Trends and Development concerning Mobility and Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe by Gisela Baumgratz-Gangl

Trends and Development concerning Mobility and

Note: This article will be published in: Goodwin / Teichler (eds.): Globalism and regionalism in academic mobility (International colloquium Academic mobility in a changing world: Regional and global trends, Wassenaar / NL 12 - 14 November 1992).

1. Preliminary remarks

The present paper draws upon appreciations given by key actors in the field of higher education and educational policy in Europe. (The data was collected by an EIESP team: Gisela Baumgratz-Gangl, Jean Gordon and Claudia Meschede.) Out interviews were based on a questionnaire (see appendix) which dealt with quantitative and qualitative aspects of mobility in the context of the internationalization of higher education in Europe. Recent published and unpublished documentation available in the ERASMUS, COMETT and TEMPUS offices in Brussels and in the European Institute of Education and Social Policy in Paris (mainly preparatory documents for OECD, UNESCO or other international and European conferences on internationalization of higher education and mobility in the different world regions) was also consulted (see bibliography). We would like to express our gratitude to all colleagues who have contributed to the present paper.

By "Europe" we mean EC-Europe as well as the EFTA countries and those of Central and Eastern Europe. Our findings are neither exhaustive nor representative. We consider them as a contribution to a research agenda which deals with the different facets of mobility and the internationalization of higher education world-wide, as well as with the complex problems of data collection and the conceptual problems related to mobility. In addition, the policies, objectives and methods of internationalization of higher education at the European, national and institutional levels as well as on the individual levels of students and staff mobility are part of our framework.

Mobility, and especially the organized mobility within the European Programmes (ERASMUS, COMETT, TEMPUS and LINGUA), is considered to be means of internationalization which raises economic as well as political issues. One the one hand, there is the increased economic competitiveness of the EC member states, and on the other, the construction of an "enlarged Europe" through economic restructuring and the development of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. Research should therefore aim to assess the impact of mobility on change in higher education at institutional level as well as at the level of disciplines, curriculum, qualifications and certification.

As it was pointed out in a recent document concerning research about student mobility, "it is somewhat surprising that foreign students have not been seen by social scientists as an important population to study in their own right and as a manifestation of cross-cultural relations, knowledge transfer and the like. The fact remains, however, that the literature on foreign students tends to be related to cross-cultural psychological and adjustment issues. The literature, for these reasons, tends to be applied and, in general, atheoretical. The literature is particularly weak in the fields of economic and political science (Altbach 1990, 2). He goes on to say that only "a few agencies have taken an interest in foreign students and have sponsored research on the topic" and that "these organizations are, without exception, located in the industrialized nations and reflect the concerns of the 'host' nations and their academic institutions" (Altbach 1990, 2). He mentions in particular the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs (NAFSA), and the Institute of International Education (IIE) in the United States, the United Kingdom Council on Overseas Student Affairs (UKCOSA) and the Overseas Student Trust in the UK, the European Institute of Education for the European level and the OECD conferences on foreign study. Interestingly enough, he mentions the ERASMUS Programme in this context, saying that "it will very probably contribute significantly to the research literature on foreign study." (Altbach 1990, 2)

2. The concept of mobility related to the concept of internationalisation

As is the case with all fashionable concepts, the use of "mobility" by the media and in political and economic discourse to describe either the method or the result of change, in terms of future qualification of "human resources" in a global context, tends to be fairly mythical. In order to separate rhetoric from reality we examine below some of the meanings attribute to the term.

The most obvious definition is the geographical one. In our context it applies to students, researchers and teaching staff in higher education who move from an institution in one country to another institution in another country for a determined or undetermined period of time.

This geographical mobility is supposed to produce certain intellectual and attitudinal effects on individuals which enlarge their general and social qualifications, and their disciplinary and/or professional qualifications. Mobility is therefore to be considered as a method of acquisition of those qualifications.

From a political point of view, especially in the EC context, mobility is considered as a method of institutional change as well as a result of changing conditions within the higher education institutions. This is of course with a view to qualifying the workforce for the Single Market and Western European integration. Consequently, in order to make mobility an element of educational policy in Europe (in terms of internationalization of study and teaching conditions on the one hand and qualifications on the other) and taking into account that the political competence of the EC Commission was even lower in the 1970s than it is now, programmes had to be created which combined financial incentives with a number of criteria and procedures. The Commission provided a framework for "organized mobility". The programme criteria did not put too many qualitative constraints on the people and institutions willing to participate and the main concern was to increase mobility to the often quoted magic number of 10% within EC-Europe. This increase in quantity seems to have been considered as the critical mass necessary to introduce qualitative change at institutional level, i.e. the internationalization of higher education institutions accompanied by a change in national policies.

This leads us to some thoughts about the underlying concept of internationalization. As we shall see in the following chapter, student mobility was essentially a one-way process: from less-developed or developing countries in the so-called Third World to the industrialized nations belonging to the OECD (or the former USSR). This student flow was mainly based on the provision of individual scholarships provided either by the host country (motivated by foreign policy considerations) or by the government of the "sending" country (motivated by historical, cultural or economic ties). The lacking of higher education provision in the latter countries and the reputation of the host countries encouraged this tendency. Even if these students still represent the largest number of foreign students in certain Western European countries (France, Germany, the U.K., Belgium, Netherlands - see below) and even though there is special provision to meet their needs, this kind of mobility has not led to a significant internationalization of teaching and education in the host countries. Development policies to prevent a "brain drain" were aimed at building institutions in the "sending" countries. Student flows and staff mobility within the Western world, especially between Western Europe and the USA, were mainly motivated by the research interests of staff and postgraduate students and by career interests based on the reputation of (US) research institutions (as in the case of Germany or France), language ties (as is obvious in the case of the UK or Ireland), or the lack of higher education provision (as in the case of Greece, Spain, Portugal or to a certain extent even Italy).

This "internationalization" has been motivated essentially by individual-, industry- or government-driven research interests and has always been considered as an inherent quality of academic exchange, especially in the natural sciences and their applications (the so-called "hardware disciplines") with English as the common language. The concept of study, in line with this research-oriented mentality, which is still strongly emphasized by the staff of the traditional universities (e.g. in Germany, Italy or Denmark), is that of preparing future researchers in the discipline. The teaching concept is not one of education, or of preparation for an extra-university professional activity, but the communication of research results. (Hence the strong resistance to didactic or pedagogy within the traditional universities). This priority of research interests by Western higher education institutions willing to cooperate is also found within the so-called aid programmes for Third World higher education or research institutions, as we have learned from a German source.

