02 novembre 2012

Exploring European decision-making on adult learning

Posted by Jenny Sherrard. A European Commission survey in 2010 showed that 56% of UK citizens don’t know how decisions are made in the European Union. I must confess that, until recently, I didn’t really know the difference between an EU regulation and an EU directive, despite a degree in politics!
So the European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA) training, which I attended earlier this month with Emma Cliffe from our Campaigns Team, was a welcome chance to learn more about decision making at a European level. Designed specifically for younger staff working in adult education, the course gave us an overview of the European institutions and their roles. It also allowed us to meet with colleagues from around Europe and reflect on how NIACE’s work in the UK links in to work at the EU level and beyond.
Our fellow participants were drawn from a diverse range of countries and organisations. As well as representatives from DVV International and DIE in Germany, we had Nikola from the Centre for Civic Engagement in Montenegro; Nastassia who works for Education without Borders in Belarus; and Alve from the Kista Folk High School in Stockholm, Sweden, to name but a few. There was a good mix of people from EU member states, accession candidates, and countries still some way from EU membership, which made for an interesting discussion with the policy officer from the Directorate-General for EU enlargement.
All the participants came away from the course with a much clearer understanding of how EU legislation is drafted, scrutinised and approved. We met with representatives from each of the three EU institutions, including Heinz Becker MEP from the European Parliament, the Danish education attaché Mette Andersen, and Riikka Vihriala from the European Commission. The group had stimulating discussions regarding effective advocacy at EU level, how our national work can contribute to EAEA’s projects, and how best to sustain and expand the newly formed network created by the course, with a focus on meeting the needs of younger staff in adult education across Europe.
A major topic of conversation throughout the week was the European Commission’s proposal for Erasmus for All, which seeks to roll the existing Erasmus, Grundtvig, Comenius and Leonardo programmes into one and run them alongside a sport initiative. There are concerns in some quarters that, although the current budget proposal for the adult education share of this new fund represents a real terms funding increase, without the distinctive Grundtvig brand the overall profile of adult education at a European level will be diminished. The proposal will be discussed again in the European Parliament’s Committee for Culture and Education Culture in November, so it will be interesting to see how this progresses.
One thing which struck me repeatedly throughout the course was the huge distance between learners and EU decision makers. The numerous layers of advocacy bodies, each with distinctive agendas, introduce real potential for the dilution of messages from national organisations. NIACE’s new role as the UK Co-ordinator for the EU’s Agenda for Adult Learning is therefore a vital opportunity for a national body to give a voice to learners at an EU level.
Overall, the week was very useful, not just for its content but also because it provided an opportunity for the next generation of adult education staff to get together and take the time to consider the big issues we face in our own countries; issues which we found to be, more or less, the same across Europe. Participation in adult education, learning for an ageing society and widening access to learning are common concerns, recognised at a European level but manifested in different national contexts. The challenge, then, is to ensure that the innovative practice which deals with those issues at local and national levels is communicated upwards to decision makers at a European level.
Finally, I’d like to thank Gina Ebner and the organisers at EAEA for putting on the course, Grundtvig for funding me to attend, and NIACE for encouraging me to go - it’s always good to have the opportunity to practice what you preach!

Posté par pcassuto à 11:20 - - Permalien [#]

Demonstrating the positive impact of adult learning

Throughout October, NIACE has been demonstrating the positive impact of adult learning and advancing the debate around ‘what counts as evidence'. Building on the findings of its 2012 Annual Adult Participation in Learning Survey and Valuing the Impact of Adult Learning report by Daniel Fujiwara, NIACE has organised and participated in several events, including:

  • A policy roundtable on 11 October, which featured a presentation from Daniel Fujiwara on the subjective wellbeing research featured in Valuing the Impact of Adult Learning. Attendees included representatives from government departments, think tanks and local authorities.
  • An input on Social Return on Investment (SROI) and impact in the UK from Penny Lamb at the Fall Institute conference on ‘Social Finance and Innovation for Adult Basic Learning: Opportunities and Challenges' in Canada. Read Penny's blog post on the conference.
  • A 2-day SROI training session in Manchester, which was well attended.
  • Two Making Sense seminars, in York and London, helping practitioners and heads of service to think about how they can collect effective evidence of impact.

