “shall contribute to the development of quality education” by means of a range of ac-tions to be carried out in close co-operation with the Member States. The present Socrates programme (2000-2006) was established by the European Parliament and Council Decision N° 253/2000/EC of 24 January 2001.

Article 14 of the Decision foresees that “this programme shall be evaluated regularly by the Commission” and that the “evaluation is intended to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of actions implemented”. This evaluation therefore investigates the impact of the programme and also provides an input for future Com-munity policy in the fi eld of education.

1.1.3 Focus of the evaluation

The purpose of this evaluation is to analyse the impact of ERASMUS. Of particular interest is the impact of the programme on two levels. At the level of the higher education institutions, the study focuses on the impact of the second generation of European Policy Statements (EPSs) included in Erasmus institutional contracts (IC) from the 2000/2001 academic year onwards and on institutional policy and organisation and it compares this second generation of EPSs with the fi rst generation of EPSs. All 30 countries participating in the SOCRATES programme are included. At the level of national states, the focus of the study is on the impact of ERASMUS on national higher education systems and policies since its launch in 1987. The 15 Member States of the Euro-pean Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (in the framework of the European Economic Area agreement) are covered in this study.

Before the methodology of the evaluation is set out (in section 1.3), a historical overview is fi rst given of ERAS-MUS since 1987. This overview describes the main developments in the ERASMUS/SOCRATES programmes overtime and also pays attention to the period before the EU mobility programmes. Also, important related de-velopments pertaining to internationalisation in higher education are mentioned 3.

3 Formally, this description is part of the analysis, but for practical reasons (readability), the description was thought to be most appropriate to the fi rst chapter.

20

1.2 ERASMUS then and now

1.2.1 What happened before ERASMUS?

The period before ERASMUS was actually launched in 1987 can be divided into three stages (Brouwer, 1996) : the period of incidental co-operation (1951-1972); the preparatory phase of European co-operation in educa-tion (1972-1977); and the fi rst phase of implementation of education programmes, based mainly on intergov-ernmental co-operation (1977-1986).

The period 1951-1972 was a phase of incidental co-operation. Governmental activities were mainly foreign-policy-driven and based on a laissez-faire approach. In general, co-operation and exchanges were focused on outward mobility to the US, and inward mobility from colonies. At the same time, it should be mentioned that internationalisation agencies were set up. Agencies such as the DAAD, British Council and NUFFIC were ac-tive. Also, bilateral – politically inspired – co-operation emerged, with some of initiatives even dating back to the beginning of the last century (De Wit, 2002).

At the beginning of the 1970s some important steps were taken. Educational motives – instead of economic arguments – were accepted as a legitimate rationale for some supranational action. The European Community grew from six to nine countries, in 1973 Denmark, Ireland and the UK became members. Brouwer (1996) points particularly to rationales relating to the importance of education and training for integration (mutual under-standing, quality improvement), the need for more harmonisation between the national systems, and closer co-operation between national policies and actions of the Community in other fi elds as well as linkages with other intergovernmental bodies, that have helped to legitimate European co-operation. At the same time, some set-backs must also be mentioned: the fi nancial and energy crises have focused attention on national instead of integration issues, thus slowing down the efforts at co-operation (De Wit and Verhoeven, 2001, p. 176, refer to Keohane and Hoffman’s 1991 use of the term “the dark ages of European integration”).

In 1976, the Action Programme in the fi eld of education was launched: it was a framework agreement setting out the main objectives of a European education policy (e.g. improving education and training facilities; improving foreign language teaching; achieving equal opportunities for free access to all forms of education; and promot-ing closer relationships between educational systems in Europe) at Community level, laying down the basis for future co-operation in the fi eld of education. As far as concerns higher education, the programme concentrated on: (a) closer co-operation between higher education institutions through the development of links between or-ganisations representing higher education institutions, short study visits, and joint programmes of study or re-search; (b) mobility: admission of students, report on the extension of national schemes, examination of recom-mendations to remove obstacles to student mobility; (c) extending academic recognition of diplomas and study periods: analysing the current situation and proposing improvements; suggesting that periods spent abroad should be taken into account when calculating seniority and pension entitlements. As De Wit and Verhoeven (2001, p. 181) state, the basic framework was not far-reaching, although the programme was the fi rst multilateral initiative. De Wit (2002, p. 47) comments that the Integrated Study Abroad Programme of Germany’s DAAD was broader in scope. Nevertheless, the policy intentions led to regular meetings of the Council of Europe and the Ministers of Education with the Council. The Danish view that the Commission had no competence in the area of education implied that many co-operative activities came to a halt. Only co-operation between higher educa-tion institutions was supported through the Joint Study Programme Scheme. This scheme fi nancially supported the development and implementation of agreements between two or more institutions of higher education across different states. In practice this implied: student exchanges, with formal recognition of the study period by each institution; integrated teaching assignments for staff members; and joint curricular development of

4 Brouwer (1996) also distinguishes the periods 1986-1993 and 1993 onward. His distinction more or less coincides with Field’s stages (1998, quoted in De Wit, 2002, p. 42). De Wit and Verhoeven (2001) distinguish three periods (1971-1983, 1983-1992, and 1992 onwards). The authors agree, however, on essential events during the periods (1976 Action Programme; 1987 Erasmus launch; 1992 Treaty on European Union, etc.).

21

modules for insertion into the programmes of the participating institutions. In 1984/1985 the budget for this scheme was about ECU 2 million (ten countries). In that year also, a budget line was added for student grants in the JSP scheme (De Wit, 2002, p. 52). It should be mentioned, however, that 32% of the JSPs did not involve student exchanges at all, as almost 50% of the JSPs were active in teaching-staff exchanges and the produc-tion of teaching materials (Commission of the EC, 1985, p. 13; quoted in Teichler, 1998).

The 1980s showed considerable progress in terms of co-operation. Individual mobility increased, European programmes for research and technology were launched and implemented, as well as programmes like COMETT in 1986 (higher education and industry co-operation), EURTECNET in 1985 (professional education and information technology), DELTA in 1987 (learning technologies) and LINGUA (language programme) in 1990. European associations were created, like the European Association for International Education in 1989 (explicitly referring to action programmes forming the foundation for its start). At the same time, less stress was put on pluralism and complementarity than on harmonisation and Europeanisation (De Wit, 2002, p. 52; Brou-wer, 1996).

1.2.2 ERASMUS 1987-1994

It should be stressed that European activities in fact lacked a legal basis for action. Education was considered to be a national issue. Nevertheless, De Wit (2002, p. 52) states that “ironically, the lack of a legal basis for ac-tion …. gave the European Commission a great deal of freedom for creative programmatic action in the fi eld of education during the period after 1982, a freedom and creativity that would have been less within a more for-mal legal structure”. The pilot projects of the JSP scheme (and also the Short Study Visits Scheme) thus paved the way towards more fi nancially robust schemes, such as ERASMUS (De Wit and Verhoeven, 2001). Judg-ments by the European Court of Justice on the equal treatment of all EC citizens regarding admission to edu-cation and training as well as broadening the political attention of the EC to non-economic spheres have also speeded up the process of European policy-making in higher education.

ERASMUS started in 1987 as a four-year project but was extended to fi ve years in 1989. The main objective of ERASMUS was to increase signifi cantly the number of higher education students spending an integrated pe-riod of study in another member state, a step towards the creation of manpower with experience of economic and social conditions in other member states (De Wit and Verhoeven, 2001, p. 189). To achieve its objective, ERASMUS concentrated on a student grants scheme, involving fi nancial support (for expenditure on mobility costs) for students following a period of study in another member state. The aim was to provide 10% of the EC students with such an opportunity 5. The budget for the grants scheme was distributed proportionally across the member states. National Grant Awarding Authorities were responsible for administration of the scheme. The ERASMUS programme also promoted co-operation between higher education institutions through the Eu-ropean University Network, which supported Inter-University Co-operation Programmes (ICP). These co-opera-tion programmes involved agreements between higher education institutions across member states as regards student exchange and recognition of study periods as part of the students’ home country qualifi cations. Fur-thermore, ERASMUS backed a modest attempt to work on academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study. ERASMUS also allowed for working with a credit transfer system (ECTS), which to some extent dove-tailed with the “older” initiatives of the NARIC (Network for Academic Recognition Information Centres, estab-lished in 1984). NARIC brought together national centres having the task of informing higher education institu-tions and students about other systems and qualifi cation structures.

5 Although it has never been clear whether the 10% refers to the total number of students enrolled, fi rst-year students or the number of higher education graduates

22

1.2.3 At about the same time … (1987-1994)

1987 The Court of Justice decided on Articles 128 and 235. The consequential second phase of ERASMUS was based on Article 128 which in fact broadened the authority of the European Community to adopt supranational measures.

1987 Second Framework Programme, including SCIENCE (exchanges of science academics), SPES (ex-changes in economics) and ACCESS (access to large-scale facilities).

1989 JEAN MONNET programme supporting the study of European integration issues.1989 General system of recognition of professional programmes (of at least three years in higher education).

Every EC citizen could practice his/her profession regardless of where the original higher education di-ploma had been awarded.

1989 Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark set up NORDPLUS.1990 TEMPUS set up for Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Romania1990 LINGUA complemented ERASMUS in the fi eld of language profi ciency.1990 Joint Statement with the -USA and Canada setting out common goals and principles for co-operation

and consultation.1991 Memorandum on higher education in the European Community dealing with barriers to student mobility;

how to shape co-operation between higher education institutions; how to take account of the importance of language; how to develop a procedure for the recognition of diplomas and studies abroad.

1991 EFTA countries allowed to participate in ERASMUS.1992 MED-CAMPUS – co-operation with Mediterranean countries (improving the exchange of information

and experience between higher education institutions).1992 Treaty of Maastricht, detailing the fi elds of authority of the EU in the area of education in Article 126

(subsidiarity principle). Consequence of existing practices in education, recognition of the importance of the contribution of education to the realisation of objectives, decisions on EMU and EPU (Brouwer, 1996, p. 229).

1993 Ruberti report containing proposals for reorganising and rationalising activities and programmes in two encompassing programmes: one involving institutions of higher education, the other regarding training and qualifi cations.

1994 EFTA countries Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein enter the EU programmes.1994 Fourth Framework Programme, including training and mobility of researchers.1994 TEMPUS for Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Slovenia.1994 ALFA co-operation with Latin-American countries.

1.2.4 1995-1999 SOCRATES

During this period, three major tracks can be distinguished regarding EU involvement: education (SOCRATES), training (LEONARDO) and youth (Youth for Europe). As such, ERASMUS became part of the broader SOCRA-TES programme (see box 1.1 for the objectives of SOCRATES). The main part of the SOCRATES programme (55% of the budget) was the new ERASMUS programme. Three different actions can be distinguished within the ERASMUS programme, student and staff mobility being the most important.

• to contribute to the development of quality education• to encourage lifelong learning• to strengthen the European dimension in education• to facilitate wide transnational access to educational resources in Europe• to promote equal opportunities in education• to promote a quantitative and qualitative improvement of the knowledge of EU languages• to promote the intercultural dimension of education• to promote co-operation and mobility in the fi eld of education

23

• to encourage exchanges between educational institutions• to promote open and distance learning• to encourage improvements in the recognition of diplomas and periods of study• to develop the exchange of information• to encourage innovation in the development of educational practices and materials

Box 1-1: The overall objectives of the SOCRATES programme

Higher education institutions were to enter into an institutional contract (including a European Policy State-ment, see box 1.2) with the Commission, stating the institution’s commitment to European co-operation and proposals setting out the type of co-operation envisaged.

The European Policy Statement (EPS) outlines their strategy for all European co-operation activities and gives a context to the activities which the institution applies to funding under the IC. These activities cover: Erasmus student mobility; teaching staff mobility; curriculum development projects; intensive programmes; and Thematic Networks. In addition, these activities are placed in the framework of all international activi-ties of the institution. The purpose of the EPS is to encourage institutions to adopt a coherent policy for their European co-op-eration activities, to achieve a more durable impact and to ensure more effective use of available funds. In addition, it aims at setting out briefl y the university’s policy on transversal issues such as the integration of disabled persons, equal opportunities, contributing to the fi ght against racism and promoting socio-eco-nomic cohesion. EPSs usually extend over a three-year period in the fi rst instance, with EC support being allocated on an annual basis, subject to regular review.In November 1996, universities were asked to submit a European Policy Statement for the fi rst time. Alto-gether 1,583 EPSs were submitted and they covered the period of three years from the academic year 1997/98 onwards. In the following two years, only universities that wished to start ERASMUS activities as newcomers, submitted their EPSs. Policy Statements were received from 278 and 213 universities (Novem-ber 1997 and 1998 respectively). These EPSs can be considered to belong to the fi rst generation of EPSs. The requirement to submit an EPS from 1996 onwards has not been just a shift of bureaucratic procedures (Barblan et. al., 1998). Implicitly, SOCRATES challenges the institutions wishing to be awarded grants for co-operation and mobility:• to refl ect and put a stronger emphasis on the coherence of goals to be pursued and the coherence of

European activities to be undertaken;• to strengthen the responsibility of the central level of the higher education institutions regarding

European activities, notably in taking priority decisions, in providing a support structure and in ensuring the resource basis for European activities; and

• to develop and reinforce strategic thinking in terms of setting clear targets and pursuing them successfully.

Box 1-2 The EPS in the context of the ERASMUS programme

According to Barblan et al. (1998) the change from co-operation in networks to bilateral co-operation, from predominantly academic support to administrative management, from the departments to the institutional cen-tre as the level of decision-making, and from incremental decision-making to targeted strategies, also implied a stronger emphasis on the coherence of aims and activities in higher education institutions and a strengthening of responsibility at the central level. The EC would give fi nancial support to thematic networks outside the Insti-tutional Contracts and to co-operation projects between academic associations and higher education institu-tion departments as regards subjects of mutual interest.

24

1.2.5 At about the same time … (1995-1999)

1995 Extension of co-operation with USA and Canada, intended to improve quality and to learning to know each other.

1995 The ECTS was given a new impulse, and attention (i.e. following EC directives) was given to profes-sional recognition and, in general, to voluntary recognition.

1995 EC White Paper “Towards the learning society”. 1995 Education included in WTO’s Global Agreement on Trade in Services. 1996 Co-operation programmes with Asian countries (EU-China, EU-India).1996 EC Green Paper “Education – Training – Research. The obstacles to transnational mobility”, setting out

obstacles to mobility: legal/administrative, socio-economic, linguistic, practical.1997 Treaty of Amsterdam. Towards further enlargement, attention to removing obstacles to free movement.1997 EC document “Towards a Europe of knowledge”: actions to develop physical mobility; ensure virtual

mobility; build co-operation networks; exchange experience and good practice; promote language skills and innovation in pilot projects; and improve Community sources of reference.

1998 SOCRATES gradually opened to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Czech Repub-lic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia), Baltic states, and Cyprus.

1998 Fifth Framework Programme.1998 Sorbonne Declaration; harmonisation.1999 Bologna Declaration; understandable and comparable degrees, credit system, free movement, co-op-

eration on quality assurance, European dimension.

1.2.6 2000-2006 SOCRATES II

The programme focuses on language learning, staff and student exchanges, wider recognition of diplomas and periods of study, innovation (in particular in the fi eld of new technologies). Some elements of the programme are traditional, but there is a greater focus on new information and communication technologies and on innova-tion. Projects of higher education institutions are be set out in an Institutional Contract with the Commission. Due to the launching of the second phase of the SOCRATES programme, all universities had to submit a new EPS in November 1999. These EPSs form the second generation of EPSs. In the fi rst application round of SOCRATES, 1,456 new EPSs were submitted. In subsequent years, 332 and 267 new EPSs were submitted (November 2000 and November 2001 respectively). Box 1 3 details recent reforms of the IC.

From the 2003/04 academic year onwards, there will be changes in the Institutional Contracts in order to comply with the requirements of the decision concerning the second phase of SOCRATES. According to the decision, the management of grants for organising student and teacher mobility should be decentral-ised to the participating countries. In addition to this decentralisation, certain other changes will be intro-duced.

With the reform, the Institutional Contract will take the form of an Erasmus University Charter. This will be an agreement granting the universities access to the programme. The award of the Erasmus University Charter will entitle the universities to apply to the Commission for centralised Erasmus funds (co-operation projects, i.e. multilateral Curriculum Development projects, Intensive Programmes, and Thematic Network projects) and to their National Agency for decentralised mobility funds (grants for students and teachers as well as grants for the organisation of mobility and for introduction of the ECTS). National Agencies will be permitted to issue grants only to institutions with an Erasmus University Charter. In addition, the Erasmus University Charter also sets out the minimum terms and conditions which the participating universities must respect in carrying out their Erasmus activities. The deadline for the fi rst application for the Charter is 1st November 2002, and the Charter will be valid for the remainder of the programme period.

25

The European Policy Statement will remain at the core of the Charter application. In the EPS, theinstitutions outline their strategy for all their SOCRATES co-operation plans, i.e. Erasmus mobility, Erasmus Curriculum Development, Intensive Programmes and Thematic Networks, as well as other SOCRATES ac-tivities. In addition, it puts European activities in a general international framework.

Box 1-3 Recent changes, the introduction of the ERASMUS University Charter

1.2.7 At about the same time …

2000 Lisbon meeting of the European Council - Europe as the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy of the world.

2001 ERASMUS World, later renamed to ERASMUS Mundus.2001 Bologna follow-up conference (Ministers of Education) in Prague.2002 Barcelona European Council - European education systems as ‘world quality reference’ by 2010.2003 Bologna follow-up conference (Ministers of Education) in Berlin.

26

2 Methodology2.1 Conceptual framework for the impact of ERASMUS on institutions

The impact of EPSs on institutional policy and organisation depends on a number of factors. A conceptual framework relating to the possible impact of EPSs is therefore presented in Figure 2-1.

The basic underlying assumption for this framework is that institutional internationalisation policies are infl u-enced by a set of internal and external factors with which any higher education institution is confronted. Exam-ples of external factors that might have contributed to the impact of ERASMUS are:• the extension of the SOCRATES programme to the 12 accession countries during the last fi ve years;• the Bologna process launched in June 1999 aiming to create a European higher education area leading, in

the short term, to fundamental reforms of the structure of higher education qualifi cations in the signatory countries;

• what could be termed “the globalisation effect”: large-scale diversifi cation, internationalisation and digitalisation (virtual campus) of higher education in the last decade, as well as increasing transnational education.

Any institutional policy is shaped by opportunities and obstacles in the institutional context (be it local or region-al). Factors of infl uence in this respect range from the availability of human and fi nancial resources (what can we do?) to very conscious decisions on the priorities for institutional development (what do we want to do?).

Figure 2-1 The EPS and its framework

These sets of forces in our framework infl uence a particular institution’s internationalisation policy either directly or indirectly through its EPS. It should be emphasised that contradictory infl uences may be at play. For example, because of its analysis of developments in its environment an institution may come to the conclusion that an ac-tive internationalisation policy is necessary, but it may be severely constrained by its fi nancial situation.

27

Many more of these examples could be provided, but it appears suffi cient to state here that a careful analysis of the way in which the institutional internationalisation policy has developed is a crucial fi rst step in the pro-posed evaluation of the impact of an EPS. Therefore the fi rst part of evaluation at the institutional level consists of an analysis of the EPS of the second generation and – if applicable – of a comparison with the fi rst genera-tion of EPSs.

2.1.1 The analysis of EPSs

The conceptual framework for analysing the EPSs was shaped to a large extent by our initial model presented in Figure 2-1. However, a couple of other considerations shaped the fi nal version of the analysis tool:• The shape of EPSs, which needs to adhere to certain guidelines formulated in the requirements for

submitting an application• Former research (to ensure comparability) by Barblan et al. (1998)• Evaluation questions regarding the terms of reference (see appendix H)

The EPS analysis resulted in answers to the following questions:1. Substance and priorities of goals2. Relationship between goals and the environment3. Instruments to achieve goals4. Activities5. Recommendations

A detailed overview of the analysis tool can be found in Appendix B.

2.1.2 The impact of the EPS on the institution

After the analysis of the actual EPS documents and a comparison with the outcomes of the fi rst generation of EPSs, the second step of the evaluation was the actual impact of the EPS. For this, a fairly straightforward im-pact analysis was conducted, based on demonstrable effects. These effects relate to education and adminis-tration. This is visualised on the right-hand side of Figure 2-1.

In order to evaluate the actual impact of the EPS, it is not suffi cient to simply address stated policies and policy intentions. Demonstrable impact can be assessed only by looking at the actual changes that have taken place in the higher education institution.

