Student and Faculty Transnational Mobility in Higher Education U Lanzendorf and B M Kehm, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction – History and Typology Student and faculty transnational mobility is defined as the crossing of national borders for the purpose of studying or teaching in higher education or engaging in research abroad. Academic mobility will be used here as a generic term referring to both groups of participants (students and faculty). Historically, the golden age of academic mobility was the Middle Ages when nation-states did not exist. There were only a limited number of cosmopolitan universities across Christian Europe which adhered to similar study programs taught in Latin. This enabled students and faculty to gain academic experience at different institutions across the region. One of the best-known wandering scholars of that time, Erasmus of Rotterdam, later gave his name to the largest European support program for academic mobility and cooperation (ERASMUS which is also the acronym for European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students). Contemporary forms of academic mobility go back to the 1920s (United States) and to the period after World War II (Europe). Different development phases can be distinguished for the United States and Europe, which are the traditional geographical foci of transnational student flows (Baron, 1993; Briggs and Burn, 1985; de Wit, 2002). The first phase, which lasted until the mid-1970s, was dominated by one-way student flows from countries with less-developed higher education systems to countries where higher education was well developed. Mainly, students from the South went to a limited number of countries in the North, namely the United States, France, the USSR, Germany, the UK, Canada, and Italy. Teichler refers to this type of student mobility as vertical (Teichler and Jahr, 2001: 443). Since the objective of vertically mobile students is usually to obtain a degree abroad, this type of mobility is also referred to as degree mobility. Among the countries with well-developed higher education, study experiences abroad were actively promoted primarily in the US. Already since the 1920s, the so-called junior year abroad provided third-year undergraduate students with an intercultural experience and helped to strengthen their foreign-language proficiency. It is organized by the home universities of participating students, which often have branch campuses abroad so that mobile students do not necessarily have to be affiliated to a foreign institution of higher learning.
National education and immigration policies have been important enabling or limiting factors for student mobility from its inception. During the first development phase, host countries valued foreign students as future contacts for the promotion of their political or economic interests abroad. Their policy of open doors’ was an element of foreign policy and initially enabled high growth rates of inbound student flows. Later, host countries brought this trend to a halt by strategically regulating and partly restricting student influx, for example, by setting quotas by field of study, imposing high entrance qualifications, increasing study fees for foreign students, or making visa regulations stricter. In the second development phase of academic mobility (mid-1970s to 1987), political strategies to guide transnational student mobility became more elaborate and students from countries with well-developed higher education systems increasingly participated. In Europe, the promotion of study abroad displaced the regulation of foreign-student inflow at the top of the political agenda. The ideas of student exchange and intercultural learning gained ground and complemented the traditional search for learning opportunities by students from underprivileged world regions as determinants of transnational student flows. The most important destination of intraEuropean mobility at that time was the United Kingdom. Student mobility between similarly developed national higher education systems has been called horizontal (Teichler and Jahr, 2001: 443) or temporary, the latter term referring to the fact that students did not want to obtain a degree abroad, but only to spend part of their study program at a foreign higher education institution. With the expansion of this type of mobility, the recognition of learning abroad by the home institutions of mobile students became a relevant topic. Another new element of the second phase was the systematic promotion of faculty mobility in Europe. In fact, a support scheme for the mobility of university teaching staff was the first element of supranational mobility policies introduced under the objective of regional integration. In 1976, the European Commission established the Joint Study Programme to support international faculty contacts and stimulate joint curriculum development. Soon after, however, financial support was focused on the promotion of student and teacher mobility because these activities seemed to be more visible for a broad public. The idea developed to offer students the possibility to participate in organized study-abroad programs – a strategy which
559
560
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
