International Seminar 2014 - Univerzita Pardubice · 2017-06-29 · International seminar 2014 2014...

International Seminar 2014„2014-2020: a New Challenge for Coordinators of the European Projects“

Seminar Proceedings

May 2014Pardubice, Czech Republic

Grant Offi ce – the way to succesful projects CZ.1.07/2.4.00/17.0106

This project is cofi nanced by the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic

ISBN 978-80-7395-764-3 (Print)ISBN 978-80-7395-765-0 (pdf)

Title International Seminar 2014 2014-2020: a New Challenge for Coordinators of the European Projects Seminar Proceedings Publisher University of Pardubice Studentská 95, 532 10 Pardubice Czech RepublicNumber of Copies 80Edition FirstPrinted by Printing Centre of the University of Pardubice

International seminar 2014 2014 – 2020: a New Challenge for Coordinators of the European Projects

International seminar 2014

“2014 – 2020: a New Challenge for Coordinators of the European Projects”

Seminar Proceedings

organized by - University of Pardubice - Office of International Affairs and Development - Project Grant Office – the way to succesful projects


2 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

This collection of seminar proceedings was formed under the scope of the project Grant office - the way to successful projects CZ.1.07/2.4.00/17.0106. This project is cofinanced by European Social Fund and state budget of the Czech Republic. ISBN 978-80-7395-764-3 (Print) ISBN 978-80-7395-765-0 (pdf) University of Pardubice http://projekty.upce.cz/groff/index.html http://projekty.upce.cz/groff/ms2014.html


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 3

Content European projects in the 2014 – 2020 period EUROPEAN INITIATIVES - CHANCES FOR UNIVERSITIES

Peter van der Hijden))).....................................................................................). 5

HORIZON 2020 – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Naďa Koníčková )))))))))))))))))))))))))))...) 9

SUPPORTIVE INITIATIVES OF BRUSSELS BASED STAKEHOLDERS

Anna Vosečková))))))))))))))))))))))))))))... 13

Sharing of experience with European projects in the 2007 – 2013 period

GREAT EXPECTATIONS AMONG OUTBOUND SWEDISH EXCHANGE STUDENTS

– A CASE FROM UMEÅ UNIVERSITY

Per A Nilsson FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF........ 18

HEALTHCARE STUDY PROGRAMMES IN INNOVATION

Petra Mandysová, Klára Hlaváčová, Veronika Kovářová, Denisa Kylarová)). 27



EUROPEAN INITIATIVES - CHANCES FOR UNIVERSITIES

Peter van der Hijden

Independent higher education expert, Belgium

[email protected]

Abstract

Universities play a central role in the development of their country. They produce and process knowledge and transmit this knowledge to the next generation, to the economy and to society at large. Universities need to take action in order to become even more successful players at local, regional, national, European and international level. Actions include modernisation in education, research and innovation. Special attention should be given to human resources management and doctoral training. European initiatives can act as a catalyst.

Key words: European Higher Education Area, European Research Area, modernising universities, EU programmes.

1 INTRODUCTION Universities are teaching, doing research and fostering innovation at local, national, European and international level. They are contributing substantially to the well-being of their region and country. Ideas born at universities can resonate throughout the European Research Area (ERA) and beyond. Students may find many places to study in the European Higher Education Area (Bologna) and further afield. From an EU perspective, universities are helping to build the 'Innovation Union' and reach the aims of the 'Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth'. The EU is an important source of funding for universities through programmes like Erasmus+, Horizon 2020 and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). This paper points at chances for universities and actions they could undertake.

2 MODERNISING EDUCATION - BOLOGNA ACTION LINES - ERASMUS+ Universities have been challenged to rethink the way they operate by a number of European initiatives. The most well known and influential is the Bologna process, the most comprehensive is the EU Modernisation agenda. Bologna requires the introduction of three cycles (bachelor, master, doctorate) with distinct durations and characteristics. Bologna is also about quality assurance, ECTS, Diploma Supplement, student-centred learning, employability, competitiveness, mobility, European dimension (double and joint degrees), connecting education and research (doctoral training), social dimension (widening access) and international dimension (attractiveness). The EU Modernisation agenda has embraced the Bologna action lines and has put its own emphasis on good governance (balancing autonomy and accountability), appropriate funding (balancing public and private money), widening access (balancing excellence and equity), lifelong learning and educational innovation (OER and MOOCs). Countries have defined National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs), which describe nine levels of education and training, including the three levels of higher education, in terms of ‘learning outcomes’ or ‘competences’: what graduates know and can do. These definitions fit the Bologna- and EU Qualifications’ Frameworks (EQF). Academics gathered in the ‘Tuning’ project have translated these



general statements in subject-specific profiles, which can be used for re-writing curricula together with stakeholders1. The Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) offers many opportunities to engage in activities, which could help to modernise your university and bring your own ambitions in tune with Bologna. Actions to consider

• Do you encourage your students to stay or to look around after their bachelor?

• What mix of bachelor, master and doctorate programmes you want to offer at your institution?

• What numbers of students you hope to enrol, at the three levels, five years from now?

• How many part-time students would this entail? How to attract and retain them?

• How will you publicise your programmes nationally and internationally?

• What mix of selection mechanisms you want to apply (none, high school examination grades, internal or external tests, portfolios, interviews)?

• Will you offer one or more on-line courses? For on-campus students? For others?

• Do you involve external stakeholders (alumni, employers) in the development of new courses?

• Have you developed courses in correspondence with your National Qualifications Framework?

• Do you apply the Tuning methodology?

• Do your students learn how to become entrepreneurs? As part of the curriculum?

• Would you or your institution consider joining garagErasmus?2

• Have you made a calendar of the upcoming Erasmus+ calls and steps to take?

• Do you have a list of potential partners for mobility and projects? What are your criteria?

• Do you allow your staff to visit Brussels (Commission and ACA seminars)?

• Do you attend the EAIE Annual Conference (this year in Prague 16-19 September 2014)?

• Has your institution volunteered to take part in U-Multirank?3

3 MODERNISING RESEARCH AND INNOVATION - ERA PRIORITIES -

HORIZON 2020 - EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS Universities play a crucial role in research and innovation. They train the next generation of researchers and innovators and they help to find solutions for societal challenges such as climate change, healthy ageing and building innovative and inclusive societies. EU policies and programmes provide guidance and incentives. The main EU policy goal for research is to establish the European Research Area (ERA) ‘in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely’ (art 179 of the EU Treaty). The ERA reform agenda consists of five big priorities: • More effective national research systems; • Optimal transnational co-operation and competition (on common research agendas, grand

challenges and infrastructures); • An open labour market for researchers (open recruitment, access and portability of grants, mobility

information, innovative doctoral training, careers and HR strategies in line with Charter & Code, mobility between industry and academia, recognition, social security, pensions, visas);

• Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research (encouraging gender diversity to foster science excellence and relevance);

• Optimal circulation and transfer of scientific knowledge (to guarantee access to and uptake of knowledge by all).

Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) is the world’s largest framework programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020 contains a wealth of opportunities for individuals with bright ideas (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Research Council/ERC), companies (new SME instrument, access to risk finance etc.) and transnational teams of researchers (addressing societal challenges together).

1 http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu 2 www.garagerasmus.org 3 http://www.u-portal.org/u-multirank



The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) were designed to help less developed and transition regions catch up. In the new funding period, 2014-2020, the focus will be on education (skills) innovation, research and development. In 2014, each country will adopt a Smart Specialisation Strategy, sign an Agreement with the European Commission and adopt a Work Programme. ESIF funding can be combined with funding from other EU programmes like Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020. Actions to consider

• Have you matched your own research priorities against the societal challenges of Horizon 2020?

• Have you made a calendar of the upcoming Horizon 2020 calls and steps to take?

• Do you have a list of potential partners for projects? What are your criteria?

