EUPRIO 25-year anniversary book by Maastricht University

a 25-year euprio success story

Véronique Éloy Paolo Pomati

a 25-year euprio success story

Véronique Éloy Paolo Pomati

Texts Véronique Éloy Paolo Pomati Layout and composition Stefano Boda Leonardo D Amico Revision Laura Blake Christopher Coe Martin Herrema Nic Mitchell Printing and binding Atelijeur Půda, Prague, Czech Republic

Cover image: D. Sharon Pruitt

THE AUTHORS WORD

he task to collect a 25-year mass of information in an organic form was not easy and required about two years. Enthusiasm is a great virtue, but when we started to wonder where we could find the documents of EUPRIO history, our smile turned into fear. There was no archive; if we were lucky, the past presidents could have kept some documents. We began to call each of them and this was another difficult task, because the majority were retired, with no institutional email to use. The Internet search engines are definitely precious and effective; in reasonable time we contacted all of them and we thought that the worst was over. No such luck, however. The documents were extremely poor and scattered, with no logical thread. At least we got the Constitution Act, the first Network Bulletins, the first speech and press release; but we were far from reconstructing the entire history. Véronique had a genial intuition: Professor Marcel de Cleene, the former national representative of Belgium, should have kept some papers of the past. We called him and the (almost) complete collection of the Steering Committee’s minutes and of the Conferences’ brochures from 1990 to 2005 appeared out of the blue. We were in the seventh heaven; we could go on working seriously. After a systematic analysis of the papers, we decided the tone and the layout of the book. We realized that history and the outstanding personalities of the past presidents were deeply united; we therefore chose to divide the book into chapters corresponding to the various chairmanships and we asked the past presidents to write a personal intervention. Each chapter, therefore, consists of the historian’s angle, the president’s word and some other interesting contributions that we found here and there. In particular, we heavily quoted Alf McCreary’s essay Success Story. The History of EUPRIO, published on the Network Bulletin, February 1999. While passing these proofs for the press, we would like to emphasize that our intention is not only celebratory. For the members the 25th anniversary is time of joy and feast, but, re-reading the entire story, there are good grounds to reflect on the future of EUPRIO, an association which intends to be protagonist in Europe permanently. Lastly, let us express our special thanks to many people who helped us during these two years. First, thanks to Lauris Beets, Anne Lonsdale, Inge Knudsen and Jean-Pierre Grootaers, for their kind cooperation and encouragement to embark on such an ambitious project. Next, we thank all the former presidents for their enthusiasm to contribute to the book by writing down their memories: Ray Footman, Alf McCreary, Wim Janssen, Ingeborg Christensen, Rolf Guggenbühl, Peter Reader and Peter Van Dam. Then, a special thank to Martin Herrema, Laura Blake, Christopher Coe and Nic Mitchell for their careful advice and revision of the book. We are grateful to Stefano Boda and Leonardo D’Amico for the layout and to Alexandra Hroncova for the contacts with the publisher. Millions of thanks to Marcel de Cleene for his personal archive, to Alessandro Ciarlo for his pictures and to Edoardo Brioschi for his oral memories. And, finally, thanks to all those who helped us by sending pictures and papers of all kinds. Happy birthday, EUPRIO! VÉRONIQUE ÉLOY, Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles, Belgium PAOLO POMATI, Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”, Italy

THE LOGO

The name European Universities Public Relations and Information Officers Association and the acronym EUPRIO were proposed by Jean-Pierre Grootaers during one of the association foundersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; informal night meetings laying the foundations of the rising association.

After the group of founders signed the agreement about EUPRIO in 1986, Jean-Pierre Grootaers asked Philippe Le Roy, a member of his Press and Information Department who used to do a lot of design work for the Catholic University of Leuven, to make some proposals for a EUPRIO logo. The logo he proposed at that time still stands officially for the association.

EUPRIO OR THE WAY OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION an introduction by

Jean Pierre Grootaers Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

O 6

n the home page of EUPRIO’s Web site I found the following quote: “Communication, in the broadest sense, has the task of supporting the successful development of the higher education system and helping to make its performances accessible and sustainable for the society, hence to contribute to Europe as a competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy in the global perspective. EUPRIO shares this mission.” To understand better the reasons why we took the initiative of funding EUPRIO, it is necessary to stress that in the seventies (of the last century) “communication” did not matter at all at most of the European universities. Most of them did not even have a “communication’’, or ”information“ department as part of their general administration; or possibly just as a part of another department, very often under the umbrella of a broader and more serious responsibility. Communications, as an adult management discipline within the organisation of a university (and even a private company) was not an important issue as it is today.