Changes in educationWith respect to education, this evaluation looks at changes that have taken place in: 1. the content of the teaching programmes; 2. people involved in the teaching programmes

Changes in administrationChange need not be confi ned to education. Equally, it may be seen at the administrative level in the institution where s we make a distinction between: 1. The actual support structure (e.g. the emergence of an international offi ce, liaison offi cers, support services

for facilitating student exchanges, etc.). 2. The policy process (to what extent has Europeanisation and internationalisation become an integrated part

of policy development and implementation?). 3. Quality management (e.g. a more coherent approach to support and policy processes, connecting several

disciplines).

28

2.2 Indicators for measuring the changes

Based on these general changes in education and administration, a further operationalisation was made, which guided the development of interview outlines and questionnaires. Table 2-1 shows the general types of indica-tors used. These are based on the conceptual model and the requirements in the tender specifi cations.

Environmental factors

National factors which infl uence policy developments

European developments which infl uence policies

International developments which infl uence policies

Institutional factors

Institutional factors related to internationalisation

Management involvement within the institution

Involvement of external players

Policy development

Evolution of internationalisation

Knowledge of and experience with developing an EPS

Evolution of the EPS within the institution

Status of the EPS within the institution

Impact

Impact of internationalisation on education (Objectives, Teaching and studying, Groups, Non-mobile students)

Impact on management (International offi ce, Quality assurance)

Table 2-1 Indicators used in assessing institutional impact

2.3 Conceptual framework for the national impact of ERASMUS

The model for evaluating the impact of ERASMUS at the national level assumes that several types of changes have an impact on national policy-making as regards inter-nationalisation. In this context, internationalisation is defi ned as: any systematic, sustained effort aimed at making higher education (more) responsive to the require-ments and challenges relating to the globalisation of societies, economy and labour markets (Kälvermark & Van der Wende, 1997).

Analytically, a distinction is made between “global warming” type of changes and nationally mediated changes (Figure 2-2). The fi rst type encompasses changes that take place because of developments in the environment over which national governments have no direct control. Examples of such types of changes are: the transition to knowledge-based economies and economic globalisation. National governments have to take into account these developments as they will impact higher education in one way or another. The second type of change is more dependent on “local” circumstances and depends on priorities and directions set by national govern-ments. Examples are an increase in the number of students (improved access to education), government co-ordination, increased stakeholder involvement, and fi nancial contingencies.

As such, our model assumes that national policies (regarding internationalisation) are affected by “global warming” and nationally mediated changes6. The ultimate objective is to assess what role ERASMUS has played in relation to these types of changes. The analysis of the impact of the ERASMUS programme thus needs to be framed in a broader perspective refl ecting the rationale for internationalisation policies. It is for this reason that the analysis aims at both identifying the complex rationale behind the international dimension of national higher education policies, whilst at the same time trying to disentangle the stimuli and possible con-straints that arise from the ERASMUS programme.

6 In the actual analysis, attention will also be paid to national policies that can be categorised as “proactive” (e.g. the activities of specifi c countries leading to the Sorbonne Declaration and the Bologna Declaration).

29

Figure 2-2 Policy development at the national level

2.4 Data collection at the institutional level

In order to answer the evaluation questions regarding the impact of ERASMUS on the institutional level, a set of evaluation instruments is needed, each addressing specifi c parts of the study. Also, to ensure that any evi-dence found can be confi rmed by other sources, a number of these instruments have been used to answer the same questions.

Table 2-2 shows an overview of some of the main questions addressed during the study. Each question is an-swered using different instruments. Although most of the questions are addressed throughout the study by the use of more than one instrument, emphasis on a certain instrument is indicated.

30

Nr Main questions addressed (see Question Procedure Matrix for detailed overview)

Ana

lysi

s of

the

EP

Ss

Des

kre

sear

ch

Web

- b

ased

surv

ey

Site

vis

itin

terv

iew

s

0What were the main results of the analysis of the fi rst generation EPSsand what other results are relevant for this study?

1How have EPSs of higher education institutions changed as compared to the fi rst genera-tion of EPSs?

2 What changes have taken place in the process of establishing EPSs?

3To what extent has Europeanisation and internationalisation become an integrated part in policy development and implementation?

4 To what extent has the teaching and learning environment changed?

5 How has the involvement of people in teaching/ research changed?

6 How did the actual support structure evolve?

7 What are the general effects of EPSs within the institution?

8 Were the specifi c goals stated in the EPSs reached?

9 How has the internationalisation evolved?

10 How has the strategic planning within institutions evolved?

11To what extend has the EPS taken into consideration the mainstreaming of equal opportu-nities?

12 How sustainable is the impact of EPSs?

13What are the short and the long-term recommendations for the development of educa-tional instruments of the EU in the fi eld of higher education?

Table 2-2 Overview of evaluation questions and instruments

Main instrument used to answer question

Secondary instrument used

2.4.1 Analysis of the EPSs

The analysis of EPSs includes three major steps: sampling, analysing the EPSs using a standardised question-naire, and reporting.

The database of the Technical Assistance Offi ce contained records of a total of 2,028 institutions which had fi led EPSs as part of their applications. Of these 2,028 institutions, 1,666 EPSs came from countries that were also part of the fi rst generation. Strictly speaking, only for these 1,666 EPSs can a comparison be made with the EPSs of the fi rst generation. However, all 30 countries are part of the present study, so that 362 EPSs from new countries are also included in the analysis. To answer the questions regarding the EPSs, a random sample of the 2,028 institutions was taken. This sample included 1 out of every 5 institutions. An adjustment was made for those countries that have a small numbers of applications (Malta, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Luxembourg, Cy-prus, Slovenia), to ensure that a minimum number of EPSs per country was analysed. An overview of the number of fi rst and second-generation EPSs is provided in Table 2-3.

31

Country

First Gener-ation 1996-

1999

(n) % of total

Second Generation 1999-2001

(n) % of total

Sample of second gen-

eration (n)

Sample of second gen-

eration

(% of subto-tal)

Adjusted sample of

second gen-eration (n)

Austria 53 3 90 5 18 5 18

Belgium 101 6 78 5 16 5 16

Germany 241 15 258 15 52 16 52

Denmark 91 6 106 6 21 6 21

Spain 67 4 76 5 15 4 15

Finland 92 6 52 3 10 3 10

Liechtenstein 1 0 2 0 0 0 2

France 331 21 377 23 76 23 76

United Kingdom 199 13 192 12 38 11 38

Greece 33 2 32 2 7 2 7

Ireland 31 2 30 2 7 2 7

Iceland 8 1 7 0 1 0 5

Italy 98 6 127 8 25 7 25

Luxembourg 3 0 3 0 0 0 3

The Netherlands 69 4 64 4 13 4 13

Norway 47 3 44 3 9 3 9

Portugal 63 4 85 5 17 5 17

Sweden 50 3 38 2 8 2 8

Other 5 0 5 0 1 0 1

Subtotal 1583 100 1666 100 334 100 343

Countries added during second generation

Bulgaria 31 9 7 9 7

Czech Republic 27 7 6 8 6

Estonia 17 5 4 5 4

Hungary 40 11 8 11 8

Lithuania 26 7 6 8 6

Latvia 20 6 4 5 4

Malta 1 0 0 1 1

Poland 128 35 26 34 26

Romania 46 13 9 12 9

Slovak Republic 16 4 4 5 5

Cyprus 6 2 1 1 5

Slovenia 1 1 4

Subtotal 76 100 85

Total 428

Table 2-3 Number of second-generation EPSs submitted and reviewed

The analysis covers a representative sample of the total population. In total 400 EPS documents were ana-lysed. Table 2-3 shows an overview of the number of EPS documents per country. The EPSs were analysed using a standardised questionnaire (Appendix B). The results of the EPS analysis are reported in Chapter 3.

32

2.4.2 Desk research

Apart from the general literature on internationalisation, the desk research included an analysis of the main fi ndings of the former studies conducted by EPS analysis (Barblan et al., 1998, 2000). Parts of these studies have been used as baseline data for the comparison of the fi rst and second generation of EPSs7.

2.4.3 Web-based survey/ Interactive Dialogue

Analysing the EPSs is not suffi cient to measure the impact of the policy statements. A number of evaluation questions can be answered only through the higher education institutions directly. The survey includes, for ex-ample, questions on the formulation of EPSs and the evolution of the support structure.

An invitation to the survey was sent by e-mail to 1,493 different institutions. The list of contact persons main-tained by the Education and Culture DG contained a variety of functions. The recipients were allowed to for-ward the message to a colleague if they considered this appropriate. Based on the invitation, 711 recipients logged on to the survey and 13 institutions sent us copies completed on paper. Table 2-4 shows an overview per country. In total, 390 institutions constituted the entire survey. Only fully completed questionnaires have been used for the analysis.

CountryN partly

completed % of total N completed CountryN partly

completed % of total N completed

Austria 34 5 17 Sweden 18 3 8

Belgium 36 5 22 Bulgaria 15 2 7

Germany 74 10 43 Czech Republic 19 3 11

Denmark 38 5 28 Estonia 6 1 3

Spain 38 5 14 Hungary 23 3 12

Finland 17 2 13 Lithuania 1 0 1

Liechtenstein 1 0 1 Latvia 5 1 2

France 78 11 39 Malta 0 0 0

United Kingdom 61 9 33 Poland 60 8 34

Greece 14 2 5 Romania 18 3 11

Ireland 6 1 2 Slovak Republic 14 2 8

Iceland 3 0 3 Cyprus 6 1 5

Italy 56 8 27 Slovenia 3 0 2

Luxembourg 1 0 1 Other 15 2 1

The Netherlands 18 3 13

Norway 6 1 6

Portugal 27 4 14 Total 711 100 390

Table 2-4 Number of respondents who logged on to the web survey.

This overview excludes the 13 institutions that send us their copies on paper.

7 See bibliography in Appendix A.

33

2.4.4 Group interviews

The in-depth analysis of the sample of EPSs and a large-scale survey (with hundreds of recipients and institu-tions involved) ensures a richness of data. Although the analysis of EPSs and a web-based survey gives a broad coverage of institutions, the level of in-depth understanding gained from these instruments is to a certain extent limited. Also, surveys are often based on the opinions of a single person in an institution. Group inter-views provide an opportunity to explore both the processes of Europeanisation and internationalisation within institutions in more detail. In addition, the group interviews support the validation of the results. Therefore, in-depth group interviews with a broad representation of staff, students and management of the institution were conducted. Two types of group interviews were held: • Focus group sessions during the 15th Annual EAIE conference in Vienna • Group interviews at the institutions through site visits

The focus group sessions were used to collect initial information on the themes, topics and current trends in internationalisation. The fi rst results of the EPS analysis were validated in four focus group sessions, which were attended by a broad variety of specialists in internationalisation (i.e. heads of international offi ces, staff of national Socrates co-ordination centres, academics). This opportunity was also used to announce and market the evaluation and the forthcoming survey and site visits.

The site visits were planned carefully, ensuring a proper balance between countries and types of institutions. Our selection was based on a number of criteria:

1. First we took the list of all institutions selected randomly for the EPS analysis. This list included approximately 400 institutions.

2. A rough distinction was made between a limited number of smaller (Ireland, Denmark,, Sweden) and bigger countries (France, UK, Italy, Spain).

3. Then we used an additional set of criteria: size of the institutions, number and variety of disciplines, location (either rural or urban, located near larger cities, centralised or decentralised management structures)

On the basis of these criteria, the following institutions were selected: Universidad internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona (Spain); Universidad de Barcelona (Spain); Università degli Studi di Genova (Italy); Université de Nice (France), University of Glamorgan (United Kingdom), University College Dublin (Ireland), Lund University (Swe-den), University of Copenhagen (Denmark). The results of the group interviews are reported in Chapter 4. Ap-pendix D contains an overview of the results of the site visits.

2.5 Data collection at the national level

The model (Figure 2-2) presupposes a semi-longitudinal design as it is assumed that the environment in which national policies are developed has changed during the past fi fteen years. Clearly, the ERASMUS programme itself has also changed (see section 1.2).

2.5.1 Desk research

The overall analysis starts with an analysis of the relevant internationalisation policies in the respective coun-tries. The analysis was based on policy documents and secondary literature. The basic questions guiding the document analysis were as follows:• What have been the objectives of national policies regarding internationalisation?• What is their relationship to the overall national policies regarding higher education?

34

• What have been the instruments (including regulations and funding arrangements) used to achieve the objectives?

• Why have these objectives and instruments been chosen (e.g. how have governments perceived environmental changes and how have they reacted to these changes?)

• Particularly (and most important), how have governments reacted to or anticipated – in their policies – the ERASMUS programme?

2.5.2 Interviews

The desk research has to a large extent revealed how ERASMUS and other factors have impacted national pol-icies. These preliminary fi ndings were used as an input for interviews with those involved in policy-making at the national level. In selecting interviewees, a number of criteria were used. Interviewees were: • representatives of a particular directorate focusing on internationalisation within a Ministry; • delegates of the directorates of the different sectors of the respective higher education systems (particularly

if a directorate focusing on internationalisation did not exist);• delegates of directorates dealing with overall higher education policy;• national agencies in charge of carrying out internationalisation programmes (NUFFIC, DAAD, etc.).

The same basic questions were used as for the analysis of the policy documents. However, these questions were re-framed as three statements regarding the possible impact of ERASMUS:1) The ERASMUS programme has increased the awareness of the national government regarding

internationalisation issues, gradually leading to greater attention to internationalisation as part of the higher education policy agenda.

2) The national government used the ERASMUS programme to bring about changes in the national higher education system that had been regarded as unattainable.

3) Compared with the Bologna Declaration, ERASMUS has had only a limited impact on national higher education policy.

By prompting specifi cations and additional questions, the interviewers ensured that the above general ques-tions were covered. Interviews with respondents took place through different mechanisms: e-mail, visits to countries for group interviews, group interviews by video-conference, and individual telephone interviews8.

The data and analysis have led to national reports for the countries involved. These reports were then sent to those interviewed to check for factual mistakes and any comments. This approach (document analysis, inter-views of respondents, checking of the reports by respondents) allowed for a triangulation of the fi ndings. Chapter 6 contains the fi ndings from this exercise.

A supplementary analysis focussed on the differences and similarities between the countries. The central ques-tions for the comparative analysis were whether the impact of ERASMUS was different for the countries in-volved, whether these differences could be explained and what could be learned – in terms of supranational and/or national policy-making – from the analysis and comparison. Chapter 6 contains an overview of the con-clusions.

2.6 Strengths and limitations of the evaluation design

The evaluation design chosen for the evaluation of the impact of ERASMUS at institutional and national levels has its strengths and limitations. One of the main strengths is the combination of ‘fact-fi nding’ and ‘opinion-fi nding’ through analysis of policy documents that have a certain offi cial status, followed by a validation through surveys and face-to-face contacts.

Appendix E contains information on the practical organisation of the fi eld work in each of the countries involved.

35

The EPS documents are written ‘agreements’ between the institutions and the Commission and as such are often subject to the scrutiny of multiple stakeholders involved in the institutions (including top-level manage-ment). We can therefore assume that an EPS contains a valid picture of the intentions of the institutions. In eve-ry country, we analysed the national policy documents which also refl ect to a large extent the reality in the po-litical arena. However, papers often refl ect just ‘intended behaviour’. Our design therefore contains a validation after the analysis phase. The quality of this validation depends on the questions asked and the involvement of the re-cipients questioned.

At the institutional level, our survey was mainly aimed at the international affairs co-ordinators in the institutions in question. The main reason for the choice of this group was that they are the most knowledgeable about in-ternationalisation and the specifi c role of the EPS. In many cases, stakeholders outside the International Offi ce are not aware of the existence of this document. One clear limitation of relying on this specifi c group is that they are biased towards the topic of internationalisation. Therefore, in addition to the survey, we interviewed representatives of other stakeholders during the site visits.

At the national level, the selection of respondents was planned carefully, thus ensuring a broad representation of views at national level. The conclusions based on existing knowledge and the review of policy documents were then validated in group interviews. Participants were invited to comment on the national reports prepared by us. After fi nalisation of the national reports based on these group interviews, the fi nal results were shared with the participants.

Our initial model for analysing the impact of ERASMUS looks at both the impact of specifi c measures like the EPS and contextual factors. At the national level, attention to contextual factors (like other initiatives of national policy makers on mobility) has been somewhat limited. Our primary focus was ERASMUS and did not involve the impact of other (national) internationalisation policy programmes. Therefore the relative impact of ERAS-MUS in comparison with these programmes can be established only to a certain extent.

At the institutional level it proved to be diffi cult to neglect the impact of the contextual factors, other than ER-ASMUS and the EPS, on the policies of the institutions. The main reason here was the perception of the stake-holders involved, who did not perceive the infl uence of European policies in isolation from national and other external forces. Our design here could have been strengthened if we had included a signifi cant number of insti-tutions that did not participate in ERASMUS. This consideration has been included to some extent by compar-ing institutions with longer experience of ERASMUS with those that started only recently.tions elaborate existing international activities and unite them using the Socrates framework. This is similar to the observation of Barblan et al. (1998), who asked the same question about the fi rst generation of EPSs (which meant a comparison between the formulated goals and activities in the fi rst round of EPSs and existing initiatives). Table 3-3 shows that only a minority (12%) put an emphasis on change and new goals and activities in the framework of their SOCRATES applications and related European Policy Statements.

36

3 EPS analysis3.1 Introduction

This Chapter contains the results of the EPS analysis. The analysis aimed to establish a clear picture of the in-tentions of institutions regarding internationalisation and the way they envisage reaching their objectives. A comparison with the fi rst generation of EPSs gives an indication of developments and changing priorities per-ceived by institutions.

3.2 Substance of the goals of the institutions

3.2.1 Content of goals

The majority of the EPS documents start with statements on the goals of internationalisation and Europeanisa-tion (see Figure 3-1 Clarity of major goals). Only 1% do not contain a statement on goals. The way in which these goals are stated varies considerably in the EPSs. The distinction between a goal and an activity is not always clear. Goals are sometimes depicted as activities concerning some other goal or vice versa. As a con-sequence, there is a variety as regards what is considered to be a major goal and what is considered to be an instrument to obtain that goal.

One example of this vague distinction is the implementation of the ECTS, which is mentioned frequently as a major goal (53%), but also as an important instrument for fostering student exchanges and partnerships. The same is the case when internationalisation of curricula is stated as a major goal and student mobility is seen as a subsequent activity.

Table 3-1 shows the types of goals included in the EPSs. The table shows a clear rank order of goals. Student and staff mobility are mentioned in the vast majority of EPSs (84%). However, student mobility is stated much more extensively than staff mobility. Problems with staff mobility are mentioned frequently. Student mobility tends to be much easier to achieve than staff mobility. It is not uncommon for institutions to specifi cally con-nect staff mobility with research activities and student mobility with educational activities.

Sometimes staff is divided into administrators, researchers and teachers – all with their own respective specifi c mobility objectives. Objectives for administrators are often related to learning about foreign educational sys-tems and standards. Objectives for teachers are mainly related to teaching in foreign countries and receiving foreign lecturers.

As far as student mobility is concerned, problems with exchanges among the English-speaking institutions are mentioned relatively often. There is a great demand for exchanges with institutions in the UK, and this is a de-mand which exceeds supply.

Improving partnership confi guration is also mentioned as an important goal (50% of the EPSs). This includes involving more countries and institutions, but also enhanced co-operation with the same institutions and co-operation concerning more fi elds. These institutions focus on deepening or widening existing relationships.

The ECTS is given more attention now as compared with the fi rst generation (53% now as compared with 31%), which could be a logical result of the attention given to Bologna and the general pressure from students

37

and national government to complete studies within a shorter period of time. Thus, time becomes more valu-able and credits earned elsewhere should not be lost.

1st generation

(n=1578)

2nd generation

(n=400)

Student/Staff mobility (change of pattern) 61/46 84

Internationalisation of curricula 48 53

Improving recognition/ECTS 31 53

Improving partnership confi guration 46 50

Achievement of teaching/learning related impacts 48 47

Europeanisation/internationalisation in general 52 42

Achievement of research-related impacts 17 39

Networking NA 27

Improving teaching/learning measures (placements, induction) 43 22

Improving institutional support 23 19

Other changes/improvements/impacts 4 13

Other measures eligible for SOCRATES support 3 11

Achievement of other impacts 2 10

No information on goals 2 3

Table 3-1 Major European goals stated in 1st and 2nd generation (in %, multiple response possible)

Box 3 1 presents some examples of the goals which can be found in the EPS documents.

Europeanisation/internationalisation in general

• ‘Vorbereitung der Studierenden auf ein gemeinsames Europa’. • Providing students with good opportunities for active participation in Europe and the world.• This institution trains students in public administration. Its general objective is to enhance the

‘Europafähigkeit’ of public organisations. One of the aims is to start a lobby in the European and national political arena for practising public administration in a European-orientated way.