• Have you seen the Smart Specialisation Strategy of your region/country? Are there connections with what you do?

• Have you considered applying for an ERA Chair?

• Do you have a policy for the management of intellectual property and knowledge transfer activities?

• Have you compared the EU ‘Code of Practice’ of 2008 with the practices at your own institution?1

• Is your campus infrastructure the way you would like it to be?2

4 MODERN HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT The European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers are sets of principles and requirements, which specify the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers as well as of employers and/or funders of researchers (Charter & Code). 3 1200 organisations from 37 countries have endorsed the Charter & Code. More than 300 universities, research institutes and funders are currently participating in the ‘Institutional Human Resources Strategy Group’ based on the Charter & Code. So far 180 'HR Excellence in Research' logos have been awarded for their efforts4. The Human Resources Strategy for Researchers is articulated in five steps:

1. An internal analysis by the participating research institution or funding organisation, involving all

key players, to compare policies and practices against the Charter & Code principles; 2. On the basis of the results of this analysis, the participating institution or organisation develops its

own HR strategy for researchers, which should include a concrete action plan. This document is made public;

3. The analysis and action plan are then reviewed and acknowledged by the European Commission. The acknowledgement implies the right to use the 'HR Excellence in Research' logo;

4. Progress in the implementation of the strategy and action plan is subjected to a self-assessment after 2 years;

5. An external evaluation is carried out at least every 4 years. Researchers moving from one country to another risk losing part of their pension rights. The Commission supports employers of researchers (universities, institutes, companies) interested in setting up a Pan-European Pension Funds for Researchers in order to address this problem and position themselves as attractive employers. These volunteering institutions have created a Task Force.5 Actions to consider

• Has your university (or rector’s conference) formally endorsed the Charter and Code?

• Has your university adopted an Institutional Human Resources Strategy?

• Do you have a gender action plan?

1 http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/ip_recommendation_en.pdf 2 http://managingtheuniversitycampus.nl 3 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/rights/strategy4Researcher 4 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/rights/strategy4Researcher 5 to express interest please send an email to [email protected] http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/areas/researchers/researchers_en.htm



• Do you publish all your vacancies on Euraxess Jobs?1

• Would you consider recruitment at your university as open, transparent and merit based?

• Could your university consider joining the Pan-European Pension Funds for Researchers?

5 A PIVOTAL ROLE FOR DOCTORAL TRAINING Doctoral degree holders are crucial to the knowledge society. Their critical minds and innovative competences are highly valued by employers. Most fulfil important positions outside academia. The EU will need at least an estimated one million new research jobs in order to increase the research intensity of our economies and reach the R&D target of 3% of GDP. Universities are changing the way they train doctoral candidates. Inspiration is drawn from the Salzburg Recommendations of EUA2 and the related EU Principles for Innovative Doctoral training.3 The EU Principles refer to: 1. Research Excellence; 2. Attractive Institutional Environment (in line with the Charter & Code); 3. Interdisciplinary Research Options: 4. Exposure to industry and other relevant employment sectors; 5. International networking; 6. Transferable skills training; 7. Quality Assurance. Erasmus+ supports the mobility of doctoral candidates as third cycle students. Horizon 2020 provides grants for doctoral candidates under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (including COFUND). Doctoral candidates also benefit, as team members, from other Horizon 2020 grants (ERC, Societal Challenges). Programmes for doctoral candidates are also set up locally and nationally, often with the support of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). Actions to consider

• Has your university a policy for doctoral education, covering issues like publicising posts, selection of candidates, joint training activities, international mobility, dialogue with industry and other relevant employment sectors.

• What percentage of doctoral candidates come from other institutions/countries? Is recruitment open, transparent and merit based? Have you considered limiting local intake to, for instance, one third of places available?

• What mix of selection mechanisms do you apply?

• Do you have one doctoral programme/school/institute or several? What does the school do?

• Do you organise doctoral training together with other universities in your country or abroad?

• Is your institution a partner in a joint or double degree programme? Funded by Erasmus Mundus (in future Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions) or from other sources?

• Have you considered joining the Council for Doctoral Education (CDE) of EUA?

• Are you active in other transnational university networks of universities like Coimbra, Compostela Group, Santander Group, ECIU, LERU, Utrecht Group?

1 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/jobs/index 2 http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/Salzburg_II_Recommendations.sflb.ashx 3 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/Principles_for_Innovative_Doctoral_Training.pf,

endorsed by the EU Council of Ministers in November 2011

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/126375.pdf



HORIZON 2020 – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Naďa Koníčková

Technology Centre of the Academy of Sciences (CZECH REPUBLIC)

[email protected]

Abstract

Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme with nearly €80 billion of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020). By coupling research and innovation, Horizon 2020 is helping to

achieve sustainable growth and jobs in Europe with its emphasis on excellent science, industrial leadership and tackling societal challenges. The goal is to ensure Europe produces world-class

science, removes barriers to innovation and makes it easier for the public and private sectors to work together in delivering innovation. Important new feature of the Horizon 2020 is simplification of rules

for participation and administrative procedures. New financing instruments are introduced to facilitate innovation uptake by SMEs. Measurements aiming at spreading excellence and widening participation

of less research performing countries in European research activities will be implemented and synergies of Horizon 2020 with other financing sources (e.g. structural funds) will be supported.

Keywords: Horizon 2020, research, innovation, technology, funding schemes

1 STRUCTURE OF THE HORIZON 2020

Horizon 2020 (H2020) is a single programme bringing together three former separate European programmes/initiatives – the 7th EU framework programme (FP7), Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) and European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT). H2020 facilitates coupling research to innovation and supports all forms of innovations, not only technological but as well social ones. H2020 focuses on solving societal challenges facing EU society e.g. health, food security, clean energy and transport. The H2020 programme is open to all kind of entities (academia, industry, SMEs, individual researchers) and participants from third (non-EU) countries.

The H2020 programme is structured into three main pillars: Excellent science, Industrial Leadership and Societal challenges (Fig.1). Moreover, horizontal measurements are implemented to contribute to spreading excellence and widening participation and better interlink science with society. Part of the H2020 budget is reserved to activities of the Joint research centre (JRC) – a network of research institutes providing research to support EU policies, to activities of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology and Euratom programme focusing on nuclear research.

The Excellent science part of the H2020 will support research and innovation activities in several directions:

European research council (ERC): supports frontier research, cross disciplinary proposals and pioneering ideas in new and emerging fields which introduce unconventional and innovative approaches. The ERC's mission is to encourage the highest quality research in Europe through competitive funding and to support investigator-driven frontier research across all fields of research, solely on the basis of scientific excellence.

Future and emerging technologies (FET): FET actions are expected to initiate radically new lines of technology through unexplored collaborations between advanced multidisciplinary science and cutting-edge engineering.

Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions (MSCA): the objective of the MSCA is to support the career development and training of researchers, with a focus on innovation skills, in all scientific disciplines


10 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

through worldwide and cross-sector mobility. The MSCA provide grants at all stages of researchers' careers, from PhD candidates to highly experienced researchers.

Research Infrastructures: the H2020 will foster the emergence of new research facilities, opening up broad access to national and European infrastructures. The networks of research infrastructures across Europe will provide world-class training for a new generation of researchers and engineers and promote interdisciplinary collaboration.

Fig.1 Structure of Horizon 2020

Industrial leadership pillar of H2020 aims to foster development of the technologies and uptake of innovations that will help European SMEs to grow in the global markets.

"Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies" will provide dedicated support for research, development and demonstration and, where appropriate, for standardisation and certification. Focus is on information and communications technology (ICT), nanotechnology, advanced materials, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing and processing and space.

"Access to risk finance" will aim to overcome deficits in the availability of debt and equity finance for research and innovation-driven companies and projects at all stages of development.

"Innovation in SMEs" actions will stimulate all forms of innovation in SMEs with the potential to grow and will facilitate access to debt and equity financing.