Academic staff members, scientists, faculties or labs were not aware of the important role of communication. Their scientific efforts and results, the outcome of their work and research did not belong to the public forum – in their mind at least! Science information as a media discipline got little attention in most of the media so there was no need to communicate. The general interest paid to communications as an important management topic even in the private sector was very low. Communication and information matters, in most of these organisations (private and public) were part of the work of the general administrator, the HR-department or, in the best cases, the Public Relations department, a relatively new discipline that came over to Europe from the USA in the beginning of the fifties, especially in the private industry. When I started my career at the Catholic University of Leuven as “director of the Press and Information Office”, I had to prove the added value of this “new” management domain to the university community . So I contacted some Flemish colleagues who were also in charge of a

more or less similar management domain within the field of information, communication, Public Relations. This was the start of COVONU (College of Information Officers of the Dutch speaking universities in Belgium). At about the same time I became a member as the only Belgian representative, at the same â&#x20AC;&#x153;collegeâ&#x20AC;? for the Dutch universities. And to be honest, I have to admit that my Dutch colleagues at that time, were somewhat advanced in this particular aspect of scientific communication and information matters, compared to the situation in Flanders. And on the other hand we were not aware of the situation in this particular PR-Communications field at other European universities, although in the UK and in some European countries at that time our colleagues had a formal or informal organisation where they met and exchanged their needs, their views and difficulties. So we developed an informal network of contacts, exchanges, experiences and personal friendships between the members of the Dutch and the Flemish colleges. Friendship and good bi-lateral contacts between Lauris Beets and myself initiated fruitful discussions. One of those discussions led to the idea to extend our good Dutch and Flemish contacts to a broader European perspective. In order to feel the interest of other European colleagues, we contacted Anne

Lonsdale, Ray Footman and others. We (some Belgians) went to Edinburgh to see Ray Footman, and Lauris and myself went also to Oxford where we met Anne Lonsdale and Cambridge. Ray and Anne were enthusiastic, our colleague in Cambridge was not so much! Then our British professionals invited us to their regular meetings at the University of Reading. Lauris Beets and I explained our idea for a broader European organisation to them. This was the real start of EUPRIO. It strengthened our conviction that we had to continue our efforts. After some discussions with the representative of the EEC (nowadays the EU) in Brussels, we get not only the moral but also the financial support to our idea. The official foundation of EUPRIO was not immediate however, but it was quite usual in this kind of European cooperation at that time. I have to mention that at the beginning of the eighties some of the founding fathers (and mothers) also created the Coimbra Group, but this initiative has been taken over by the academics and it is another story. It was the beginning of the eighties: indeed a very fruitful period in terms of inter-university European cooperation and the start of a long way to the fantastic communication and information reality of today, not only at University but in the society as a whole.

LEONARDO Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;AMICO

22nd Annual Conference, 2010. The Rotunda Hall at Hotel Regina Palace in Stresa (Italy).

1986 Lauris Beets Universiteit Leiden The Netherlands

PAULINE SEIFFERT

A view of Leiden (the Netherlands). The bridge between the Alkmaart and the Apothekersdijk.

eeling the need for more co-operation and communication between those engaged in public relations, information and communication in European higher education institutions, seven people from Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland and the Netherlands draw up a note in September 1985 to start discussion and action in this field. The seven signatures were Lauris Beets, head of Information Service at the University of Leiden, Jürgen Bockling, head of Information at the University of Munster, Jean-Pierre Dhoury, Information and Communication officer at the University of Compiègne, Ray Footman, director of Information and PR Services at the University of Edinburgh,

Jean-Pierre Grootaers, director of Public Relations at the Catholic University of Leuven, Anne Lonsdale, Information officer at the University of Oxford and Charles O’Rourke, Information officer at the University College of Dublin. The paper issued by this group of active thinkers reflected their personal views as well as informal discussions with a wider number of colleagues. It laid the foundations for the creation of EUPRIO – an organisation where matters of interest to professionals working in higher education Public Relations and information inside the European Community could be discussed and acted upon. The starting point was that universities had been growing since the end of the World War II and needed to develop external and internal communication and

employ specialists to professionalise the dissemination of information. The range of objectives and the variety of activities to promote the different aspects of universities had increased to such an extent that public relations and information staff understood they needed to professionalise their activities. “Their objective in carrying out external communications programmes range from an acknowledgment of social responsibility – to make the findings of university teaching and research available to the wider community – through a need to effect science and technology transfer, thereby stimulating industry and employment, to the achievement of individual institutional goals – such as student recruitment and the securing of financial and community support for their advanced teaching, research and scholarship.” (from An association of University Information and Public Relations Officers for Europe).