resembled the longer-standing practice of American universities. Finally, in 1984, a specific budget line for student mobility grants was introduced into the Joint Study Programme. With this measure, the European Commission took the European lead in the promotion of academic mobility. The third phase in the development of academic mobility started with the introduction of the European support program for horizontal academic mobility called ERASMUS in 1987 and lasted until 1999. ERASMUS stands for the strategic supranational support of student and faculty mobility within the context of regional integration in Europe (see, e.g., Smith, 1996) and complements national schemes for academic mobility. With respect to student mobility, its objective was to make study periods at foreign universities attractive by providing grants that covered the additional costs of study abroad and promoting the support of mobile students with respect to admission procedures and accommodation abroad, health insurance, and academic recognition upon return to the home university. As a new subcategory of transnational student mobility, self-organized versus organized mobility became relevant. Students who did not participate in a particular scheme but organized their study abroad period themselves came to be called free movers. The length of ERASMUS study abroad periods is between 6 months and 1 year. They are explicitly intended to serve higher education in addition to linguistic and intercultural learning. Apart from student mobility, ERASMUS also supports teaching periods at foreign partner universities for faculty. It is expected that faculty mobility provides new learning experiences to students and stimulates joint curriculum development and internationally integrated study programs of which student mobility is an essential part. The immediate objective of ERASMUS was the promotion of mutual understanding and interaction between national higher education systems in Europe. This, however, contributed to a so-called provocation of national systems – discussions on alternative ways of organizing higher education were stimulated – and can therefore be assumed as indirectly having paved the way for policies of structural convergence in European higher education (Wa¨chter, 1996). Especially after the Treaty of Maastricht had created a legal basis for the European Commission’s activities in higher education in 1992, academic mobility was the nucleus of comprehensive Europeanization policies in higher education. As from 1996, ERASMUS was integrated into the newly set up umbrella program SOCRATES which, up to 2006, promoted Europeanization in the fields of higher education, school education, and continuing/ adult education. Concomitantly, the support for student mobility and cooperation was substantially increased and the development of internationalization strategies by universities was introduced as a new element of the ERASMUS program. Another new policy objective was to make
the nonmobile higher education students benefit from Europeanization by stimulating internationalization at home. Successively, the number of countries participating in SOCRATES increased beyond the European Union (EU) member states. In 2007, 31 countries were eligible for program funding. For Europe, a fourth phase can be identified, starting with the Bologna Declaration in 1999 and running until the present. The so-called Bologna Process was initiated by the self-commitment of the ministers of education of 29 EU member states to work toward a structural harmonization of their national higher education systems. The core element of reform is the change to a tiered system of study programs and degrees (bachelor and master) in all signatory states of the Bologna Declaration (by 2007 their number had grown to 45). Thus, national governments may be regarded as finalizing the process of integration in European higher education which had initially been started by the European Commission. The Bologna Process aims to create a European Higher Education Area by 2010 to enable European students to change countries during their course of study without facing problems of recognition of prior learning. In this context, the development of joint or double-degree programs organized in cooperation with universities located in different countries receives particular attention. In recent years, the topics of quality assurance, academic recognition, and doctoral education have been added to the Bologna policy agenda. The European Higher Education Area is expected to significantly increase the visibility and attractiveness of European universities to students from the Third World countries. In the US, the terrorist attacks of September 2001 triggered substantial changes in the conditions for student and faculty mobility. Government regulations regarding visas and reporting obligations to government agencies became stricter, and international students were charged new types of fees (Altbach, 2004). Recently, US policy toward transnational student mobility has outlined a future focus on study abroad (Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Act of 2007). The aim is to set up a national studyabroad program in order to significantly increase the transnational mobility of national students so as to make study abroad the routine, rather than the exception, and reach participation of at least 1 million American students each year within 10 years. Particular emphasis is laid on the necessity to direct more students to nontraditional destination countries.
Statistical Overview – Patterns and Trends The global pattern of student mobility is relatively well documented by the United Nations Educational, Scientific
Student and Faculty Transnational Mobility in Higher Education
and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) annual compilation of national enrolment data which covers nearly all countries in the world. With respect to faculty mobility, however, data are scarce. The only internationally comparative statistical reference is provided by figures on the participation in short-term ERASMUS teaching assignments abroad. Further data are available from national surveys, regularly conducted, for example, in the US or Germany. They are, however, not comparable between countries and primarily address the mobility of scholars for purposes of research.