In addition, NIACE has been working with Community Learning Trust pilots and other local authorities to enhance and demonstrate the impact of their adult learning. It has also been working with a group of Adult and Community Learning Fund projects towards accreditation for their SROI analyses; the final reports are due later this year. We will share the lessons from the projects once final.
In order to take the conversation forward, NIACE needs more examples of good practice in terms of evidence-gathering and demonstrating impact. Examples can be shared, by emailing them to jenny.sherrard@niace.org.uk.

Posté par pcassuto à 11:18 - - Permalien [#]

Encuentro Alfa Trall III - Transatlantic Lifelong Learning: Rebalancing Relations

http://www.recla.org/_/rsrc/1335390324947/config/customLogo.gif?revision=13Por Catalina Rodríguez. El Encuentro Alfa Trall III (Transatlantic Lifelong Learning: Rebalancing Relations) fue celebrado del 15 al 18 de octubre en la sede de la Universidad Federal de Goias en Brazil, con el tema "Créditos y Competencias – aseguramiento de la calidad". El  dia 16 contamos con un panel titulado "Experiencias en el sistema formativo de créditos en la educacion supeiror", la presentación conto con la particpación de  RUUD Duvekot (Inholland University), de Holanda, Natalia Coppola (Universidad de Buenos Aires), de Argentina y Pamela Ibarra (Universidad de la Frontera) de Chile.

Posté par pcassuto à 11:09 - - Permalien [#]

HEA Research seminar on the shifting UK higher education landscape

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/css/hea2/images/hea2-header-bg-swirl.pngThe shifting UK higher education landscape and its impact on learning and teaching is the subject of a seminar hosted by the HEA.
The seminar is part of the HEA's Research Seminar Series and will be led by Roger Brown, professor of Higher Education Policy at Liverpool Hope University. Professor Brown has previously held the post of Chief Executive of the Higher Education Quality Council.
He will discuss the implications of Government higher education reforms upon student learning. Professor Brown will argue these White Paper reforms are potentially the most radical in a series of changes going back to the 1980s. He will also examine the issues involved including the consequences of these changes for the quality of student education.
The seminar takes place on Thursday 15 November at the HEA in York and is also available for people to join via live-streaming. It is free to attend but places must be booked.
For more information please visit the event page of the HEA website.

Posté par pcassuto à 10:45 - - Permalien [#]

The Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning - CRELL

http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/templates/crell/images/banner_img.pngThe Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL) was established in 2005 in order to provide expertise in the field of indicator-based evaluation and monitoring of education and training systems and their contribution to the achievement of Community objectives specified in the Lisbon Agenda and more recently in the EU2020 agenda as regards this domain. CRELL combines expertise in the fields of economics, econometrics, education, social sciences and statistics in an interdisciplinary approach to research.

CRELL is sponsored by the European Commission Directorate General Education and Culture (DG EAC) and co-ordinated by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (DG JRC). The Centre is hosted by the Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit of the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen at the JRC in Ispra, northern Italy. More about CRELL...
ESCL - European Survey on Language Competences

Implemented in 2011 in 14 countries in a total of 16 educational systems, this pioneer study offers indicators on secondary students' foreign language achievement. Downloadable datasets are avaliable now at this page.
Education databases and catalogues
British Education Index
Index to the contents of 300 education and training journals published in the British Isles, together with some internationally published periodicals. Includes: Education-line, a freely accessible database of the full text of conference papers, working papers and electronic literature which supports educational research, policy and practice; catalogue of professionally evaluated internet sites; conference programmes and papers.
- Current Educational Research in the UK

CERUK aims to provide a complete record of current or on-going research in education and related disciplines.
European Expert Network on the Economics of Education
Network on economics of education with a directory of experts and researchers by field and country, journal databases and other information.
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordination Centre
EPPI-Centre supports the writing of systematic reviews of research evidence in the field of education. Seventeen review groups undertake reviews of individual topics, and a series of reviews commissioned by the Teacher Training Agency is also produced. All the reviewed research is included in a database.
Education Resources Information Centre
Sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the US Department of Education, hosts a large database of journal and non-journal education literature.
ETV Library
- European Training Village

The ETV library maintains a host of databases and catalogues on VET, including: European Research Overview (ERO Base); bibliographical database; VET internet resources; training institutions database; collection of 300 electronic-journals.