• “Das Zusammenarbeiten der Ausbildungseinrichtungen und die Integration der Studierenden der entsprechenden Partnerländer fördert die europäische Integration. Durch die internationalen Studiengänge und den wechselseitigen Austausch wird das Bewusstsein für das Miteinander im europäischen Rahmen stark sensibilisiert.’

• Improving co-operation in the region to further help the development of ‘Europe of the regions’.

Improving recognition/ECTS

• This Polish institution has been active in Socrates/Erasmus since 1998 and a lot has been accomplished in that time. The goals stated are, as a consequence, more specifi c then in other EPS’s: increasing the number of students of Polish descent from the former Soviet republics, transition from the European Credit TRANSFER system to a credit ACCUMULATION system, participation in other EU programmes

• The use of the ECTS learning agreements in student exchanges does not fi t the Finnish style of higher education (much individual freedom) and will therefore be terminated.

38

• This institution wants to erect a ‘consortium International de Doubles Diplômes’ which co-ordinates, together with other international partners, mobility and the exchange of degrees.

• In order to ensure international recognition of education, the Academy is now beginning to consider the possibility of introducing the ECTS system.

‘Best practices’/ Innovative ideas

• Incoming students are welcomed by the Mayor of the city once a year.• Every two years, the European Student Theatre Festival is organised.• We celebrate the European Union on May 9th of every year, providing information etc. on that day,• One of the means of fi nancing the planned activities can be auctions of students’ work• Issuing triple degrees are aimed at (English, German/Spanish, French). The institution offers its

curriculum courses in English (1/3), French (1/3), German / Spanish (1/3).• Charging an economic fee to non-EU students.• This institution also wants to contribute to language diversity and prevent shortages of translators

regarding the languages that are not much spoken.• Helping EEC universities to modernise / harmonise their educational programmes.• ‘The creation of four new area studies centres and two major research centres will increase the

international focus of teaching and research’• This anthropological institution aims to give education and conduct research in fi elds not covered by

other European universities.

Box 3-1Quotes on objectives (information retrieved from EPS documents).

3.2.2 Reasons for engaging in internationalisation

Most EPSs contain a statement refl ecting the reason for engaging in internationalisation. Generally it can be said that institutions support European integration and enlargement of the EU and wish to improve recognition and adjust standards and certifi cation. The ultimate goal is to increase the attractiveness of the institutions for students who are becoming more and more aware of the need to be prepared for an international labour mar-ket. Institutions want their students to become capable European (or world) citizens.

Reasons named most in the EPSs are 1) preparing students for the international labour market / employability, 2) recognition of degrees / harmonisation and 3) to become an attractive institution that is well-known.

3.2.3 Clarity of major goals

An EPS scored ‘clear/targeted major goals’ if the major goals were mentioned distinctly, could be found more or less easily in the text, were formulated in a straightforward way and were in logical connection with the other goals and foundations in the text. If this was (partly) not the case, the EPS scored ‘somewhat targeted/clear’ or ‘vague/diffuse’ on this dimension (see Figure 3-1).

39

Figure 3-1 Clarity of major goals

If we look at the clarity of goals regarding specifi c fi elds, most of the institutions provide a somewhat targeted set of goals and fairly clear lines of argumentation (Table 3-2).

Clear/

Targeted

Somewhat

Targeted

Vague

Diffuse Not applicable

Clarity of goals related to teaching and studying 43.4 39.4 13.9 3.3

Clarity of goals related to curriculum development 23.5 32.3 24.7 19.4

Clarity of goals related to services and other tasks 22.5 35.6 23.2 18.7

Table 3-2 Clarity of specifi c goals (in %)

3.2.4 Linkage of major goals

The linkage of goals concerns the extent to which the goals - where mutually coupled, tightly connected and reasonably combined – form a more or less internally consistent and solid argumentation.

Goals were rated as linked hierarchically when priorities were assigned in order to differentiate between the various goals or when a clear difference in weight could be distinguished between them. ‘Generally linked’ was attributed to documents which had adequately coupled the goals as stated, although they did not use numbers or priorities to further organise them. An EPS was taken to be ‘not linked at all’ if only one major goal was stat-ed and no connection was made at all between the stated goals or could be assumed, using common sense (Figure 3-2).

40

Figure 3-2 Linkage of major goals

3.2.5 Evolution of second-generation goals

References to former international goals and activities are often made in the EPSs, without an explicit state-ment as to which goals were part of the fi rst application and how the evaluation of the fi rst phase has affected the new application. In such a case, it is diffi cult to distinguish between ‘continuity’ and ‘advancement’ and therefore diffi cult to establish whether or not there was a positive evolution in the successive EPS generations. In their EPSs, only a few institutions gave an elaborated evaluation of their past initiatives as stated in their former Socrates applications.

From the institutions that refer to former initiatives (about 85%), it can be deduced that an incremental strategy in changing goals is preferred: existing activities are carefully refi ned and existing goals are slowly deepened or widened.

This is also the case when the EPS under consideration is the fi rst application – in general institutions elaborate existing international activities and unite them using the Socrates framework. This is similar to the observation of Barblan et al. (1998), who asked the same question about the fi rst generation of EPSs (which meant a com-parison between the formulated goals and activities in the fi rst round of EPSs and existing initiatives). Table 3-3 shows that only a minority (12%) put an emphasis on change and new goals and activities in the framework of their SOCRATES applications and related European Policy Statements.

Is there a reference to continuity and change in the European goals andactivities of the institution? Emphasis on:

1st generationn=1578

2nd generationn=400

Emphasis on continuity and further improvement 60 69

Emphasis on change/ new goals and activities 21 12

Discontinuation of activities 0 0

No rating possible 19 18

Total 100 100

Table 3-3 Continuity and change; fi rst versus second generation (in %)

41

3.3 What are the main priorities?

When institutions set no priorities at all, this might indicate a lack of strategic reasoning or discussion of the topic of internationalisation. EPSs that are just a collection of departmental plans, without any emphasis on certain areas or objectives, often represent such a lack of reasoning. Therefore an analysis of main priorities in an EPS gives an idea of the focus of the institution.

EPS priorities were analysed by looking at the emphasis placed on certain goals or activities. ‘No rating pos-sible’ was attributed to documents in which no goals or only one major goal or activity was stated. The policy document was considered ‘very broad’ if there was no differentiation between goals, activities and/or tools. An EPS was seen as ‘highly prioritised’ if, apart from all the other goals and activities, one or two specifi c goals or activities were clearly stressed.. ‘Somewhat prioritised’ was scored in case the institution placed some empha-sis on some goals/activities but failed to be clear or in case some activities were considered more emphatic in the policy statement then others.

Only a few institutions (13%) stated really clear priorities regarding their proposed initiatives (Figure 3-3). Most of the time, these were institutions applying for a second Socrates phase and/or had evaluated their interna-tional activities seriously. The majority of institutions (74%) drew up their EPSs without a very clear considera-tion of priorities – most of the time separate activities are enumerated.

Figure 3-3 Prioritisation of goals

3.3.1 Main priorities related to teaching and studying

Table 3-4 on page 51 gives an overview of the main priorities as regards goals related to teaching and studying.

Language training is often stated to be an important factor for the success of exchanges and for the value of graduates in the international labour market (68%). Most institutions therefore write something about the way in which they promote multilingualism. In case nothing is written about overcoming language barriers, most of the time one could sense that the institution in question provided some sort of language training, but did not mention it specifi cally. English is the primary language used, followed by French and German. Institutions too small to provide extensive language training frequently collaborate with larger institutions nearby.

The category ‘Creation of a European dimension’ was generally defi ned broadly. It was not uncommon for in-stitutions to set down the creation of a European dimension (or international dimension) as a central point of departure from which the other goals and initiatives arose subsequently (58%).

42

Curriculum development was often mentioned in the policy documents or – without mentioning it literally – sim-ilar goals or activities were written down (55%). In both cases, the institution under scrutiny scored positively in the questionnaire. Strikingly, though, the way in which curriculum development was elaborated gives evidence of a wide variety of defi nitions used by the educational institutions. Differences could be seen regarding the depth as well as breadth of the defi nitions. Second-generation applicants and old, large institutions generally formulated more ambitious goals than the others.

The active promotion of cultural awareness was often coupled with language classes providing opportunities for discussions concerning customs, standards and practices (34%). For others, the promotion of cultural awareness was seen as the result of all the other international activities carried out - it is diffi cult to measure the amount of ‘mutual cultural understanding’ directly. As a consequence, most of the time it is mentioned as a spin-off.

EEC countries often aim at meeting the European standards for education and harmonisation of curricula and certifi cation to become internationally recognised. The restructuring of their educational methods is therefore often mentioned. As a consequence, EEC institutions aim relatively more often at co-operation which can help them to enhance their teaching quality and educational programmes.

Content of goals relating to teaching and studying: 1st generation(n=1523)

2nd generation(n=400)

Foreign language profi ciency 47 68

Creation of a European dimension NA 58

Curriculum development NA 55

General improvement of teaching quality 51 42

Preparation for work 63 37

Awareness of other cultures 62 34

Specialised academic education 48 31

Other goals 2 23

Improvement of knowledge and learning abilities 26 22

Inter-/multicultural education 38 18

Personal development 29 16

General academic education 35 9

Table 3-4 Types of teaching- and learning-related goals stated – 1st and 2nd generation (in % of institutions stating such

goals, multiple responses possible)

3.3.2 Main priorities relating to services and other tasks

Most institutions are willing to improve their infrastructure to better support their exchange students and staff (incoming as well as outgoing) (Figure 3-4). A wide range of services and tasks relating to mobile staff and stu-dents is formulated. It varies from the setting-up of a one-stop-shop which provides extensive support for housing and helps with all the paper work required by the customs to a welcome at the railroad station fol-lowed by an intensive week fi lled with introductions, guided tours and a meeting with the tutor.

Many institutions have a central department or offi ce which co-ordinates the international contacts, exchang-es, the fi lling-out of applications, provision of information, regional collaboration on international activities, poli-cy evaluation and quality control et cetera.

Other infrastructure for the benefi t of international activities other than mobility is mainly concerned with re-search & development.

43

Figure 3-4 Improvement of infrastructure and services

3.3.3 Main priorities related to faculties/departments/fi elds

Table 3-5 presents emphases in certain disciplines. Institutions which had only one fi eld or a few fi elds/ depart-ments were excluded from the analysis. If a multidiscipline institute mentioned a specifi c fi eld – something that did not happen very often – it was relatively more often concerned with agriculture or business.

If a selective area is emphasised in relation to the goals, indicate which area.

Social sciences/Economics/Law 13.9

Engineering/Technical sciences/Agriculture 13.4

Other areas 13.1

Humanities/Languages 9.1

Teacher training/Education 6.8

Natural sciences 2.0

Table 3-5 Emphasis on certain disciplines (in % of institutions stating such emphasis, multiple responses possible)

3.3.4 Main priorities related to target groups

Most institutions distinguished between two main types of target groups: they either write about specifi c stu-dents (high-achieving, part-time etc.) and/or general traits of an entire group of students (sex, disabled etc.). Most of the time, there no specifi c student groups were mentioned. If specifi c student groups were mentioned, the majority formulated identical goals regarding this group (Table 3-6).

Part-time students were mentioned mostly as a specifi c niche in the education market which will be aimed at in the future. Often this increasing interest was related to the attention given to lifelong learning.

High-achieving students were frequently mentioned as a selection criterion for exchange students, and stu-dents with special knowledge are often considered to be very useful assistance (e.g. for welcoming foreign stu-dents, helping with language education etc.).

In addition to policies regarding the student target groups above, institutional anti-discrimination policies were frequently mentioned. Policies against racial discrimination and xenophobia (not listed in the analysis frame-work) were often mentioned in addition to the prohibition of gender discrimination and the support given to dis-abled and socio-economic disadvantaged students. When a ‘vulnerable’ group was mentioned in the EPS, it was generally not connected to the major goals but advanced in a small extra paragraph at the end of the EPS.

44

Main priorities related to target groups

No specifi c groups 78.8

No information available 41.7

Disabled students 43.2

Women 37.6

Socially disadvantaged students 31.1

Students without previous language skills (eligible for intensive language programmes) 3.9

Students with good knowledge of host country language 6.5

Part-time students 2.8

Other groups of students 9.1

High-achieving students 4.3

Students with knowledge of host country 0.4

Table 3-6 Priorities relating to specifi c groups

3.4 Relationship between goals and environment

Awareness of the external environment can help to improve the quality and clarity of policy statements and policy formulation processes. We therefore analysed relationships between the goals stated and the environ-ment (inside and outside the institution). This environment covers:• Institutional mission or goals• Country coverage• Partner institutions• International /European environment

3.4.1 Institutional mission or goals

The mission of an EPS was considered to be clear when an overall institutional goal/aim/objective was men-tioned – often without any specifi c emphasis in two or three lines. Almost half of the samples (47%) stated a general institutional mission or goal. The other half of the institutions in the sample did not, however, meet this requirement: their mission was either lacking (32%) or too vague to be recognised as such or understood as an overall objective (21%).

The relationship between the institutional mission and the European/ international goals gives further insight into the receptiveness of the institution to Europeanisation.

European/international goals were considered to be central to the institutional mission when the mission was international by its very nature, and/or words like ‘international’ or ‘European’ were used prominently in the mission or directly connected with the core of the mission. In half of the samples (50%), internationalisation/Europeanisation was rated as ‘central to mission’. Coherence was rated ‘marginally’ when the mission had only a small component referring to international activities or when a relationship could be assumed using common sense (11% of the samples). In 39% of the cases, the European/international goals and general goals (mission) of the institution were somewhat related.

If missions were mentioned, most of the time they were – to a reasonable degree – related to the goals regard-ing Europeanisation and internationalisation. Many of those institutions have a specifi c chapter on internation-alisation in their periodically issued strategic policy programmes.

45

3.4.2 Country coverage

The coverage of countries was considered selective in case a small, specifi c and/or dense group of countries was specifi cally mentioned in the policy document. It was interpreted as broad when a large and/or dispersed amount of countries was named (Table 3-7).

Generally speaking, a large number of institutions did not mention anything about partner countries (35%). Those who did, had a rather broad perspective on the selection of countries (38%). Only a handful of institutions sys-tematically evaluated their geographical presence (27%). Most institutions apparently did not seem to think in terms of partner countries. They rather spoke of partner institutions which happen to be in a specifi c country.

Exceptions were the EEC countries. Present EU members often mentioned that they want to co-operate with EEC countries or are planning co-operation in the future. The expansion of the EU is welcomed and most insti-tutions are willing to help to develop EEC institutions by starting exchange programmes.

What preference is indicated?

EEC countries 49.1

Nordic countries 22.9

Other countries 14.5

New member states 7.0

Southern European countries 6.5

Table 3-7 Country coverage

A large number of institutions mentioned the inclusion of other non-EU member states (76%, Figure 3-5). There is a huge diversity of non-EU member states. Often mentioned were EEC countries, the Russian Federation, USA, Japan and relations with specifi c developing countries (often with the aim to help develop the partner institutions).

Figure 3-5 Inclusion of other countries

Not much information can be found concerning the arguments for co-operation with specifi c countries (Table 3-8). If institutions elaborate on specifi c choices, they often concern regional cross-border co-operation with neighbouring countries. Co-operation with/within the Euregios is mentioned relatively often. EEC countries were often added to the list of countries by an institution referring to the balance of country representation.

46

Indicate reasons stated for preferences/criteria of choice:

No information available 58.2

Regional orientation/geographical proximity 12.9

Other reasons 19.1

Language spoken in partner country 3.9

Balance of country representation 9.0

Closeness to own culture 2.3

Countries in which course programmes are taught in English 2.0

Table 3-8 Reasons for choice of countries

3.4.3 Choice of partner institutions

If we look at the criteria used for the choice of partner institutions, a similar picture emerges for the partner countries; most EPSs (73%) do not contain a specifi c line of argumentation for selecting partner institutions (Table 3-9). If specifi c institutions are named in the EPSs, no further reasons are generally given for this co-operation other than the match of educational fi elds and/or already existing co-operation (56%).

Are criteria indicated for the choice of partner institutions in SOCRATES-eligible countries?

No information available 73.4

Match in terms of fi elds/specialisations 56.6

Past co-operation 28.3

Intended extension of partnerships 21.7

Inclusion of university networks like “Coimbra” or similar networks 4.7

Partner with outstanding academic quality 4.6

Match of academic quality 5.3

Match of overall profi le 5.3

Partner with institute of lesser quality 0.3

Table 3-9 Reasons for choice of partner institutions

3.4.4 International environment/ European environment

If other international activities are mentioned, it is often diffi cult to distinguish them from Socrates activities (Ta-ble 3-10). Activities frequently mentioned are exchanges and curriculum activities with countries other than member states and research activities resulting from the framework programmes. Sometimes the national or regional government promotes other international activities.

47

Does the confi guration of goals include a link between SOCRATES activities and other European/international activities?

No information available 47.0%

Other student/staff exchanges 31.6%

Other educational activities (language, international programmes) 28.8%

Research activities 26.0%

Other (networking) activities 20.5%

Other curricular development 17.2%

Co-operation with industry (students placements etc.) 7.6%

Table 3-10 Relationsh ip between Socrates and other activities

3.5 Instruments to achieve goals

Many EPSs pay little attention to the means/instruments, which are needed to accomplish the stated goals. Therefore this section refl ects on the way goals and means are connected (so-called vertical consistency).

When the text contained a decision tree or logical sequence of goals, we took this as vertical consistency be-tween goals. When goals were more or less formulated at the same level as activities or were apparently con-sidered to be of equal importance, we considered the consistency to be weak. No rating was possible in case no goals or activities were stated or goals, activities and tools could not be distinguished (21% of the cases).

Most of the time, mission, goal, activities and tools were connected more or less consistently (35% rated me-dium consistency). A minority of EPSs was much more structured, containing a clear differentiation and logical connection between goals, activities and tools (21% rated strong consistency). Others contained a more narra-tive presentation in which goals were more or less loosely interrelated with activities and tool and vice versa (20% rated weak consistency). The amount of text devoted to goals was in general higher then the amount of text devoted to the means needed to accomplish those goals.

A considerable number of EPSs mentioned the organisational structure for the execution of their international and European policies. Most of the time there was a specifi c co-ordinating body set up at a central level, while at the same time offi cers and counsellors were appointed at department level to improve goal achievement and communication.

‘Monitoring of activities’ was understood as:1) the periodical evaluation by the institution of its international efforts; and/or 2) the use or (expected) implementation of quality control systems.

Quite a few institutions mentioned efforts at monitoring. Some of them put the monitoring of international ac-tivities in their periodical quality control and evaluation processes (Table 3-11).

48

Which activities of service units/offi ces are mentioned as being important for European policy?

Provision of language training for outgoing students/staff 65.8

Provision of relevant information (also translating existing information in foreign languages or making an English web site)

43.8

Courses/course programmes in foreign languages 39.7

Provision of language training for incoming students/staff 35.7

Provision of guidance and counselling 33.4

Monitoring of activities 31.4

Support for accommodation 26.1

Other services 22.5

Organisation of social events 18.2

Cultural activities 11.6

Dissemination of results 9.1

Table 3-11 Important activities

Another way of achieving goals was to co-operate with partners in the home country. Fairly often, institutions mentioned co-operation with partners in their home country (Figure 3-6). However, they did not give a detailed overview of partners. Most of the time, partners in the home country were named in relation to some sort of activity – activities like fund-raising, establishing internships for foreign students or providing (shared) language facilities.

The reasons for national co-operation were: 1) raising funds or co-fi nancing activities, mostly in co-operation with governments or industry; 2) creating possibilities for internships for foreign students, mostly in co-opera-tion with industry; and 3) creating possibilities for language training, mostly in co-operation with other educa-tional institutions.

Figure 3-6 Co-operation with partners in home country

If we look at the funding of activities, only a few institutions added a clear fi nancial statement regarding the lev-el of institutional costs (17%). Most of the time, no statements were made at all or there was one that was too

49

vague to judge correctly (72%). Nevertheless there were cases in which something was said about co-fi nanc-ing / fund-raising efforts made by the institution and the diffi culties that come with them (11%).

For some institutions, it was hard to fi nd fi nancial partners to enlarge the budget – as a consequence they had to utilise their own resources. However, original minds sometimes come up with creative solutions to budgetary problems. An art school, for example, organised an annual sale of student art to increase its budget for ex-changes.

It should be noted that the differences between countries are great. In some countries (regional or national) governments provide their educational institutions with supplementary fi nancial support for exchanges or other international activities, while other countries do not.