Given the priorities of internationalization in the EC context, i.e. the increase of economic competitiveness within Western Europe, and since the fall of the socialist governments in Central and Eastern Europe, a need was felt for educational mobility and co-operation with an emphasis on both professional or applied training and the social qualifications of the future citizens of an integrated Europe. This new emphasis had - as we will see later on - a special mobilizing effect on the non-university type of higher education institutions.

3. Characteristics of international co-operation, staff and student mobility before the introduction of the European programmes

a - historical (combined with cultural and linguistic) ties between European countries and their former colonies (especially France, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands). With its colonial ties to North Africa, France is the country with the highest proportion of foreign students (nearly 8% of the student population).

b - political considerations concerning reconciliation and the consolidation of peace within Europe after the Second World War. One example of this is the 1963 treaty between France and Germany establishing the German-French Office for Youth Exchange, research co-operation between higher education institutes, negotiations on the equivalence of certificates and diplomas, the creation of the Bureau of the German Office for Academic Exchange - DAAD in Paris, etc. Other examples include co-operation with Poland and the former East Germany, co-operation between Europe and North America and the politics of containment of world communism and foreign policy considerations concerning Third World countries.

c - political refugees with traditional ties to one of the former colonial metropolises like France in the case of Indochina or the Netherlands in the case of Surinam.

d - economic considerations: economic restructuring, training of new elites and economic leadership mainly through mobility of research staff and postgraduate students to the USA, internationalization of recruitment in big (mainly) English-speaking multinational companies (e.g. IBM, Royal Dutch Shell, etc.)

e - educational demand: lack of higher education provision in certain countries (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg, etc.). Students of these countries traditionally went to the USA. Higher education legislation recognized the diplomas or grades acquired at foreign universities. In Greece, students with low family incomes traditionally went to southern Italian universities.

f - research co-operation in the so-called "hardware disciplines" (natural sciences) with postgraduate student mobility, joint research projects between academic staff or research institutions.

g - top-level postgraduate study, motivated by the reputation of research institutions in the USA (e.g. MIT, Harvard, Princeton, etc.), combined with top-level career expectations of graduates of these prestigious institutions in their home countries.

h - migration of "guest workers", for example the Turks and their children in Germany. Since the children of immigrants born in Germany do not have automatic access to German nationality as do immigrants' children born in France, they are still counted in the statistics as part of the foreign student population called "Bildungsinlaender".

i - increasing foreign language competence at school level, especially English and to a lesser extent French and German.

j - traditional links between disciplines: for example philology.

k - traditional mobility of elites, i.e. of diplomats and increasingly of top managers.

l - the improvement of transport, communication and the expansion of tourism, etc.

m - international co-operation and staff mobility between higher education institutions in Western Europe and North America up to the late 1970s were mainly based on research contacts. It was often individual-driven and dictated by the individual interests of researchers looking for inter-national exchanges or by government supported mobility of postgraduate students for top qualifications not available in the home country. This is especially true of mobility towards the USA.

n - mobility of Third World students and staff to Western Europe and North America. One of the major negative consequences for the home countries was the increasing "brain drain", which led to new considerations concerning support for developing countries. Instead of training people in Europe or North America, support went into building higher education institutions in the developing countries with the secondary but economically important effect, however, that the traditional links between Third World elites and the European metropolises tended to decrease.

One major example of such a policy is the so-called "sure place" scholarships provided by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) to allow students of selected high standard universities in Africa, Asia or Latin America to study in their home region with a German scholarship. Another example of the same kind is the "sandwich" programme (at present 271 programmes, with an expenditure of 4,8 million DM per year financed by the Foreign Office) developed by the DAAD with some Third World countries. Selected students participate in a doctorate programme under the joint sponsorship of their foreign professor and a German professor. They may spend half their time working on their research at a German university and half at home. The thesis must be written in English and examinations are jointly conducted by the foreign and German professors.

4. Major historical turning points and the role of the European Community programmes

There are two main historical turning points that mark major shifts in the development of higher education co-operation and mobility in Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world:

- The first is the development of an educational policy at EC level by means of the European mobility and co-operation programmes between higher education institutions, and higher education institution and enterprises, such as COMETT, ERASMUS, LINGUA that have been created from 1986 onwards, mainly in view of the preparation of the work force for the Single Market in 1993. The setting up of a Task Force for Human Resources Education Training and Youth at the Commission level highlights the economic priorities introduced to higher education co-operation and academic mobility within Western Europe. Programmes such as COMETT and ERASMUS have been gradually opened up to the EFTA countries as well.

- The second is the revolutionary development in Central and Eastern Europe with the decline of the socialist governments which has opened up the perspective of a much bigger Europe than the one confined to the EC member states and their associates in Northern, Western and Southern Europe.

These events also have an impact on the development of the EC in so far as they confirm the necessity to reinforce not only the economic but also the political integration of Europe in order to ensure a certain stability. Cohesion is therefore one of the concepts that influence the definition of EC-based activities in the field of higher education within Western Europe, but also in their extension to Central and Eastern Europe.

The framework for internationalization / Europeanisation in terms of educational mobility and co-operation in the higher education sector in Western Europe is created by the ERASMUS Programme (European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) and its predecessors, the Joint Study programmes on the EC level and the German IAS (integrated study abroad programme) developed by the DAAD (the conceptual differences will be discussed at a later stage when we compare national and European policies of internationalization).

Together with the Higher Education component of the LINGUA programme, ERASMUS covers all areas of higher education with an emphasis on Inter-University Co-operation Programmes (ICPs) within which student and staff mobility and curricular development should in principle be organized. Some 3,500 eligible higher education institutions designated by the member states have been invited to participate in the ERASMUS programme. In the meantime the EFTA countries have been invited to participate in ERASMUS

Parallel to the EC-ERASMUS programme, the Scandinavian countries have created the NORDPLUS Programme. This programme aiming at student mobility within Scandinavia does not include inter-university co-operation programmes. Due to the similarity of higher education institutions and course structures in the Scandinavian countries, the organization of student mobility with fully recognised study abroad, the abolition of certificates of residence and the possibility of transfer of national scholarships and grants was seen as sufficient by the promoters to make students move within the Scandinavian context. There are also some Dutch programmes complementary to the EC action programmes:

- STIR (stimulation programme for internationalization): student grants for other than EC countries, staff grants, grants for infrastructure and programme development; 4 million guilders in 1988 to 13.5 million in 1993, programmes run until 1995.