The statistical office of the European Communities, with extensive data collections in the area of education and training (Population and Social Conditions).
- Eurydice
Information network on education in Europe. Includes several databases on education systems, Key Data publications and thesauri.
International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Internet Archive
INCA provides descriptions of government policy on education in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland (forthcoming), Scotland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the USA and Wales. It focuses on curriculum, assessment and initial teacher training frameworks for pre-school, primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education in schools (3-19 age range).
- National Centre for Education Statistics (US)

Database of US education statistics and analysis. The Education Statistics Quarterly is also available - an overview of all work carried out at NCES, including publications and data products.
- Pedagogical and Educational Research Information Network for Europe

The 'PERINE Internet Resource Catalogue' is a collection of information about national and cross-national resources supporting educational research in Europe. The catalogue will contain references produced by partners, presented within a multilingual search environment utilising the European Education Thesaurus. Initially the catalogue is experimental, providing information on themes identified by educational researchers connected with the European Educational Research Association (EERA).
- Vocational Education and Training Research Database

VOCED is the UNESCO/NCVER research database for technical and vocational education and training, an international database of research abstracts, in English.
Gateway to Research on Education in Europe
This website has emerged in the context of European research projects carried out by the Research Forum WIFO (Wissenschaftsforum Bildung und Gesellschaft). It is an free information service provided by researchers for researchers. Focus on vocational education, recently also including human resource development. The database also includes a ‘search by method/approach’ facility.
See also About CRELL (Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning).

Posté par pcassuto à 10:40 - - Permalien [#]

Horizon 2020

Interactive Diagram: Regulation for Horizon 2020In order to allow for the required time periods for the differents steps for preparing and taking decisions on a new Framework Programme, the preparation process for HORIZON 2020 will take about three years. The interactive diagram below shows the milestones for the decision-making process on the HORIZON 2020 regulation. Interactive Diagram: Regulation for Horizon 2020.
Building the legal framework for FPs is based on a proposal by the Commission, followed by a decision by the Council and Parliament. This decision is taken in an "ordinary legislative procedure" (formerly "codecision procedure").
Proposal on Horizon 2020 -The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

On 30 November 2011 the European Commission proposed a package of measures called Horizon 2020 which brings together all EU research and innovation funding under a single programme.

Posté par pcassuto à 10:36 - - Permalien [#]

Joint Programming

Interactive JPI DiagramJoint Programming - a concept introduced by the European Commission in July 2008 - is one of the five initiatives for implementing the European Research Area (ERA). The aim of Joint Programming is to increase the value of relevant national and EU R&D funding by concerted and joint planning, implementation and evaluation of national research programmes. Even common financing could be considered in this context. Interactive map of Joint Programming Initiatives.
Within the concept of Joint Programming, Member States shall coordinate national research activities, bundle resources, benefit from complementarities and develop common research agendas, in order to face the grand societal challenges – all in variable geometry and therefore on a voluntary basis. Joint Programming intends to tackle the challenges that cannot be solved solely on the national level and allows Member States to participate in those joint initiatives that seem useful for them. The Council of the European Union welcomed the concept and the objectives of Joint Programming in its respective Conclusions adopted on 2 December 2008, and called “for the implementation of that process led by the Member States to step up their cooperation in the R&D area in order to better confront major societal challenges of European or worldwide scale, where public research plays a key role”.
To implement this concept, the High Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC for short, from the French “Groupe de haut niveau pour la Programmation Conjointe") has been established. The group's task is to identify and define the thematic fields for the first Joint Programming Initiatives, and to contribute to the preparation of Council decisions in this matter.

Posté par pcassuto à 10:34 - - Permalien [#]