Societal challenges in H2020 address major concerns of European society. This pillar of H2020 will cover activities from research to market with a new focus on innovation-related activities, such as piloting or demonstration.


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 11

Funding will focus on the following societal challenges:

• Health, demographic change and wellbeing;

• Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research, and the Bioeconomy;

• Secure, clean and efficient energy;

• Smart, green and integrated transport;

• Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials;

• Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies;

• Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens

2 HORIZONTAL ACTIVITIES IN H2020 Horizon 2020 introduces specific measures for spreading excellence and widening participation. The measures called Teaming, Twinning and ERA-chairs are targeted at low-performing member states in terms of research and innovation, The Teaming action supports associating advanced research institutions to other institutions, agencies or regions for the creation or upgrade of existing centres of excellence. Twinning will help strengthen a defined field of research in a knowledge institution through linking with at least two internationally-leading counterparts in Europe. The ERA Chairs scheme will provide support for universities and other research institutions to attract and maintain high quality human resources and implement the structural changes necessary to achieve excellence on a sustainable basis. Science with and for society part of H2020 aims at building effective cooperation between science and society, recruitment new talent for science and to pair scientific excellence with social awareness and responsibility.

3 TYPES OF ACTIONS IN H2020

Detailed characteristics of types of actions which can be implemented in H2020 are given in the General annex of the workprogramme. There are several types of actions (funding schemes) in H2020. The type of action for each called topic is given at the topic description in the workprogramme. The most frequently used types of action are:

• Research and Innovation actions

Action primarily consisting of activities aiming to establish new knowledge and/or to explore the feasibility of a new or improved technology, product, process, service or solution. For this purpose they may include basic and applied research, technology development and integration, testing and validation on a small-scale prototype in a laboratory or simulated environment. Projects may contain closely connected but limited demonstration or pilot activities aiming to show technical feasibility in a near to operational environment.

• Innovation actions

Action primarily consisting of activities directly aiming at producing plans and arrangements or designs for new, altered or improved products, processes or services. For this purpose they may include prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting, large-scale product validation and market replication.

• Coordination and Support actions

Actions consisting primarily of accompanying measures such as standardisation, dissemination, awareness-raising and communication, networking, coordination or support services, policy dialogues and mutual learning exercises and studies, including design studies for new infrastructure and may


12 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

also include complementary activities of strategic planning, networking and coordination between programmes in different countries.

• SME instrument

The SME instrument is targeted at all types of innovative SMEs showing a strong ambition to develop, grow and internationalise. It provides staged support covering the whole innovation cycle in three phases complemented by a mentoring and coaching service. Transition from one phase to the next will be seamless provided the SME project proves to be worth further support in a further evaluation. Each phase is open to new entrants. In addition there are specific types of action in H2020, aimed at specific target groups:

• ERA-NET Cofund

ERA-NET Cofund under Horizon 2020 is designed to support public-public partnerships, including joint programming initiatives between Member States, in their preparation, establishment of networking structures, design, implementation and coordination of joint activities as well as Union topping-up of a trans-national call for proposals.

• Pre-Commercia Procurement (PCP) Cofund actions

PCP cofund actions aim to encourage public procurement of research, development and validation of new solutions that can bring significant quality and efficiency improvements in areas of public interest, whilst opening market opportunities for industry and researchers active in Europe.

• Public Procurement of Innovation Solutions (PPI) Cofund actions

The objective of PPI cofund actions is to enable groups of procurers to share the risks of acting as early adopters of innovative solutions, whilst opening market opportunities for industry.

REFERENCES

[1] Horizont 2020. Stručně o programu. Technologické centrum AV ČR. 2013. 32s.

[2] Participant Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html

[3] Horizon 2020. Workprogramme 2014-2015. 18. General Annexes, pp. 8-17


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 13

SUPPORTIVE INITIATIVES OF BRUSSELS BASED STAKEHOLDERS

Anna Vosečková

CZELO, Technology Centre ASCR (CZECH REPUBLIC)

[email protected]

Abstract

The presentation will provide information on services and activities of the Czech Liaison Office for Research, Development and Innovation (CZELO) in Brussels. The intensive environment in which the CZELO staff is working will be introduced as well. It includes not only the partner liaison offices, but also Brussels offices of many European and international companies, associations, organizations, groupings etc. Last but not least, the cooperation with the representatives of the European institutions. Keywords: Research, Innovation, Education, Cooperation, Support to Czech Researchers

1 INTRODUCING CZELO

Czech Liaison Office for Research, Development and Innovation (CZELO) in Brussels supports the successful integration of the Czech research into the European research cooperation, particularly through the EU Framework Programmes for Research, Development and Innovation. The office provides free services to researchers from all fields and all research bodies in the Czech Republic. CZELO is a project managed by the Technology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and financially supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (MEYS). The first project (1P05OK464) was implemented in the years 2005 – 2008 and supported from the National Research Programme (1P – Regional and International Cooperation in Research). The project CZELO2 (OK08005) was financially supported by the MEYS programme EUPRO (European programmes) and ran until 31 December 2012. The project CZELO3 (LE13018) started on 11 March 2013 and will run until 31 December 2016. It is financed by a grant from EUPRO II (Programme of international cooperation in research and development) of the MEYS CZ. More emphasis is put on the field of innovation and on higher involvement of enterprises (application sector) in research projects. To other significant elements belongs an increased attention to the field of tertiary education, specifically through EU ERASMUS+ programme. CZELO offers the following free of charge services:

• providing targeted and timely information on European research and opportunities for participation in international research consortia (Newsletter CZELO, Web CZELO);

• preparing and facilitating meetings of Czech researchers with relevant officers of the European Commission for the promotion of research topics and project proposals (CZELO miniworkshops and small scaled partnering events);

• promoting systematically Czech research and its results, partner capacities and specific offers for collaboration (CZELO Bulletin in English);

• organizing information days about Czech research and development for the European institutions (European Parliament, European Commission, EU Council and others), organizations based in Brussels and partner offices;

• providing basic support infrastructure and assistance for meetings of Czech researchers with potential project partners in Brussels.

Based in the heart of the so-called European Quarter (near DG RTD, European Parliament and many other offices), the CZELO office is easily accessible by all means of public transport. Therefore it offers possibilities of face to face contacts with experts directly involved in the preparation of European RTDI


14 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

policies and in the management of European research and educational programmes. To other advantages that should be mentioned here belongs the cooperation with similarly focused foreign institutions. Regarding the national level, CZELO is an integral part of the Czech regional and sectoral contact organizations providing information and services on EU RTDI cooperation, funded also by MEYS (National Information Network, NINET) and is in everyday close contacts with the National Information Centre for European Research (NICER) where all Czech National Contact Points (NCPs) for the current Horizon 2020 programme are concentrated. In March 2014, a short publication was released with the aim to introduce on 24 pages the main CZELO services and activities and help offered (including the logistic support). Examples of specific cooperation and implemented actions, useful links and practical information are given as well. The publication is available in printed and electronic version.

2 COOPERATION WITH FOREIGN PARTNERS

One of the most important elements of CZELO everyday work and a significant condition of the office efficiency is the active cooperation with foreign partners operating in the field of European programmes (RTDI as well as higher education).