- PSO (programme for co-operation with Eastern Europe in border areas)

- GROS (programme for regional co-operation)

Due to its economic priorities and even before ERASMUS, the EC Commission enhanced the COMETT Programme concerned with co-operation between higher education institutions and enterprises either on a regional or on a sectorial level and with the purpose of high-level training programmes aimed at technology transfer. Within this context we can find another aspect of the concept of mobility or another aspect of mobility as policy. Student mobility in the framework of COMETT is organized within University Enterprise Training Partnerships (UETPs) in the form of placements of selected highly qualified students within enterprises, preferably small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This form of student mobility is also seen as a means of technology transfer from universities and big enterprises with research facilities towards small and medium-sized enterprises with an additional effect on regional development. However student mobility is not seen as a priority within the context of COMETT (see also below). The programme is also open to the EFTA countries.

To build up co-operation with Central and Eastern Europe in the educational field the Commission has created the TEMPUS Programme, adopted in 1990. TEMPUS forms part of the overall programme of Community aid for the economic restructuring of the countries of Central and Eastern European countries known as the PHARE Programme within which training is one of the priority areas for co-operation. It was started in 1990/91 with Hungary, Poland, the former Czechoslovakia and the former East Germany and opened up in 1991/92 to Bulgaria, Romania and the former Yugoslavia. The programme is also open to the G24 group, including Canada, the USA, Australia and Japan. A separate programme is in hand for the new republics created after the breakdown of the USSR.

Mobility within TEMPUS does not necessarily imply reciprocity. It is mainly mobility from Central and Eastern Europe to Western Europe seen as a means of continuing education and technology transfer. In the context of restructuring, institution-building and curriculum development, student mobility does not have the same priority as it does in ERASMUS.

5. The impact of the EC Programmes on the structure and concept of mobility and international co-operation in higher education.

With the introduction of COMETT and ERASMUS, the EC Commission created an instrument of educational policy at the European level which by its procedural regulations and funding criteria based on the principle of subsidarity addresses itself directly to the 'users'. The major mobilizing effect of these programmes is confirmed by all the key actors and experts we have consulted. This is not only in terms of a considerable quantitative increase of student mobility (even though the objective set by ERASMUS to attain 10% of students moving has not been achieved), staff mobility and co-operation relations between higher education institutions within Europe, but also in terms of quality. Out of 3,500 eligible higher education institutions, 1,500 are now involved in ICPs, compared to 500 at the beginning of the ERASMUS Programme. According to estimations made by the Wissenschaftliches Zentrum fuer Berufs- and Hochschulforschung in Kassel (Germany) in 1992/93, more than 80,000 students will participate in exchange programmes within ERASMUS and LINGUA. In addition to that, applications from EFTA countries will allow 126 EFTA institutions of higher education and up to 3,400 students from these countries to participate. The figures are even more striking when compared with 1988/1989 (the second year of ERASMUS) when only 11,000 students - that is about a ninth of the actual number - from about 500 institutions went to another country with the support of the ERASMUS programme.

5.1 Quantitative and qualitative aspects of change

In the following section, we will highlight a variety of quantitative and qualitative aspects of change brought about by the programmes. The variables examined were geographical, national, regional, political, economic, institutional, scientific, disciplinary and individual (staff and student). As quantity is of critical impact on quality and vice versa, we consider these two aspects of mobility and internationalization to be strongly interrelated at all levels. Problems arise concerning the quality and up-to-date character of data available at this stage, along with other problems due to differences in the definition of the "foreign student" from one country to another. The "Bildungslaender" in Germany, even if born there but of Turkish or Greek parents, is counted among the foreign student population. In addition the term "foreign student" comprises a variety of cases from students who do all their study in the host country to those who stay for a couple of months, those who have come on individual initiative and resources, to those with a national scholarship from the home or the host country:

- in the framework of a mobility or exchange programme based on an inter-institutional co-operation programme.

- as an undergraduate student who does part of his study in the host university on an individual basis or in terms of academic recognition either negotiated on the staff or the department level of "sending" and host institution

- as a postgraduate student doing research or a doctorate based on individual initiative with or without a scholarship or institutional co-operation.

In addition to this, the latest comprehensive data published in the UNESCO Yearbook date from 1987 (the year when ERASMUS was voted). As the student population differs considerably from one country to another, absolute numbers are only one aspect. On the other hand, even if 2.6% of the student population in the US are foreign students which in absolute numbers means significantly more than the 8.9% of foreign students in France, the latter percentage might have a stronger impact on French higher education.

5.2 Geographical aspects

In the beginning, ERASMUS Inter-University Co-operation Programmes (ICPs) were built upon existing co-operation between the higher education institutions of the "golden triangle" (The United Kingdom, Germany and France) within the Joint Studies Programme which had been set up by the EC in the mid-1970s. Programmes like the above-mentioned IAS ("integrated study abroad") of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) also played an important role. The European mobility programmes, and particularly ERASMUS, not only led to a major increase in intra-European mobility, the new programmes also stimulated a change in pattern. Those countries which had essentially been host countries for foreign students (especially from Third World countries) since the Second World War, became aware of the advantages of sending students abroad, not only to the United States but also to universities in Europe. The framework of organized mobility within the inter-university educational co-operation scheme provided by ERASMUS and other programmes led to the development of new forms of student mobility at undergraduate level. They complemented the "free-mover" system at postgraduate and research level. New countries have been brought into the internationalization of higher education. A new and changed dimension emerged for countries traditionally linked to the USA and the UK such as Denmark, Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal. Spanish colleagues have pointed out that besides a continuing increase in relations with the EC and EFTA, the regions of highest growth were countries in Latin America. In this context they also mentioned the stimulating role of the CRE Programmes Columbus and Copernicus.