o help the process of professionalising the information and PR role, people from a number of countries began to meet informally to exchange their experience and discuss matters of interest for their own institutions. However, the context was beginning to change. Europe itself was still growing, but at the time it was not possible to extend the PR work outside national boundaries because of a lack of knowledge of one another’s context and other educational systems. This made it almost impossible to compare ways of promoting research or the achievements of a member state university in the media. These preliminary discussions between university information specialists from some member states concluded that it could be useful to establish some kind of Commission-supported Community-wide university public relations programme. The overall aims would be: a. to establish a European Association of individual university information/PR offices to promote exchange of ideas and techniques between its members and those who may consult it; b. to help facilitate intra-European

awareness of study programmes and scientific developments – including those sponsored by the Community and, more generally, those of relevance to industry and economic advance – across national boundaries; c. to promote dissemination of information on – and thereby the standing of – European higher education, research and development beyond the Community’s own boundaries. The paper suggested the Commission could help achieve these aims with modest supplementary support. At the time there was considerable interest on communicating the scientific results of universities in the media, particularly in the field of applied sciences. However, the tendency was for the press to concentrate on research conducted by local institutions and by those in their own country. When they had to cover “foreign” science developments, they tended to focus on more distant countries, such as the USA rather than European research.

n order to reverse this tendency, the Commission was approached to support the development of a European network which would make better use of the existing public relations and information staff and improve the promotion of European study and research programmes. So it was proposed to create an association of University Information and PR Officers, with a small unit devoted to its maintenance. The person in charge of this unit would be a professional in the field of communication, have a good background knowledge of university structures, and be acquainted with publicising scientific research. Supporting staff for translations were also needed. The unit would act as a central clearing house for information. National PR and information officers would be encouraged to send the unit their written and photographic material on the developments of scientific research in their universities, including research based on Community’s programmes. The unit would maintain a list of the major news media in European countries and ensure the dissemination of research

to these media, encouraging them to publicise these international scientific results. The unit was envisaged as providing centralised support for individual university PR officers who would rely on it to establish and publish a European Directory of University Information and PR services, to be used, among others, by European media. The unit would centralise information on European media and key contacts among European based offices of overseas media. The visibility of European study and science programmes, such as ESPRIT, was to be increased by publishing a newsletter. This would tell universities about the possibilities these programmes offered in terms of developing science as well as encouraging media coverage of university research carried out under these programmes. The unit would also undertake market research in the field of scientific research and research on the effectiveness of PR techniques. At the time this was difficult

European Association of Public Relations and Information Officers established.

The formation of the association European University Public Relations and Information Officers (EUPRIO) is announced today at a conference of Ministers of Education of the European Community and representatives of the Commission, under the chairmanship of Minister Deetman. EUPRIO s aims are twofold: first, to serve as a professional association for colleagues from the Higher Education Institutions of the EC; secondly, in an instrumental role, to assist the Commission to target and speed up the information-flow about programmes of research and

to undertake by individual institutions due to lack of resources. A last function of the unit would be to sponsor, from time to time, meetings of PR staff to share knowledge and experience of techniques in promoting scientific developments.

n 7th February 1986, just five months after the original paper had been issued, Jean-Pierre Grootaers met Mr Bock from DG XII in Brussels, to discuss the possibility of setting up an association of university Public Relations and information officers. Three months later, on 12th-13th May 1986, the Steering Group of the future association met in Brussels after an informal meeting at the University of Leuven the previous evening, which allowed new members to meet each other in more relaxed surroundings. The Brussels meeting provided the opportunity to widen the group and welcome new members from Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. Everyone was asked to give their point of view on the aims of the association as outlined in the paper issued by the founder-members in September 1985.

student mobility, both from Brussels to the universities and within the universities themselves. EUPRIO can also provide feedback on the success of these programmes. The new association can also play this instrumental role for the liaison-committee of rectors. EUPRIO as a professional organisation will offer its members a network of university links throughout the Community. It will undertake research in the field of PR-projects, and will publish the results at regular meetings to be held on topics of common interest. The first of these will be the coverage of European scientific achievements in the press and media within the EC and worldwide. The European scientific tradition is exceptional,

which is too often obscured by the media in the competition with the coverage given to the USA or Japan. EUPRIO first chairman, Lauris Beets of the University of Leiden, said: We are grateful for the opportunity to announce the formation of EUPRIO at this conference of Ministers of Education. Universities have three important functions: they are the key innovators for the future, the guardians of the past and the instructors of the next generation. We are sure that EUPRIO s potential for advancing European consciousness in these key institutions will justify the prominence it is being given today .