2.1 Informal Group of Liaison Offices (IGLO)

Priority is given to the networking activities within the membership in the Informal Group of Liaison Offices (IGLO). At present, there are 24 of them, representing either the whole country with various responsibilities or single institutions or associations (based on membership fees):

• countries ELO (Estonian Liaison Office for EU RTD) HunOR (Hungarian Liaison Office for Research and Innovation) MOST (Moldovan Office for Science and Technology) ROST (Romanian Office for Science and Technology) SwissCore (Swiss Contact Office for Research, Innovation and Education) SOST (Spanish Office for Science and Technology) RCN (Norwegian Liaison Office for EU RTD) SLORD (Slovak Liaison Office for Research and Development) DANRO (Danish EU Research Liaison Office) FNRS (Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, Vallonia, Belgium), FWO (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Flanders, Belgium) Enterprise Ireland (Irish EU R&D Liaison Office) KoWi (European Liaison Office of the German Research Organisations) CZELO (Czech Liaison Office for Research, Development and Innovation)

• institutions PolSCA (Polish Science Contact Agency of the Academy of Sciences) VINNOVA (Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems) FiLi (Finnish Liaison Office for EU Research and Development, with delegates from the Academy of Sciences and TEKES) CNR (Italian National Council for Research) ENEA (EU Liaison Office of the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, the Energy and the Sustainable Economic Development)

• associations EOC (European Office of Cyprus) NethER (Netherlands House for Education and Research) SBRA (Slovenian Business and Research Association) CLORA (French Club des Organismes de Recherche Associés) TuR&Bo (Public-Private Partnership of Turkish Research and Business Organizations) UKRO (UK Research Office)

To the main activities of IGLO network belongs: information sharing, partner searching, bilateral consultative meetings (specifically on the occasion of national expert presence in Brussels),


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 15

organization of joint activities and collaboration through 8 working groups. It is also a suitable platform for promotion of Czech research and innovation capabilities. To the joint IGLO activities belong:

• IGLO Open: a regularly monthly event on hot topics from RTDI field with speakers usually from European Commission, organized by individual offices in accordance with an agreed timetable (usually it is once in two years for each office); CZELO held its IGLO Open on 1 April 2014 on the theme “EIT and KICs: Recent development”; it is also possible to organize an IGLO Open Special (outside the timetable) – CZELO will be hosting such event on 20 June 2014 on FET (Future and Emerging Technologies) – the Czech experts can propose topics for these events in case of interest (please contact CZELO)

• ERA-in-Action: special workshops for invited experts from IGLO member countries to discuss problems and challenges related to the implementation of framework programmes (FP); the representatives of the European Commission and other organizations participate as well, but only with an observer status; the outcomes of these events are communicated to the EC in form of recommendations as a background for future decision making; CZELO was actively involved in organization of workshops on the following topics: project financial audits, synergies between FPs and structural funds, simplifications of FPs, open access to research data, mobility and impact assessment of FPs. To each of them Czech experts (one or two) were invited; an ERA-in-Action on first experience with H2020 projects will be organized in autumn 2014

• IGLO Working Groups: targeted at key aspects of FPs and other instruments, agreed on within IGLO; there are currently 8 working groups (Implementation of FPs, Innovation, Science Mobility, Industrial Partnerships, European Research Council, Structural Funds, Space and Security, International Cooperation), two of them are co-chaired by CZELO; some meet every month, some every two months and some ad-hoc depending on on-going development in the field; please contact CZELO in case of interest to exchange views or best practices or to explore how other countries deal with certain issues

• IGLO Partner Search: in parallel to official partner search tools, like CORDIS and some NCPs search pages, this IGLO instrument offers direct access to more partners through filling in a template development by IGLO members; it is then circulated through a special mailing list of contact persons established in every IGLO office and afterwards widely distributed to respective stakeholders (by the means of newsletters, sending directly to specific experts or by placing it on the web)

2.2 Other partners

There are numerous offices established in Brussels to lobby in favour of their mother organizations in the field of research, innovation and higher education. Also many European as well as international associations and other legal bodies and grouping have either their seat in Brussels, or have recently opened their liaison offices there. The common characteristics of all of them are: giving visibility to their organization by holding various events, by preparing advice papers or press releases, by organizing study visits including meetings with the representatives of the European institutions and of national authorities etc. And last but not least, most of the European institutions are based in Brussels, for CZELO the most important partner is the European Commission.

2.2.1 European Union Institutions

The division of competencies within the three most important EU institutions is the following: Council of the EU – decision making, European Parliament – decision making and consultation, European Commission – legislative proposals and implementation. CZELO closely cooperates with research attaché at the Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic (CZ) to the EU Šárka Brábníková by means of intensive exchange of information. She is responsible for the research policy issues within the Council of the EU by participating on behalf of the CZ in the Research Working Party, Joint Research and Atomic Questions WP and for Space WP. Regarding the European Parliament, the two most important partners for CZELO are the ITRE Committee (Committee for Industry, Research and Energy) and STOA panel (Science and Technology Option Assessment). In the past CZELO organized together with STOA two one-day conferences (on


16 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

impact assessment and on biodiversity). Lobbying is also done through direct contacts with individual Members of the EP and through various Inter - Parliamentary Groups (e.g. water, climate, innovation). But for the field work and support to researchers done by CZELO, the intense contacts to the project and policy officers of the different Directorates General (DG) of European Commission are of outmost importance. The key role of course belongs to DG for Research and Innovation (DG RTD) – responsible for the policy and strategy planning of the H2020 and horizontal issues like Innovation Union, the European Research Area and many others, followed by DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT, formerly DG INFSO) and DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) that provides scientific support to EU policies and can even be a partner in FP projects through its seven research centres. CZELO organizes for the Czech and Slovak officers informal Research Lunches with the aim to exchange information, to lobby for Czech evaluators and for Czech speakers at the events organized by the EC. Due to recent developments under H2020 programme when the expert level has been moved from DG RTD to other competent DGs, CZELO established new contacts - within DG for Environment, Energy, Enterprise, Transport, Climate etc. Regarding the higher education, close cooperation is realized with DG Education and Culture (DG EAC) which is also responsible for European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). And for regional policy and structural funds, CZELO also cooperates ad-hoc with DG for Regional Policy (DG REGIO) – organizing side events within the European Week of Regions and Cities (OPEN DAYS): last year this thematic CZELO workshop covered social innovations. More and more important are also Executive Agencies established with the aim to manage European projects (in some cases including the evaluation process) – to these belongs the Research Executive Agency (REA), Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized enterprises (EASME), European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) and Innovation & Networks Executive Agency (INEA).

2.2.2 European Associations and Organizations

As mentioned above, many European associations have their seat (or liaison office) in Brussels. Their work is similar to that of IGLO: based on working groups, publishing statements and advice papers, lobbying for its members, collecting information and organizing events. CZELO follows closely their activities, using them as a source of information for Czech research community. With some of them closer contacts has been established, especially with those where Czech or Slovak experts are working. In many of these associations there are Czech institutions involved as members – the question is how they use this membership for their own profit, that is, how active they are. In the field of research and education, to the most active associations belong:

• EUREKA Secretariat (responsible also for the implementations of EUROSTARS programme) • COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) • EARTO (European Association of Research and Technology Organizations) • ERRIN (European Regions Research and Innovation Network) • LERU (League of European Research Universities) • EUA (European University Association) • ACA (Academic Cooperation Association) • EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council) • Science Europe (think thank that emerged from European Science Foundation covering

research policy level) • Science|Business

There are also quite a number of smaller players, representing fewer members than the one mentioned above (non-exhaustive list):

• EuroTech Universities • Coimbra Group • Access EU

In the past few years, following the new strategic approach especially within the Innovation Union, structuring of the European Research Area and the new instruments of the FPs, their Brussels offices were established. This involves the secretariats of Joint Programming Initiatives (e.g. JPI Oceans), the seat of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the EIT (e.g. Climate KIC, ICT Labs) or the offices of programmes and initiatives established under the article 185 and 187 of the EU Treaty (e.g. the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme – AAL).