In spite of this overall increase in intra-European mobility, it is clear that there are still major imbalances in student flows and that reciprocity is far from being a reality even between higher education institutions in the EC member states. Apart from language barriers, one major reason is that the same criteria that oriented students and staff towards higher education institutions in the USA are valid for Western European Higher Education Institutions. The reputation of higher education institutions, especially in the northern part of the EC, is significant; Irish students, for example, traditionally go to the UK and to France, especially for language reasons. Recently, many students are said to be favouring Germany. The process of comparison, combined with long-standing positive and negative "national" prejudices, leads to competition between higher education institutions in Europe which had not previously concerned them. The development of the ICPs within ERASMUS shows that in general existing programmes involving France, Germany, the UK, Belgium or the Netherlands were extended to partners in the south of Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece and, to a lesser extent Italy), but also to some in the north, like Denmark. The majority of the programmes are co-ordinated by French or British higher education institutions. In its recent policy statement on the internationalization of higher education in Germany, the German Wissenschaftsrat deplores the fact that German higher education institutions are not in the forefront of programme co-ordination. (Italy is by far the least active country.)

The combination of favourable prejudice and language competence leads to the fact that English-speaking countries or higher education institutions with a good reputation and courses in English are the most sought after host countries / institutions (the UK, Ireland, France). Institutions in these countries feel a certain imbalance between incoming and outgoing students and consider the hosting of foreign students a quite heavy workload. The introduction of study courses in English for foreign students constitutes one element of the politics of internationalization of higher education in the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark.

Due to historical and cultural ties, as well as foreign language provision in schools, France and Germany are major host countries as well, though with a significant difference. Higher education institutions in France in general have responded much more positively to ERASMUS than German higher education institutions and especially German universities.

Competitiveness as well as economic and cultural considerations have also led to increasing co-operation between regions in the different EC member states and the EFTA countries: some regions (such as Flanders and the Netherlands) have discovered cultural and linguistic ties. The same is true of Savoie in France and Italy, and of the Oberrhein Network including Basle, Freiburg and Strasbourg. Other networks are built upon economic considerations such as regional co-operation between Baden Wurttemberg in the south of Germany and Rhone-Alpes in the south of France (this co-operation is actually quadrilateral, additionally involving Catalonia and Lombardia; Wales is reported to have become the fifth partner). Interestingly enough the European programmes made Walloon and Flemish higher education institutions within Belgium cooperate for the first time.

Imbalances in participation in the programmes are also found within the member states. The most striking example is Italy where the northern universities are far more present than the southern ones. But some of the latter, such as Brindisi, seem to be making considerable efforts to equal their northern counterparts. In Greece participation is confined to the big cities. A concentration of international co-operation can also be found in Madrid, Barcelona, Santander and Seville in Spain and in Lisbon and Coimbra in Portugal (see also the Coimbra Group which in a way is a response by the universities in smaller cities to the capital cities network). Even if the number of students who go from the central northern countries to the more peripheral countries in the south, north or north-west of Europe is still small, as well as the number of students going from one southern country to another, there is nevertheless a significant trend which did not exist at all before ERASMUS. (For motivations see below).

A similar situation exists in the EFTA countries: the European programmes like ERASMUS and TEMPUS represents new challenges for them. Even at the present stage an increase in participation by institutions in the ERASMUS Programme has been noted. Western European co-operation networks created within the ERASMUS or COMETT contexts have provided an important starting point for the Joint European Programmes (JEPs) within the TEMPUS-Scheme.

5.3 Political and institutional change and changes of mentality

Apart from institutions which are very active and have taken great advantage of such programmes as ERASMUS, there are many institutions, departments or individual academic staff all over Europe who have taken their first steps to international co-operation through fund-raising. Over the years, the way in which the 'users' of the programmes in the different institutions have interpreted and implemented the objectives has led to an increasing awareness of the political, economic and institutional impact of international co-operation, student and staff exchange within the national and European context. In some countries, internationalization and mobility in the context of 1993 have been the subject of wide-ranging discussion in the media. France is a good example of this. University co-operation, apart from the special agreements with Germany, has traditionally been confined to the French-speaking world (see AUPELF: Association des Universitιs partiellement ou entiθrement de Language Franηaise). The fact that the European programmes focus upon institutional co-operation, instead of individual staff or student mobility, thus introducing educational co-operation in addition to the traditional research co-operation, created a major catalysing effect. Hosting and sending increased numbers of ERASMUS students meant the involvement of more and more departments. This raised problems of fund-raising, grant allowances and national legislation, and created a demand on the national and/or regional policy levels, as well as on the institutional level concerning a growing need for infrastructure, assessment of educational objectives and institutional output in terms of research and qualifications, change of mentality, extension of the dimensions of communication from research subjects to subjects of teaching, curriculum development and the organizational impact of sending and hosting students and staff.

With some exceptions, most of the institutions, up to that stage, did not have any kind of policy on internationalization of educational co-operation and study. In agreeing to participate in the ERASMUS scheme the individual administrators, staff members or students exposed themselves to the method of trial and error, very often without the support of the institution. This was true especially in traditional research-oriented universities and is the case for German, Danish and Italian universities and also in general for all university-type higher education. At the curriculum level these universities, even if they defend the need for internationalization, tend to either leave it to the individual students and scholarships and/or postpone it until postgraduate studies. This attitude is very often in line with the conviction that the "national" curriculum is as good as it can be and that there is nothing to be learned abroad which cannot as well be learned at home. As the professional perspective is either not their concern or strictly confined to the career of the future researcher, the social and personal factors and the knowledge of foreign organizational cultures are not taken into account. Consequently the national schemes and policies of internationalization correspond to a large extent to this mentality. The German IAS (integrated study abroad programme) of the DAAD, for example, even if it is often considered as a forerunner of the ICPs in ERASMUS, differs from them by its emphasis on quality, high selectivity and its one-way orientation: German students going abroad. A concern for high quality of the transfer of knowledge process in the context of academic mobility is also stressed by Dutch experts.

In countries like Italy where the same mentality can be found in the universities, the political aspects were important because they stressed the need to internationalize higher education as a national objective and reserved some administrative support for ERASMUS to help the universities set up an infrastructure.