Student Mobility According to UNESCO statistics, there were some 2.5 million mobile tertiary education students worldwide in 2004 (UNESCO, 2006). This figure excludes students who are enrolled outside their country of permanent residence for up to one academic year. However, participation figures in temporary, that is, nondegree, mobility are comparatively small. In 2004/05, just over 200 000 study-abroad students from the US received academic credit after returning to their home institution (Koh Chin and Bhandari, 2006). In addition, there were about 145 000 ERASMUS students, and a modest number of temporary mobile students supported by programs funded by individual European countries (Maiworm and Wa¨chter, 2006). Since 1975, when internationally comparative data became available, worldwide participation in student mobility has more than tripled. The sharpest rise ever in foreign student numbers took place at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Comparing figures for 1999 with those of 2004, a 41% increase can be observed (UNESCO, 2006: 34). However, the growth rates of student mobility have always been roughly in line with the overall increase in participation in higher education. Only recently has the actual share of transnationally mobile students among the total number of tertiary education students slightly increased. Scenarios on the future growth of the worldwide demand for international higher education have been presented by an Australian study (Bo¨hm et al., 2002). International higher education involves student mobility and may also be provided by foreign institutions in the students’ home countries. The study came to the conclusion that the demand for international education will at least double between 2000 and 2015 and double again by 2025 to reach more than 7 million students. What is the current structure of student mobility? In 2004, the pattern of outbound student flows was as follows: UNESCO statistics show that almost 30% of students
spending more than 1 year abroad came from East Asia and the Pacific. Almost half of these (nearly 350 000) came from China alone. The second most important
561
region of origin is Western Europe, sending nearly 20% of worldwide mobile students (roughly 400 000). Student mobility from East Asia and the Pacific is increasing, whereas participation from Western Europe is stagnating. The third most important sending region is Central and Eastern Europe with 12% of all mobile students on a worldwide scale (just below 300 000 students). The major individual sending country is China (sending 14% of worldwide mobile students), followed by India (5%), the Republic of Korea (4%), Japan (2.5%), and Germany (2%). The overwhelming majority of mobile students from Western Europe (77 %) remains within this region. With about 40%, the proportions of students from North America or East Asia and the Pacific staying within their regions are also high. Notably, the share of outgoing students among all tertiary students is lowest in the United States (0.2%), whereas the countries of sub-Saharan Africa on average have by far the highest share of tertiary students learning abroad for more than 1 year (6 %) (UNESCO, 2006: 37). Yet, the fact that in Western Europe the share of tertiary students enrolled abroad also surpasses the worldwide average shows that it is not only a low development status of higher education which makes large numbers of students decide to study abroad. Further, it is interesting to note that in East Asia and the Pacific the proportion of students enrolled abroad among all tertiary education students is close to the global average. Obviously, Asian students are not particularly inclined to study abroad, although a very high absolute number of transnationally mobile students come from Asia. For inbound mobility, the following aspects are noteworthy: Western Europe and North America stand out as the
most important destinations of transnationally mobile students, currently attracting 44% and 25% of worldwide mobile students, respectively. Another 15% decide to study in East Asia and the Pacific. (It must be noted that data for Western Europe tend to overestimate inbound student mobility because they refer to students with foreign nationalities, a relevant number of who live permanently in their country of study (about 32% in Spain, 23% in the UK, and 16% in Germany. See Lanzendorf, 2006a).) The most important individual target country of mobile students in the world is the United States, with 23% of mobile students. The next four most frequent study destinations each account for a maximum of about half the US American share in worldwide student flows: The United Kingdom (12%), Germany (11%), France (10%), and Australia (7%). Together, the five
562
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
major destination countries attract 62% of mobile students worldwide. Among the developing countries, South Africa and Malaysia host substantial numbers of incoming students. They benefited from the recent expansion of mobile student numbers, whereas international student enrolment in the US has not grown since the academic year 2002/03 (Koh Chin and Bhandari, 2006). This is probably due to stricter access regulations after the events of 11 September 2001. For the United States, the structure of inbound student mobility is rather well documented in the annual Open Doors report (Koh Chin and Bhandari, 2006). Data show that incoming graduate students have slightly outnumbered incoming undergraduate students since the beginning of this century. The most frequent field of study of inbound mobile students is business and management (about 18% of all international students), closely followed by engineering (about 16%). In Europe, many national higher education systems traditionally have a single-tier study structure. It will therefore only be possible to distinguish undergraduate from graduate inbound mobility after the implementation of the Bologna goalswhich envisage a common two-tier structure. ERASMUS statistics show that most temporary mobile students in Europe come from business studies (more than one-fifth). The second and third most highly represented fields of study are the social sciences and engineering/technology (about 11% each). In Germany, students from economic fields comprised 16% of nonpermanent resident students in 2005 (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst and HIS 2006). The next most frequent subjects are German and informatics (about 9% of non permanent resident students each). They are closely followed by electrical engineering and mechanical and process engineering. The social sciences do not figure among the ten most often represented fields of study. For some target countries, foreign students – who do not necessarily have to be inbound mobile students – make up significant shares of all tertiary students. Particularly high percentages of foreign students among all tertiary students can be observed for Switzerland (18%), Australia (17%), Austria (14%), New Zealand, the UK (13% each), France, and Germany (11% each) (UNESCO, 2006: 48).
