Intra-European Student Mobility in International Higher Education Circuits

Europe on the Move

Christof Van Mol

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137355430
• eBook ISBN: 9781137355447
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, this book empirically investigates the (im)mobility decisions, social network formation, sense of European identity and migratory aspirations of higher education students. It draws on a large-scale survey, in-depth interviews and focus groups, conducted in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Poland and the UK.

1

Introduction

International student mobility has increased significantly in recent decades. Globally, it has been estimated that numbers of students that move internationally ‘have been rising almost four times faster than total international migration’ (King and Raghuram 2013: 127). Whereas in 1975, around 0.8 million students were enrolled outside their country of citizenship, in 2010 this number increased to more than 4.1 million students (OECD 2012: 362). Degree mobility – students pursuing a complete degree abroad, also called ‘diploma mobility’ – constitutes the majority of student migrants globally. Nevertheless, in Europe, credit mobility – students going abroad for a limited period of time in the framework of an exchange programme – is the prevailing form (Brooks and Waters 2011). This is principally the result of the institutionalisation of the Erasmus programme: between 1987 and 2011, 2.3 million students moved internationally within the framework of this programme.¹ Even though an increasing interest in credit mobility can be observed in scientific circles (Findlay et al. 2012), the majority of studies focus on degree mobility, especially from ‘non-Western’ towards ‘Western’ countries (Shigemasu and Ikeda 2006; Smith and Khawaja 2011; Waters and Brooks 2011). Given the increasing visibility and growth of participating student numbers in the Erasmus programme, this is somewhat surprising.

At the start of this study, most studies into intra-European credit mobility remained limited to descriptive statistics, describing in- and out-flows and stocks of students, with little empirical fieldwork or sound theoretical framing (de Federico de la Rúa 2003). Moreover, most studies remain single-country analyses today (Gargano 2009; King and Raghuram 2013), with a main focus on the context of the United Kingdom (see for example Baláž and Williams 2004; Brooks and Waters 2011; Findlay et al. 2006), despite the evident international character of the phenomenon (Van Mol 2011a; Van Mol and Wauters 2011). Furthermore, most research into European student mobility has focused on particular themes such as second language acquisition (see for example Gómez Martínez et al. 2012; Sanz-Sainz and Roldán-Miranda 2008; Zhang and Mi 2010), the drivers and barriers of student mobility at a personal level (see for example Barrios et al. 2007; Raikou and Karalis 2007; Teichler 2004), and intercultural communication and competences (see for example Anquetil 2006; Braşoveanu 2010; Krzaklewska and Krupnik 2007; Ünver 2007). Notwithstanding the theoretical advances regarding the study of student mobility and migration in recent years (see for example Findlay 2011; Murphy-Lejeune 2002; Raghuram 2013), organised intra-European student mobility remains understudied. Therefore, the purpose of this book is to broaden our understanding of this specific form of international student migration by adopting a firmly empirically grounded international comparative approach.

Erasmus students: a specific population of international students

In recent years, several authors (see for example Findlay 2011; Raghuram 2013) have convincingly argued for considering international student migration as a specific migration form. Nevertheless, accommodating all student migration flows within the category of ‘international student migration’ does neglect the versatility of the phenomenon. After all, ‘international/foreign student’ is a generic term that ignores the variety of trajectories, motives and objectives of students (Van Mol 2011c). Whereas in Chapter 2 and the empirical chapters I will present a more detailed examination of how intra-European student mobility fits within theories on international migration, in this section I briefly highlight the heterogeneity of international student migration, and what is distinctive about the sub-category of Erasmus students.

First, a distinction can be made between ‘degree mobility’ and ‘credit mobility’, the former being the most common form of student movement across international borders globally, the latter being the prevalent form of student mobility in Europe. The main difference between the two forms is that credit mobile students are still enrolled at their home institution during their stay abroad. Moreover, as such international exchanges are generally organised in the framework of institutionalised exchange programmes, they do not have to pay extra tuition fees at their host institution. However, it should be noted that within Europe, such boundaries sometimes become increasingly blurred. Degree mobile students, for example, might also become ‘credit mobile’ when they spend a study period abroad in another European country in the framework of the Erasmus programme. As a result, it is important to clarify that in this book, I focus on national bachelor and masters-level students that go abroad in the framework of the Erasmus programme.² This was a deliberate choice, as including ‘cross-category’ students would incur significant complexities in the analyses.³