3.6 Activities

The vast majority (91%) mentioned specifi c SOCRATES programme activities in the EPSs in order to under-score or exemplify the European policy/strategy of the institution. The types of activities and the expectation whether an increase was envisaged, is shown in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7 Activities in fi rst and second generation of EPSs

50

3.6.1 Relationship with other programmes

We considered the relationship between SOCRATES activities and other international programmes strong if more than three other programmes or activities were mentioned in the text. This was the case in 16% of the EPSs. We considered the relationship to be medium if two or three programmes/activities were mentioned (24%) and weak if none or one other programme/activity was mentioned (23%). An exception was made if the institution participated to a large extent in the programme mentioned: a higher category was then marked. In the case of a signifi cant number of EPSs, information about other programmes was not mentioned at all (38%).

It often happened that the other programmes are only mentioned briefl y of the policy statement to underscore specifi c activities. Although these programmes were apparently considered to be important, it cannot be said that all the programmes engaged in were indicated – after all, no exhaustive lists are given by the institutions in the sample.

Programmes and actions outside SOCRATES mentioned most often in the EPSs are TEMPUS and the Frame-work Programme for research and technological development (Table 3-12).

Reference to other actions within SOCRATES

Minerva 10.6

LINGUA 8.9

Grundtvig 8.5

COMENIUS 9.3

Reference to other actions outside SOCRATES

Other programmes 72.0

TEMPUS 37.8

Framework programme for research and technological Development 24.8

The JEAN MONNET Project 17.5

NORDPLUS Programme 9.8

ALFA Programme 8.9

CEEPUS 5.3

World Bank 2.0

Table 3 12 Percentage of EPSs that contain a reference to other actions (multiple responses possible)

51

4 Institutional impact4.1 Introduction

Whereas Chapter 2 contains the results of a ‘fact-fi nding’ exercise on the actual EPSs written by the institu-tions, Chapter 3 contains the results of what can be called ‘opinion-fi nding’ instruments. Both the results of the survey and the site visits are presented here. The Chapter is structured around the key themes of the question-naire which is based on the model presented in Figure 2-1. For the explanation of the results, we have used both information collected through the survey and the site visits. The complete details of the site visits can be found in the Appendix.

The majority (59%) of the institutions have submitted a European Policy Statement (EPS) more than twice, 23% submitted an EPS twice and 18% submitted an EPS only once or never before.

The majority of recipients participating in the survey has been involved in the formulation of the EPS (79%). 21% indicated that they were not involved in this process. Therefore, they were allowed to skip questions re-garding the EPS, as described in paragraph 4.3. 50% of this group indeed skipped these questions; the other half indicated that they were knowledgeable enough about the EPS to complete the entire questionnaire.

4.2 Factors that infl uence the formulation of EPSs

The process of formulating a European Policy Statement is highly dependent on the institutional setting and the way (general) policies are formulated within the institution. In turn, the environment in which the institutions operate infl uences these general policies (Table 4-1).

4.2.1 National and international factors

How much infl uence do the following factors have on the internationalisation policy of your institution?

No infl uence Someinfl uence

Moderate infl uence

Very strong infl uence

NA/Don’t know

Supranational body (e.g. European Commission) 4.4 18.1 29.0 46.6 1.8

National/federal government 10.1 25.1 38.9 23.3 2.6

National ministry of education 8.3 18.4 37.0 34.5 1.8

Subnational (regional or local) government 37.8 26.2 22.8 10.4 2.8

Other ministries (e.g. Foreign Affairs,Economic Affairs)

33.7 36.3 18.4 6.2 5.4

Table 4-1 Factors that infl uence internationalisation policy

According to the institutions, their internationalisation policy is strongly infl uenced by the supra-national body. There is hardly any institution (4%) that ‘denies’ the infl uence of the EC/ European Union.

The relatively high weight given to the EC/ European Union, as compared with the national, regional or local gov-ernments, is clear (47% indicated a very strong infl uence). The national ministry of education is another important player, although during the interviews it became apparent that the perception of this infl uence is infl uenced by a number of factors. One interviewee in Ireland said: ‘anything regional is national since we have a small country and a limited number of universities’. Interviewees in other countries, where a strong national policy body is miss-ing, stressed that European communication is a very important source in guiding the institutions.

52

Although the regional infl uence is limited according to the fi gures, some institutions are almost forced to have an international focus because of their local embeddedness in a region that is international by nature. As one of the respondents stated: ‘Our city is the gateway to Europe and has been that for a long time; it has deep European roots. This infl uences the population and the relationships we build with both the local community (Chamber of Commerce, social partners, secondary schools, labour market) and the international community’.

4.2.2 European developments

How much infl uence do European policies have on the formulation of institutional policies as regards internationalisation? No infl uence

Someinfl uence

Moderate infl uence

Very strong infl uence

NA/Don’t know

EU education policy (e.g. ERASMUS, Tempus) 1.6 6.1 21.7 69.3 1.3

Bologna Declaration 2.7 11.2 21.9 61.5 2.7

EU research policy area (e.g. framework pro-grammes)

9.1 23.5 34.2 27.8 5.3

EU enlargement/integration 5.9 24.6 35.6 30.5 3.5

Lisbon process 7.2 17.4 35.8 28.9 10.7

Table 4-2 Infl uence of European policies

Table 4-2 shows that two of the main infl uences on the formulation of institutional policies as regards interna-tionalisation stem from the Bologna Declaration and EU education policy (61% and 69% indicate a very strong infl uence). EU enlargement/ integration is perceived to be of lesser importance by the current Member States. The limited infl uence of EU enlargement/integration could well be explained by the fact that many institutions have already established relationships and do not intend to change many of the existing relationships. The ac-cession countries report a much stronger infl uence of enlargement than the existing EU countries (65% report a very strong infl uence of enlargement versus 19% for the EU countries). The accession countries also tend to perceive a greater infl uence from EU policies (81% versus 65% reporting a very strong infl uence).

Many institutions say that the Bologna Declaration is one of the reasons for changing their EPS. The infl uence of EU education policy is still very strong; however, many interviewees with a longer experience say that the biggest impact on internationalisation came with the fi rst generation of EPS. Current needs and urgent chang-es are the result of Bologna, as indicated by the following quotes: ‘After the Bologna agreement and the Lisbon process, this university had to change strategies, with more attention directed to both Europe and countries outside Europe’ and ‘The Bologna process is such a big change. Mobility was at the start of this process’.

4.2.3 International developments

Two opposite forces can lead institutions to change their policies on internationalisation: co-operation and competition. As one small and young private institution in Spain mentioned, also internationally they operate in a highly competitive market. This institution has striven to get as many ‘free movers’ as possible. The pressure to compete led this institution to make conscious decisions on co-operation with a limited number of partner institutions, with which joint degrees have been established. Within most institutions that take part in Erasmus, this is not the typical approach. Although many institutions argue that taking part in many bilateral agreements can be time-consuming from an administrative point of view, they also stress that giving a broad range of op-portunities to students is paramount. Table 4-3 underlines this to some extent; institutions feel rather more in-fl uenced by the pressure to co-operate than by the pressure to compete. Most interviewees did not make any effort to reduce the number of bilateral agreements, although some have strict procedures for allowing new agreements.

Liberalisation of the higher education market is of some or no infl uence according to almost half of the institu-tions (48%).

53

How much infl uence do the following international developments have on your policies on internation-alisation? No infl uence

Someinfl uence

Moderate infl uence

Very strong infl uence

NA/Don’t know

Pressure to co-operate with other institutions on an international basis

5.8 13.8 36.5 41.7 2.2

Pressure to compete internationally 9.1 21.3 35.9 32.9 0.8

Technological change (particularly in ICT) 12.2 27.9 34.8 19.3 5.8

Liberalisation of higher education market (GATS) 16.3 31.8 27.6 16.3 8.0

Brain drain 25.1 26.8 24.0 11.0 13.0

Table 4-3 Infl uence of international developments on policies

Competition from other providers is infl uencing policies to a certain extent (Table 4-4). The main infl uences here stem from the higher education institutions both in the own country and abroad. Policies are infl uenced more strongly by foreign higher education institutions (with 56% saying that there is a moderate to very strong infl u-ence) than by national commercial providers (only 19% indicate a moderate/ very strong infl uence.

How much does competition from the following actors infl uence policies on internationalisation?

No infl uence Someinfl uence

Moderate infl uence

Very strong infl uence

NA/Don’t know

National higher education institutions 6.0 20.6 40.4 31.5 1.4

Foreign higher education institutions 13.2 28.1 40.4 16.0 2.3

National commercial providers 43.8 29.8 14.0 5.2 7.2

Foreign commercial providers 47.6 27.8 15.5 2.3 6.9

Table 4-4 Infl uence of competition on policies

4.2.4 Institutional factors

The vast majority of institutions (almost 97%) indicated that teaching 18-24-year-old students was the most important activity (Table 4-5). Most of the activities mentioned in Table 4-5 are considered to be (very) impor-tant, although opinions about contract research varied. There was a slight tendency to perceive the teaching of international students as more important than lifelong learning. Although this could well be attributed to the nature of the recipients (often responsible for internationalisation), there were certainly a number of institutions that did not offer opportunities for continuing education while participating in internationalisation. By participat-ing in Erasmus they ‘open the door’ to other cultures and infl uences, without the need to change the curricu-lum entirely.

Indicate how important the following activities are for your institution.

Notimportant

Of limited importance Neutral Important

Veryimportant Mean

Teaching of 18-24-year-old students 0.6 1.2 1.2 11.9 85.2 4.7

Basic research 5.2 11.0 10.4 32.5 40.9 3.9

Innovation in teaching and learning 0.6 4.3 10.7 40.0 44.3 4.2

Contract research (interaction with business and industry)

10.9 12.9 10.0 35.2 30.9 3.6

Teaching international students 1.4 6.7 10.4 49.0 32.5 4.0

Provision of continuing education (or “lifelong learning”) to persons in the workforce

4.3 14.5 9.0 49.9 22.3 3.7

Table 4-5 Importance of activities for the institution

54

4.2.5 Management involvement within your institution

Leadership as regards internationalisation differs widely across institutions and is dependent on many factors (Table 4-6). Large universities with a high degree of decentralisation generally reported that the Deans of facul-ties have a strong infl uence. Centralised institutions relied more on the vision of the Rector. However, there was general agreement on the importance of leadership at the top. When a new leader is appointed, this can have a signifi cant impact on the way an institution deals with internationalisation.

‘The new Rector, who is appointed for a period of 10 years, is pro-internationalisation and has talked about international competitiveness. We need to be seen and competitive. The former Rector was the ‘primus inter pares’. The new Rector is more like a managing director. If a new management position becomes va-cant, he wants to have a say.’

Another clear leadership role is attributed to the international offi ce (87% state that they have a strong or very strong infl uence on internationalisation). Former reports on the topic of EPS mention the fear of many institu-tions that implementing the IC could lead to less power and infl uence by the academics, thus losing some of the advantages and spirit of internationalisation.

‘With the introduction of the IC we were afraid that individual initiative would be lost. However, we have not experienced the disadvantages as much as we thought. Instead, the new structures with the International Offi ce make it a lot easier to set up and maintain relationships. We see another trend. Those who started with internationalisation are from the older generation. We see that the younger staffs are not interested in exchanges, because they take up a lot of time. They are rewarded for publications and doing research, not for exchanging students or even visiting themselves. We have now made it part of the promotion criteria to counterbalance this development’.

Many institutions have also given to academics ‘formal’ positions (i.e. membership of the Socrates committee and the promotion of Erasmus within the faculty). Table 4-6 shows that these formally appointed academics have a strong infl uence on internationalisation. However, the infl uence of the academics informally in charge is much weaker.

In your view, how much leadership do the following groups of actors show in the process of developing and implementing policies related to internationalisation?

Veryweak Weak Some Strong

Very strong Mean

International offi ce 3.1 1.6 8.4 29.0 57.9 4.3

Rector/ President/ Vice-chancellor 3.7 5.2 15.9 34.5 40.9 4.0

Pro-Rector/ Vice-President/ Pro-Vice-Chancellor appointed forinternational/ European activities

12.8 5.5 14.6 28.0 39.0 3.7

Academics formally in charge of European/ international activities 3.7 4.7 24.9 35.8 30.8 3.8

Pro-Rector/ Vice-President/ Pro-Vice-Chancellor in charge ofa wider range of functions

10.7 11.0 32.6 29.6 16.2 3.3

Heads of school/institutes/ departments 1.9 8.7 42.4 32.7 14.3 3.4

Deans of faculties 9.5 9.8 35.1 32.6 13.1 3.3

Academics informally in charge (i.e. not appointed/ elected) 10.6 15.0 41.7 23.7 9.0 3.0

Table 4-6 Management involvement

55

4.2.6 Involvement of external players

The infl uence of external actors on internationalisation of the institution is generally perceived to be non-exist-ent or very low (Table 4-7). During the site visits, some institutions mentioned close co-operation with local en-terprises in providing internships for foreign students. In one notable example, the city is a cultural capital of Europe, and local enterprises are looking for students who speak foreign languages. The institution was ac-tively promoting and supporting this co-operation. Still, the low level of infl uence of external players on the top-ic of internationalisation shows that institutions operate rather autonomously in relation to the external environ-ment.

How much are the following actors involved in formulat-ing the policies regarding internationalisation of your own institution?

Noinvolve-

ment

Someinvolve-

ment

Moderateinvolve-

ment

Very stronginvolve-

ment

NA/Don’t know

Employers 33.4 27.1 26.8 7.9 4.7

Institutions from home country that co-operate with our institution (excluding merger candidates)

27.4 30.0 24.9 7.3 10.4

Local government 41.3 29.7 19.9 5.4 3.8

Professional organisations 36.3 33.4 19.2 4.4 6.6

Trade unions 69.7 14.5 6.3 1.6 7.9

Table 4-7 Involvement of external players in formulating policies

4.3 Evolution of internationalisation and the European Policy Statement

In order to let the recipients refl ect on the evolution of internationalisation within their institutions, they were asked to rate their institution on two dimensions: the importance of internationalisation to the mission of the institution (either central/ priority or marginal importance) and the way policies are implemented (either system-atic or ad hoc). Table 4-8 shows that, on average, the institutions agree that there has been a positive develop-ment towards more systematic implementation and increased importance of internationalisation policies. How-ever, on average, the scores (59% and 55%) are somewhat in the middle, meaning that improvement is still possible.

Please indicate whether Europeanization and internationalisa-tion within your institution today is similar to or different from the situation 5 years ago.

Mean (Scale: 0 to 100)

StandardDeviation

LowerQuartile

UpperQuartile

How were internationalisation policies viewed 5 years ago? (Range: ‘0=Marginal’ to ‘100=Central/ Priority’)

35.0 29.89 9 59

How are these internationalisation policies viewed now? 59.1 34.36 39 88

In which way were these policies implemented 5 years ago? (Range: ‘0=Ad hoc’ to ‘100=Systematic’)

32.5 28.50 9 50

How are these policies implemented now? 55.8 33.64 38 80

Table 4-8 Evolution of internationalisation in the past 5 years a ‘0’ meaning marginal or ad hoc and a ‘100’ meaning central

or systematic

In line with de Wit (2002) four types of strategies relating to internationalisation policies can be distinguished, if we combine both dimensions:a) Central-Systematic Strategy. There is a large volume of international work in many categories which

reinforce each other and have coherence. The international mission is explicit and followed through with specifi c policies and supporting procedures.

b) Ad hoc-Central Strategy. High level of activity may take place but is not based on clear concepts and has an ad hoc character.

56

c) Systematic-Marginal Strategy which implies that the activities are limited but well organised and based on clear decisions.

d) Ad Hoc-Marginal Strategy, where little activity takes place and is not based on clear decisions.

Based on Table 4-8 and the scores of each institution, one could argue that many institutions have made a move from d) to a), improving on both dimensions.

‘Internationalisation always means movement, development, integration of new ideas and the creation of new co-operation options. People, especially young people, change, ways of life change, the spirit of the time changes. As an institution which is responsible for the education of young people, to make them fi t for future markets we are obliged to take note of and integrate the signs of the time’.

Figure 4-1 How would you describe the process of formulating the EPS

for the second generation (i.e. EPS handed in during 1999-2001)?

By comparing the fi rst generation with the second generation, we conclude that there are not that many differ-ences between these documents. The majority stated that they reviewed fi rst-generation EPS thoroughly be-fore making any changes. Also, one out of fi ve institutions says that they made only minor changes (Figure 4-1). As indicated by the following quote, some almost ‘apologise’ for not reviewing or changing the EPS on a regular basis.

‘When Socrates came, the fi rst Dean of international relations was appointed. In that position I wrote the fi rst two EPSs. As a big decentralised university, these EPSs were a statement of what is actually going on in the University. In that sense, the EPSs led to a ‘voyage of discovery’. The fi rst two EPSs were a state-ment of what we did, instead of a statement of what we intended. Individual academic initiatives were a guide in setting up the fi rst EPSs.’

‘We have a positive attitude towards student mobility in Europe and nothing we wrote was wrong or mis-leading. However, to be frank, we wrote the documents to get approval, not as a management tool. I did not write the most recent document but I know that it was based on the original that I had written some years ago’.

The EPS is discussed and reviewed annually by most of the institutions, but revisions are made every three years (55%), since it is a requirement to do so (Table 4-9).

57

Once the EPS is established, how often is this document: Annually Every 3 years Never

Reviewed 55.4 37.4 7.2

Discussed 65.1 26.3 8.6

Revised 33.5 55.0 11.5

Table 4-9 Frequency of review, discussion and revision regarding EPSs

4.3.1 What types of changes were made to the EPSs of the second generation?

Whereas approximately 10% of respondents indicated that no changes were made to the EPSs at all (or else minor, ‘cosmetic’ changes), other institutions give various examples of changes made. The changes mentioned most often related to:• Mobility of staff and students• Participation in international projects• New international strategies• Greater focus on internationalisation at home• The Bologna process • Changing the curriculum to a competence-based curriculum• Bachelor-Master structure• Opportunities as a result of accession to the Union.

Also, many institutions say they have created more specifi c goals and priorities.

‘The EPS was simplifi ed and more specifi c aims and goals were determined. The fi rst edition was a general text without clear goals.’

It was ‘less descriptive and had a more strategic approach’.

Some also indicated a more selective and focussed approach to partnerships, in combination with a decision to concentrate intensive programmes and curriculum development on these partners. Also, a change in target groups is mentioned: target groups were not only incoming students and academic staff, but also outgoing students and faculty. As one institution indicated during the site visits, the focus was no longer on increasing the mobility numbers but much more on an increase of quality. This implies that those responsible for deliver-ing services to incoming or outgoing students should be supported as well.

The majority of responses to this question were rather vague and general. Some institutions, however, stated very clearly what specifi c changes were made, thus showing a clear awareness and involvement in the process of formulating an EPS. A signifi cant number of institutions positioned the changes in the EPS in a broader per-spective, taking into account the strategy of the institution.

58

In the second generation of EPSs we focus more on:

• Internationalisation at home, including student mobility and exchanges of student groups;• Staff mobility;• Co-operation with new partners in Central and Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Scandinavia.• Less focus on individual student mobility• Enlargement of the geographic area covered by co-operation;• Inclusion of more scientifi c fi elds in co-operation activities

‘The EPSs of the second generation took into account the development of the University which took place in the meantime. The University’s international policy focused on implementation of the ECTS and on es-tablishing new directions of development. The number of co-operating institutions increased, including new Scandinavian and South European partners. Student and staff mobility was enhanced. Structures dealing with EPS implementation were established (European Centre)’

‘The University has undergone a major shift in its international priorities and strategy and this was refl ected in the revised EPS.’

In summary, a wide variety of changes was made to the EPSs. These changes were often in line with the wider policy context (both of the university and the broader environment: e.g. Bologna) and there was a tendency towards simplifi cation and a more focussed approach.

4.3.2 Why were these changes made?

Institutions gave various reasons for changing the EPS. This varied from a very reactive attitude (‘we did it to ensure the College received the new institutional recognition’) to a more pro-active approach (‘the internation-alisation process has shifted into a higher gear and the changes are a logical consequence of a strategy aimed at internationalisation of our institution’).

Reasons mentioned most often were:• Further European integration• Increases in the number of students• The Bologna agreement and the Lisbon process led this university to change strategies, with greater

attention directed towards both Europe and countries outside Europe.• Trends in the market/ outside world• More activities developed• The nature of activities has changed• Mergers

59

Other reasons for changing the EPSs are shown in Box 4 1.

Internal developments • The position of the University in the programme has changed (from a beginner to regular participant).• Because our university is very young and developing fast.• Following the 2000 merger, new fi elds of education and research were initiated and new priorities

therefore had to be formulated• The student body became more international due to the growing number of exchange students. They

needed precise information on the content and assessment requirements of the courses.

Bottom-up requests• Due to requests from staff and students• To promote a growing internationalisation of the institution and a diversity of opportunities for the

participants• In order to encourage incoming students and integration of guest students in Greece.