Faculty Mobility Faculty mobility is statistically documented for the US, Germany, and for the ERASMUS program. In the US, available data refer to inbound mobile academics at doctoral-degree-granting institutions (Koh Chin and Bhandari, 2006). Of almost 97 000 incoming scientists
and scholars in 2005/06, the overwhelming majority primarily engaged in research. Only less than 20% (nearly 20 000 scholars) came either for teaching (12%) or for teaching and research purposes (7.3%). The overall number of incoming academics has steadily increased since the beginning of the 1990s, and the trend shows a slight increase in the share of scholars with teaching only functions. Of all incoming academics, most originate from China (nearly 20%), Korea, and India (9% each). In 2005/06, the life and biological sciences were represented most often, followed by the health sciences (23% and 20%, respectively). The two fields, physical sciences and engineering, accounted for over 10%. Other fields of specialization had only marginal relevance. For Germany, data on inbound and outbound research mobility supported of (post-)doctoral researchers and senior faculty are available (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst and HIS, 2006). They are, however, limited to the participation in major national support programs. In 2004, nearly 21 000 incoming researchers and over 4000 outgoing researchers received support. Among the incoming researchers, about 50% were doctoral students or graduate students pursuing a research project, and among the outgoing researchers almost two-thirds belonged to this group. The absolute number of outgoing researchers has clearly been decreasing in recent years. The number of incoming researchers, however, has shown a slight increase. The majority of mobile researchers came from science and engineering fields. Within ERASMUS, more than 20 000 teachers taught temporarily in another of the 31 countries participating in the SOCRATES program in 2004/05. The largest number of ERASMUS teachers came from Germany (about 13%, corresponding to about 2% of academic faculty at German universities). Spain and France were the next two major sending countries, accounting for about 11% each of overall faculty participation in SOCRATES/ ERASMUS. Germany, France and Italy, followed very closely by Spain, were also the major destinations of ERASMUS teaching staff mobility. Teaching periods abroad lasted on average about 1 week with at least 8 h teaching. Teaching staff mobility is most frequent in languages and philological sciences as well as in engineering/technology with about 15% and 14% of participants, respectively. Business studies come third. However, this field of study comes first among outward faculty flows from Central and Eastern European countries (about 19%).