The extensive participation of French universities in ERASMUS can be explained by two factors: apart from the medicine and law faculties, the status of the French universities within French society is far below the status of the "Grandes Ecoles", so that international co-operation within ERASMUS is considered to be a means of improving their social profile. On the other hand teaching and research are separate within the French system in so far as the major government-funded research organization, the CNRS, is separate from the universities.

The inter-university co-operation scheme and student mobility criteria within the ICPs are less selective and leave much liberty to the individual professors involved. Their purpose is to mobilize all kinds of higher education institutions and disciplines for co-operation, to broaden the co-operation basis of institutions and to contribute to more social mobility by touching upon a broader student population.

The expansion of the universities that took place in the 1970s and 1980s in nearly all Western European countries has put additional pressure on the traditional elite-oriented universities. This is especially true in the Spanish system where the number of students grew from about 150,000 in 1960 to 1,000,000 in 1989 and is still growing by about 60,000 a year. The lack of teaching staff, uncompleted curriculum reforms etc. create difficult conditions especially for the intake of foreign students. However, co-operation seems to be more developed between the higher education institutions of longer standing, such as the Coimbra Group or the Columbus and Copernicus Programmes set up by the CRE.

After the ERASMUS scheme provoked a considerable increase in demand by students for study abroad, university departments and staff who were previously not willing to organize educational co-operation and student mobility have in some cases been forced into it by student demand. Cases of this kind are known from Italy as well as from Germany or Denmark. The increase in higher education unemployment and the need to accept dequalification to get a job - especially true for women - led to more labour market-driven attitudes towards students among students. All additional qualifications, especially international experience or foreign language competence and mobility, are welcome. The short-term study abroad recognised by the home university as part of the course corresponds therefore to the expectations of many students.

Given this situation it is not surprising that other types of institution which are nearer to the professional world, for example the German Fachhochschulen, the British Polytechnics or the Business and Management Schools, are more interested in educational co-operation than traditional universities (in Ireland however the universities are more involved in co-operation than the non-university sector). Two long-standing model programmes which were developed by a German Fachhochschule and a French Grande Ecole (Fachhochschule Reutlingen - CESEM Reims - European Business Studies - EBS) and a German Fachhochschule and British Polytechnic (Fachhochschule Osnabrueck and Middlesex Polytechnic in Mechanical Engineering) are often quoted. In spite of these examples, the non-university sector is still less represented. The same thing seems to be true for Spain where non-university higher education institutions are less involved in co-operation. (This situation however is said to be changing with the increase in participation of polytechnical universities.) This is due to a lack of tradition in international (research) co-operation on which many universities have built ERASMUS or COMETT programmes, the lack of support staff and infrastructure and the short time study cycles. Even if the German Fachhochschulen, by their approach to training and their curricular structure, seem to be ideal partners of French Grandes Ecoles, the fact that they are below the universities in the social ranking means that the Confιrence des Grandes Ecoles has taken a formal decision not to co-operate with them.

New provincial universities have sometimes developed more international activities than the above-mentioned traditional ones. Examples of this kind are Louvain-la-Neuve in Belgium, Aarhus in Denmark, Passau in Germany and the Universitι de Technologie de Compiθgne in France. In the network of the capital cities, on the other hand, one finds high-level private institutions (like the French Grandes Ecoles de Commerce), recognised by the state with strong national, sometimes international, reputations ( LUISS in Rome, Luigi Bucconi in Milan or the London School of Economics). For these institutions internationalization is a clear policy because they have to defend their position on an internationalized labour market.

As the British Overseas Trust have pointed out in their publications, internationalization within the context of educational policy in the UK, especially since the Thatcher government, is considered almost exclusively from an economic point of view. On the one hand it is a factor of overseas trade within the context of the shifting dependence of the British economy upon the European market. A new policy of encouraging foreign language learning in secondary schools corresponds to the current slogan that one should sell in the language of the client. On the other hand since the early 1980s foreign students have been expected to pay national 'full cost' fees. Because of ERASMUS criteria, students from the European Community and on reciprocal programmes are exempted from this constraint but overseas students from non-European Community countries are the first victims of this widely criticized policy.

In general, even if in most cases lack of infrastructure for international co-operation is stressed, the European Programmes are seen as having contributed to a considerable broadening of the infrastructure for international co-operation and internationalization of study and mobility. In creating awareness, not only of the difficulties, but also of the possibilities and advantages of internationalization, the programmes lead to a general opening up of all sorts of co-operation with other parts of the world as well. (The obstacles are dealt with below).

As far as legislation is concerned, many countries have introduced new regulations to facilitate mobility. Students are able for example to use their national scholarships for study abroad (see the Netherlands, the UK or Germany). Denmark represents a special case in so far as Scandinavian students within the NORDPLUS Programme do not need certificates of residence for Denmark whereas students from the EC Programmes do. As for Spain the process of educational reform has in many cases followed the general framework of the community guidelines - something that has made it possible to reduce differences in the academic form and content of qualifications.

In some countries there has also been a change of priorities. In the case of Germany the IAS Programme has been abandoned for EC countries and extended to other world regions. The emphasis on educational co-operation within the EC Programmes has led the German authorities to support more research-oriented, highly selective and quality-oriented programmes and scholarships at national level. In the Netherlands, for example, student and staff mobility have, from the start, been conceived as instruments within the context of inter-university agreement. The present trend in the Netherlands initiated by government policy is to limit support to 'free mover' mobility to a minimum. Among both students and staff there has, however, always been a tendency towards the individual approach. The rationale for the national policy is the expectation and wish that inter-university agreements will result in structural co-operation and continuity.

In the COMETT programme Austria and Switzerland, for example, have abolished the need for work permits for student placements.

5.4 Trends in the representation of areas of study, curriculum development (integrated curricula) and academic recognition

Before ERASMUS the main areas involved in student mobility were philology and language studies. Since ERASMUS the most widely represented areas are - beside languages - business and management studies and to a lesser extent engineering. These areas traditionally concerned Western European students from France or Germany aiming at a master's degree delivered by a prestigious American university. Other areas like medicine or the humanities are still under-represented and many of our interviewees considered this situation as being fairly stable.