TEQSA looking for HE Experts

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) has called for applications for individuals to be included on its Register of Experts.
According to the TEQSA Register of Experts webpage (http://www.teqsa.gov.au/experts) members of the Register of Experts will be expected to have and maintain significant knowledge and experience in one or more identified areas of expertise, including:
a.         area(s) of identified disciplinary expertise (by Broad, Narrow and Detailed ASCED fields);
b.         academic governance;
c.         corporate governance;
d.         financial capability and processes;
e.         financial business planning, solvency, viability and sustainability;
f.          outsourcing (including third party arrangements);
g.         human resources management;
h.         facilities planning and management;
i.          Library and Information Services;
j.          risk management;
k.         student services/administration;
l.          academic administration (including admission and enrolment process);
m.        marketing strategies and recruitment;
n.         IT/Systems administration;
o.         academic quality assurance;
p.         learning and teaching in higher education;
q.         curriculum development and design (including alignment with the Australian Qualifications Framework);
r.          academic assessment and moderation methodologies;
s.         research management;
t.          research training;
u.         higher education delivery in a language other than English;
v.         vocational education pathways to higher education;
w.        dual sector arrangements;
x.         work integrated learning;
y.         learning technologies (including flexible delivery, online delivery, e-learning, distance education;
z.         international education – on shore;
aa.       international education - off shore;
bb.       ELICOS;
cc.       foundation programs; and
dd.       other
TEQSA can invite individuals whom it deems to be appropriately qualified to be included on the Research Experts to provide written advice or answer to specific questions.  On rare occasions Experts might be required to undertake site visits.  The advice will relate to elements of TEQSA’s regulatory assessments and reviews, including advice on TEQSA’s assessment of provider or course applications and other scheduled and non-scheduled reviews
Importantly, Experts will not be drafting recommendations on applications, providing commendations, nor formulating draft conditions or time periods for registration/renewal of registration and accreditation/renewal of accreditation.
Applications for the Register of Experts close at 5pm on Friday 11 December.  No late applications will be accepted.
Interested members should go to TEQSA Register of Experts webpage (http://www.teqsa.gov.au/experts) where they will find more information and application forms.
Applications close 5pm, 11 December 2012.
Application documents
Register of Experts: Summary of Requirement (pdf, 109KB)
Attachment A: Statement of Requirement (pdf, 100KB)
Attachment B: Application Form (doc, 115KB)
Attachment C: Multi-Use List Rules (pdf, 125KB)
Attachment D: Statement of Compliance (doc, 101KB)
Attachment E: Draft Contract and General Conditions of Contract (pdf, 316KB)
Frequently Asked Questions (pdf, 110KB)

Posté par pcassuto à 10:27 - - Permalien [#]
Tags :

All different but no longer all equal? New university alliance in Germany

Hedda - Higher Education Development AssociationHedda associate Jens Jungblut examines the establishment of a new university alliance in Germany and the implications of this to the system.
The foundation of the university alliance and lobby group German U15, encompassing 15 of the large comprehensive and research intensive universities could mark yet another step in the break-up of the classical formal equality of universities in Germany and could have serious impact on the position of the rectors’ conference as well as the cooperation between politics and the higher education sector in general.
The German universities have been characterised by a formal and structural equality for a long time. Although several universities always had a better reputation for certain subjects, stemming mainly from the employed professors, there was no top-down structural stratification between the universities and all institutions received their core funding based more or less on the same criteria (with some differences between the Bundesländer). It was only with the start of the excellence initiative of the federal government and the Bundesländer that one could identify a group of universities that would be regarded in the public arena as better than other and for this would also receive a significant amount of additional funds. However, the recent foundation of an alliance of 15 large German comprehensive and research intensive universities, the German U15, indicates that the dynamics that the excellence initiative introduced to the higher education system in a top-down manner are continued through bottom-up collaborations.
The newly founded German U15 group is not the first university alliance in Germany. Already since 2003 the 9 oldest German technical universities agreed to cooperate under the umbrella of TU9 – The German Institutes of Technology. This closed group, the admission criteria is that the institution needs to be a technical university and established before 1900, sees itself as a lobby group towards society, economy and politics that especially addresses the needs of the technical and engineering subjects. They do so not only through internal cooperation but also through press releases and public statements and they clearly try to separate themselves concerning the perceived quality of their education and research from other institutions in the same field in Germany.
With technical universities having of a special and clearly defined role and mission within the higher education sector, the TU9 is perceived as mainly a strong lobby group for interests of a particular type of universities. The newly established German U15 however, is going more clearly into the direction of stratification within universities that follow similar missions and offer similar types of programs. All of the members of the German U15 are comprehensive and large universities that perceive themselves as strong research institutions and have medical faculties. Some of the members were successful in the latest excellence initiative and most of the members are within the top group of recipients of funds from the German Research Foundation (DFG). However, the admission criteria are less clear then in the case of TU9. The members of the German U15 are (along with their success in the 3rd line of the excellence initiative 2012):