Perspectives of Students and Governments and Impacts of Academic Mobility Students studying for a degree abroad usually expect that the foreign degree will open up opportunities for
Student and Faculty Transnational Mobility in Higher Education
obtaining a good job in their home country or abroad. The selection of a host country is based on criteria such as language, admission practices, study costs, reputation of a higher education system or specific subjects, and general living conditions abroad, including attitudes toward foreign students. As demonstrated by large student flows between countries with identical or similar languages or neighboring countries, many mobile students prefer to study in cultural contexts with which they are familiar (see, e.g., Lanzendorf, 2006b). A recent study carried out on behalf of the European Commission provides insights into the criteria applied by students in Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Russia, and Thailand when planning to study abroad (Wa¨chter and Maiworm, 2006). In 2004, a survey was conducted among nearly 20 000 students from these six countries. They were asked to provide information about their motivation for planning international mobility and their perception of European higher education. The results of the survey show that they consider the master’s level to be the most appropriate period for going abroad. Their most frequent general motivation was to experience new ways of thinking and acting in their field of study (88%). Furthermore, they hoped to improve their opportunities for an international career or a career in their home country, to improve their language skills (81% each), and to have an opportunity for personal development (76%). In contrast, limited access to high-quality education at home or a lack of opportunities to specialize in a particular subject area were of minor importance (Wa¨chter and Maiworm, 2006: 169). The students surveyed considered the worldwide recognition of degrees from a country and the prestige and quality of an institution as the major criteria in selecting the host country for their study-abroad period (Wa¨chter and Maiworm, 2006: 180). Students notably looked for specific and high-quality provisions in their area of specialization and an up-to-date and well-managed institution with a high standing and affordable fees. As major obstacles and problems, more than 50% of the students surveyed quoted insufficient financial resources. Immigration regulations and language preparation were also mentioned as problematic aspects. It is widely assumed that a substantial proportion of internationally mobile students intend to live and work abroad, possibly in the host country of study, after graduation. However, little is known about the share of foreign graduates who do not go back to their home countries. Suter and Jandl (2006: 8) provide some information. According to them, for Canada, survey data suggest that between 15% and 20% of students from abroad on average do not return to their home countries after graduation. In Norway, about 18% of non-European students stay in the country. In the UK, the retention rate for students from European countries is particularly high, that is, about 27% in 2005.
563
Students’ motivations and expectations with respect to nondegree mobility have been relatively well investigated. Comprehensive information is available from evaluation studies on the ERASMUS program. The most recent survey among former ERASMUS students from all countries participating in the program – the ERASMUS 2000 study – referred to mobile students and faculty of the 1998/99 academic year. With respect to students’ motives for spending a study period at a foreign university, it was found that a number of different aspects were important, that is, improvement of foreign-language proficiency, self-development, academic learning experience, the wish to travel, and better opportunities for future professional development (Maiworm and Teichler, 2002: 87). Some variations could be observed for different fields of study. Academic and educational matters were especially salient for students in the fields of agriculture, architecture, fine arts, and mathematics. For students of education, cultural reasons were particularly relevant. Students of economics had a particular interest in career advancement. The overwhelming majority of participating students had already spent a minimum of one period abroad of at least 1-month duration before going abroad with ERASMUS (Maiworm and Teichler, 2002: 87). With respect to the perceived impact of temporary ERASMUS study abroad, a general finding is that students regard academic matters highly, but observe more impressive advancement in foreign-language proficiency, personality development, and career enhancement. This picture differs only moderately according to students’ home countries. The relatively cautious ratings of academic progress could be explained by students taking this kind of success largely for granted and being more excited about other learning experiences. This interpretation is substantiated by the finding that more than 50% of the students who were surveyed in the ERASMUS 2000 study rated their academic progress abroad more highly than what they would have expected for a corresponding period at home. Only 18% of the 1998/99 students thought that they made less academic progress abroad than at home (Maiworm and Teichler, 2002: 110). In addition, according to the ERASMUS 2000 study, about 80% of mobile students were either granted credit for study abroad or their study achievements were otherwise considered equivalent to requirements of their home program by their home institution. Almost 60% of the courses recognized upon return were recognized as equivalent to mandatory courses at home (Maiworm and Teichler, 2002: 109). Irrespective of this positive finding, more than 50% the 1998/99 ERASMUS students surveyed expected to need more time to graduate than would have been necessary had they not gone abroad. They estimated that their overall period of study would be prolonged by more than half the duration of their study-abroad period. Recent research on the professional impact of ERASMUS-supported study-abroad periods across
564
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