Internationalisation at home• To improve quality within the school• If we start the international process at home, we may increase an interest in studies abroad.• Only 25 % go abroad, 80% need to become international as well. We have 10% non-Finnish degree

students; we want to integrate them as well.• To bring the strategy into line with European processes and to serve as a more realistic tool for guiding

internationalisation of the university.

Structural reasons/ internal organisation• International activities were too centralised in the International Relations Offi ce; need to involve faculty

in order to deepen internationalisation strategies at institutional level.• Mainly because of the new possibilities opened up by the merger.• Changes in structure of the institution (new faculties, new educational programmes), changes in

numbers of students and staff.• Applications from research groups to 5FP, creation of FP support unit.

External forces• The obligations in the agreements with the different foreign institutions required it.• Recommendation of the ministries and industrial partners.• In connection with Estonia’s integration into the European structures, it is essential to unify the

education systems and adapt the curricula to the European institutions. • Following national agency and EU instructions.• Because of the impact of the Bologna Declaration.

Financial• To set a limit on student exchange imbalances and put the EU programmes in their broader

international context.• As a result of the need for increased income, the University looked fi rst at its recruitment policies for

international students and then looked at an overall strategy for all overseas students.

Box 4-1 Quotes on reasons for changing the EPS

60

4.3.3 Importance of the EPS

Table 4-10 shows that the EPS and internationalisation are closely linked to each other. The vast majority (75%) does not agree with the statement that the EPS and internationalisation are two separate developments, whereas an equal proportion agrees that the EPS and internationalisation affect each other. The direction in which this relationship is established is not clear from the fi gures, and the institutions differ in this respect.

To understand how they perceive the EPS, one can distinguish some archetypes of institutions,1. Institutions that have established partnerships all over the world for many years. For them Europeanisation

is a natural part of internationalisation.2. Institutions that have a limited number of partnerships and want to stimulate their development. They use

the policy statement to facilitate discussion within the institution.3. Institutions that need to write an EPS for external reasons (mergers, entry into the EU, participation in

ERASMUS for the fi rst time etc.). They may use it to stimulate discussion at multiple levels and come to an agreement on structural issues as well (position of faculties, international offi ces etc.).

Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:

Stronglydisagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Stronglyagree

Don’t now/No opinion

The EPS is an integrated part of our policy for internationalisation

0.8 3.5 12.4 48.1 34.9 0.4

The EPS is an institution-wide policy to be implemented in all faculties

3.8 5.0 15.6 42.0 29.8 3.8

EPS and internationalisation policy affect each other

1.9 3.9 10.9 54.7 27.1 1.6

The EPS is our main policy for internation-alisation

3.9 14.3 27.9 34.5 19.4 0.0

EPS and internationalisation are two sepa-rate developments

23.6 51.2 10.5 9.3 5.4 0.0

The EPS refl ects faculty or department-level policies with no link to institutional-level decision-making

28.3 45.7 13.2 6.6 1.6 4.7

Table 4-10 Position of the EPS within the policy process

In many institutions which have an institution-wide policy on internationalisation, interviewees say that the EPS is based on or aligned with this policy. However, many institutions did not have an internationalisation or Euro-peanisation policy in the past. The growing number of mobility students and the fact that this population in-cludes students from outside Europe (who often pay a full or even higher fee), has led these institutions to for-mulate an internationalisation policy. For some institutions, international students have become much more benefi cial in fi nancial terms, which has shifted the focus to internationalisation. Writing a separate EPS is for them a burden instead of proving to be an added value.

61

‘The EPS has proved useful in exerting pressure for a proper international strategy, but it is not the core of that strategy. As in the case of many UK institutions, the international focus is beyond Europe. It has been valuable in relation to the EU programmes it is designed to help us manage, but its infl uence has been lim-ited in terms of institutional impact. The drivers for change here have been QA and teaching and learning innovation linked to the competitive environment in which the university operates’.

‘The EPS makes it possible to evaluate European functions and implement possible changes and take new restrictions into account in our implementation of the ERASMUS programme and internationalisation. The EPS does not have such a direct infl uence on internationalisation, whereas the University’s International Strategy 2010 and national internationalisation strategies do’.

‘European Policy is much too narrow and some actions are far too complex (like CD). The better academics won’t spend time on these; they get their money more easily elsewhere. It is foolish to state that the EPS is driving internationalisation now; it is much broader that just the EU’.

Box 4-2 Quotes on the EPS

4.3.4 Communication concerning the EPS

In most cases, institutions have established special committees and meetings, with a strong representation of faculties and academic staff. The International Offi ce is the main driving force for the process.

‘The fi rst proposal was prepared by the International Offi ce staff and Vice-rector of science and interna-tional co-operation. Then it was discussed by the Senate Science Committee and then after some sugges-tions were inserted, the document was sent to all Senate members and accepted by them’.

‘A bottom-up approach was used, with the International Offi ce as a driving force for the process: the IRO drafted the EPS, on the basis of an internal discussion; it was then reviewed by a committee with repre-sentatives of all faculties and fi nally approved by the management’.

‘The success of the EPS lies in writing it in a bottom-up process. The EPSs were composed of building blocks delivered by the faculties and departments. The fi rst EPS was constructed in a very interactive way; and multiple-round topics were discussed with university staff from all different departments. The second EPS was merely an evaluation of the fi rst. The same people upgraded the old EPS and there was not much discussion about it. At the moment, the third EPS is being written. Because many new staff members are involved there is again much discussion about the various topics. It is clear that different university policy actors have different views regarding internationalisation, which should be melded together in the third EPS’.

Other institutions have a specially appointed committee for internationalisation, with a broad range of repre-sentatives from each School/Faculty, International Relations Offi ce, Students’ Union, Academic Services and Social Services. In many institutions, the academic staff is the leader. Some institutions use a more technical and operational approach.

‘The Scientifi c Committee discussed and forwarded the changes made to the EPS to the teaching staff and they communicated it to the students.’

‘Communication took place with the faculty Dean and examination committee (concerning the ECTS) and fi nance department (budgets for internationalisation).’

62

Not all institutions have well-established procedures. They indicated that changes are made and communi-cated on an ad-hoc basis or not communicated not. Others communicate the policy through several communi-cation channels. Box 4 3 shows some of the (creative) examples that institutions have adopted.

• Every year, during the annual “academic year inauguration” the Rector presents the main information about our policy.

• Through the institution’s regular communication media: letter, publications and web site.• Sent by e-mail to all staff.• Information material presented by the Offi ce for International Relations on the occasion of various

general meetings of department and faculty and at university level.• On the IRO homepage, reports by the Recto rate to the Senate, by mailings to the Deans, Heads of

departments and departmental co-ordinators.• The faculties have received their own copies of the EPS.• Those changes were discussed during special meetings. We divided responsibility among all departments.• We scheduled department meetings, and the faculty team discussed new objectives and the way in

which these may be implemented.• Through the Socrates Delegates’ assembly

Box 4 3 Examples of communication channels used for communicating the EPS.

4.3.5 How is the EPS used as part of the presentation of your institution?

More evidence of the importance of an EPS can be gathered if we look at the way institutions present their pol-icy to the outside world. Some institutions do not seem to have given the EPS a specifi c place in their market-ing; it is there for those who are interested. ‘The EPS is a basic guideline for internationalisation which can be read at any time by the staff, students and guests’.

Many institutions use the EPS in a proactive and conscious manner. They use (part of) the texts or a summary in all kinds of external communication (web sites, leafl ets, ECTS guides etc). One institution even mentioned that the EPS is used as part of the academic authority selection programme, thus ensuring that any new leader has a positive attitude to internationalisation.

General marketing• It is available on the Socrates web site for other institutions to read.• In institutional brochures, fi lms, web site and meetings.• The EPS is used in all publications disseminated among our partners (University guides). It is presented

at meetings, educational fairs and monitoring visits to our partners.Presentations• The EPS is very often used as a very important basis of the presentations which our institution makes to

the several education actors and our different partners• Today, selected elements of the EPS are mentioned in our general presentation.• The presentation includes a special chapter entitled “International Relations” in which are presented the

existing partners and the co-operation activities carried out and also ways of developing international co-operation in the future.

Annex to other policies• The EPS is an annex to the overall policy on internationalisation. When benchmarking takes place, both

are used as a reference.• The content of the EPS is headlined in our “Leitbild” (model).• The EPS is taken as a basic part for the institution’s Development Plan for 2002/2007.• It is now being gradually replaced by the European University Charter for external contacts

Box 4 4 EPS used as part of the general presentation

63

According to Table 4-11 the requirement as to submission of an EPS has prompted a number of initiatives and decisions. Based on the results, it is diffi cult to say what kinds of initiatives and decisions are infl uenced most by the requirement to write an EPS. The ECTS is a popular theme and the majority agrees that it is helpful in determining the use of resources provided by the Erasmus programme. The initiative on the development of joint and/or international curricula is less dependent on the EPS: a fi nding that is underlined by many com-ments made by interviewees. The academic staff is leading in establishing relationships; neither the EPS nor the central co-ordinating body should or will change this process.

‘The EPS itself was mainly an instrument in which the numerous already existing initiatives were taken to-gether in one policy framework. “It was a summary of existing actions”. The vision coming from the EPS was surely inspiring, but it was also important to engage in hands-on activities. “The EPS worked”, one respondent said, “and with a proper realignment to the changing educational and international environment it will work again’.

How important is the requirement of submitting an EPS for the following initiatives/decisions?

Notimportant

Limited impor-tance Neutral Important

Veryimportant Mean

Taking the initiative for the implementation of ECTS 6.3 6.6 14.1 53.5 19.5 3.7

Determination of the use of resources provided by the ERASMUS programme

5.5 10.2 12.9 48.4 23.0 3.7

Monitoring the processes and results of ERASMUS-related activities

2.7 8.6 17.6 50.8 20.3 3.7

Key decisions regarding the support to be provided by the international offi ce

5.5 9.0 18.4 50.8 16.4 3.6

Preparing the academic agenda for co-operation and exchange

6.6 17.6 16.8 46.9 12.1 3.4

Taking the initiative for establishing or discontinuing partnerships

5.5 14.5 17.2 52.7 10.2 3.4

Taking the initiative for the development of joint and/or international curricula

6.6 15.6 25.0 41.4 11.3 3.3

Key decisions regarding the provision of resources/funds for international activities

11.7 15.6 22.3 38.7 11.7 3.2

Defi nition of public relations concerning the interna-tional activities of the institution

7.8 14.8 27.7 40.6 9.0 3.2

Table 4-11 Importance of requirement for other initiatives

On average, 15%-20% of the institutions state that the requirement as to submission of an EPS is not impor-tant or of limited importance for decisions and initiatives. For these institutions, the EPS may be of limited val-ue, as several interviewees indicated. The majority views the EPS as an important document for the initiatives and decisions mentioned in Table 4-11, given the fi gures of 50% or more that indicates ‘Important’ or ‘Very im-portant’.

64

Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:

Com-pletely

disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Com-pletely agree Mean

The prioritisation of activities has changed over the years 2.4 16.1 22.0 55.7 3.9 3.4

Formulating an EPS played an important role in es-tablishing these priorities

3.1 12.5 30.6 42.7 11.0 3.4

Sustainable processes of strategic refl ection and decision-making have been implemented due to the EPS

3.5 18.0 30.6 42.4 5.5 3.2

There has been a need to limit the number and type of activities in the EPS

9.0 32.9 31.8 23.5 2.7 2.7

The EPS has supported other European activities of higher education institutions

2.0 12.9 42.7 36.1 6.3 3.3

Table 4-12 Added value of the EPS

4.4 Impact on education

Almost every objective of Europeanisation and internationalisation has apparently become more important in the last fi ve years (Table 4-13). Exceptions are the development of joint curricula and participation in thematic networks, where a smaller percentage states that it has become more important (60% and 43%). To some ex-tent, this refl ects the experience of many institutions that it has proved to be diffi cult to meet the objectives in these areas.

Indicate whether the following objectives of Europeanisation and interna-tionalisation at your institution have become more or less important in the last 5 years.

Less im-portant

No change

More im-portant

Not ap-plicable

Europeanisation/internationalisation of curricula 0.4 13.5 84.7 1.4

Number of incoming students 2.8 13.5 83.6 0.0

Improvement of the quality of teaching/learning for mobile students 0.4 14.6 83.3 1.8

Improvement of recognition 1.4 15.8 80.3 2.5

Number of outgoing students 3.2 16.7 80.1 0.0

Quality assurance 1.1 21.0 75.4 2.5

Number of outgoing teaching staff 2.1 24.6 72.6 0.7

Improvement of the quality of teaching/learning for non-mobile students 1.1 26.7 69.8 2.5

Number of incoming teaching staff 2.8 29.5 65.8 1.8

Development of joint curricula 1.1 34.5 60.1 4.3

Participation in thematic networks 5.7 34.5 43.1 16.7

Table 4-13 Importance of objectives over the past 5 years

4.4.1 Impact on education - Teaching and studying

As Table 4-14 shows, the importance of the EPS for developments within the institutions varies signifi cantly. Most institutions agree (67%) that it helped to increase European awareness and co-operation. Also, half of theS institutions (53%) stated that it led to the creation/reinforcement of administrative services for interna-tional relations.

65

The requirement of submitting an EPS/formulating an institutional policy has: Disagree

Partly agree Agree

Strongly agree Mean

increased European awareness and co-operation 7.1 25.7 50.4 16.8 2.7

led to the creation/reinforcement of administrative services for inter-national relations

17.5 28.2 38.9 15.4 2.5

contributed to innovating teaching methods in the institution 26.8 36.1 29.3 7.9 2.2

stimulated students to study abroad 20.7 32.1 32.1 15.0 2.4

improved personnel and student satisfaction 22.1 38.2 28.2 11.4 2.3

helped to start the institution’s co-operation with other parts of the world

22.5 29.3 37.9 10.4 2.3

contributed to better-quality teaching and learning at the institution 25.7 38.9 28.6 6.8 2.1

led to an improvement of students’ overall achievements 31.8 34.6 27.5 6.1 2.1

led to stronger co-operation with the region, industry and other ex-ternal parties

39.6 40.7 16.4 3.2 1.8

Table 4-14 EPSs and the impact on education

4.4.2 Impact on education - Groups

The involvement of several groups in various activities has not changed notably as a result of the EPS (Table 4-15).

To what extent has the involvement of the fol-lowing groups changed as a result of the EPS?

Signifi cant decrease Decrease No change Increase

Signifi cant increase Mean

Involvement of the student body in the deci-sion-making process on internationalisation 0.7 0.4 74.6 22.9 1.4 3.2

Involvement of staff in teaching 1.1 0.0 47.5 48.2 3.2 3.5

Involvement of staff in research 0.7 0.4 64.6 30.7 3.6 3.3

Involvement of foreign academics in the design of programmes

0.7 0.0 62.5 33.9 2.9 3.3

Involvement of foreign academics in the deliv-ery of programmes

0.7 0.7 55.7 40.4 2.5 3.4

Table 4-15 Involvement of groups

4.4.3 Impact on education - Non-mobile students

The impact of mobility activities and curriculum measures on non-mobile students is limited (Table 4-16). The main impact seems to be an exposure to other cultures through social activities.

‘Given the strengths and the weaknesses of our social and economic background, the Erasmus programme has proved to be an excellent opportunity for our students to raise their level of aspiration and to struggle for scholarly excellence. Competing to be selected as outgoing students has defi nitely changed their perspec-tive and made them more eager and open to new challenges.’

To what extent have mobility activities and curriculum measures had an impact on non-mobile students?

Noimpact

Someimpact

Moderateimpact

Substantialimpact

Very greatimpact Mean

Involvement in international classroom/ curriculum 15.0 29.6 30.7 18.2 6.4 2.7

International campus 26.8 27.9 20.0 19.3 6.1 2.5

Being exposed to other cultures through social activities 5.4 26.1 28.6 26.8 13.2 3.1

Table 4-16 Impact on non-mobile students

66

4.5 Impact on management

The impact of the EPS on management is somewhat greater than the impact on education and involvement of several groups (Table 4-17).

Did the introduction of EPSs introduce any changes into: Not at all Limited Neutral

Signifi cantchanges

Manychanges Mean

Management practices regarding internationalisation 9.7 26.5 22.2 35.5 6.1 3.0

Decision-making regarding internationalisation 9.3 20.8 22.2 41.9 5.7 3.1

Administrative support regarding internationalisation 13.6 17.2 27.2 36.2 5.7 3.0

Services at the central institution level 14.0 15.1 31.2 33.0 6.8 3.0

Support for internationalisation at department level 12.2 20.8 32.6 31.2 3.2 2.9

Table 4-17 Impact on management

The changes in the management of the institution, due to the requirement as to submission of an EPS/ Institu-tional Contract, vary considerably, from ‘no changes at all’ to entirely different organisational structures. One of the recurring reactions is that institutions have improved the position of the International offi ce. The Interna-tional Offi ce has been enlarged or strengthened. Also, integration of the European Offi ce into the International Offi ce was often mentioned.

A number of respondents, however, have said that this development would have taken place anyway as the infl uence of the EPS itself is limited (Box 4 5).

Limited changes/ impact of the EPS• No changes have unfortunately been made in our international offi ce management due to several,

mostly economic, reasons. However even so, in co-operation with individual faculties/school management the offi ce has been able to cope with the required assignments.

• Partly the creation of a SOCRATES Programme Central Offi ce: However a purely administrative contraption such as an EPS/Institutional Contract has had no direct impact on attitudes or practices among managers, staff or students.

• Nothing really. The EPS was never communicated within the institution. Now that we have a “real” inter-nationalisation policy (which is much more extensive than the EPS), changes have clearly occurred, but the EPS itself used to be seen as just something to write to be able to participate in the student grants.

• We were involved in international work before the requirement of submitting an EPS/institutional Contract. In my opinion therefore, this has not brought about any serious changes in the way in which international affairs are handled in this institution. I see the EPS mostly as “bureaucratic lyrics” and not as a guide to institutional international work, as it was meant to be.

• The requirement to submit an institutional contract has caused management changes more than the requirement of an EPS as such. With the IC, the need to have increased communication and exchange of information between different levels of administration has become more and more apparent.

Box 4-5 Limited infl uence of EPSs

Several institutions mentioned a change in structures and improvement of procedures, which was often related to the position of the International Offi ce. For some, the EPS/Institutional Contract was an avenue for the Inter-national Offi ce and those involved in international affairs to formalise various aspects of the international work. Others stated that the growth of activities within EU programmes (including the elaboration of the EPS/IC), made an international offi ce at the central level necessary. This central level offi ce (with administrative and co-ordination functions) is often accompanied by the creation of a network of academics (in each department) with scientifi c responsibilities.

67

These changes have conferred an “institutional” weight on international co-operation and contributed to the wider acceptance and enthusiasm relating to these activities. The inclusion of representatives of all depart-ments and the International Offi ce guarantees a good balance between top-down activities (e.g. information) and bottom-up initiatives (e.g. examples of good practice).

Another important change often mentioned was the creation of new positions within management of the insti-tution, or a changing role for the existing management:

‘The Rector’s team aims to establish solid and long-term international contacts and partnerships, which is the particular priority of the Vice-Rector of Research and International Relations. This is further emphasised by the establishment of an International Offi ce to handle practical administrative matters relating to place-ments of incoming and outgoing students and teachers; it employs three full-time staff, with one member operating particularly Socrates programmes and activities. The Vice-Rector of Research and International Relations is directly involved in the decision-making process and in the management of these activities.’

‘The most important change was that the Director had to change to a team player, while communication within the lecturer team and with the Director was stimulated and the curricula were revised and became more transparent. All in all, the internal changes were most rewarding and, based on these, we are now reorganising the study programme every third year.’

Even if no changes in the management structures due to the EPS have been made, recipients mentioned a number of benefi ts. A benefi t often mentioned is an increased awareness of the importance of international activities and the infl uence of international relations on the development of the whole institution. Also, the EPS seems to have contributed to a more conscious planning exercise (see Box 4 6 for some examples).

Increased awareness• The management is much more interested in international co-operation after the initial success of the

Erasmus project.• The Heads of Schools and Departments had to discuss the EPS as the institutional structure requires

that the Corporate Management Team approve all policy statements. This has certainly raised awareness, with a small number of teams being encouraged to engage more with European activities.

• I believe that the EPS requirement forces us to evaluate and develop our European programmes. We are constantly striving to do this anyway, but submitting the EPS makes this clear and contributes to making our internationalisation policies more visible.

• More awareness of the European dimension has led to a more defi ned committee-reporting structure and greater resource being invested in European administrative support.

More conscious planning• Prompted strategic refl ection among affected staff of the role of European interests in overall

internationalisation planning and clarifi ed the need for a strategic commitment to more Europe-focussed operations.

• The International Relations and Project Offi ce has started to implement a more conscious co-ordinating activity in building an up-to-date database of international activities that are carried out at departmental and faculty level. In addition, a more open dialogue is carried out with all the decision-making bodies of the university with a view to a continuous feedback relating to the future priorities of the institution.