This next step in the bottom-up movement towards a higher stratification between the German universities might cause more tension in the higher education system than the formation of the TU9 due to the demands and aims of the German U15. In its foundation statement the alliance sees itself as a strategic cooperation that acts as a lobby group towards society, politics and economy. Its main aim is to improve the conditions for research and teaching and strengthen the awareness of the performance of its members in the society. The group generally demands that the difference in mission, potential and capabilities between the higher education institutions in Germany is also reflected in the legal regulations, allocation of tasks as well as the public financial support. The members of U15 see research and teaching as the unified task of the universities that demands the guarantee of academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
Specifically the German U15 positions itself in regard to 12 main issues:
1. Division of labour in the higher education system
Based on the results of the excellence initiative it is clear for the members of U15 that higher education institutions in Germany are diverse in their mission, potential and capabilities, thus also the labour in the higher education system needs to be divided accordingly. This division should also be reflected in the legal regulations and the public funding instruments.
2. Autonomy

The German U15 see academic freedom and institutional autonomy as one of the core characteristics of universities. In times of growing international competition autonomy plays an important role especially for universities that are mainly active in basic research.
3. Growing student numbers
The members of U15 see the growth of student numbers in Germany as a challenge that grew to the extent of endangering the research activity. They demand more public money for research-accompanying teaching to ensure good education and scientific quality.
4. Financing of higher education

The members demand that both the federal level and the Bundesländer are allowed to jointly finance higher education again. For this to be possible they request a fast agreement between the different political parties to amend the constitution accordingly, so the universities would be able to receive more money to cater to the growing number of students but also to continue the excellence initiative projects.
5. Research focus

The U15 see themselves as research universities that are highly engaged in basic research and thus as the basis for research and research-based teaching on an internationally competitive level.
6. Support of young researchers

The group sees a strong need for improvement in Germany regarding Post-Doc career opportunities. To offer young researchers who have just completed their PhD a good employment situation, the U15 demand the implementation of a tenure-track system in Germany that also allows for externally funded positions.
7. Cooperation with research institutes

The German U15 wants to put a stronger emphasis on cooperation between universities and research institutes in the future including joint support structures for young researchers, cooperative graduate school and the shared use of infrastructure.
8. Internationalisation

The group acknowledges and accepts the international competition and wants to work together with politics, other societal actors as well as their international partners to ensure a high amount of international visibility of its members.
9. Ranking/Rating

The U15 supports the idea of benchmarking through qualified ratings to measure their performance. At the same time they question the usefulness of rankings that measure different institutions with different missions with the same criteria thus not reflecting the fitness for purpose of these institutions. They demand that the participating universities should have the right to decide upon the indicators as well as the methodology used for rankings. Finally, the U15 prefers topic-based ratings rather than regular cycle-based (i.e. yearly) ratings.
10. Management structures

In their view, modern universities need a stable and professional management structure and a clear division between management and control structures. To ensure a reliable work environment the members of U15 support the retention of university boards as control and oversight structures.
11. Medicine

The medical faculties are integral parts of universities. Even though they also fulfil the public task of medical care this should not lead to a spin-off of the medical faculties.
12. The German rectors’ conference
The U15 demand that the rectors’ conference needs to be more present as the voice of the higher education institutions in Germany. This requests that the different types of institutions within the rectors’ conference formulate their interests more clearly. The U15 wants to engage in a process of reflection on the role of the rectors’ conference within and outside of the conference.
This last demand coincides with a growing debate within the German higher education system and between rectors about the role of the rectors’ conference and to what extend the old tradition of a decision-making process aiming at a consensus should be abolished (see this article in The Spiegel).
Clearly the formation of the German U15 serves as a preparation by the members of the alliance to successfully engage in the growing competition for public and private funds. By positioning themselves as leading comprehensive universities and through the inclusion of several institutions that were successful in the excellence initiative it seems that the group tries to develop a label and influence decision makers to ensure a good position for its members.
From a more system-level perspective, when looking at the excellence initiative, the existence of the TU9 and U15 lobby groups and the growing tension within the rectors’ conference several questions arise. Is this the start for a full-blown stratification of the German higher education system, following the Anglo-Saxon model or is it merely a paper exercise that creates a joint label but without enough political impact to actually lead to structural or financial changes? In how far will the success of the lobby groups also be tied to the possibility of strengthening again the influence of the federal level on higher education? Will the cooperation in the TU9 or U15 lead to stronger convergence of the institutions concerning their attraction of competitive research funds or will the competition be as strong within the group as between the group and the rest of the institutions? What does this development mean for the rectors’ conference as well as the institutions that are not part of one of the lobby groups?
And finally, how will politics, society and economy react to this development, will they accept the move from structural equality to a “difference in mission” and “difference in funding and regulation” approach? At least for the latter point first statements show a mixed reaction, while the federal minister for higher education Annette Schavan welcomed the formation of the group, representatives of different local student unions from U15 member institutions as well as critical voice within the higher education system, such as the sociologist Prof. Michael Hartmann criticized it.