graduates from all participating countries suggests that the relevance of temporary study abroad to obtain the first job and its perceived positive impact on the type of work and income had decreased during the last decade (Bracht et al., 2006). In a first survey among former ERASMUS students who had been employed up to 3 years, in 1993, 71% of respondents believed that the period abroad had been helpful in obtaining the first job. In a subsequent survey of the year 2000, this figure decreased to 66%, and in the most recent study conducted in 2005, only 54% of graduates surveyed perceived a positive outcome in this respect. A positive impact on the type of work and the income level has always been recorded by a minority of former ERASMUS students. In 1993, 49% perceived a positive impact on the type of work and 25% on income; the respective figures 12 years later were 39% and 16%. These findings could reflect that international experience was becoming a less-exceptional asset with globalization. The authors of the survey called it a ‘‘gradual decline of the uniqueness of the ERASMUS experience’’ (Bracht et al., 2006: xxiv). A survey of about 20 000 academic staff in 14 countries conducted in the mid-1990s revealed that highly research active faculty were more inclined toward international activities than those with a preference for teaching (Welch, 1997). Surveys of former ERASMUS teachers point in a similar direction. They come to the conclusion that academic activity abroad is particularly relevant for expanding research contacts. In the most recent one, the improvement of research contacts was more often stated as a positive impact of temporary teaching abroad than the improvement of teaching and the development of new teaching methods (Bracht et al., 2006). In general, former ERASMUS teachers found a particularly positive impact of short-term teaching stays abroad on their intercultural understanding and the breadth of their academic knowledge. With respect to individual career prospects, however, they did not have an impression of benefit. Overall, the most recent study comes to the conclusion that the professional impact of 1-week faculty assignments abroad is impressively high. It is particularly high for faculty from Central and Eastern European countries (Bracht et al., 2006). National governments and international organizations support student mobility for various reasons. At the national level, human capital development plays a major role. Mobile students are expected to acquire competences which they would not develop if they did not go abroad. Whereas brain drain is a major concern of countries sending large numbers of students abroad, host countries increasingly develop brain-gain strategies. As Suter and Jandl (2006) report, European countries and, for example, New Zealand have introduced policies to facilitate the integration of international graduates in the home labor market. In the US and Canada, providing such options is already a long-standing practice. On the contrary, for other
industrialized countries, it can be observed that scholarships for students from the South increasingly require that students must return to their home country or else reimburse the scholarship after finishing their studies. As stated above, at the European level, student mobility is viewed as contributing to regional integration.
Outlook Recent policy initiatives in the US and in Europe suggest that major developments can be expected in the field of academic mobility, especially concerning student mobility. The US initiative to reach 1 million study-abroad students per year has the potential to fundamentally alter the global picture of student flows. If it reaches its ambitious objectives, it will substantially increase the weight of short-term, nondegree mobility and of student flows from the North to the South. In Europe, the introduction of a system of tiered study programs and degrees according to the bachelor and master model has led to concerns that mobility could decrease because the new study programs are shorter, are structured in a more rigorous way, and – at least at the bachelor level – frequently have very dense curricula. A recent study (Bu¨rger et al., 2006) tried to answer the question for German students whether the new tiered study programs would discourage them from temporary study abroad with ERASMUS. The results of the study showed that the new study programs did not discourage mobility per se but that greater efforts had to be made in the accompanying measures, that is, information and advice, integration of study abroad into the curriculum, learning agreements for study abroad, recognition, and contacts between home and host institution. The study was also able to show an emerging trend toward more degree mobility, that is, going abroad for a whole program (mostly for a master’s degree) rather than just spending a temporary period abroad within an ongoing program. In order to substantially increase the number of European higher education graduates who have experienced foreign teaching and learning cultures, the feeling is that alternative means to student mobility must be further developed; especially the internationalization of teaching at home deserves more attention. On a global scale, discussions on the future of academic mobility are increasingly shaped by issues of transnational education. Universities from countries with well-developed higher education systems export their study programs to countries where the national demand for study places cannot be met by local institutions. Thus, students in these countries do not necessarily have to go abroad any more to study for a foreign degree. The spread of transnational education is expected to complement rather than to lower participation in transnational student
Student and Faculty Transnational Mobility in Higher Education
mobility. However, it does lead to a new need for faculty mobility insofar as mother universities are involved in the teaching and quality assurance of their programs abroad. A further trend to be noted is that international competition becomes increasingly complementary to intercultural learning and cooperation as rationales for the political support of academic mobility. In the context of globalization, national higher education policies increasingly stress the relevance of generating an additional institutional income by promoting the enrolment of foreign students and gaining competitive advantages by attracting and keeping best talent from abroad. In most European countries, for example, universities are keen to develop English-language-taught degree programs, particularly at the master and doctoral level to attract students from abroad. Through its openness and – in many countries – comparatively modest tuition fees, Europe as a study destination is becoming more and more of a competitor to the US. In parallel, however, new destination countries of transnational student mobility such as South Africa or Malaysia emerge. See also: Higher Education Crossing Borders; Internationalization of Higher Education.