Generally speaking curriculum development is not really in line with the growth of student mobility. The fully integrated course with obligatory study abroad, full academic recognition and ideally a double degree is relatively rare. It depends very much on the compatibility between higher education course structures. Highly structured course systems which leave little freedom of choice to the students, as in the UK, France or in the case of the German Fachhochschule, are more likely to develop integrated courses than loosely organized structures with lots of individual autonomy for the student, as in Italy or German universities. This again reflects a major difference mentioned above between higher education and institutions' understanding of their role. Are they training for high-level or middle-level professional activities, or preparing students for a career in research? The expansion of the universities which did not leave the traditionally minded universities untouched gave rise to a growing uncertainty and anxiety among students and staff concerning the role and outcomes of study. Foreign students coming from highly structured systems very often find it rather difficult to cope with this situation.

This is one reason why from a German exchange expert's point of view the ERASMUS Programme is too quantity-oriented and the need for qualitative criteria combined with more selectivity was strongly felt. This example also high-lights differences in national and institutional policies concerning internationalization and the criteria exposed by the EC Programmes. The comparison between quantity and quality reveals, among other things a profound difference in the concept of qualification through study abroad, international co-operation and mobility. According to the economic and political priorities set by the Commission, a major quantitative increase of student and staff mobility is supposed to create not only the intellectual, but also the social and communicative basis for co-operation and integration within Europe. Social qualification in terms of better understanding of other cultures (political as well as educational and professional cultures) seems to be more of a priority than the increase of scientific qualification in the subject matter that is more likely to be an objective pursued by the promoters of quality. (As we will see later on, only a well thought-out combination of both aspects of qualification in terms of internationalization of study will in our opinion produce acceptable results in both respects). The NORDPLUS Programme for example seems to neglect the aspects of social and cultural qualification in so far as co-operation programmes are not funded with the argument that the structure of study is the same. However, some of our Scandinavian interview partners stressed the deep-rooted cultural differences and even hostility between different Scandinavian countries.

This major difference in the expected outcome of study abroad in terms of qualification leads us to the general question of academic recognition. A recent issue of the ERASMUS Newsletter dealing with academic recognition shows that in the course of the implementation of the ERASMUS Programme and the accompanying ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) many interpretations and variations of academic recognition have been developed by the co-operating institutions "given that academic study abroad does not fully correspond to the quality and qualifications aimed at in study at home." The examples Ulrich Teichler quotes in his article (Erasmus Newsletter Nr. 10, p. 3) show that the recognition procedures are bound to respond to a search for equivalence on the disciplinary level. We therefore find repeated what we said in discussing the different notions of qualification. Teichler's final remarks lead to the same conclusions: "Recognition might be increased by the development of more closely integrated curricula, and improving study conditions abroad as well as the arrangements regarding recognition per se. A last question, however, is whether the social or cultural benefits of study abroad are themselves worthy of recognition, or should be viewed as 'added value' which is not however to be bartered as an alternative to the satisfactory completion of other courses. Recognition of study abroad is arguably more limited if the yardstick for granting is exactly the same as that used for assessing study at home; and arguably more meaningful if greater maturity, a broader capacity for reflection, and the ability to cope with the unfamiliar are considered to deserve formal acknowledgement in their own right." (ibid. p.3)

In saying that "the enormous merit"of ERASMUS "is that it is essentially about academic recognition of study abroad" Fritz Dalichow, responsible for the implementation of ECTS within ERASMUS points out that internationalization of higher education by way of inter-institutional co-operation across national borders depends very much on the creation of cross-cultural acceptance and cross-cultural negotiation of "the added value". This is especially true for co-operation with Central and Eastern European institutions who as experience shows do not want to be treated as Third World countries having to accept what "big brother" thinks is good for them.

According to the different views concerning the relation between recognition and equivalence and due to national traditions there are different preferences to be found either for the establishment of credit systems or the reinforcement and amelioration of integrated programmes with common or double degrees negotiated by the co-operating institutions. The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Ireland, for example, prefer credit systems, while other countries with less structured study courses like Germany prefer recognition based on institutional/departmental co-operation and negotiation. Both systems are considered by their critics to create uniformity in higher education.

5.5 The development of attitudes concerning student and staff mobility within inter-institutional / departmental programmes

The development of positive and negative attitudes depends upon a variety of factors concerning the general political climate within the countries on the one hand and the experiences of institutions, departments, staff and students with co-operation and mobility on the other. In the latter case, one has to distinguish between attitudes towards accepting foreign students and sending students abroad.

Growing hostility towards foreigners can be observed in Western Europe due to the increased influx of immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe but also from other parts of the world. Economic difficulties and unemployment reinforce this attitude. In some cases this has even led to restrictive policies concerning incoming students, especially from Third World countries. A certain saturation is to be felt in the English-speaking countries, who suffer from an imbalance between taking in foreign students and sending their own students abroad. From a Spanish point of view, one major obstacle is the overwhelming dependence on a few institutions, particularly the EC, for funding. A clear link is seen between the level of wealth of countries and the degree of international co-operation of their universities.

On the other hand people in the Western European countries would tend to be open to even more mobility and international co-operation if some of the main obstacles could be eliminated. In spite of considerable efforts on the institutional level there is still a severe lack of infrastructure for the hosting of foreign students and organization of international co-operation in general, especially but not only in the southern part of Western Europe. Professionalization of international co-operation is certainly more developed in countries like the Netherlands, which has an explicit internationalization policy, or in the UK, where internationalization is considered as a major source of self-financing by the higher education institutions. German organizers of international co-operation with the Akademische Auslandsaemter (university administration for external relations) criticize the self-sufficiency of German faculties especially in areas like engineering where they feel they are the best and do not really see the necessity for study abroad for their students.

Combined with these attitudes are other obstacles like the lack of information about the study courses and organizational culture of universities in other countries on the staff level, which have the consequence that the problems of living and learning in a foreign language, in a different country with a different university and disciplinary culture are totally underestimated. This is especially the case in traditional universities. Higher education institutions with applied study courses or disciplines like business management very often offer intensive language provision and even make language competence part of the final degree. In this case language competence is defined as part of the professional qualification. One major innovation introduced or at least disseminated by ERASMUS is the combined courses discipline plus languages which have been developed especially in countries like the UK which have little language provision at secondary level.

Given the increasing demand for qualified study abroad from students, a substantial increase in adequate language provision at university level could lead to better participation of areas of study which so far are not very well represented within the programmes.