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 17

2.2.3 National associations and individual institutions

More and more national stakeholders are being aware of the assets of being more visible in Brussels and therefore made an important decision to establish their office there. Regarding the national associations or research institutions, it is usually the case of bigger Member States – Germany being the on the lead. They have their own activities based on lobbying, organizing trainings for their colleagues and writing draft proposals as well. They cover only the research or education topics relevant for their institution, so the real expertise within the Brussels office is possible. It is also easier for them to have intensive contacts with relevant EC officers and MEPs. Just to name a few: Germany – Helmholtz Association, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, DLR, Fraunhofer, BayFOR, DAAD; UK – University of Wolverhampton, Technology Strategy Board; Spain – A4U (Alliance of four Spanish universities); The Netherlands - TNO. Bilateral contact with these offices is important for CZELO, as it is an asset for Czech project managers coming for a training period in Brussels to meet relevant experts working for these associations.

3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There are some aspects that should be considered as basic requirements for successful integration into the European and international research cooperation. The following points are related to the text above, are not exhaustive and do not include the level of project proposal drafting. They target especially the visibility of research institutions and some organizational issues.

1. well structured and updated web pages (even in English) - potential European and international partners will check it as a first step

2. direct link at the home page to the overview of participation in European and international projects

3. direct link at the home page to the overview of membership in European and international organizations

4. research teams profiles ready to be send to potential partners (CZELO template in English is available on CZELO website)

5. full use of all contacts for the involvement in European projects (from previous cooperation – even bilateral, conferences etc.)

6. utilization of membership in European and international organizations / associations 7. synergies within the university / research organization (SF, European and international

projects should be managed by one project department)


18 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

GREAT EXPECTATIONS AMONG OUTBOUND SWEDISH

EXCHANGE STUDENTS – A CASE FROM UMEÅ UNIVERSITY1

Per A Nilsson

Umeå University (SWEDEN) [email protected]

Abstract

This paper explores expectations and outcomes for outbound students in Sweden, comparing their expectations with what they actually experienced. Based on an initial sample of 143 students 57 answered both surveys, before and after having the experience of studying abroad. The aim is to investigate to what extent the expectations of outbound exchange students are being met in a population of students who had temporarily studied abroad. In this study, Umeå University, Sweden, is used as a case. This study highlights what incentives students have to become exchange students and most importantly, how they value this experience. The respondents had positive expectations before departing as exchange students and they returned with even more positive attitudes. Keywords: outbound students, student mobility, experiences and expectations, Sweden.

1 INTRODUCTION

In Europe, the Erasmus Programme has improved students’ possibilities to study internationally. The Erasmus Lifelong Learning Programme is the largest mobility programme in the world, and enables students to temporarily study abroad for one or two semesters at academic institutions in Europe. Erasmus networks now cover 90% of Europe’s universities [2]. In Sweden and many other countries, there are also options for university students to study abroad outside Europe. For this very reason, student mobility has become an ambiguous area of research [3]. According to Findlay et at. [4], student mobility can be conceptualized theoretically in three ways: as an element of highly skilled migration, as a product of globalization, and as an element of youth mobility cultures and consumption geographies. This paper covers literature on student mobility and deals with experiences of temporarily studying abroad. After a review of other studies on student mobility, the aim is to investigate how students’ expectations and experiences are being met and to test different motives the students might have for temporarily studying abroad. How did their expectations match their experiences, be it for academic purposes or other motives?

1.1 What do exchange students expect?

Travel has become a meaningful part of many young people’s lives. Why, how and where you travel says something about who you are and who you want to be [5]. In Jonsson’s study, attitudes towards studying abroad were examined among those considering studying at a college or university. The motives given were the expected ones, for example to learn a new language and to learn about another culture. More surprising were the findings that the students wanted a break from the monotony of the daily grind, a bit of time to breathe freely, to do something new and to get away for a while. Moreover, the study showed that young people have very positive associations regarding internationalization and many want to live, work and/or study outside Sweden. The final report of the Professional Value of Erasmus Mobility, VALERA [6], makes a similar observation: Erasmus is gradually losing its uniqueness, as mobility has become the norm among European university students.

1 See the full length of this paper [1]


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 19

Cultural experience is often the major reason students choose to study abroad temporarily [7]. This is, of course, true for exchange students who study abroad for one or two semesters. Thissen and Ederveen [7] emphasize that the motives for fee-paying students coming to Europe to study for a whole degree are somewhat different to those of exchange students who enrol in a mobility programme such as Erasmus. This has to do with differences in expectations regarding experiences and career. Fee-paying international students studying for a whole degree are investing a great deal of money in a career, whereas exchange students are focusing on aspects of personal development [7] [8]. Something that is a motive to study abroad for some students might be an obstacle for others. The Swedish International Programme Office for Education and Training conducted a survey in 2002 [9] and found that students who did not participate in mobility programmes highlighted reasons such as timing, language problems, previous experience of working abroad, travel, studying abroad and being unmotivated as obstacles to studying abroad. Swedish students who did not enrol in student mobility programmes also emphasized ties to family and friends as a reason for staying put. Another study by the Swedish International Programme Office [10], involved interviewing students about their attitudes towards studying abroad. The results of the study confirmed the desire among Swedish students to study in English when studying abroad.

1.2 What do exchange students experience abroad?

Students who choose to study abroad are taking a significant step in setting in motion their own individual life projects and it can be assumed that they dream of and aspire to having a great experience, be it for academic or personal development. It is quite obvious that students have expectations before enrolling in a student mobility programme; other scholars have also designed studies to follow up on students’ experiences of temporarily studying abroad [6] [11] [12]. The outcome of students studying abroad has received quite a bit of attention in various studies. However, outcomes can be difficult to evaluate depending on when follow-up studies take place; they can be conducted immediately after a period abroad or up to several years later, but can also depend on whether the studies target exchange students (often Erasmus) or international students in general. In addition, the conclusions that can be drawn from follow-up studies depend on the size of the population studied, which may explain why results from follow-up studies can differ. Erasmus students’ mobility has not attained the scale anticipated, particularly for UK students [13]. To learn more about students’ experiences of temporarily studying in Europe, King et al. [13] conducted a study, which showed that the experience of a year abroad led to linguistic improvement, the cultural experience of living in another country and further general personal development. While career prospects improved after studying abroad, academic learning experiences were less significant. These findings are similar to those of many other studies of student mobility [6] [14] [15]. Bracht et al. [6] concluded that former Erasmus students cannot count on higher income and status than their immobile peers but that they were being employed in international work assignments and were often internationally mobile. Only former Erasmus students from Central and Eastern European countries could generally expect better career opportunities than their immobile peers. Studies by Maiworm and Teichler [14] showed that Erasmus-students found work that allowed them to exploit the special skills they had gained during their experience of studying abroad. Norris and Gillespie [16] found that studying abroad truly changed lives, as the respondents’ career choices were affected by the experience of studying abroad. In addition, mobile students more frequently had jobs with international work assignments [17]. A comprehensive study by Norris et al. [16] on the experience of studying abroad also confirmed its impact on career choices later in life. Their study showed that studying abroad affected the career choices of nearly two-thirds of the respondents. However, some studies indicate the extent of loneliness and/or isolation among international students [18] [19] [20]. Therefore, to fully understand the totality of the experience of studying abroad we need to learn more about whether and how expectations are met.