An important task for this meeting was drafting a set of proposals to be sent to the EEC as well as to the national organisations and governments of participating universities. These proposals were to set out the aims of the future association, its management and structure, its role regarding the EEC, and other matters of importance. Finally, the meeting would also cover plans for further developments of the association and its valuable European dimension. Activities planned included surveys of different methods of promoting universities

and proposals for a regular newsletter. A few days after this important meeting in Brussels and Leuven, a press release was issued, announcing the creation of the European Association of University Public Relations and Information Officers, EUPRIO. At the same time, the creation of EUPRIO was announced at a press conference of the Education Ministers of the Community in The Hague (The Netherlands), on 16th May 1986. Lauris Beets, the first chairman of EUPRIO, gave the audience the first official speech.

I have the honour to announce to you that this week a European association of University Public Relations and Information Officers has been established. This association has been formed by Public Relations and Information Officers of universities in the different member states, who have agreed the aims and the organisation of the association. Of course, this association is most relevant to those directly concerned: the public relations and information officers. We think however that this association, once started, will have much more far-reaching effects. Why is an association for European University Public Relations and Information Officers (EUPRIO) necessary? Why EUPRIO? The expansion of universities in the post-World War II period has been accompanied by a growing realisation of the need both to improve internal communications within enlarged university institutions and to explain to a wider series of external publics the ethos, objectives and achievements of university-based teaching and research. In due course this has led to the employment of specialist communications staff in most major institutions – and increasingly also at smaller ones – to try to ensure that internal and external dissemination of information is effected professionally. The title and detailed remit of individual Public Relations / information officers – and the extent to which they focus upon particular target audiences – can vary considerably from university to university. However, at minimum, there is generally a common commitment to an improved internal information flow and to effective external communication of university activities – particularly through the press and media – to the general public and sub-sections of it such as industry and commerce, local communities, environmental interests, government, schools, and so on. In the eighties, whatever the exact scope of individual Public Relations / information officers’ responsibilities, a major part of their work is concerned – given in particular the

importance of economic considerations. Their objectives in carrying out external communications programmes range from an acknowledgement of social responsibility – to make the findings of university teaching and research available to the wider community – through a need to effect science and technology transfer, thereby stimulating industry and employment, to the achievement of individual institutional goals – such as student recruitment & the securing of financial and community support for their advanced teaching, research and scholarship. In trying to help achieve this wide range of objectives, individual Public Relations and information staff have increasingly sought to professionalize their activities. A key role in this process has been the growing informal co-operation between colleagues in different university institutions who, in a number of countries, now meet together informally to brief themselves on relevant developments, to exchange experience and professional PR techniques and initiatives and to effect training programmes designed to improve internal and external communications for their colleagues within universities. However, the context within which individual European university Public Relations / information officers operate has been changing. The formation and enlargement of the EC, followed by the introduction of European-wide Community programmes in areas such as sciences and technology or joint study, has not yet been matched by a mechanism to permit the extension of university PR / information work across national boundaries within the EC. There is, at base level, a lack of knowledge of comparative systems of higher education within EC countries, matched by a lack of knowledge about, for example, how to publicise effectively the achievements of universities in one member state in the press and media of another.

Science coverage in and outside Europe The activities of EUPRIO will be concentrated on central themes. The fist theme will be “Science coverage in and outside Europe”. Although, as far as we can see, no research on a European scale has been done on this subject (which means that there are no objective facts available), it is our impression that in Europe science coverage is almost entirely national in character. There is no common infrastructure of universities to stimulate European-wide coverage of important scientific news. And the coverage of European scientific news in other parts of the world – USA, Japan, Developing countries – has not so far been a concern of the universities in Europe. Europe has an exceptional scientific tradition, and one that is very valuable – yet the valuable aspects of European Science seem to be too often obscured by the media in competition with the coverage given to the USA or Japan. I believe that the universities in the member states of the European community have here an important task, that can only be undertaken if they have the right to professional skills. Here, EUPRIO can play an important and decisive role. EUPRIO Professional and Instrumental EUPRIO is a professional association for colleagues from the Higher Education Institutions of the EC. This association of professionals intends to publish a newsletter, undertake research in the field of PR-projects, and organise meetings to discuss the