The lack of information and foreign language competence, apart from technical problems, is also a major obstacle to staff mobility and the negotiation of qualified co-operation programmes with sufficient information and preparation of students going abroad within a limited time span and for a recognisable period of study which in principle should not prolong their studies at the home university.

The same thing is true for the hosting of foreign students not only in terms of housing and solving the technical problems of their integration but also on the level of intelligent use of these students as resources, in so far as they can introduce specific cultural differences concerning professional practice. Business and management schools are especially aware of these possibilities

As we have seen above, for the university type of institutions there seems to be no way to expand education co-operation if research interests are not taken into consideration. Academic award, prestige and career depend largely on publication lists and not on pedagogical performance or involvement in international co-operation on the teaching level. On the other hand the promotion of more teaching staff mobility, especially to other types of institutions in partner countries, could be a way to make them familiar with other teaching conditions. This was especially stressed by British colleagues who thought that British teaching staff should be more familiar with the teaching conditions in mass universities. Conversely, traditional British teaching conditions with well catered-for small groups are one of the major attractions - apart from the language - for foreign students coming from large universities like those in France or Germany.

6. The future of internationalization and mobility

Even if there are a lot of different, and sometimes even contradictory, points of view concerning the future internationalization and mobility, especially in the context of the European programmes, some reflections about the future seem to be based on general evidence.

- Geographical mobility of students on the undergraduate level can only be pushed to a certain extent: financial problems, housing problems, capacity problems, differences in the needs of short-time students within ERASMUS, full-time students in the case of students from developing countries, seem to be major obstacles at the present time.

- Mobility should be seen as a lifelong objective within the individual biography including all sorts of mobility like work placements, postgraduate study abroad, professional mobility, even in terms of continuing education as can be seen in the COMETT or LINGUA context, especially in Action 3 of the programme concerned with the promotion of languages in the workplace. The experience of living abroad seems to be an essential part of the socialization of future European and world citizens. It is also necessary to be able to live in a multicultural society.

- In spite of critical voices at national level, the continuing existence of European programmes for the promotion of international exchange combined with European funding seems to be necessary to maintain the actual level of involvement of people and institution. (Two out of three institutions in the EC countries are actually involved in an international programme.) As the European Programmes address themselves directly to the users, they help higher education institutions to realise their autonomy and to cooperate cross-culturally, cross-disciplinary, cross-institutionally. Inter-university co-operation also seems to be the best way to overcome disparities with other academic systems and to solve problems of academic recognition.

- In order to help future users and institutions to set up co-operation programmes and to develop better quality in curriculum development without being forced to reinvent the wheel every time, there should be more information and dissemination of good practice and more in-depth research on the complex problems related to internationalization and mobility, not only in higher education but also at all other levels of primary, secondary, professional and continuing education and their possible interrelation.

- Overlapping activities and complementarity of the different European programmes should be clarified for the users.

- The development of a real policy of internationalization on the national and institutional levels as, for example, in the Netherlands or in the Scandinavian countries seems to be very helpful to ensure structural co-operation and continuity. On the other hand the principle of subsidiarity should not serve as a means to "renationalize" educational co-operation in Europe.

- As for the co-operation of higher education institutions in Europe and other world regions, a need for co-operation instead of aid-oriented programmes needs to be stressed.

- The concepts of educational co-operation, organized mobility and especially study abroad at undergraduate level within the normal programme of the host university should be looked at carefully in terms of their applicability to other world regions and the relations between higher education institutions in Europe and elsewhere.

- Finally, one should consider how the mass of the students who stay at home might benefit from international co-operation by their home institutions. The impact of this co-operation on national curricula should be further analysed.

Bibliography

ALTBACH, Philip G.: Impact and Adjustment: Foreign Students in Comparative Perspective. Preparatory paper for an International Seminar on Higher Education and the Flow of Foreign Students: The effects and evaluation of programmes and policies for foreign students and study abroad, organized by OECD and CERI, Hanover, April 1990.

BAUMGRATZ-GANGL, Gisela for the Commission of the European Communities: Mobility of Students in Europe, Linguistic and socio-cultural conditions. Luxembourg, 1990.

BAUMGRATZ-GANGL, Gisela: L'amιloration de la prιparation et de l'accompagnement linguistique et socio-culturels des ιtudiants participant aux programmes interuniversitaires de coopιration ERASMUS, ERASMUS Monograph Series Nr. 2, Paris, July 1989

BAUMGRATZ-GANGL, Gisela: Studie zum gegenwaertigen Stand der sprachlich-kommunikativen und soziokulturellen Qualifikation von Studenten und Hochschullehrern in Ungarn als Voraussetzung fuer Mobilitaet und Kooperation mit Westeuropa. European Institute of Education and Social Policy, 1991.

BAUMGRATZ-GANGL, Gisel: Studie zum gegenwaertigen Stand der sprachlich-kommunikativen und soziokulturellen Qualifikation von Studenten und Hochschullehrern in Polen als Voraussetzung fuer Mobilitaet und Kooperation mit Westeuropa. European Institute of Education and Social Policy, 1991.

BEATEN, Marijke and VAN GANGELDONK Kees for the Commission of the European Communities, Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training, Youth: Survey on the participation of the non-university sector in the ERASMUS Programme, June 1992.

BERNING, Edwald for the Commission of the European Communities, Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training, Youth: Accommodation of ERASMUS-students in the Member States of the European Communities, Munich, July 1992.

BOELCKE, Juergen: Die Internationalisierung des Studiums am Beispiel verschiedener Grandes Ecoles. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage durchgefuehrt im Auftrag des Arbeitskreises "Fremdsprachen im Hochschulstudium" der Robert Bosch Stiftung.

BURN, Barbara B.: Raising the Curtain. A Report with Recommendations on Academic Exchanges with Eastern Central Europe and the USSR, Institute of International Education, 1991.

CALLAN Hilary, STEELE Kate: Student Flow and National Policy in the European Community - A Study conducted of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Eleventh General Conference of Member Institutions: Higher Education without Borders: International Dimensions of University Management, Paris, CERI, OECD 2-4 September 1992.