• The elaboration of the EPS necessitates a thorough medium- and long-term planning of the teaching and research activities of the university.

Box 4-6 Benefi ts of the requirement to submit an EPS

68

4.5.1 Specifi c tasks of the International Offi ce

As the International Offi ce plays an important role in the process of internationalisation, it is interesting to see what its tasks and responsibilities are and how they have changed. From the responses gathered from the sur-vey, one can see a wide variety of ambitions. The ‘basic’ International Offi ce has the responsibility of adminis-tering EU programmes, of arranging the logistics relating to student mobility, of maintaining contact with other educational institutions in Europe and in other parts of world and of actively supporting new co-operation ac-tivities.

Additional activities are, for example, following all kinds of possibilities as regards carrying out research abroad, co-operating with regional bodies as regards those points of regional strategy concerning internation-alisation and Europeanisation.

More ‘advanced’ ambitions can be found in some institutions as well (Box 4 7).

• Ensuring a proper knowledge of foreign languages among academic staff by creating a support system for the staff (e.g. providing language courses) and introducing periodical evaluation of language skills;

• Creating an ‘education and research action plan’ which contains aims and methods of realisation of the research activities undertaken as well as implementing the results of research into study programmes - it makes it possible to plan needed resources and to obtain the support of national or international corporations for the implementation of particular research programmes;

• Securing student participation in the implementation of projects from beginning to end; • Preparing students for proper use of the SOCRATES programme since the beginning of their studies

(creating a path for student development that will allow most students to join the programme any time during the studies);

• Obtaining additional funds (to fi nance measures under the ‘education and research action plan’) to create a scholarship fund for students and academic staff willing to participate in the SOCRATES programme;

• Creating a system of academic staff evaluation which requires participation in educational (and/or research and development) projects implemented under the SOCRATES programme;

• Encouraging students to work on international cultural, sport and scientifi c events.

Box 4-7 Roles and responsibilities of International Offi ces

4.5.2 Quality assurance

A number of institutions mentioned the importance of quality assurance within their institution. Table 4-18 shows the number of institutions that (intend to) use certain quality assurance measures. Most of the institutions assess the quality of facilities and arrangements for incoming students, as well as student perceptions and co-opera-tion arrangements. Also, a majority states that no specifi c quality measures were in place 5 years ago.

5 years ago Currently Within a year

Assessment of facilities and arrangements for incoming students

Student evaluation forms 78 192 51

Assessment of co-operation arrangements with partner institutions 53 175 76

Quality review of internationalisation in general 20 159 87

Policy evaluation 37 140 99

No specifi c quality assurance measures for European co-operation activities 120 97 35

Table 4-18 Number of institutions that (intend to) use quality assurance measures.

69

5 Institutional impact: conclusions5.1 Introduction

This Chapter contains conclusions based on a detailed analysis of EPS documents (presented in Chapter 3), interviews, the survey and the literature relating to the fi rst generation of EPSs. The conclusions are structured around the main evaluation questions outlined in the invitation to tender.

5.2 Changes in content and formulation of EPSs

Question Conclusions References

1. How have EPSs of higher education institutions changed as compared to the fi rst generation of EPSs?

• Emphasis on stability and continuity.

• Top5 major goals have not changed

• Trend towards formulating fewer but more realisticobjectives

Table 3-3 p.49

Table 3-1 p.45

Table 3-4 p.51

Table 4-12 p.78

2. What changes have taken place in the process of establishing EPSs?

• Not much changes in the process

• International policy has become predominant;the EPS is derived from it

• Variation between institutions on how theyformulate EPSs

Figure 4-1 p. 70

Table 4-6 p. 67

Table 4-10 p. 74

5.2.1 How have the EPSs of higher education institutions changed as compared with the fi rst generation of EPSs?

Table 3-3 on page 49 shows that only a minority of institutions puts an emphasis on change and new goals and activities in the framework of their SOCRATES applications and related European Policy Statements. The ma-jority of institutions surveyed and interviewed indicated that they want to sustain the Erasmus programme as much a possible. Minor changes are allowed, as long as the mobility of students is maintained.

Also, if we look in somewhat more detail at the content of goals in the EPSs in comparison with the fi rst gen-eration (Table 3-1 Major European goals stated in 1st and 2nd generation (in %, multiple response possible), not many changes in emphasis can be seen. The top 5 of major goals has not changed.

A trend, which is to some extent shown by the fact that ‘Europeanisation/ internationalisation in general’ is mentioned less often than in the fi rst generation of EPSs, is that institutions try to formulate policies that are more realistic and specifi c. Institutions which in the past mentioned a wide variety of goals relating to teaching and studying now seem to limit these to the core goals (see Table 3-4 Types of teaching- and learning-related goals stated – 1st and 2nd generation (in % of institutions stating such goals, multiple responses possible)). On the other hand, many institutions disagree with the statement that there has been a need to limit the number and type of activities indicated in the EPSs. They agree that the prioritisation has changed.

One has to take into account the way many institutions deal with the EPS document. The majority states that they reviewed the fi rst-generation EPSs thoroughly before making any changes. Also, one out of fi ve institutions says that they made only minor changes (Figure 4-1). Many institutions changed the EPS because they had to, or they used the EPS as part of international policy (Table 4-10 Position of the EPS within the policy process). The inter-national policy is often predominant and the EPS was updated for the specifi c requirement to enter the IC.

70

The institutions which indicated major changes often related these to external developments like the Bologna process or mergers with other institutions. Revisions were made primarily once every three years. The general conclusion is that most institutions that submitted EPSs before made only minor changes in their European policy documents. New entrants may or may not use the EPS as an important document to facilitate discus-sions concerning internationalisation.

5.2.2 What changes have taken place in the process of establishing EPSs?

After an initial ‘revolution’ in the process, institutions which established internationalisation procedures are con-solidating the process. Overall, the role of the International Offi ce seems to have been strengthened (see also Box 4-6 Benefi ts of the requirement to submit an EPS, page 83), although this process clearly started during the fi rst generation of EPSs. Often the International Offi ce leads in writing the fi rst draft. However, they clearly underline the importance of decentralised initiatives, for example by academic staff (Table 4-6 Management involvement). Therefore, special co-ordinating mechanisms are implemented to ensure communication with academic staff.

EPSs are discussed on an annual basis and revised every three years by most institutions (see Table 4-9 Fre-quency of review, discussion and revision regarding EPS).

71

5.2.3 To what extent has Europeanisation/ internationalisation become an integrated part in policy developmentand implementation?

Question Conclusion Reference

3a. Have institutions defi ned major targets and priorities as far as their European and international activities are concerned?

• Vast majority has stated major targets and priorities; more than half of these are rated as clear and tar-geted goals

• Minority of 15% has not stated clear goals

• Goals related to teaching & studying are most clear

• Importance of internationalisation policies has grown

Table 3-1

Table 3-2

Table 3-4

Table 4-8

3b. What type of strategic reasoning can be seen from the EPSs?

• Based on the EPSs there is limited evidence for answering this question:

• Half of the EPSs contain goals that are closely linked, which give a certain indication of strategic reasoning

• Minority of institutions shows clear prioritisation of goals, which could indicate a lack of strategic rea-soning

• Involvement/ leadership of Rector/ Pro-Rector is rated (very) strong, which supports the idea that institutions deal with internationalisation at a strate-gic level

• 83% view the EPS as an integrated part of interna-tionalisation policy

Figure 3-2

Figure 3-3

Table 4-10

3c. Have there been any changes in the specifi c goals attained?

• The EPSs in themselves do not contain clear refer-ences to former goals

• Majority focuses on continuity of goals

• Content of goals has not changed considerably

• Prioritisation of activities has changed and the EPS played an important role in establishing these priori-ties

Table 3-3

Box 4-1

Table 4-12 Paragraph 4.3.1

3d. Are there any links between general institutional objectives and the aims pur-sued with European co-operation indi-cated in the EPSs?

• Minority includes goals which are linked hierarchi-cally (with a link to the institutional objectives)

• In the process of formulating and formalising the EPSs, most institutions have built-in checks to as-sure a link with the institutional objectives. Depart-mental objectives are very important, which can limit the ‘power’ of the general institutional objec-tives.

Box 4-2

Figure 3-2

Many institutions nowadays have an international policy, of which a European policy is a part. Often these poli-cies are aligned, since the International offi ce co-ordinates both the efforts inside and outside of the EU. The embeddedness of the International Offi ce within the organisation – i.e. the management of these offi ces is of-ten directly responsible for internationalisation – shows that Europeanisation and internationalisation have be-come important in policy development and implementation. Furthermore, the strong perceived leadership of the Rector/ President/ Vice-Chancellor shows this importance as well (see also Table 4-6 Management involve-ment).

However, some remarks should be made here about integration of Europeanisation/ internationalisation into the policy-making process. Quite often, Europeanisation/ internationalisation is limited in scope (e.g. student mobility). The challenges of integrating entire programmes, staff exchanges or joint degrees still exist. These are much more diffi cult to meet and only a minority of institutions expects increases in these types of activities (see Table 4-15 Involvement of groups).

72

5.2.4 To what extent has the teaching and learning environment changed?

Question Conclusion Reference

4a. To what extent has a European dimension been incorporated?

• European policies (notably EU education and Bolo-gna Declaration) have a strong infl uence on institu-tional policies

• Changes mentioned most often are the Bachelor-Master structure.

• Internationalisation at home remains a challenge; only a minority of students actually goes abroad

Table 4-2

Box 4-1

4b. What changes have mobility activities, curricu-lum measures and networking activities (thematic networks) made to the learning and teaching envi-ronment?

• The vast majority states that it helped to increase European awareness and co-operation

• Most institutions feel that the impact on innovation of teaching methods is limited

• Some evidence shows that Erasmus has had a ma-jor infl uence on student aspirations/ motivations in the institutions that have to be selective about sending students abroad

• Internationalisation has become a ‘standard’ part of the institutions. However, the infl uence on learning and teaching is mediated by academic staff. Their involvement determines real changes in teaching and learning.

Table 4-14

Table 4-15

Table 4-16

4c. Do mobile students and teachers contribute to forging the teaching and learning environment of their home institutions?

• Main impact on non-mobile students is exposure to other cultures through social activities

• Only those institutions that have intensive contacts with partner institutions are making adjustments to the programmes. A bilateral agreement is not enough.

Table 4-16

Interviews

The teaching and learning environment is changing in many ways, although some of the core activities are sta-ble. Most institutions see the teaching of 18-24-year-oldstudents as the main activity (Table 4-5 Importance of activities for the institution). For this group, student mobility remains a stable component of the programme.

Many institutions experience problems with recognition which accompanies the exchange of students. On the basis of these experiences, institutions welcome a uniform ECTS system. The Bologna process is to a large extent infl uencing the current institutions (see Table 4-2 Infl uence of European policies). This means modulari-sation of curricula and implementation of the ECTS.

Only institutions which have intensive contacts with partner institutions are making adjustments to their pro-grammes. A bilateral agreement is not enough; it is necessary to establish personal contacts with one other to really make changes happen.

73

5.2.5 How has the involvement of people in teaching/research changed?

Question Conclusion Reference

5a. To what extent has the student body changed? • No quantitative data collected on student body• Some institutions indicate that it has become more

diffi cult to interest students and staff in the ex-change programmes.

• Student involvement in the decision-making proc-ess has not changed in 75% of the institutions

Table 4-15

Interviews

5b. Have changes in teaching/ research staff taken place in European/ international activities?

• Involvement of staff in teaching has not changed notably as a result of the EPS.

• Changes in European/international activities of re-search staff seem to be limited (Note: many institu-tions make a distinction between researchers and teaching staff. Researchers are not the focus of this study).

• Half of the institutions indicated no changes in in-volvement of teaching staff; the other half indicated an increase in involvement

Table 4-14

Table 4-15

5c. Are foreign academics involved in the design and/or delivery of programmes?

• Involvement of foreign academics in design and delivery of programmes has increased in one out of three institutions

Table 4-15

5d. What has been the impact of mobility activities and curriculum measures on non-mobile stu-dents?

• Main impact on non-mobile students is exposure to other cultures through social activities

Table 4-16

Overall, the management of the institutions recognises the importance of internationalisation. They are involved in various ways: either by approving policies or supporting an international offi ce with resources or by promot-ing the programmes through various communication channels.

External players play a minor role in the process (see Table 4-7 Involvement of external players in formulating policies), although some institutions which co-operate with local enterprises on work placements, mentioned the importance of these players as these tend to experience the impact of globalisation.

Some institutions indicated that it has become more diffi cult to interest students and staff in the exchange pro-grammes. Often this is for fi nancial reasons, although the mentality of the students and staff also plays a role.

Table 4-15 Involvement of groups shows that there has been no signifi cant change in the involvement of cer-tain groups in teaching/ research.

74

5.3 Changes in the secondary process: administration

Question Conclusion Reference

6. How did the actual support structure evolve? • 30% report limited/no changes in services and support at central and department level. 40% re-port signifi cant/many changes

• Main change: consolidation and enlargement of International Offi ce

Table 4-17

6a. What kind of administrative and academic mecha-nisms have been put in place to support European/international activities?

• Formalisation of decision structures• International Offi ce at central level, with inclusion/

representatives from all departments

Table 4-17

6b. How has the role of international relations offi ces evolved?

• International relations offi ces have become a regu-lar and professional part of the institution, with clear support from the management of the institu-tion.

• Central role in communicating strategy relating to internationalisation

Table 4-17

Box 4-7

6c. Have there been changes in decision-making and steering structures, course provisions and pedagogi-cal support or in the infrastructures for mobility which can be attributed to EPSs?

• The International Offi ce was empowered to formal-ise and align the efforts at internationalisation.

• Institutions which were already active in interna-tionalisation perceive the EPS as an administrative tool

• Main benefi ts of the EPS: increased awareness of internationalisation, more conscious planning and refl ection on policies

Box 4-6

6d. What types of quality assurance measures have been put in place for European co-operation activi-ties?

• Quality assurance is becoming more important and the majority states that these measures have been implemented in the last 5 years.

Table 4-18

It seems that more and more effort is going into optimising the support structure, into lowering barriers for stu-dents and into improving reputations. The requests from many institutions to allow and support administrative staff exchanges are a refl ection of this trend.

The international relations offi ces have evolved in many cases into a regular and professional part of the institu-tion, with clear support from the management of the institution.

Quality assurance is becoming more important and the majority states that these measures have been imple-mented in the last 5 years (see Table 4-18 Number of institutions that (intend to) use quality assurance meas-ures).

75

5.4 Effectiveness and impact of the EPSs

5.4.1 What are the general effects of EPSs within the institution?

Question Conclusion Reference

8. To what extent were the objectives stated in the EPSs achieved?

• Note: data collected in this evaluation to sup-port the answer to this question is too limited to draw valid conclusions.

Table 3-1

9. How has the internationalisation evolved?

9a. How did the EPSs shape the internationalisa-tion of higher education institutions in practice?

• EPSs helped to set priorities, which have changed in the majority of institutions

• EPSs led to increased awareness and the strengthening of administrative services

Table 4-12

Table 4-14

9b. To what extent have the EPSs supported other European activities of the higher education institu-tions? Is there coherence between these different activities?

• Majority agrees with the statement that EPSs have supported other European activities of higher education institutions

• Coherence between mobility within Erasmus and other activities seems to be limited (based purely on EPS analysis)

Table 4-12

Table 3-12

9c. How do various European and international activities of higher education institutions interact and what are the synergies between them?

• Inclusion of European activities in a wider con-text

• In the view of many institutions European and international activities cannot be seen as two separate developments

Table 4-10

9d. How have the EPSs contributed to putting in place measures for the recognition of study abroad period (especially ECTS)? Have these measures been extended to other than ERASMUS students?

• Many institutions experience problems with recognition, which is highlighted mainly through the experiences of students in the ERASMUS programme.

• On the basis of these experiences, institutions welcome a uniform ECTS system.

• EPSs are viewed as (very) important by 70% of institutions taking the initiative on implementa-tion of the ECTS

• Interviewees frequently mentioned the impor-tance of Bologna as a driver for the ECTS

Table 4-11

Table 7-1

9e. Has the visibility (on international and national level) of the institution changed?

• Internationalisation and opportunities for stu-dents as regards exchanges are an important part of marketing by the institutions

Box 4-4

9f. How have the EPSs affected institutions’ choic-es between different types of European activities within Erasmus (student mobility/ teacher mobility/ curriculum development/ intensive programmes/ thematic networks)?

• Focus of majority of institutions is on mobility. Within mobility, EPSs have helped to set priori-ties with regard to partner institutions and coun-tries with which exchange programmes are set up.

• One out of ten institutions states that EPSs are very important for the development of joint and/or international curricula

Table 4-11

Table 4-13

According to Table 4-11 the requirement as to submission of an EPS has prompted a number of initiatives and decisions. The majority agrees that it is helpful in determining the use of resources provided by the Erasmus pro-gramme. The initiative on the development of joint and/or international curricula is less dependent on the EPS - a fi nding which is underlined by many comments made by interviewees. The academic staff is the leader in estab-lishing relationships; neither the EPS nor the central co-ordinating body should or will change this process.

A signifi cant proportion (20%) of the institutions stated that the requirement as to the submission of an EPS is not important or of limited importance for decisions and initiatives (Table 4-11). For these institutions, the EPS

76

may be of limited value, as several interviewees indicated. Therefore, it can be questioned whether the EPS is still useful for all participating institutions.

Opinions on the added value of the EPS differ signifi cantly across institutions (Table 4-12). Most institutions agree that it helped to increase European awareness and co-operation. Also, half of the institutions stated that it led to the creation/reinforcement of administrative services for international relations (see also Box 4-5 Lim-ited infl uence of EPS and Box 4-6 Benefi ts of the requirement to submit an EPS).

The links established between universities and the Commission also constitute an important impact of the EPS. Although communication concerning Erasmus takes place through national agencies in several countries, it is clear that the visibility of Europe and the EC within the institutions has increased due to the requirement as to submission of an EPS. In some instances, institutions realise that it is becoming increasingly important to have close links with the EC (one institutions with which we spoke hired a former lobbyist as Head of the Inter-nal Department). One of the positive side effects of the application process is that institutions seek support both from other universities and national agencies in setting up international programmes. The EC can act here as a facilitator for the exchange of best practices. Although there is a clear need for this, the functioning of this networking aspect is currently dependent on individual initiatives.

5.4.2 How has strategic planning within the institutions evolved?

Question Conclusion Reference

Has the university’s strategic planning been rein-forced?

• Almost half of the institutions agree with the statement that sustainable processes of strate-gic refl ection have been implemented due to the EPS

• Almost half of the institutions state that deci-sion-making relating to internationalisation has changed. Increased involvement of (central) management is often mentioned

• Whether this development can be attributed solely to the EPS is questionable: many state that the dynamics of the environment and the growth of international activities made it neces-sary to increase co-ordination

• Implementation of policies has become more systematic

Table 4-8

Table 4-12

Table 4-14

Table 4-17

10a. What is the strategic status of the European and international activities of the universities?

• Internationalisation policies have become more important in the last 5 years

Table 4-8

10c. How did the requirement for strategic plan-ning through the EPS incite goal coherence, cen-tralisation in institutions, strategic thinking or tar-geted management in relation to activities of Euro-pean co-operation?

• The EPS is useful in evaluating activities and setting new priorities. However, external devel-opments seem to be more important as regards changing the strategy of the institutions

Box 4-2

10d. Did the EPSs bring about substantial mana-gerial changes?

• One out of three mentions signifi cant changes in management practices. However, 1 out of 10 states that there have been no changes at all

Table 4-17

On average, the institutions agree that there is a positive trend towards more systematic implementation and an increased importance of internationalisation policies (Table 4-8 Evolution of internationalisation in the past 5 years a ‘0’ meaning marginal or ad hoc and a ‘100’ meaning central or systematic).

77

5.5 Utility

5.5.1 How does the impact of the programme compare with the needs of the target population?

Utility in the sense of meeting the needs of the target population is not a straightforward concept. Firstly, the target population differs. Institutions which already have practised internationalisation for a long time, rate the value of Erasmus less than those which are at the beginning of the process.

Overall, there seems to be a consensus about the great value of mobility and the establishment of partnerships which goes along with the Erasmus programme. None of the people interviewed or surveyed would want to see this component disappear.

The EPS procedure is valued mainly by institutions which have started to develop more formal processes (e.g.. an International Offi ce). Many institutions have stated that a review once every 3 year is not an obstacle for them, although it does not provide much added value to the process.

The other components of Erasmus (e.g. curriculum development) are valued less, or the set-up is perceived as requiring a large investment of time and money. However, we need to stress that the number of institutions in-volved in theses programmes has been limited in this evaluation.