Second, Teichler (2009) makes a distinction between ‘horizontal’ mobility and ‘vertical mobility’. Horizontal mobility refers to mobility between institutions of more or less the same level of knowledge, and would be more common in Europe, whereas vertical mobility refers to upward or downward mobility. In this study, however, I do not depart from this distinction, as I consider vertical mobility also to be present within Europe. In academic circles, perceived differentiations between the educational levels of institutions for higher education have increasingly come to the fore, which becomes apparent, for example, with the elite status of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford in the United Kingdom, and the grandes écoles in France (see for example Tapper and Filippakou 2009), or in international university rankings (see for example Amsler and Bolsmann 2012). Therefore, instead of assuming that mobility within Europe is always ‘horizontal, in Chapters 3 and 6 the status of institutions for higher education will be taken into account when examining students’ (im)mobility motivations and aspirations.

Third, the term ‘international/foreign student’ is no longer restricted to those who physically move to a foreign university today. For example, an increase in international branch campuses can recently be observed, allowing students to become mobile while staying put in the same place (see for example Waters and Leung 2013; Wilkins et al. 2012). Similarly, it is now also possible to obtain foreign higher education degrees through distance learning online, due to the widespread use of the internet (see for example Erichsen and Bolliger 2011). Although such new forms of international student mobility are interesting topics and deserve scientific attention, in this study I focus on international physical mobility of students between higher education institutions.

The deliberate focus upon European (physical) credit mobility of national bachelor and masters-level students within Europe means that a specific sub-category of international students is investigated. Accordingly, their experiences might differ to those of other international students. Focusing on intra-European student mobility, for example, entails that the international student population under study is generally not subjected to strict immigration laws, due to their mobility within the Schengen Area of free movement.⁴ Moreover, as their stay is conceived as transitory, and framed within the political agreements of free movement, they are normally not considered as ‘problematic’ for integration in the host society (Dervin 2009; Murphy-Lejeune 2002): they are generally not required by law or by political discourse to integrate, for they are considered as quasi-citizens in host countries’ immigration policies (Dervin 2009). International students from outside Europe, in contrast, are habitually subjected to immigration law (Caestecker et al. 2009), since they are often considered as potential backdoors for ‘hidden’ migration (Murphy-Lejeune 2008; Van Mol 2008). Furthermore, Erasmus students are enrolled at their home institution, as I mentioned before, and they do not have to pay tuition fees at the host institution. International students from so-called ‘third countries’,⁵ however, are often charged more than national or European students when studying at a European institution for higher education. Additionally, credit mobile students’ stay is generally more delineated in time: they have to return to their home institution once they complete their study period abroad, usually consisting of an academic semester or year. Degree mobile students, in contrast, may move on to other destinations or stay in the host country after graduation (see Chapter 6).

Given these distinctive characteristics of organised intra-European student mobility, the dynamics behind the phenomenon and the experiences of the involved students might differ from those who embody other international student migration flows. As a result, intra-European student mobility should be studied separately from other forms of student mobility and migration, although the links and overlap between such different forms should be acknowledged. It should be noticed that throughout this book, when the terms ‘European mobile students’, ‘intra-European mobile students’, ‘intra-European student mobility’, ‘European year abroad’,⁶ and others are used, they interchangeably but consistently refer to credit mobility. When I refer to other forms of international student mobility/migration, this is explicitly stated in the text.