DAHLLOEF U., HARRIS J., SHATTOCK M., STAROPOLI A., IN'T VELT R.: Dimensions of Evaluation in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy Series 13, Jessica Kingsley Publisher Ltd., London 1991

HEROLD Bernard: Les Etudes de Gιnie au Portugal, Instituto Superior Tιcnico, Lisbon, 1991

JONES Hywel Ceri for the Commission of the European Communities, Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training, Youth: The role of Education and Training in the Life Cycle. Presentation made at the conference on Human Resources in Europe at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Luxembourg, 27 - 29 November 1991.

MEYER-KALKUS Reinhart: Austauschpolitik und Akademische Mobilitaet. Die deutsch-franzoesischen Hochschulbeziehungen 1930 - 1992, DAAD, Paris 1992.

PATEAU Jacques: Die Internationalisierung des Studiums am Beispiel der Universitι de Technologie de Compiθgne. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage durchgefuehrt im Auftrag des Arbeitskreises "Fremdsprachen im Hochschulstudium" der Robert Bosch Stiftung.

RABAN A.J. for the Commission of the European Communities: Working in the European Community: A guide for graduate recruiters and job-seekers. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Third Edition, Luxembourg 1991

REUHL Guenter: Wissenschaftskonkurrez. Hochschulorganisation in den USA, Europa und der Sowjetunion. Campus, Frankfurt/M. 1992

RUFFIO Philippe: La situation europιene et italienne de la coopιration interuniversitaire en sciences agronomiques d'aprθs l'experience du programme ERASMUS. 150° Anniversario della Facolta de Agraria Universita di Pisa, 17 May 1991

SCHMIDT Dieter: Coopιration europιene des ιtablissements d'enseignement supιrieur, Etude comparιe de l'enseignement supιrior dans la formation des gestionnaires et des ingιnieurs en France et en Allemagne. Groupe ESC Grenoble 1991

TEICHLER U., KREITZ R., MAIWORM F.: Student Mobility within ERASMUS 1988/89. A statistical profile. ERASMUS Monographs Nr. 12, Arbeitspapiere 26, Gesamthochschule Kassel

ZALAI Ernoe: The role of higher education in the process of transition to a market economy, Preparatory paper for the Tempus conference in Brussels 1992

CDP Committee of Directors of Polytechnics: Response to the European Commission's Memorandum on Higher Education in the European Community London 1992

Centre National des Ouevres Universitaires et Scolaires, Deutsches Studentenwerk: Les ιtudiants et les ouevres universitaires: leur rτle, leur implication. 22θme colloque franco-allemand des ouevres universitairs, Toulouse, 27 to 31 August 1990

COMETT Bulletin, N° 12, November 1991

COMETT Bulletin, N° 14, July 1992

Commission des Communautιs Europeennes, Direction Generale: Mobility professionnelle en Europe. Dimension familiale et pratiques d'entreprise. Brussels, March 1992

Commission des Communautes Europeennes, Task Force Ressources Humaines, Education, Formation, Jeunesse: La mobilitι des ιtudiants dans l'enseignement supιrieur au sein de la Communautι Europιenne, Vol. 1 (Rapport de Synthθse), Brussels, July 1992

Commission des Communautes Europeennes: Cooperation between industry and educational institutions, Education in East and Central European Countries, Synopsis, BP Information Seminar, Strasbourg, 12-13 December 1991.

Commission of the European Communities, Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training, Youth: Student Mobility in Higher Education in the European Community, Vol. II (Country Reports), Brussels July 1992.

Commission of the European Communities: COMETT I Statistics, May 1992

Commission of the European Communities, Ministry of the University and of Scientific and Technological Research, University of Siena: Higher Education in the European Community. Towards the year 2000. Conference "Higher Education and 1992: Planning for the year 2000" Siena 5-8 November 1990. Universitas Quaderni 9, Rome, July 1991

Commission of the European Communities: Development of COMETT I

Commission of the European Communities: Transnational Training for Technology in Europe - the COMETT experience, COMETT II Interim Evaluation Report 1990-1992, SEC (92) 13000 final, Brussels, 7 July 1992

Conseil General du Cher, Universite d'Orleans, Institut Universitaire de technologie de Bourges: L'Europe des Universitιs (Colloque 26 to 28 September 1991)

EAIE Newsletter, Number 7, June 1992

ECAS Euro Citizen Action Service: Le Citoyen Europιen, Culture et Education, N°12, 16-20 September 1991.

ERASMUS Bulletin d'informations: Dιveloppement en commun de nouveaux enseignements, Volume 1992 - n° 13

ERASMUS Newsletter: Academic recognition of study abroad, Vol. 191 - No 10

GE-Th Bureau permanent franco-allemand de liaison entre Grandes Ecoles et Technische Hochschulen: Place, Statut et Rτle des Stages industriels ou de laboratoires dans la formation des ingιnieurs en Europe. Sιminaire Europιen, Nancy, 16-17 March 1990

Institute of International Education: Open Doors 1990 - 1991, Report on international Education Exchange, New York 1991.

IRDAC Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee of the Commission of the European Communities: Skills Shortages in Europe, IRDAC Opinion

Le Monde de l'Education, p. 30-36: Les universitιs ΰ l'heure d'ERASMUS, N° 189, January 1992

Le Nouvel Observateur: Dans da tempκte des rιformes, p. 134 - 137, N° 1431 9 to 15 April 1992

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI): International Seminar on Higher Education and the Flow of Foreign Students: The effects and evaluation of programmes and policies for foreign students and study abroad, Hanover, April 1990:

Country Reports, Expert Papers, Report of the Seminar, Proposals for work

Overseas Student trust in collaboration with the Commonwealth Secretariat: Mobility and the European Single Market, Seminar Three: "Educational Exchange: The Third World Dimension", London, 24 June 1991

Overseas Students Trust: The Next Step, Overseas Student Policy into the 1990s. London, 1987

Universite Catholique de Lille: L'Europe des Etudes, Actes du Colloque international 14, 15 and 16 March 1990

WISSENSCHAFTSRAT: Empfehlungen zur Internationalisierung der Wissenschaftsbeziehungen, Berlin, 15.5.1992

European Journal of Education 3/93: Special issue on Cross-cultural competence in a changing world edited by Gisela Baumgratz-Gangl

^ Top

« Letter of Introduction by Prof. Robert Picht | Socrates, where are you? by Reydams-Schils »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation

Trends and Development concerning Mobility and Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe by Gisela Baumgratz-Gangl