5.5.2 To what extent have the EPSs taken into consideration the mainstreaming of equal opportunities?

Question Conclusion Reference

11a. How have the EPS taken the mainstreaming of equal opportunities, in particular gender equal-ity, social inclusion and participation of disabled students into consideration?

• 30% of institutions mention specifi c groups in their EPSs

• Institutional anti-discrimination policies are often mentioned

Table 3-6

11b. To what extent have the EPSs contributed to the creation of specifi c measures relating to equal opportunities or social inclusion in the institution?

• Tentative conclusion: the contribution of EPSs to the creation of specifi c measures is limited. Those institutions which have policies on equal opportunities do not relate these directly to in-ternationalisation

Interviews

11c. To what extent have the EPSs contributed to the creation of specifi c measures related to less widely used and taught languages in the institu-tion?

• Limited data available. Interviews

According to the EPS analysis (Table 3-6 Priorities relating to specifi c groups), at least 1 out of 3 institutions mentioned specifi c groups (i.e. women, disabled students, socially disadvantaged students). The emphasis given to these groups during the site visits differed: for some institutions facilities for the disabled are part of the ‘normal’ day-to-day business, while others specifi cally mentioned their efforts to receive and send disabled students.

Especially socially disadvantaged groups were mentioned often in relation to the low grants. Many fear that Erasmus will become a programme for the rich.

78

5.5.3 Are social partners and regional and local authorities involved in programme activities?

Question Conclusion Reference

12. Are social partners and regional and local au-thorities involved in programme activities?

• Social partners like employers and trade unions are involved to a limited extent

• Majority disagrees with the statement that the EPS has led to stronger co-operation with social partners

Table 4-7

Table 4-14

12a. Which type of social partners, regional and local authorities are involved

• No reliable data available Table 4-7

12b. What kind of involvement in programme ac-tivities is typical?

• Local enterprises sometimes give opportunities for internships (especially when certain lan-guage skills are needed)

Table 4-7

Fairly often, institutions mentioned co-operation with partners in their home country (Figure 3-6 Co-operation with partners in home country). However, they did not give a detailed overview of partners. Most of the time partners in the home country were named in relation to some sort of activity – activities like fund-raising, estab-lishing internships for foreign students or providing (shared) language facilities. The reasons for co-operation were: 1) raising funds or co-fi nancing activities, mostly in co-operation with governments or industry; 2) creat-ing possibilities for internships for foreign students, mostly in co-operation with industry; and 3) creating pos-sibilities for language training, mostly in co-operation with other educational institutions.

The infl uence of these partners on the formulation of policies seems to be limited (Table 4-7 Involvement of ex-ternal players in formulating policies).

5.6 How sustainable is the impact of EPSs?

Question Conclusion Reference

13. How sustainable is the impact of EPSs? • Institutions which submit an EPS for the fi rst time seem to report a greater impact than those which have submitted EPSs before, indicating a decreasing impact of EPSs after introduction

Figure 4-1

Table 4-10

13a. Has the mobilisation triggered by the fi rst generation of EPSs continued?

• Mobilisation is still a very important component of the programme and the expectation is that it will t remain so in the coming years

Table 3-3

Table 4-13

13b. Have the processes of strategic refl ection and decision-making which were set up with the fi rst generation of EPSs been permanent?

• Many institutions have set up permanent struc-tures for decision-making on internationalisation and also with the aim of securing the involve-ment of academics who are deemed essential for the success of programmes.

Table 4-9

Table 4-10

79

6 Summary of fi ndings:the impact at national level

6.1 Introduction

We fi rst summarise the fi ndings per country and then present the main comparative fi ndings. The fi ndings per country should be seen as ‘snapshots’ showing some of the dynamics relating to internationalisation policies and the impact of ERASMUS. The comparative fi ndings should be considered to be the answer to the main research questions.

6.2 Summary of fi ndings per country

6.2.1 Flanders

Most national internationalisation policies were developed at about the same time and as complementary to ERASMUS. The Flemish government in particular used fi nancial instruments by offering additional funding, by removing obstacles for foreign students and by assisting- higher education institutions to participate in interna-tional co-operation (Van Heffen, 1999, p. 182-184). Only in a few instances does it seem that global and Euro-pean developments (e.g. competitiveness) in general (and not ERASMUS in particular) have been used as ar-guments to lever national policies.

6.2.2 Wallonia

Two agencies are responsible for the EU programmes, the Cellule Socrates is responsible for the overall Socra-tes programme and the Agence Erasmus is in charge of the administration of mobility and related activities. The small amount of available policy document do not reveal details on internationalisation policies and strate-gies of the Walloon government, neither on the impact of Erasmus. The Bologna process has led to changes in the programme structure of Walloon universities and haute écoles (grade académique de bachelier, grade académique de master). It has also led to legislative changes (March 2004) regarding the use of ECTS and the Diploma Supplement.

6.2.3 Portugal

ERASMUS has directed more attention to mobility in Europe, whereas Portugal used to be oriented much more towards Portuguese-speaking communities outside Europe. Attention to internationalisation was to some ex-tent hampered by the attention which had to be given to other policy problems (e.g. access, funding). Interna-tionalisation became linked to the issue of quality in the mid-1990s. As far as concerns the Bologna process, there has been considerable discussion regarding decisions which have to be made in the near future.

6.2.4 Greece

Internationalisation policies of the Greek government were until recently rather ad hoc, i.e. initiatives were left to the higher education institutions themselves, and national level activities were occasionally launched as re-sponses to European challenges. However, continuous attention was paid to student and staff mobility which is of particular relevance for the large population of Greeks outside Greece. Recently, the interest of the Minis-try of Education in developing more explicit policies increased (Kontogiannopoulou et al., 2004). Such policies

80

are visible in the structural reform of higher education (two-tier system) and in the activities relating to quality assurance. In the period from the mid-1980s to the end of the 1990s, EU policies (including ERASMUS) to a limited extent re-directed, complemented and mediated the national policies. The policy discourse – coinciding with Greece’s repositioning in the hierarchy of developed countries –infl uenced mainly the higher education institutions and to a lesser extent state policies.

6.2.5 Denmark

Internationalisation policies emerged at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. Concrete efforts are visible in the provision of internationalisation funds and participation in NORDPLUS and – in the mid-1990s – the grant and loan system and adaptations to the PhD system. In the context of Bologna, the Danish govern-ment brought about changes in legislation. The ECTS was implemented in 2001 and the Diploma Supplement in 2002. Adjustments to the undergraduate-graduate structure were only formally necessary, as in the univer-sity sector Bachelor and Master programmes had already been introduced in the 1990s.

6.2.6 Liechtenstein

Because of the size of the higher education system, internationalisation (particularly mobility involving neigh-bouring countries) was and is an important issue on the policy agenda. ERASMUS broadened the view regard-ing internationalisation with respect to other countries. The government has responded to increasing interna-tionalisation by developing specifi c policies and by changing the regulations.

6.2.7 Spain

Changes in Spanish higher education take place mostly because of political and demographic developments (Vidal, 2003). Internationalisation as such played a less dominant and more indirect role in higher education policy, as the focus was on issues considered to be more important. In addition, the role of the national gov-ernment has changed because of regionalisation since the end of the 1990s. ERASMUS therefore did not greatly affect Spanish policies. The changes in the 1990s (modular structure, semester system, optional cours-es, etc.) made it easier to adjust to the requirements of the Bologna process, despite the fact that there is still a large variety in degrees (3-5 year programmes) and because of the weight of ‘tradition’ and a general reluc-tance to change.

6.2.8 France

Already in the 1980s, the French government supported internationalisation by granting additional funds to higher education institutions involved in internationalisation and by the reform of doctoral education. Also, ini-tiatives in the 1990s (internationalisation as an element in the contractualisation policy; setting-up of Edu-France) should be mentioned. Particularly an increase of attention in the second half of the 1990s is notewor-thy. ERASMUS as such has put some pressure on the national government to act on increasing mobility by developing adequate internationalisation policies. France was one of the founding fathers of the Sorbonne and Bologna process. The regulations have been adjusted to make the 3-2-3 structure possible and to allow for the use of the ECTS and implementation of modularisation.

6.2.9 Sweden

Internationalisation policies in Sweden date back to the 1970s. At that time, the academic and educational ra-tionales were in particular dominant and the emphasis was put on increasing the quality of Swedish higher ed-ucation. In the mid-1990s, Sweden was confronted with the challenge to both integrate into the European Un-ion and to pay attention to its relations outside Europe. As such, mobility in Sweden took place and takes place to a large extent outside the EU programmes. ERASMUS did not so much change Swedish policies or

81

the policy agenda. Specifi c issues in the 1990s relate to the portability of state grants and loans, the introduc-tion of undergraduate and graduate studies, and – more recently – the marketing of Swedish higher education.

6.2.10 United Kingdom

To a large extent, the UK has followed its own internationalisation route, rooted in its particular Commonwealth history and strengthened by the “language advantage” and the quality perception of British higher education. As such, ERASMUS (being “only” one of the programmes), has not contributed much to higher education poli-cy-making. Only recently, Europeanisation in general (in the sense of interest in what is going on in continental higher education) seems to have been regarded as having a higher priority than heretofore.

6.2.11 Norway

Internationalisation policies in Norway date from a period long before the ERASMUS programme, but at that time mostly with the sending of students abroad to take their full degrees. The ERASMUS programme has sup-ported the increase in mobility, alongside other – regionally-oriented – programmes such as NORDPLUS. Inter-nationalisation arguments were used at the turn of the century both to implement supranational agreements and to bring about domestic change.

6.2.12 Ireland

Internationalisation hardly played a role in Irish higher education policy until the mid-1990s. Other policy objec-tives (access, expansion, overcoming the economic crisis) were seen as more important. ERASMUS, however, has raised the awareness of the Irish government as regards paying attention to internationalisation policies and instruments. From the mid-1990s on, important steps were taken towards a coherent internationalisation policy (setting-up of IEBI, the implementation of the Bologna Declaration, the National Development Plan).

6.2.13 Germany

ERASMUS did not result in structural changes in the national system of organisation of studies (Kehm & Last, 1997) until the mid-nineties. There was initial scepticism regarding intrusion into national affairs (still visible at the time of the 1991 Memorandum on Higher Education). In more recent years, this has almost completely dis-appeared. ERASMUS has served as a catalyst in the internationalisation process. Through DAAD, the German government has launched several policies to increase internationalisation. In parallel also, Länder policy sup-ported this process. Growing policy attention to the attractiveness and competitiveness of German higher edu-cation has partly been used as a lever to bring about changes in the German system (long study duration, high dropout rates).

6.2.14 The Netherlands

Dutch attention to internationalisation accelerated as a result of the critical OECD review. The 1987 policy pa-per, Internationalisation of education and research, set out broad policy intentions aimed at strengthening Dutch education and research. From the 1990s, Dutch internationalisation policies became more specifi c (con-centration on cross-border activities with neighbouring countries, attention to structural co-operation) and later on – in the context of the knowledge economy – more specifi c in terms of exporting Dutch higher education to specifi c countries (e.g. South-East Asia). ERASMUS was judged to be a programme raising awareness of the importance of internationalisation. Dutch internationalisation policies were seen to be complementary to Euro-pean efforts. At the end of the millennium, the focus was on implementing the agreements of the Bologna Dec-laration (Bachelor-Master structure, accreditation, adjusting funding mechanisms), and specifi c attention to the European mobility programmes diminished.

82

6.2.15 Austria

In general, Austrian policies on internationalisation, Europeanisation and globalisation could be termed reac-tive, with the exception of the initiatives and engagement in Central and Eastern Europe (Hackl et al., 2004). The ERASMUS programme and also other developments such as the critical OECD review were important stimuli for internationalisation policies. The wish to enter the EC and the opening up of the EEC countries gave the Austrian government the opportunity to combine participation in the EC mobility programmes with the pur-suit of specifi c Austrian internationalisation activities (additional grants for ERASMUS students, Action Pro-grammes for the EEC countries, CEEPUS). With accession to the EC, internationalisation policies became Eu-ropeanisation policies. It is worth mentioning that the Austrian government sometimes used European and in-ternational developments and arguments to solve internal problems or confl icts (Hackl et al., 2004).

6.2.16 Italy

Internationalisation efforts have not been highly visible in the Italian government’s policies. The policies fo-cussed on other issues in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. introduction of new degrees, implementation of evalua-tion). Italy’s participation in the Sorbonne and Bologna process can partly be explained as an effort to solve domestic problems such as the lack of change within Italian universities and the long study duration and high dropout rates. Furthermore, the need to keep up with other European higher education systems played a role (Boffo & Moscati, 1998) as well as the impact of the OECD (Vaira, 2003, p. 187-188). The Italian Ministry ap-plied a “mosaic strategy” (of incremental change) to reduce differences between the Italian system and other European higher education systems (Moscati, 2001, p. 115). A new study structure was introduced in 1999 and a few years later the Diploma Supplement was made obligatory.

6.2.17 Finland

Interest in internationalisation grew in the late 1980s as a result of Finland’s membership of EFTA. Also the un-derstanding that Finland would be greatly affected by international competition played a role in the govern-ment’s view of the need for internationalisation. This trend of continuous attention to European and other inter-national developments is clearly visible in the internationalisation policies of the 1990s. ERASMUS and NORD-PLUS played an important role in the internationalisation process. In the context of the Bologna process, struc-tural legal reforms are to be implemented.

6.3 The impact of ERASMUS at national level

Turning now to the general question of to what extent and how ERASMUS has impacted national policies on internationalisation in higher education, the following general picture emerges for the countries involved in the study (the questions in the tender document have been used to paint this picture).

6.3.1 Effectiveness and impact

Changes and trends in systems and policies concerning internationalisation

In most countries, initial internationalisation policies emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. The research shows - as has been concluded and confi rmed by other studies (Kälvemark & Van der Wende, 1997; Huisman & Van der Wende, 2004) - that encompassing internationalisation strategies are of a more recent date. Integration into mainstream higher education policies took place in the late 1980s and 1990s but, as has been concluded by Kälvemark and Van der Wende (1997), one can still speak of ‘missing links’ between internationalisation poli-cies and higher education policies in general. Certainly, the Bologna process has recently reinforced the inter-connectedness of internationalisation and general higher education policies even more, as this process goes

83

beyond mobility and is directed to issues of structure and quality assurance. Particularly in the fi rst years of its existence in the respective higher education systems, the ERASMUS programme contributed to making inter-nationalisation part of mainstream higher education policy (see below: the indirect impact on national policies). The contribution – compared to the Bologna process – was, however, much more focussed on mobility.

New kinds of strategic approaches to internationalisation

The rationale for (or strategic approach to) internationalisation has changed over time: from a stress on educa-tional and academic rationales a shift is noteworthy towards economic rationales stressing the role of an inter-nationalised higher education system in building a competitive national economy and higher education as a marketable service in other countries, although it must be stressed that the overall trend is not visible to a simi-lar extent in all countries. The changing rationale was also one of the conclusions of Kälvemark & Van der Wende (1997). In line with the fi ndings of that study, in this evaluation the change of rationales could not be connected to the ERASMUS programme as such. The change of rationale seems to be much more connected to ‘nationally mediated changes’ and ‘global warming changes’ (see Figure 1-2). Changes in the direction of governance at arm’s length and a more market-type approach to higher education (including a focus on higher education as an export service in an international competitive environment) in combination with cutbacks in public spending on higher education (in some countries) have probably made both national governments and higher education institutions more receptive to the economic rationale.

ERASMUS: predominantly an impact at the level of higher education institutions

An important fi nding is that the national policy documents and the interviews in all countries indicated that the impact of ERASMUS is predominantly visible at the level of the higher education institutions, both at the struc-tural and cultural level. In itself, this is not so surprising given the objectives of the ERASMUS programme and given the fi ndings of previous studies on this issue (e.g. Barblan et al., 1998).

ERASMUS: an indirect impact on national policies

The growing internationalisation activities of both students and higher education institutions (connected both to ERASMUS and other internationalisation policies and programmes) increased the awareness of national governments as regards the importance of internationalisation. In particular, the perception of the growing im-portance of internationalisation in higher education institutions stimulated the government in the fi rst instance to refl ect on policy issues close to the essence of student mobility: supplementary mobility policies and actions (either additional programmes or additional fi nancial support for mobile students), organisation of the transfer of credits, and portability of student loans and grants. Later, attention was paid to other policy issues – both in the context of ERASMUS and the broader internationalisation and Europeanisation agenda (Bologna/Lisbon) – such as the comparability of degrees, convergence towards an undergraduate/graduate structure, quality as-surance mechanisms, and the contribution of higher education to the (supra)national economy. It must be stressed that in a number of countries internationalisation was already high on the political agenda of either the government or the higher education institutions. In such countries (e.g. Sweden, Norway, UK) the impact of ERASMUS was considerably lower than in some of the other countries. In this context, it is also im-portant to mention that in a number of countries international mobility takes place to a large extent outside the ERASMUS programme and that institutionalised structures to endorse internationalisation in some countries are of a much earlier date than the start of ERASMUS (particularly in Germany through DAAD, the Netherlands through NUFFIC, and the UK through the British Council).

An important fi nding is that the policy documents and interviews hardly specify which particular national poli-cies were connected to specifi c elements of the ERASMUS programme, as freeing additional mobility funds for students within and outside the ERASMUS programme was, one of the few exceptions. The opinion was, how-

84

ever, that the programme in general led to refl ection on domestic internationalisation policies. The lack of ra-tional and clear-cut connections between ERASMUS and national policies can be explained by the fact that national internationalisation policies are as much a consequence of an evaluation of national needs and pos-sibilities as a clear-cut response to actions under the ERASMUS programme. In this respect, it would be far beyond the available evidence to state that ERASMUS has shaped national policies. Nevertheless, the evalua-tion shows some clear examples of interconnectedness between ERASMUS and specifi c national policies (e.g. cross-border co-operation policy in the Netherlands, Flanders and a few German Länder) and the NORDPLUS initiative of the Scandinavian countries). It would be far-fetched, however, to see the latter policies as a transfer of the good practices of ERASMUS or as a facilitator of these programmes. Although the policies copied ele-ments of the ERASMUS programme, explicit choices were made not to imitate all of its aspects.

Impact of ERASMUS on co-operation in the fi eld of higher education at the national level

There are hardly signs in the fi ndings of this study that ERASMUS has contributed to co-operation in the fi eld of higher education at the national level, beyond integration of internationalisation policies into mainstream higher education policy (see above).

Reinforcing the European dimension

Neither did policy documents or interviewees mention the impact of ERASMUS on the reinforcement of a Euro-pean dimension in higher education. Some policy documents did mention the importance of implementing a European dimension, but not always was the connection with ERASMUS (as an instrument to achieve this ob-jective) made. If the realisation or reinforcement of a European dimension can be broadly interpreted as a more explicit focus of member states on Europe, this is clearly the case for a number of countries. Policy documents and respondents emphasised that ERASMUS has contributed to a turn towards Europe. In Sweden this related to the then current emphasis on co-operation with the US; in Ireland the focus was on other Anglo-Saxon countries; in Portugal many internationalisation activities were geared towards Latin America; and in Liechten-stein the focus used to be on the German-speaking neighbours.

Other factors of infl uence

ERASMUS should not be seen as the sole catalyst for increasing governments’ awareness and for changing or intensifying internationalisation policies. Specifi c national contexts (e.g. importance of domestic issues, past internationalisation etc.) to a considerable extent determined the pace and direction of internationalisation poli-cies as well (see also: different impacts across the countries). Also, broader internationalisation trends of (in-cluding e.g. the impact of OECD reviews in the Netherlands, Flanders and Sweden), globalisation, international competitiveness and standards (e.g. Norway and Portugal), marketisation (UK and more recently e.g. Denmark and Germany), the knowledge society and Europeanisation (the trends we captured as “global warming” type changes, see chapter 1) have quite often been mentioned in policy documents and the interviews as argu-ments in favour of adjusting national systems and, indeed, have in practice led to both marginal and profound changes. Most of the country reports indicate that ERASMUS played a role, although policy documents are not very explicit about the precise role and impact. Respondents quite often found it diffi cult to indicate how im-portant the role was compared with other factors of infl uence. When respondents were asked what would be the state of the art regarding internationalisation if ERASMUS had not been launched, quite a number of re-spondents were hesitant about answering this question. On being pressed to overcome this hesitancy, the ma-jority indicated that certain internationalisation policies possibly would have been set in motion at a later stage or at a slower pace.

85

Contribution of ERASMUS to the Bologna process

The Sorbonne and Bologna processes have more or less institutionalised the joint intentions of governments to solve a number of (future) pressing issues relating to internationalisation and Europeanisation. The collective approach has accelerated policy initiatives and concrete adjustments. Regulations in force or in preparation regarding the structure of higher education, quality assurance (accreditation), Diploma Supplements, the ECTS, and grants and fees. A large majority of respondents indicated that ERASMUS has been an important pred-ecessor of the Bologna process while admitting at the same time that the ERASMUS programme and the Bolo-gna process are of a very different nature, being respectively an instrument geared to higher education institu-tions as compared with an agreement on a mutual policy agenda for higher education.