Bibliography Altbach, P. (2004). Higher education crosses borders. Change 36(2), 18–25. Baron, B. (1993). The politics of academic mobility in Western Europe. Higher Education Policy 6(3), 50–54. Bo¨hm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D., and Pearce, D. (2002). Global Student Mobility – Forecasts of the Global Demand for International Higher Education. Sydney: IDP Education Australia. Bracht, O., Engel, C., Janson, K., et al. (2006). The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility. http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/llp/ erasmus/evalcareersum_de.pdf (accessed June 2009). Briggs, A. and Burn, B. (1985). Study Abroad. A European and an American Perspective. Paris: European Institute of Education and Social Policy.
565
Bu¨rger, S., Gu¨nther, M., Kehm, B. M., et al. (2006). International study on transnational mobility in bachelor and master programmes. In German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) (ed.), Transnational Mobility in Bachelor and Master Programmes, pp 1–65. Bonn: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) and HIS HochschulInformations-System (eds.) (2006). Wissenschaft weltoffen 2006 – Daten und Fakten zur Internationalita¨t von Studium und Forschung in Deutschland. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Koh Chin, H. and Bhandari, R. (2006). Open Doors 2006: Report on International Educational Exchange. New York: Institute of International Education. Lanzendorf, U. (2006). Inwards and outwards mobile students. In Kelo, M., Teichler, U., and Wa¨chter, B. (eds.) Eurodata – Student Mobility in European Higher Education, pp 54–77. Bonn: Lemmens. Lanzendorf, U. (2006). Foreign students and study abroad students. In Kelo, M., Teichler, U., and Wa¨chter, B. (eds.) Eurodata – Student Mobility in European Higher Education, pp 7–53. Bonn: Lemmens. Maiworm, F. and Teichler, U. (2002). The students’ experience. In Teichler, U. (ed.) ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme – Findings of an Evaluation Study, pp 83–115. Bonn: Lemmens. Maiworm, F. and Wa¨chter, B. (2006). Student mobility in national programmes. In Kelo, M., Teichler, U., and Wa¨chter, B. (eds.) Eurodata – Student Mobility in European Higher Education, pp 182–192. Bonn: Lemmens. Smith, A. (1996). Regional cooperation and mobility in a global setting – the example of the European Community. In Blumenthal, P., Goodwin, C., Smith, A., and Teichler, U. (eds.) Academic Mobility in a Changing World, pp 129–146. London: Jessica Kingsley. Suter, B. and Jandl, M. (2006). Comparative Study on Policies towards Foreign Graduates – Study on Admission and Retention Policies towards Foreign Students in Industrialised Countries. Vienna: International Centre for Migration Policy Development and Advisory Committee on Aliens Affairs. Teichler, U. and Jahr, V. (2001). Mobility during the course of study and after graduation. European Journal of Education – Research, Development and Policies 36(4), 443–458. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2006). Global Education Digest 2006 – Comparing Education Statistics across the World. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Wa¨chter, B. (1996). Probleme der europa¨ischen Bildungspolitik. Vielfalt und offener europa¨ischer Bildungsraum. Das Hochschulwesen 1996/1, 6–10. Wa¨chter, B. and Maiworm, F. (2006). Perceptions of European Higher Education in Third Countries. http://ec.europa.eu/education/ programmes/mundus/acareport.pdf (accessed June 2009). Welch, A. R. (1997). The peripatetic professor: The internationalisation of the academic profession. Higher Education 34(3), 323–345. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.