result of this research. The association hopes to set up a secretariat, where colleagues can obtain information, not only on university PR and information, but also on other important developments of universities in Europe or on programmes of the Commission of relevance for universities. Apart from this professional aspect, we propose to give EUPRIO an instrumental role as well. The association can assist the Commission to target and speed up the information-flow about programmes of research and student mobility, both from Brussels to the universities and within the universities themselves. EUPRIO can also provide feedback on the success of these programmes. There is, in Brussels, a lack of coordination between several parts of the administration in sending of information to the universities. Several EC-institutions send information to different points in the universities without a common strategy. Information from the Commission in some cases has to be “translated” for it to be able to play its proper role. We are sure that EUPRIO can be of real assistance to the Commission here. And EUPRIO can also, we think, play this instrumental role for the Liaison-Committee of Rectors to assist with the information it sends to the universities and the general public, and help with the setting up of a PR-programme. We are grateful for the opportunity to announce the formation of EUPRIO at this conference of Ministers of Education. Universities have three important functions: they are the key innovators for the future, the guardians of the past and the instructors of the next generation. We are sure that EUPRIO ’s potential for advancing European consciousness in these key institutions will justify the prominence it is being given today. It is for me therefore an honour to present to you, Mr Deetman and Mr Marin Gonzales, an outline of our plans.

LEONARDO D’AMICO

The Atomium in Brussels designed by André Waterkeyn, with its steel spheres.

The association of European University PR and Information Officers was formed on 12th May 1986. It was announced to the public at a press conference of Education Ministers of the EC at The Hague. It was founded with the financial support of the EC, that was seeking a communication network based in Brussels which would inform universities about EC programmes, especially ERASMUS. However there was a certain coolness from several members of the Rectors Conference who felt that this upstart EUPRIO was meddling where it did not belong. Happily, such medieval attitudes were ignored. The main objectives were to promote the exchange of ideas and to create a

framework to assist members in their work, to facilitate awareness of study programmes and scientific developments across Europe and to further the reputation of higher education in Europe. Some twelve years later, these objectives had not changed. EUPRIO in those days was somewhat exclusive ‒ it granted full membership only to those directly involved fulltime in PR and information work. Assistant membership was available for those interested but not directly involved , and those engaged outside the EC on similar activities were granted associate membership. The annual subscription of only 35 ECU was paid directly to Brussels. EUPRIO had some difficulty in establishing itself. Money was so scarce that the original

From May 1986 onwards, EUPRIO was established as a network to help enhance the role of people working in Public Relations and communications in higher education institutions in Europe. In the beginning, it would focus strictly on EC member states. Progressively, it extended to Europe as a geographic whole, including Central and Eastern Europe. In the first years, membership was only possible on an individual basis and reserved to those principally concerned with higher education information and Public Relations. Activities were co-ordinated by a Steering Committee including representatives from all major Western European countries. EUPRIO was holding an annual conference and publishing a biannual newsletter, a membership and European universities directory, and even a directory of European media contacts. It had a Web site with directories and news on conferences. EUPRIO had a purely professional role amongst its own members, but was playing an instrumental role in relation to the work of the Liaison Committee of European Rectors and the European Commission. The association was helping disseminate information on study programmes and scientific developments, including those launched and sponsored by the European Community, especially if

members of the Executive paid their own way to European meetings. In 1986 the EC funds helped to pay for a study tour to Reading, where the UK universities were holding their annual conference of SCUIO-the Standing Committee of University Information Officers. It took over two years for this missionary work to bear fruit.

— Alf McCreary Success Story. The History of EUPRIO, in Network Bulletin, February 1999.

they were relevant to industry and economics. It was also involved with promoting European higher education, science, research and development outside Europe. In July 1986 an agreement was signed between EUPRIO and the European Investment Bank. According to this agreement, EUPRIO would undertake to deliver a list of all university institutions in the EC, as well as a list of national journalists in EC countries dealing with financial and economics matters and contact addresses. In return, the European Investment Bank would undertake to pay 3,200 ECU for these lists. The lists provided by EUPRIO enabled the European Investment Bank to advertise their “1987 European Investment Bank Prize”, which was attributed to the best dissertation on a topic of investment and its finance, by means of a mailing sent to academic institutions in the European Community. This was the first time EUPRIO had been involved in such a project and the followup of the European Investment Bank mailing would be a test enabling the association to measure its effectiveness. Page 17: the first president Lauris Beets, the first treasurer Jean-Pierre Grootaers, the first secretary / second president Anne Lonsdale.