Different impacts across the countries

The extent to which and how national governments responded to the challenges of internationalisation, differs from country to country. Specifi c institutional features of the countries (the trends which we captured as “na-tionally mediated” type changes) played an important and sometimes decisive role. Among these national fac-tors are: • relative size/status of the country (UK and France versus Liechtenstein);• the size of the community (within and outside Europe) speaking the country’s language (Greece and

Sweden versus the UK and Spain);• the (colonial) history of the country (Portugal and UK versus Austria and Norway);• the importance of internationalisation vis-à-vis domestic issues (access issues in Ireland, the organisation

of research within the universities in France, long study duration in Germany and Italy, underemployment in Spain in the 1980s, lack of balance between incoming and outgoing students in the UK and Greece);

• the role and power of other stakeholders (e.g. the academic community) vis-à-vis the government (the relative independence of higher education institutions in the UK and Sweden, the strength of the academic community and employee organisations in Greece);

• the role of the regions in a country (Germany, France and Spain);• being a longstanding member of the EU or a relative newcomer (Netherlands and Germany versus Sweden,

Liechtenstein and Austria).

6.3.2 Utility

Enhancement of academic recognition

The enhancement of academic recognition was hardly mentioned as a possible impact of ERASMUS at the national level. It could be that this issue particularly plays a role at the level of the higher education institutions.

6.3.3 Sustainability

Overall impact of ERASMUS

Figure 6-1 graphically depicts the essence of the dynamics relating to the impact of ERASMUS on national pol-icy-making. This impact is indirect (represented by the discontinuous arrow). The words “locomotive”, “cata-lyst”, “awareness-raising”, “paving the way” and “stepping stone” best capture the impact of ERASMUS. Please note that respondents from different countries use these qualifi cations: in some countries ERASMUS was seen as a catalyst, in others as a locomotive (within countries there was sometimes disagreement on the qualifi cation across interviewees). It must be stressed, however, that ERASMUS was not the sole factor affect-ing national higher education policy-making. Factors in the national context and the wider supranational con-text both acted as stimulating and intermediary elements affecting higher education policy-making.

86

Figure 6-1 Impact of Erasmus and other policies/factors on national governments’ policies

Transfer of good practices

As has been mentioned above in section 2.1.1, it would be far-fetched to see the transfer of good practices of ERASMUS beyond supplementary domestic grants to ERASMUS students and national mobility grant systems (note that in quite a number of countries, mobility grant programmes were in force before ERASMUS started). Although some post-ERASMUS domestic policies (e.g. NORDPLUS in Scandinavia, cross-border policies in the Netherlands, Flanders and Germany) copied elements of the ERASMUS programme, explicit choices were made not to imitate all of its aspects.

87

7 Recommendations7.1 Introduction

Based on the fi ndings of the evaluation, this chapter outlines a mixture of recommendations and ideas on sev-eral levels; national, institutional and operational. These recommendations confi rm to a large extent the plans presented by the European Commission for a new Integrated Programme for education and training. The basic characteristics of the Integrated Programme are:• A more substantial programme• A simpler programme• A more decentralised programme

In addition, we have focussed our recommendations on the European Policy Statement, a specifi c instrument which the Commission has implemented to encourage institutions:• to adopt a coherent policy for their European co-operation activities• to achieve a more durable impact and to ensure more effective use of available funds

7.2 Recommendations in line with the new Integrated Programme

The various data-gathering exercises (interviews, surveys, site visits) have lead to numerous recommendations. These generally confi rm that the Commission is moving in the right direction with its plans for an Integrated Programme for education and training.

In the survey, respondents were explicitly challenged to refl ect on specifi c statements on the future of ERAS-MUS actions. Table 7-1 presents the results, all of which point in the direction of a confi rmation of the state-ments: dovetailing actions with the Bologna process, greater focus on staff development, bridging the gap between research and education, developing an encompassing framework for education and training and the involvement of third countries.

To what extent do you agree with the following recommendations? Strongly disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly agree

I don’t know

Actions under the new programme should be based on the Bologna process

0.4 4.8 43.5 47.2 4.1

There should be more focus on staff development 0.7 5.9 48.3 39.4 5.6

Actions should bridge the gap between education and research 0.0 8.9 49.8 32.7 8.6

There should be one framework programme for education and training

3.7 12.6 40.5 32.7 10.4

The programme should involve third countries 4.5 13.0 44.2 28.6 9.7

Table 7-1 Recommendations

7.2.1 A more substantial programme

The EPS analysis and survey results indicate that student mobility is the most important internationalisation activity of most higher education institutions. To further develop internationalisation (in a broader sense) it is recommended that internationalisation in the ERASMUS programme be broadened beyond mobility. This could happen at different levels.

88

The fi rst recommendation would be to increase incentives in the area of ‘non-student mobility’ issues (e.g. joint curricula, staff exchanges, and recognition of periods abroad) and to challenge higher education institutions (more) to develop plans in these areas.

A second recommendation would be to integrate internationalisation efforts in the area of education with those in the area of research (also in the light of the development of the European Research Area and the European Higher Education Area). This would give higher education institutions more leeway in developing integrated and encompassing internationalisation strategies and policies.

A third recommendation – in fact closely related to the fi rst – would be to fi ne-tune the ERASMUS programme in line with the Bologna process and the general trend whereby internationalisation activities are at present to a greater extent based on the economic rationale (see also 7.4). This recommendation does not imply that ER-ASMUS is at odds with the Bologna process (or the other way around). It stresses that much synergy can be achieved through stimulation of particular internationalisation activities and implementation of the agreements under the Bologna Declaration.

A fourth recommendation could be to stimulate mobility in close cooperation with private partners in the re-spective regions. Regional Development Partnerships including academia, private organisations, social part-ners and local/regional authorities could be given a greater role in increasing the effectiveness of student/ pro-fessors mobility.

The institutions have indicated to look for the following improvements and enhancements of ERASMUS:• More fl exibility in duration (e.g. the three-month minimum makes participation for part-time students

diffi cult, academic summer programmes are excluded, the problems of the academical year that does not has the same timepaths in the MS, combinations of studing and working/stage in the host country)

• More fl exibility in bilateral agreements (i.e. so that an agreed number of students can be exchanged over a three-year period with reciprocity being achieved within this period)

• More opportunities to co-operate with countries on other continents, such as North America or Asia. • More support for the development of joint curricula (a greater number of initiatives) and Thematic Networks

might increase the motivation for students to study abroad. • More possibilities to send persons out more times as long as a set budget is not spend.• Mobility for (mobility and joined training of) non-academic staff. • Special incentives for newcomers to the programme.

‘More money’ is the most obvious (and often expressed) need of the institutions. This relates to student grants as well as teaching staff. As many interviewees also mentioned, the Erasmus grant is not enough to cover all expenses. Some suggestions mentioned are: increase overall funding, give general institutional grants and let institutions themselves decide on the spending, increase budgets for students from a less-advantaged social-economic background (or shift money from those who have enough to those you need more), and build more incentives for activities not related to student mobility (e.q. marketing of mobility).

7.2.2 A simpler programme

In line with previous research that pointed to the high level of bureaucracy, this research also indicates that respondents have many complaints about the bureaucracy involved. It is not easy to formulate clear-cut rec-ommendations on this issue, but a general hint would be to rethink procedures and see whether bureaucratic elements based on ‘suspect, unless proven innocent’ can be replaced by elements of trust. Strict bureaucratic ex ante procedures could be replaced by random checks during the process as well as after the fi nal report has been done. A second element is improving the fl exibility of (in particular) mobility: fl exibility in duration, fl exibility in bilateral agreements, and fl exibility in choice of exchange countries (see also 7.2.1). Third element

89

could be a SWOT on the administrations including a research on the cost benefi ts. Cost effectiveness of the administrations is mostly questioned by the administrators themselves.

Recommendations and suggestions often mentioned are the need to simplify the application procedure, great-er transparency in the evaluation of applications, less (impersonal) bureaucracy and speedier procedures in general. An adequate balance should be found between accountability and the amount of administrative effort. The rules and regulations should be clear and understandable. The requirement to send and archive for long periods all kinds of physical documents is experienced as a major burden.

7.2.3 A more decentralised programme

The Commission proposes that more activity should be managed at national level, through the network of National Agencies. Their advantages include understanding of the national context and priority needs, and the ability to create a more user-friendly environment.

It should be stressed that it is not easy to formulate recommendations regarding the relationship between the ERASMUS programme and national policies on internationalisation, as the simple fact is that it is/was not the core objective of ERASMUS to infl uence national policies. In addition, the analyses have shown that ERASMUS in particular had an (indirect) impact during the fi rst years when the programme applied in the specifi c coun-tries and that more recently the programme does not have a profound impact on national policies any more.

It is envisaged that ERASMUS can and will play a role in the support of European mobility. None of the policy documents or respondents indicated that the end of ERASMUS is near. If we are to speculate on the future of ERASMUS, its focus on relatively short-term stays in other European countries deserves particular attention. A positive view of the further development of internationalisation and tangible achievements in the Bologna proc-ess could imply that many students do not so much look for a short stay as prefer to continue a foreign Mas-ter’s programme after having fi nished a domestic Bachelor programme.

The country reports show that internationalisation policies are well integrated into general higher education policies, which raises the question whether a supranational programme like ERASMUS should be used to infl u-ence other areas of higher education. Our evaluation suggests that most governments have found an adequate balance between developing domestic policies and responding to supranational policies, particularly the Bologna process. The ERASMUS programme has received much less or no attention in recent domestic policy documents. It should also be stressed that national and supranational policies become more closely interwo-ven in the context of the Bologna process. Many national policy-makers are part of European networks involved in specifi c areas of higher education (quality assurance, student support, degree recognition), which seems to lead to suffi cient communication on possible tensions between and tuning of domestic and European initiatives. As such, there seems to be a limited need for further expansion of ERASMUS beyond its initial objectives and instruments. If there should be a role for ERASMUS or other EU instruments, the evaluation suggests that there are two important conditions: the instruments should be of such a nature that they can be easily adapted to and integrated into national policies; and the instruments should be targeted – as far as they do not yet contribute to them – towards the achievement of the Bologna objectives (see also 7.3).

90

7.3 Recommendations related to the European Policy Statement

7.3.1 The European Policy Statement (EPS)

Under the Institutional Contract, the institutions are required to submit a European Policy Statement (EPS) which outlines their strategy for all European co-operation activities and gives a context to the activities the institution applies funding for under the IC. These activities cover the following: Erasmus Student Mobility, Teaching Staff Mobility, Curriculum Development projects, Intensive Programmes and Thematic Networks. In addition, these activities are placed in the framework of all international activities of the institution. EPSs usu-ally extend over a three-year period in the fi rst instance, with EC support being allocated on an annual basis, subject to regular review.

7.3.2 The European Policy Statement: blessing or burden?

Notwithstanding the fact that the new Integrated Program seems to take into account a number of comments, the issue is still there how to continue (or not) the use of EPS’s.

The general opinion about European Policy Statements can be summarized as follows:• It helps newcomers to formulate and communicate a strategy on partnerships and internationalisation. • It is not perceived as an instrument that adds value to already existing internal processes, especially for

those institutions who have a tradition in internationalisation.• Institutions are willing to submit an updated version since it is obligatory; however the usefulness of such

an update is questioned.

One of the key characteristics of the EPS is that the document is required under the ERASMUS programme. The way the EPS is perceived often determines the way in which the document evolves over time. Some insti-tutions see the EPS as an opportunity and use it as a communication and management change tool. Others view it as a bureaucratic tool which does not add much value.

Institutions which are only at the beginning of internationalisation often indicated that the EPS has helped them to communicate internally with a wider audience on policies and initiatives. Other institutions fi led their EPS in a cabinet and did not pay attention to it (any more). Many institutions have begun to write International Policy Statements (or International Business Plans), of which the EPS forms an integral part. In a way, the requirement of writing an EPS has helped institutions to develop international policy statements as well as the content and procedures for implementing their policies.

The catalyst function that the European Policy Statement had when it was fi rst used by the higher education institutions (see also Barblan et al. 1998) seems to have withered. Respondents indicate that in the second-generation EPSs not many changes have been introduced in the EPSs (see 5.1.2, 5.4.1 and 5.6). The conclu-sion is not that second-generation EPSs are ‘dead letters’, but the results indicate that, beyond paying attention to the EPS, internationalisation has become much more institutionalised. Thereby implying that other issues (enhancing the international offi ce, developing concrete internationalisation activities, national and inter-national profi ling, international marketing, the Bologna process) have become more important (see e.g. 5.2.4).

One suggestion would be to require an EPS only for those higher education institutions which enter the ERASMUS programme and leave it to those already in the programme to resubmit (or not) their EPSs. Another suggestion would be to broaden the function and use of the EPS beyond ERASMUS activities and include oth-er EU-level activities (e.g. lifelong learning activities, information and communication technology programmes, building Regional Development Partnerships) under the umbrella of the EPS. This would fi t into the general

91

trend of deepening the internationalisation strategies and policies into the general strategy-setting of higher education institutions.

7.3.3 Back to the basics: why was the EPS invented?

The original purpose of the EPS is to encourage institutions:• to adopt a coherent policy for their European co-operation activities• to achieve a more durable impact and to ensure more effective use of available funds• In addition, it aims at setting out briefl y the university's policy on transversal issues such as the integration

of disabled persons, equal opportunities, contributing to the fi ght against racism & discrimination on the labour market and promoting socio-economic cohesion.

The EPS is meant to be ‘an encouragement’ for institutions, not an instrument that ‘forces’ institutions to be-have in certain ways. The purposes of the EPS are modest, if we look at the ultimate goals of the SOCRATES Programme, to which Erasmus and the EPS should contribute:• to contribute to the development of quality education• to encourage life-long learning• to strengthen the European dimension in education• to facilitate wide transnational access to educational resources in Europe• to promote equal opportunities in education as well as on the labour market• to promote a quantitative and qualitative improvement of the knowledge of EU languages• to promote the intercultural dimension of education• to promote co-operation and mobility in the fi eld of education• to encourage exchanges between educational institutions• to promote open and distance learning• to encourage improvements in the recognition of diplomas and periods of study• to develop the exchange of information• to encourage innovation in the development of educational practices and materials

7.3.4 EPS within the core processes of the institution

The EPS can serve as a focal point for many initiatives on internationalisation. We have found many examples of institutions that use the EPS for various purposes:• External marketing of university (i.e. showing students that the institution has an international dimension)• Internal marketing and mainstreaming instrument of the international department• Legitimate instrument to encourage staff to coordinate their internationalisation efforts• Instrument to document current processes and practices• Instrument to rationalise processes and budgets• Instrument to record plans for new projects• Increase effi ciency of internationalisation

However, these initiatives are often part of a broader development within the institution. If we take a somewhat broader view, one can distinguish a 13 processes that apply to almost any organisation (Figure 7-1) The fi rst seven are operating processes that organisations follow to develop and move products to the market (i.e. read students, businesses that hire qualifi ed students after graduation). The last six processes are management and support processes that make it possible for the organisation to operate effectively.

92

Figure 7-1

EPS’s mainly support following processes:• Develop vision and strategy• Market and sell (to a lesser extent)• Manage improvement and change (to a lesser extent)

Any new or revised instrument which is launched by the EU, should be able to facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the new IP. Also, the instrument should adhere to the principle of additionally. The question to answer then is:

Which solutions (linked to the three selected institutional processes) are available to ‘encourage’ institu-tions in such a direction that the likelihood of achieving the objectives of the SOCRATES programme are increased? And if we fi nd solutions; can they be implemented only through central coordination?

7.3.5 Alternative solutions to support the development of vision and strategy

The requirement to submit an EPS encourages institution to clarify, negotiate and communicate their vision and strategy regarding internationalisation. There is ample evidence that the EPS indeed supports this process. Once this process of strategy and vision building has started, the EPS itself is of limited added value.

The EU could consider several means to support the strategy and vision building of institutions:• For newcomers to the Erasmus programme or those with less then 10 cooperation contracts, the

requirement to submit a complete EPS as part of the application procedure should be maintained. • Institutions that already submitted (several) EPSs in the past, an update of the general internationalisation

strategy should be suffi cient. • Institutions that have a broader internationalisation strategy (of which Europe is one paragraph), are allowed

to submit the entire strategy document.

93

• Stimulate the sharing of good practices, also in the fi eld of HEI management and strategies. This could be achieved through:- Specifi c workshops at conferences on internationalisation - Description and sharing of good practices- Awarding a prize for the best institution in every country followed by a European prize (i.e. a ‘beauty

contest’. One of the award criteria should be strategy)• Stimulate and/ or facilitate education and training programmes for top management of educational

institutions throughout Europe. An MBA on Educational Administration with national chapters could be such a vehicle.

7.3.6 Alternative solutions to support Management of improvement and change

The EU can encourage institutions to improve the quality and sustainability of internationalisation in numerous ways:• Currently the EPS is assessed based on a limited set of quality criteria, which are not very clear to

institutions. The EPS could also function as a ‘proof of quality’ on different levels. Institutions could acquire certifi cation (compared to EFQM, ISO) that they meet certain standards.

• One step further would be to develop the EPS instrument into a full quality certifi cation process, or ensure that the internationalisation strategy is part of existing certifi cation system. This would ‘label’ institutions on the ‘internationalisation axis’ at certain levels. This could be an important incentive for other institution to pursue efforts for further internationalisation.

• Most EPSs contain many examples of specifi c projects, for example for including minorities or Thematic networks. This information is in many cases not very transparent. Also, most institutions mention similar projects, all in different wordings. The value of an EPS for both the Institution and the EU could be enhanced if this information is displayed more systematically and more selective. I.e. institutions could be required to complete a pre-structured format which includes an overview of all types of projects that they intend to implement in the coming year(s).

• Based on a structured web based environment, institutions could be challenged to assess themselves on several dimensions related to internationalisation. This could evolve into a benchmarking platform for sharing good practices. Several examples in other industries of this type of solution already exist.

• Instead of outlining all activities in the EPS, institutions could be requested to show to the commission how they implemented quality assurance around these activities. A limited set of evaluation criteria could be developed, which are aligned with the global objectives of the IP. This could form the basis for an assessment of internationalisation efforts and future evaluations.

• Many institutions indicated that exchange of knowledge and people between departments of internationalisation would be welcomed. ‘Support staff exchange’ funded by the EC could greatly enhance effi ciency and quality of these departments. Also, this could nurture partnerships between institutions, since support staff plays an essential role in day-to-day operations and they tend to have intensive contacts with partner institutions.

7.3.7 Market and sell

The ‘Market and sell’ component of internationalisation is a crucial step in the entire process. Exchange of staff en students would simply not exist, if information about institutions is not available. The rise of the Internet has created a means to market the institutions to a much wider audience. However, websites maintained by the HEI are not always tailored to the specifi c needs of prospective (Erasmus) students in other countries. Also, the fact that almost every institution has its own website right now diminishes the transparency of the market.

94

As some of the students mentioned a website with experiences from other Erasmus students was a very useful and powerful tool for them to fi nd a place to study. The disadvantage of the existing websites is the emphasis on the social aspects, whereas academic staff also needs the assurance that the level of education is suffi cient.

A solution that extends the EPS to an information system for a much broader audience could be a useful in-strument. This solution can be similar to the portal for students, with some additional information relevant for the institutions. In designing such an innovative solutions, the following users should be taken into account:• Students and trainees learning in all forms of higher education and advanced vocational education and

training;• Higher education institutions, as specifi ed by Member States;• Teaching and administrative staff within those institutions;• Associations and representatives of those involved in higher education, including relevant student,

university, and teacher/ trainer associations;• Enterprises, social partners and other representatives of working life;• Public and private organisations responsible for the organisation and delivery of education and training at

local and regional levels;• Research centres and bodies concerned with lifelong learning issues.

Inspiration for such a website can be drawn from many markets. One of these examples is the real estate market, where private customers can search for a new home. The nice thing about these types of websites is that all kinds of interested parties (buyers, sellers, intermediaries, insurance companies, banks, municipalities, marketing agencies) are brought together in one portal, thus ensuring a sustainable solution. Also, the DG Research website for searching partners could be a solution.

••••

•

•••••

••

•

••••

••

•

••

•

•

•

•

•••••

•••

••

•

••••

•••

••

••••

••••••

••••••

••

••••••••••••

••••••

•••

•

•

•

•

•

•••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

•oooo

•

•••

••

••••••

•

• • •

•

••

•

•

•

•

••••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

oo

ooo

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•