Posté par pcassuto à 10:04 - - Permalien [#]

Mobility: closing the gap between policy and practice

By Morten G. Kielland. Does your university have a comprehensive overview of the mobility activities of staff and students, and of how these activities interrelate? With student and staff mobility increasing in importance, it is becoming imperative that those involved in strategic planning have a greater awareness of the mobility at their institutions. Yet strategic reflections on the many different types and aims of short- and long-term mobility are far from universal. Few institutions are equipped to respond to the growing conviction that mobility should be measured and evaluated.
Growing importance of mobility

Mobility is strongly linked to the EU’s wider goal of building “smart and sustainable economic growth, fostering employability and social cohesion”. The EU growth and competitiveness strategy ‘Europe 2020’ also includes growing incentives for researcher mobility. ‘Erasmus for All’, the upcoming education programme framework for 2014–2020, places emphasis on mobility strategy, “there will be stronger EU added value under the programme, which will strengthen the outcomes and conditionality attached to mobility, and require that mobility be set within a coherent institutional development strategy”. There is also a need for capacity to enable institutions to keep in step with the resolution endorsed by Bologna ministers in Bucharest 2012: “We agree that all member countries develop and implement their own internationalisation and mobility strategies or policies with concrete aims and measurable mobility targets”.
With such importance being placed on mobility by the EU, how do we close the gap between policy and institutional practice?
Identifying trends and perceptions in the management of mobility

MAUNIMO (Mapping University Mobility of Staff and Students) is a project which was launched by the European University Association (EUA) and four of its member universities (University of Marburg, Denmark, University of Trento, Italy, University of Oslo, Norway and Swansea University, UK), designed to study opinions on the value and benefit of mobility, and to raise awareness of institutional strategies. The project ran from October 2010 to September 2012 and was tested on 30 additional universities in 21 countries from January to April 2012. The focal point of the project was a mobility mapping tool (MMT) – a web-based mobility self-evaluation instrument.
The MMT was designed as a ‘dynamic’ survey, raising complex analytical questions on all types of mobility, which included 70-90 questions depending on the profile of respondents. Key questions were:
    What is the role of institutions in meeting national and European mobility targets?
    To what extent do institutions formulate their own goals regarding mobility and how do they relate to other institutional strategies (teaching/research/internationalisation)?
    How do institutions collect data on mobility and why?
    Does this data collection support their strategic interests?
    How can institutions better support and influence policy agendas regarding mobility?
Disconnect between practice and policy

Only a few respondents linked their strategic discussions on mobility to developments at European level and to policies such as Europe 2020. As for doctoral mobility, this is viewed as a high strategic priority. But it was mobility at Bachelor’s and Master’s level that generated the most extensive strategic discussion. This contrast in emphasis may be explained by the fact that doctoral candidate mobility is often managed by a separate structure within the institution and that the potential links between the mobility of Bachelor’s/Master’s students and doctoral candidates are insufficiently exploited in strategic planning. Enhanced mobility at doctoral level is often stimulated by mobility experiences in the first and second Bologna cycles. In short, those who are mobile as students are more likely to be mobile researchers.
Obstacles to mobility may be lack of trust of the quality of educational provision in another institution. Worries about losing good doctoral candidates to other institutions also occur. As for staff mobility, indifferent and/or negative attitudes to mobility emerged, such as:
“There is no real policy. Staff mobility is based on personal initiatives and not evaluated.”
“Many think it irrelevant and that administrative staff does not have the need for further education.”
“Everything that breaks the current work organisation is seen more as a problem than as an opportunity for growth.”
However, the following response from the academic staff, who was the largest respondent group, is more encouraging:
“[Mobility] triggers independent thought, improves our ability to deal with difference and makes us question the established ways of seeing and doing things. Mobility is a great experience that enhances your personal development, your job opportunities, your confidence and your enjoyment of life.”
Yet underlying all the concerns listed above is a mixture of unanswered questions: how much mobility do we actually need, and should mobility be voluntary or a compulsory element of academic studies? Can benefits and drawbacks of mobility be defined unambiguously?
View the full copy of the MAUMIMO project report here.
Morten Kielland works as Institutional LLP Coordinator at Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences (HIOA), Norway.

Posté par pcassuto à 10:00 - - Permalien [#]