ack in the early eighties we started thinking about founding an association for university PR and information officers. We being Anne Lonsdale (Oxford), Jean-Pierre Grootaers (Leuven) and Lauris Beets (Leiden). In those days we were young, ambitious and beautiful. In 1986, we became the first secretary, treasurer, and president. Soon after our first discussions, and before our election, other colleagues, including Ray Footman (Edinburgh), Charles O'Rourke (Dublin), Jürgen Bockling (Münster) and Jean-Pierre Dhoury (Compiègne) joined us. Today, the three founders of those days are busy with other matters, much, much older, some even retired, not so ambitious, and maybe not as beautiful. With the help of the present president and chair of the history working group, we met again in July 2010 in Brussels, together with Inge Knudsen, who represented Aarhus in the first meeting of the Steering group and today she lives in Brussels and works for the Coimbra Group. It was great fun to meet again since we had not seen each other for a long time. We were of course very much impressed and pleased that the “baby” we once created is not only still alive, but is doing very well. Starting with a handful of members – in fact only the members of the first steering committee – there are now more than 600 paying-members, an active executive board, conferences, a Web site and even a legal charter. And of course, the baby grew up, made its own choices in the light of changed situations and the wishes of its members. Anne, Jean-Pierre and Lauris met in 1985 and 1986 several times in Brussels, Leuven and Oxford, preparing our foundation; and in close contact with Franz-Peter Kupper from the Commission. Ray Footman was also involved in these preparations. Thanks to the British colleagues, we also attended a meeting in Reading of their national group, SCUIO, which was also helpful.

ne of the issues that kept us busy was to find a proper name for the foundation. It was finally in a pub, late in the evening, that Jean-Pierre created the acronym EUPRIO. We agreed by loud acclamation. The logo that is still in use was then made for us by a professional in Leuven. The first informal meeting of the steering committee took place in Leuven by invitation of Jean-Pierre Grootaers. Thanks to Franz-Peter Kupper, most of the EU-countries were present. Anne welcomed all colleagues present with a beautiful speech, but had to deplore the absence of the Greek colleague who was not allowed to leave his country for political reasons. The next day we had our first official meeting in Brussels, where we decided to establish EUPRIO, agreed about our activities and chose the composition of the first executive board. Why did we want to establish EUPRIO? The reason why we founded EUPRIO is still sharp in our memories. We wanted, firstly, to expand our professional network in order to share experiences better and to learn from each other: what dilemmas are we facing? what communication-techniques do we use?

Being mostly busy “at home” in our universities and having, at the most, professional contacts with colleagues in the same country, it seemed to us useful to be able to share experiences with colleagues all over Europe. One of our most important goals was, therefore, to create a clearing house. In our first paper leading to the establishment of EUPRIO, we wrote the following: “The purpose of the clearing house is to provide an information-base for information exchange within the university system which can also act as a source of information for research work across such fields as access by the local community to their universities, or the approaches of different universities to the developing of contacts with industry. This aspect of its work will, we believe, be of use to the EC also. We should try to have somebody of our own in Brussels who can maintain the activities of the clearing house. The role of the clearing house must be defined. It will have the following fields of interest, at least initially: schools, local community, industry, alumni, government, international relations within universities and the general public. (...) Each year the clearing house produces a report on one of the fields of interest.” Another issue was science coverage in and outside Europe. It was our impression that research coverage in press was almost entirely national in character. There was no common infrastructure of universities to stimulate European-wide coverage of important research-news. And the coverage of this news in other parts of the world had not so far been a concern of most universities in Europe. To achieve a better European and global coverage of researchnews, professional skills are needed: EUPRIO could play an important and decisive role in this respect, or so we thought.

e furthermore thought that EUPRIO as an institution should be both professional and instrumental. As a professional association it intended to publish a newsletter, undertake research in the field of PR-projects and organise meetings. There should be a secretariat, where colleagues could obtain information. As an instrumental organisation, it should assist the European Commission to target and speed up the information-flow about programmes of research and student mobility, both from Brussels to the universities and between the universities themselves. And needless to say: the instrumental role of EUPRIO would also be a good reason for the Commission to finance its activities. Looking at the aim and goals of EUPRIO of 2010, one might think that nothing has really changed. The wording of the Mission of EUPRIO as published is very similar to what we were thinking about in the eighties! However, the same words sometimes hide different realities... Where are the differences? None of us three founders is today still involved in communications or information issues in universities, and we are therefore not capable of giving an authoritative opinion about the evolution in the professional work of EUPRIO members nor to analyse the differences between the situation in the eighties and today. Seeing each other again after such a long time, we did, however, share our impressions about “us then” and “how it is now.”