20 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

2 THE STUDY

2.1 Research method

The focus of this study is the expectations that outbound exchange students have when they depart for one or two semesters of studying abroad. Hence, the analyses are based on data from a survey monitoring their expectations prior to leaving and a follow-up survey after their stay abroad. The survey was carried out as web-based questionnaires directed at outbound exchange students from Umeå University, a comprehensive university in northern Sweden with 32,000 students, during the academic year 2007/2008. A total of 143 students from Umeå University enrolled in an exchange programme in the autumn term of 2007. Two-thirds were Erasmus students and the rest were bound for studies in North America and Australia. A hundred and twenty-three had signed up for one semester at a university abroad, and the remaining 20 were to spend a full academic year abroad. The design of the survey was inspired by Plog [21] [22]. This model was chosen in order to understand why students make different decisions when choosing study destinations, especially when they have such a wide range of options. In accordance with the model, the respondents were divided into two groups: those studying in ‘English-speaking countries’ and those studying in ‘non-English-speaking countries’. Plog’s studies examined tourists choosing tourist destinations and this study examines the potential for applying tourism research to studying the choices exchange students make when choosing study destinations. In addition, this model was used to test ‘academic’ purposes with other motives for student mobility and choice of study destination. The questions in the survey were about the students´ abilities in a second and third language, how much they had travelled, the parts of the world they had visited, their expectations before studying abroad, and finally their motives for choosing a foreign university. In the present study, outbound exchange students were studied in order to be able to draw conclusions from what they had experienced after having temporarily studied abroad. The self-constructed survey about their expectations, previous experience of travelling, etc. was not validated, which is a weakness of the study. Further limitations are, for example, the study’s reliance on a relatively small group of outbound exchange students, and the fact that the students were followed up after a relatively short period of time. Moreover, this study lacks a control group of students studying on campus. In addition, these limitations of course mean that any conclusions drawn from the study are tentative.

2.2 Research procedure

Before leaving for their studies abroad, the 143 students received a self-constructed questionnaire in which they were asked about their previous experiences concerning travelling and living abroad, their motives for enrolling in an international study programme, their choice of study destination, and their expectations (such as learning another language, getting to know another country and culture, a sense of adventure, etc.). A Likert scale was used in the survey to scale responses to the questionnaire on seven levels from strongly agree to strongly disagree. In relation to the return to Sweden the students were once again approached with a web-based survey and asked questions about how they had perceived their stay abroad. The data set therefore constitutes a panel. For exchange students an agreement between Umeå University and an international partner university is fundamental. Without an agreement the students’ only option is to study abroad on their own, without a scholarship or support from their home university. Umeå University has more than 700 agreements with partner universities worldwide, but most of the agreements are within Europe (i.e., within the mobility programmes Erasmus and Nordplus). Umeå University students can choose among many countries for studying abroad as an exchange student; the choice is dependent on the student’s main field of study. There are many possibilities: for instance, a law student can choose between 17 countries, and a business student between 24 countries. Students have many more options than they are willing or able to exercise when it comes to studying abroad, especially within the Erasmus Programme. Many students from Umeå University


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 21

prefer to travel far from Sweden when studying abroad. Countries such as Australia, South Africa, Japan and the US are popular among students, but there are relatively few places available. The demand from Umeå students to study abroad is very different from what Umeå University can actually provide, and the places available at universities in many countries are not very popular among students. One thing to keep in mind is that the students’ home university can only nominate students, while the hosting universities admit them. For example, many more students from Umeå want to study in Great Britain than can possibly be accepted by the admitting study institutions, due to the popularity of this particular country among a large group of potential international students. Thus, there is a discrepancy between what the students perceive as the best option and what Umeå University can actually provide. Of the initial 143 outbound students, 80 answered the first questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 56%. The follow-up survey was directed at the 80 students who had answered the first questionnaire, and yielded 62 answers, and 57 of the respondents could be matched and linked between the responses in both surveys. The panel therefore encompasses 40% of the population. An analysis of the non-participants does not indicate any bias with respect to gender, age or study programme. However, the results of this study are limited to 62 students who participated in an international programme, and cannot be generalized to all students at Umeå University who chose to study abroad (a substantial but unknown number of students choose to study abroad for shorter or longer periods outside a mobility programme administered by the university). All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, version 17.0 for Windows. The Wilcoxon signed ranked test was used for the study of paired observations, e.g. for the comparison of answers to the questionnaires after returning to Sweden with those before leaving for studies abroad. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare differences between groups. The level of statistical significance was set to p<0.05.

2.3 Results

The following section presents the results from the two surveys. Of the respondents answering the first survey (n=80), the average age was 24 and the majority were women. The vast majority of the students were studying social sciences and law, which also included students from the business school. The rest of the students were studying natural sciences and technology, medicine, dentistry, education, humanities, and fine arts. A large majority were about to study in Europe and wished to study in an English-speaking country; about half of the respondents studied in the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada or the US. In the first survey the students were asked how they rated the importance of the study destination, i.e. the city or region where the university was located. Seven of ten said that the study destination was more important than the university itself. The students were also asked to rate the importance of the country, and 76% of the respondents felt that the country was more important than the study destination.

2.3.1 The students’ back ground

An analysis of the results from the first survey showed that a large majority (89 %) of the respondents had grown up in Sweden, and half had some previous experience of living abroad for a period. Many of the students who had enrolled in the mobility programmes were experienced travellers. All had visited at least one European country outside Sweden. A majority had been to North America and Asia. Fewer students had been to Africa, South America, the Middle East, Oceania or Central America. In other words, the students had visited many countries and had good knowledge of languages. They had university backgrounds that could strongly benefit from the experience of studying abroad, such as law school and business school, especially when it came to further career planning and choosing a country for their studies. Most students preferred an English-speaking country. Over half of the students had studied in English; another four students had studied in English and the language of the country. Six had only used Spanish for their studies. One had used Chinese (Mandarin) when studying abroad, another German, and one French. It should be emphasized that not being proficient in a third or fourth language does not seem to be an obstacle to student mobility. One might add that most of the students had studied for quite some time at the university level: the majority of them had earned 121 ECTS or more at Umeå University before temporarily studying abroad as an exchange student.


22 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

2.3.2 Choosing destination

The survey respondents were divided into two groups: students who studied in an English-speaking country (n=44) and those who studied in a non-English speaking country (n=36). In both groups, female students were the majority. Students who went to non-English-speaking countries had a more international background, i.e. the answers from the survey showed that they (n=6) had grown up mostly outside Sweden and, additionally, 23 students responded that they had lived abroad at some point during their childhood. They were also looking for an academic challenge. Students who went to English-speaking countries had less experience living abroad. Three of the students had lived outside Sweden for most of their upbringing, and 17 had lived outside Sweden for part of their lives. The ones who studied in an English-speaking country were looking for an adventure to a higher degree than those studying in a non-English-speaking country. One thing that is noteworthy is the fact that 18 of the 36 students in a non-English-speaking country studied in English. One can also observe that the students preferred to improve their already high proficiency in English rather than investing in learning a third or a fourth language. Different motives were compared between students who studied in an English-speaking country with students who studied in a non-English-speaking country. The percentage of students in a non-English-speaking country was significantly higher than that of students in an English-speaking country for the elements “recommended by a teacher” and “living abroad part of upbringing” while the percentage of students in an English-speaking country was significantly higher than that of students in a non-English-speaking country for the elements “recommended by a friend”; “learn another language”; “adventure”; “existence of an agreement” (Fig.1). Recommendations from teachers and friends seem to be crucial for the students. Furthermore, the experience of having lived abroad as part of one’s upbringing stands out. It seems that there is a selection of students who study abroad, and that previous experience of living abroad is important when explaining student mobility.

Fig. 1. Differences between motivations among students who studied in an English-speaking country and those who studied in a non-English-speaking country; the level of statistical significance was set to p<0.05 (*).