Internationalisation of higher education in Europe

The proliferation of intra-European student mobility in recent decades cannot be understood separately from processes of internationalisation of higher education, which stimulated the institutionalisation and promotion of student mobility. Although mobility is only a single component of the internationalisation of higher education today, it was situated for a long time at the centre of such processes.⁷ Wächter (2003) described four stages of the internationalisation of European higher education, in which mobility can be attributed a specific role. During the first stage – until the mid-eighties – internationalisation was principally identical with mobility. Wächter argued that throughout this phase, internationalisation was mainly organised independently by individuals, and structural involvement was non-existent. Nonetheless, although cooperation might have been limited during this first period compared to the scale of international cooperation in higher education today, it should be noted that there are some antecedents of international cooperation between universities and organised student mobility schemes in the post-war period, exemplified for example by the exchange programmes of the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) and the British Council (Gürüz 2011). The second stage, from the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties, was also characterised by mobility, but now international networks of university departments organised internationalisation, mainly through the Erasmus scheme, which was initiated in 1987. The programme was named after the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466–1536), but also functioned as an abbreviation for ‘European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students’ (Bracht et al. 2006). The main objectives of the programme at the European level – which will be investigated in Chapters 5 and 6 – were twofold (Corbett 2003; Papatsiba 2006; Van Mol 2011a). It was to strengthen the ties between European citizens and consequently promote a European identity (Corbett 2003; Sigalas 2010; Van Mol 2013b), and also promote mobility within the European labour market, as the likelihood of mobility in the future careers of students would be increased through participation in the programme (Teichler and Jahr 2001; Van Mol 2011b). These rationales are still present today, and exemplified, for example, by the ‘Green Paper on learning mobility’ in 2009, wherein the following was stated:

[learning mobility] can help foster a deepened sense of European identity and citizenship among young people. It also boosts the circulation of knowledge which is key to Europe’s knowledge-based future. (Commission of the European Communities 2009: 2–3)

However, as the organisation of the Erasmus programme remained mainly dependent upon bilateral exchange agreements between academic departments during this second stage, the main driver of internationalisation was still limited to the involved academic units. In contrast, the third phase, which started in 1995, broadened the scope of internationalisation, which was no longer restricted to mobility. The Erasmus programme was, for example, incorporated in the wider Socrates scheme. Most educational support programmes were now grouped under this umbrella, and increasing administrative efficiency and stimulation of cooperation across educational sectors became the main objective of European initiatives (Bracht et al. 2006). From this time onwards, bilateral cooperation agreements had to be made between institutions of higher education in one single application, and ‘they had to formulate a European Policy Statement (EPS) that puts into perspective the activities expected to be supported by Erasmus as part of a larger framework of European policies and activities of the institution’ (Teichler 2001: 203). Apart from student mobility, teaching staff mobility and curricular innovation were now promoted as well (Bracht et al. 2006). As a result, internationalisation moved to the institutional level. The fourth phase of internationalisation started at the end of the nineties with the implementation of the Bologna Process, which aimed to create the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010. Individual countries subscribed to this process that aimed principally to harmonise structural differences in higher education, with a particular concern for the harmonisation of degrees. From this moment on, internationalisation became organised at the system level. Governments of individual countries were the main drivers of internationalisation, in a context characterised by an ‘emerging world market of higher education, competition, and globalisation in general’ (Wächter 2003: 7). Today, a fifth phase of internationalisation can be observed in Europe, as the European Commission has been gradually extending its influence in educational matters over the last decade. The Bologna Process is no longer limited to the European realm, but has been exported as a ‘European model of education’ beyond European borders (see for example Figueroa 2010). Although education remains a core competence of the European Union’s member states, the progressive influence of the European Union on educational systems thus becomes visible. As a result, in the fifth phase, internationalisation in Europe remains organised at the system level, but the supranational entity of the European Union now exerts an increasing influence on national education systems.

Not surprisingly, the described changes in the higher education landscape have attracted considerable attention of scholars in recent years (see for example Altbach and Knight 2007; Altbach and Teichler 2001; Crosier et al. 2007; Gordon 2001; Teichler 2009; van der Wende 2007). However, most studies address the institutional and policy level, whereas there is also a need to grasp the experiences of the individuals involved, in casu higher education students. Although there is a growing body of literature on students’ lived mobility experiences (see for example Ballatore 2010; Brooks and Waters 2011), most of these studies focus solely on the viewpoint of those who move abroad. Moreover, international comparative approaches to intra-European educational mobility are rather the exception than the norm. Therefore, in this study, I adopt an international approach, and I focus on individuals’ (im)mobility experiences in changing contexts, starting from the viewpoints of the subjects involved.

An international comparative approach: a Europe of regions

Several authors (see for example King and Raghuram 2013; King and Ruiz-Gelices 2003) argued that international comparative ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Introduction
• 2  Post-industrial Society and European Integration
• 3  Who Goes Abroad?
• 4  The Reconstruction of a Social Network Abroad
• 5  Erasmus Students: Frenzied Euro-enthusiasts?
• 6  The Nexus between Student Mobility and Future Migration Aspirations
• 7  Conclusion
• Appendix
• Notes
• References
• Index