The most obvious difference is probably a technical one: digital ways of communication like Internet, e-mail, etc. did not exist. We were in at the beginning of these new systems, but did not yet use them. But there is, for sure, much more to it than only the technical skills. One major difference might be that we in those days – much more than today – were very keen to keep our own integrity in our communication strategies. Only “clean” and factual information was allowed in our publications, “marketing” was almost a dirty word – and some distance between us and the university government was therefore necessary. Some of us were even trying to work under the umbrella of our own unwritten agreements with our universities, such as journalists have towards their editors in order to guarantee the integrity of the messages they communicate. This drive to independence and autonomy is, of course, to be seen in the context of the democratisation of universities in those days: the power of students and the dominant role of democratic university councils in the aftermath of the sixties revolutions. As “oldies” and “children of our generation” we would be curious to know what communication principles are foremost in the work of today's members of EUPRIO? Our objectives in carrying out external communications were not, in the first place, derived from the institutional strategy of the university – as they certainly are today – but were more of a goal in themselves.

EUPRIO ARCHIVE

Brussels, 2010. A meeting of the authors of this book with the founders and ﬁrst presidents.

n the announcement of EUPRIO 's creation in May 1986 the objectives of university public relations and information were described as follows: “The objectives (...) range from an acknowledgement of social responsibility – to make the findings of university teaching and research available to the wider community – through a need to effect science and technology transfer, thereby stimulating industry and employment, to the achievement of individual institutional goals – such as student recruitment and the securing of financial and community support for their advanced teaching, research and scholarship.” This wonderful sentence was written by Ray Footman and subject to long and intensive discussions, where the majority at the end – some with difficulties – accepted the last part about individual institutional goals under the strict condition that the agreed main objective would be the acknowledgement of social responsibility. Is this still the communis opinio today? We do not think so. Regarding EUPRIO as an institution, we have the impression that the two “legs” of EUPRIO we described at the start – the professional and the instrumental one – are not in use any more. The “professional leg” has become predominant, and the “instrumental leg” in relation to the European Commission seems to be almost non-existent. Membership of EUPRIO is also extended today to non EU-countries, and the close relation we had with the European Commission has changed. We hoped that through the financing of the “instrumental leg” by the Commission, with the support of our “patron” FranzPeter Kupper, the “professional leg” could be provided for free. Apparently this is certainly not the case today. Looking at the size and the scope of today's EUPRIO, the least one can conclude is that University PR and communications as a separate discipline still exists. In this respect there is no difference with the situation in the eighties, and it is important that EUPRIO as a professional platform grew over the years to such an extent. Let us hope the present generation, and the generations to come, will succeed in maintaining this discipline as a separate one and will therefore continue to feel the need of a strong and healthy EUPRIO!

— Lauris Beets, Anne Lonsdale, Jean-Pierre Grootaers

1987 Anne Lonsdale University of Oxford United Kingdom

WWW.TRAVELJOURNALS.NET

A view from Oxford Cathedral, United Kingdom.

nne Lonsdale was chairman of EUPRIO from 1st January 1987 to September 1987. At that moment the association was based in Belgium because a bank account had been opened at the Kredietbank. It seemed also easier for the legal status of the organisation to be established in Belgium. Therefore, it was suggested that the next treasurer should be the successor of Jean-Pierre Grootaers in the Steering Committee, namely Fabienne de Strijker, from the University of Antwerp. Fabienne de Strijker was the best person to carry on with the job as she had been involved in EUPRIO since the very beginning, when the idea of creating an organisation such as EUPRIO was launched at the time of the first Flemish Universities Information Officers’ visit abroad in 1983.