2.3.3 Comparisons of expectations before and after the study-abroad experience

Outbound students had expectations prior to departure, upon return had gained experience, from temporarily studying abroad (Table 1). Before departing as exchange students the vast majority had an expectation of excitement and adventure and a majority did in fact experience adventure. For the respondents, adventure stands out as the aspect that characterizes the experience abroad and was thus shown to be a significant element. Before leaving Sweden the students responded that a period abroad would be an adventure, and this expectation was shown to have been fulfilled. The two surveys asked questions about what it was like to be an exchange student. Many students expected to help them find a job more easily in the future, learn about another culture and learn another language. It seems that the respondents were looking for the experience of having lived abroad for a period of their lives. After returning home, the respondents reported that they had enjoyed the change of study environment and that it had been interesting to learn more about another culture. Elements such as change of study environment and learning about another culture became more important after a study


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 23

period abroad; i.e. these aspects surpassed the students’ expectations. The respondents had positive expectations before leaving as an exchange student, and they returned with even more positive attitudes. This study indicates that their expectations were met and that they were very satisfied with their overall experience of temporarily studying abroad. It seems that the experiences they had in a foreign country were well received in all respects. In addition, the respondents considered the study period worthwhile. Finally, this study also shows that living in a warmer climate does not stand out as important for students when they make their destination choice, which one might expect considering that Umeå University is located in northern Europe. Table 1. How can your expectations and experiences after returning from temporary studies abroad best be described? Data have been matched between the same respondents before departure from and after return to Sweden; the level of statistical significance was set to p<0.05 (*). Before

going After

returning

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Exciting/ adventure 35 61 28 50 Learning about another culture 5 9 7 12 Learning another language 4 7 5 9 Studies in a more interesting academic environment(*)

2 4 4 7

Change of environment (*) 3 5 8 14 Living in a warmer climate 1 2 0 0 Easier to get a job (*) 6 10 3 5 Other matters 1 2 2 3 TOTAL 57 100 57 100

3 DISCUSSION

Since the 1970s, the number of students studying abroad has increased considerably worldwide. Approximately four million university students are enrolled in studies outside their country of citizenship, in comparison with approximately 0.8 million in 1975 [23]. As student mobility has become an ambiguous area of research, this tentative study has broadened the perspective and added the research question “How expectations are being met?” The respondents had positive expectations before departing as exchange students, and returned with even more positive attitudes. In this study, experiences other than strictly ‘academic’ ones were an attraction influencing the outbound exchange students’ choice of destination. The findings in this study indicate that a period of studying abroad enriches students’ lives, also confirm that it is only a selection of students that study abroad. The most adventurous and internationally experienced students are attracted to enrolling in student mobility programmes. It is clear that these students see exchange programmes as an opportunity for exploration but also as a way to use the experience as a merit later in life. In this study, it was found that the choices students make about mobility are individualistic, and it seems as if the students place very high value on their choice of country in which to study. For most students, the study destination is more important than the university itself, and a vast majority of the respondents felt that the country was more important than the study destination. This is an interesting result, considering that students have many more options than they are willing or able to use when it comes to temporarily studying abroad. However, some studies have shown that international mobility for study purposes may be tied to future intentions concerning places of work and residence [24]. It would seem that students see studying abroad as an opportunity for a unique adventure. When the students in this study responded to the survey, they seemed to label themselves as more adventurous than they were in more objective and strict terms. A survey is a self-evaluation, and terms like ‘adventure’ and ‘exotic’ mean very different things to different people. However, students who went to non-English-speaking countries seemed to be able to consider a wider range of options when it came to studying abroad. It is noteworthy that half of the students who studied in a non-English-speaking country actually studied in English. English has become a global language [25], a lingua franca. The


24 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

students expressed a desire to become more fluent in a language they already had good knowledge of (i.e. English), rather than to learn a language of which they had limited or no knowledge. However, improvement of language skills still seems to be important to students when choosing to enrol in a student mobility programme. Moreover, the respondents studying in an English-speaking country were less internationally experienced and expected studying abroad to be an adventure. Students going to English-speaking countries valued adventure more because they had limited experiences of studying, travelling and/or working in a foreign country. In conclusion, a global lifestyle among young people [26] and the fact that being mobile has become normal among European university students raise questions. Are the students who are not presently attracted to exchange programmes already experienced travellers with extensive international experience? This study has highlighted not only the incentives students have to become exchange students but also, most importantly, how they value this experience. The findings from this study indicate that the students first prioritize which country they would like to study in and secondly the more precise study destination and university. Only thereafter come aspects, which have relevance to an ‘academic’ exchange programme such as courses, the research reputation of selected universities or departments, teaching and learning issues, etc. Mobility as a phenomenon is also strongly supported by mobility programmes, for instance the newly launched Erasmus+ Programme. However, to make progress, more knowledge is necessary in this field, especially when it comes to inspiring students not only with ‘political’ arguments but with personal rationales as well. Stretwieser et al. [27] call “to engage in deeper research to more fully understand the totality of the study-abroad experience.” Furthermore, in coming years it is important to move beyond student mobility and to enhance the possibilities of joint degrees, double degrees and an increasing growth of networks and partnership between universities. Finally, this process needs to be managed by the leadership of the university to become successful. Internationalization of education is a strategic tool for universities worldwide when it comes to branding and ranking, but not the least for the students and their training working in international organisations, businesses and transnational projects.

REFERENCES

[1] Nilsson, P.A. (2013). Expectations and experiences of temporarily studying abroad. Revista da FLUP.4(3), pp. 183-198.

[2] Times Higher Education Supplement, 21 October 2005, published on Internet www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

[3] Cambridge, J. & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 34(2), pp.161-175.

[4] Findlay, A.M., King, R., Stam, A., & Ruiz-Gelices, E. (2006). Ever Reluctant Europeans: The Changing Geographies of UK Students Studying and Working Abroad. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13(4), pp. 291-318.

[5] Jonsson, G. (2003). Rotad, rotlös rastlös (Rooted, rootless and restless young), GERUM kulturgeografi 2003:3 (Umeå University Press, Sweden).

[6] Bracht O., Engel C., Janson K., Over A., Schomburg H., & Teichler U. (2006). The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility. Final Report of the VALERA project. International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel), University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.

[7] Thissen, L., & Ederveen, S. (2006). Higher Education: Time for coordination on European level? Discussion Paper, No 68 (CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis).


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 25

[8] Papatsiba, V. (2005). Political and Individual Rationales of Student Mobility: a case-study of ERASMUS and a French regional scheme for studies abroad. European Journal of Education, vol 2, pp. 173-188.

[9] The Swedish International Programme Office for Education and Training, (2002). Sveriges deltagande i Erasmus (Participation of Swedish students in the Erasmus Programme), Working paper 7, Stockholm.

[10] The Swedish International Programme Office for Education and Training, (2008). A study conducted by Sifo Research International, working paper, Stockholm.

[11] Campbell, J., & Li, M. (2008). Asian Students Voice: An Empirical Study of Asian Students Learning Experiences at a New Zealand University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(4), pp. 375-396

[12] McLeod, M., & Wainwright, P. (2009). Researching the Study Abroad Experience. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(1), pp. 66-71.

[13] King, R., & Ruiz-Gelices, E. (2003). International Student Migration and the European `Year Abroad´: Effects on European Identity and Subsequent Migration Behaviour. International Journal of Population Geography, 9(3), pp. 229-252.

[14] Maiworm, F., & Teichler, U. (1996). Study Abroad and Early Career. London and Bristol, Kingsley.

[15] Teichler, U. (2002). Erasmus in the Socrates Programme. Findings of an Evaluation study. Bonn, Lemmens.

[16] Norris, E. M., & Gillespie, J. (2009). How study Abroad Shapes Global Careers: Evidence From the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), pp. 382-397.

[17] Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2008). Does Higher Education Attained ad Lead to International Jobs? Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), pp 101-130.

[18] Waters, J., & Brooks, R. (2010). ´Vive la Difference?´: The ´International´ Experience of UK Students Overseas. Population, Space and Place, 17(5), pp-587-578.

[19] Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C. & Ramia, G. (2008) Loneliness and International Students: An Australian Study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), pp. 148-180.

[20] Bugay, A. (2007). Loneliness and life satisfaction of Turkish university students. Education in a Changing Environment. Conference Proceedings. Education Development Unit. University of Salford, Salford, available at: www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/38_07.pdf

[21] Plog, S.C. (1974). Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 55-58.

[22] Plog, S. (2001). Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. An Update of a Cornell Quarterly Classic. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 42(3),pp. 13-24.

[23] OECD. (2013), Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2013_eag-2013-en

[24] OECD. (2009), Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2009_eag-2009-en

[25] Crystal, D., (2003). English as a global language, Second edition. Cambridge University Press.


26 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

[26] Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequence. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

[27] Streitwieser, B.T. (2012). Editorial. Research in Comparative & International Education, 7(1), pp.1-4.


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 27

HEALTHCARE STUDY PROGRAMMES IN INNOVATION

Petra Mandysová1, Klára Hlaváčová1, Veronika Kovářová1, Denisa Kylarová1

1University of Pardubice, Faculty of Health Studies (CZECH REPUBLIC)

E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

The aim of the three-year project (registration number CZ.1.07/2.2.00/15.0357) was to innovate three out of the existing five study programs of the Faculty of Health Studies, University of Pardubice (FHS UPa) and to enhance the professional competence of the academic staff, which would lead to the modernization of teaching methods and incorporation of new, scientific knowledge in the educational activities. The project responded to the societal demand for highly qualified healthcare personnel in the context, among other things, of an aging population. The project involved all four departments of the faculty: The Department of Nursing, The Department of Midwifery and Health and Social Work, The Department of Clinical Subspecialties, and the Department of Informatics, Management, and Radiology. In addition, the project had a partner institution – the Pardubice Regional Hospital, joint-stock company (JSC). The project consisted of four key activities. The project started on April 1, 2011 and ended on March 31, 2014. It was part of the Operational program Education for Competiveness; Priority Axis 7.2 Tertiary Education, Research, and Development; Area of Intervention 7.2.2 Higher Education. Keywords: Healthcare, innovation, hospital.

1 PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS: FOUR KEY ACTIVITIES

The project consisted of four key activities. Key Activity 1 was focused on innovation of educational activities for students enrolled in the bachelor and master study programs. Key Activity 2 was focused on improving the study environment in the partner hospital – the Pardubice Regional Hospital, joint-stock company (JSC). Key Activity 3 was focused on enhancing the professional competence of the academic staff. Key Activity 4 was focused on organizing workshops and conferences for the bachelor and master-level study programs.

1.1 Key Activity 1

Key Activity 1 was focused on innovation of educational activities for students enrolled in bachelor and master study programs. This was an extensive activity as it aimed to innovate 40 courses. It concerned the following study programs at the bachelor level: Nursing (General Nurse), Midwifery (Midwife), Specialization in Health Care (Paramedic) and the following study programs at the master level: Nursing (Nursing; Nursing in Selected Clinical Subspecialties). It consisted of a variety of activities: writing study texts, preparing electronic study materials, audio recordings and films, photos, and also experiential workshops that supplemented the practical part of the study. The amount allocated and spent was 3.50 million CZK.

1.1.1 Challenges

Because this was such an extensive key activity, it was quite challenging to coordinate it. Some of the staff involved in the activity were only part-time employees, and regular meetings were not realistic. However, to overcome the challenge, the coordinator of this key activity was the head of one of the involved departments, who was very experienced not only from the professional, but also from the organizational and managerial point of view. In the final part of the project, another issue became relevant: maintaining the balance between the request by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports


28 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

of the Czech Republic (MEYS) to hand over all the prepared materials on the one hand and the necessity to prevent certain products (such as tests) from being made public.

1.2 Key Activity 2

Key Activity 2 was focused on improving the study environment in the partner hospital – the Pardubice Regional Hospital, JSC. Specifically, a study centre was set up and was equipped with computers that were connected to the university network. This enabled the students to use the university intranet and all the relevant services, such as electronic databases accessible through the university library. In addition, audio-visual equipment and notebooks were purchased for use during classes held in the hospital. The amount allocated and spent was 0.53 million CZK.

1.2.1 Challenges

The focus of this key activity was on improvement in the partner institution, the hospital. Making the students aware of the innovation, specifically, making them aware of the existence of the study centre was a challenge as the students had been used to using the computers at the faculty. However, the students were reminded of this option, mainly through workshops, competition questions, and so on.

1.3 Key Activity 3

Key Activity 3 was focused on enhancing the professional competence of the academic staff. The staff attended various seminars and courses. After acquiring new knowledge, they shared it with their colleagues and also used it for teaching their students. The amount allocated and spent was 1.05 million CZK.

1.3.1 Challenges

To a certain extent, it was a challenge to attend all the courses mentioned in the project proposal as some of the courses organized by other institutions in the past (before the project was implemented) were no longer offered. However, in the end, the objectives were met.

1.4 Key Activity 4

Key Activity 4 was focused on organizing workshops and conferences. A total of 15 such activities were organized for students in all the above mentioned study programs. Through these workshops and conferences, the students learned more details about the project. In addition, they had an opportunity to meet with experts from other institutions. The amount allocated and spent was 0.45 million CZK.

1.4.1 Challenges

It was important to engage the students and to support active involvement. To achieve this, the administration team had to be flexible and creative. In the end, it was possible, for example, to have interesting dialogues most of the time, and to involve students as much as possible.

2 ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS

The project was administered by the administration team. The team met on a regular basis. There were many organizational aspects to look after, for example, tenders.

2.1 The Administration Team

The team was headed by the project manager; financial aspects were handled by the financial manager. Three of the key activities were led by heads of departments. One was led by a non-academic staff. The project proposal included a professional guarantor (an academic) position; however, this position was not approved.


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 29

2.1.1 Challenges

One of the big challenges was the fact that funding was much lower than anticipated (the requested budget was 15.48 million CZK). The budget cut affected even the administration team. As mentioned, the position of the professional guarantor, who was supposed to be a link between the project activities and the faculty, was not approved. Funding received for the manager’s position and the financial manager’s position was cut by approximately 50%. It was very difficult to manage the project under such conditions. In total, the budget for the administration team was 0.58 million CZK as opposed to the planned 1.34 million CZK.

2.2 Tenders

Tenders had to be conducted using strict rules. The process was, in some cases, quite complicated.

2.2.1 Challenges

One of the challenges involved the fact that the MEYS declared some of the expenses related to a tender unfounded and although The Office for the Protection of Competition (OPC) supported our procedure stating that the tender process had been conducted correctly, the MEYS initially resisted to accept the OPC’s conclusion. In the end, the expenses were accepted.

3 FINANCIAL ASPECTS

As mentioned, the requested budget was 15.48 million CZK. However, the approved budget was 8.60 million CZK. The biggest cut concerned salaries: as far as the salaries of the professionals working on the key activities were concerned, the final allocated amount was 3.47 million CZK (as opposed to the planned 7.16 million CZK). As for the administration team, the final allocated amount was 0.58 million CZK, as mentioned above (as opposed to the planned 1.34 million CZK). Although the budget was cut so severely, the amount of the professional work to be done in the four key activities remained almost the same. This was not easy for the staff and required excellent organization of work and supporting the project in various ways. The final spent amount was 7.26 million CZK. It was possible to save some money, for example, through purchases that were cheaper than anticipated.


30 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

Notes


Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014 31

Notes


32 Pardubice, May 13 - 14, 2014

Notes

International Seminar 2014„2014-2020: a New Challenge for Coordinators of the European Projects“

Seminar Proceedings

May 2014Pardubice, Czech Republic

Grant Offi ce – the way to succesful projects CZ.1.07/2.4.00/17.0106

This project is cofi nanced by the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic

ISBN 978-80-7395-764-3 (Print)ISBN 978-80-7395-765-0 (pdf)

Title International Seminar 2014 2014-2020: a New Challenge for Coordinators of the European Projects Seminar Proceedings Publisher University of Pardubice Studentská 95, 532 10 Pardubice Czech RepublicNumber of Copies 80Edition FirstPrinted by Printing Centre of the University of Pardubice

International Seminar 2014 - Univerzita Pardubice · 2017-06-29 · International seminar 2014 2014...

Documents

Transcript of International Seminar 2014 - Univerzita Pardubice · 2017-06-29 · International seminar 2014 2014...