As a chairman, Anne Lonsdale set up a programme for the year 1987. It mainly focused on the relationships to be established between EUPRIO and the European Community as well as various European institutions, on the funding of EUPRIO, the communication of EUPRIO to the public through a newsletter and the different ways of recruiting members and securing enough members in the Steering Committee. Between March and September 1987, was asked to join with the Liaison Committee of the Rectors’ Conference, a working party set up by DG V of the Commission of the European Communities. The theme of this working party was “Information Flows in relevant European Programmes from the Commission to Member States Universities”. EUPRIO

It was financed by the European Commission and was led by the Liaison Committee of European Rectors. It aimed at reporting on the methods by which information could best be transferred between the Community institutions and the higher education institutions in each member state and vice-versa. They were expected to come up by the late spring of 1987 with recommendations on the formulation of a systematic information strategy at the level of Community institutions, Liaison Committee, National Rectors’ Conferences and the universities. EUPRIO agreed to cooperate with the Liaison Committee in this project because it reflected the kind of relationship they hoped to continue to have with the Rectors’ Conferences and they hoped this would be the beginning of continued cooperation in which policy decisions on information strategies were taken by the Rectors and implemented on their behalf by EUPRIO.

mong other matters, the results of the working party highlighted a lack of adequacy of the information flow between the Commission and the universities. Information about Commission programmes did not always reach universities of member States in the right form and at the right time, so that university staff were not properly informed of the possibilities offered by the programmes. A first draft report was prepared by Inge Knudsen, following the analysis of the responses to a series of questionnaires filled in by the Commission, Rectors’ Conferences and individual institutions. The responses to the questionnaire showed that the concern about inadequate

When in 1987 EUPRIO was asked to join the project set up by the Liaison Committee of European Rectors on Information Flows between the CEC and the institutions of higher education within the EC, we gladly accepted. One of the most important findings of the project was a definition of the kind of information needed in institutions of higher

information flow was generally justified. A revised draft was planned to be submitted to the Commission on 30th September, and to the Liaison Committee for its 20th October Brussels meeting. An international colloquium on “Science and the Public” was held in Oxford in July 1987. This symposium was an opportunity for researchers in the field of the public understanding of science to discuss matters on informal learning about science, science and the media, and public perceptions of science and technology. EUPRIO offered to cooperate in this colloquium and to join in some of the sessions which were of particular interest to the association. EUPRIO also took the opportunity to organise some sessions of their own in parallel, hoping that this would be a useful step in the definition of their first research topic on the improvement of information flows about science both within and outside the European Community. A subsidy from the EC was actively sought in order to enable EUPRIO members to attend the meeting at lower cost. Since the subject was likely to interest all the institutions from which the members depended it was hoped that the universities would provide the rest of the funding required. The chairman also hoped that this symposium would give members of the Steering Committee the opportunity to meet and plan the work of EUPRIO for the following year. At the May 1986 meeting, it was not thought realistic to produce a professional magazine or journal without some central staffing and funding, which were inexistent at the time. However, it was decided to try and produce a trial issue, that would take the shape of a periodic simple A4 newssheet in English. The focus

education, summed up in what has been called The Four R s : Rapid, Regular, Relevant and Reliable information. If universities are to join cooperation programmes, thereby contributing to the establishing of the Internal Market, The Four R s are essential. If cooperation programmes in the field of higher education are to be extended to countries

outside the EC, information networks are indispensable.

— Inge Knudsen Network Bulletin, March 1989

would be laid on short journalistic-style articles about Commission programmes such as ERASMUS or ESPRIT, as well as on occasional news about EUPRIO developments and university information from members’ countries. This approach was likely to prove more practicable and appealing to members rather than a well designed and editorially wide-ranging luxury magazine in multilingual format. The result was the first EUPRIO Newsletter, which was produced by Ray Footman and Charles O’Rourke in February / March 1987.

egarding the organisation of some countries were not sufficiently represented in the Steering Committee. Members were needed from Italy, Spain, Greece and France. In order to face this problem, a letter was sent to all Steering Committee members (26th February 1987) asking them to approach potential members in their countries, telling them the plans for 1987 and showing them the immediate benefits of membership, which were, at that time, a newsletter, the possibility of taking part in a working party encouraged by the International Rectors’ Conference group (the Liaison Committee of European Rectors) and the European Commission – which could help Committee members in their relations with their own Rectors in their own universities – a cheaper price in attending a conference on the public understanding of science and opportunities for informal contacts between countries, as well as assistance to national groups that would like to arrange international visits. Anne Lonsdale reported that she was expecting little Commission support in the long term if it was intended only for meetings. Nevertheless, EUPRIO was in real need of some central funding in order to continue and develop in a more structured way than simply setting up a series of informal international links. She therefore proposed a list of initiatives, upon which members showed their agreement. She first suggested an approach to DG XII, with samples of the newly-updated university PR and press contacts lists, to solicit support for their subsequent updating and distribution, in view of DG XII’s interest in further media coverage of European science. EUPRIO,

Secondly, as it was anticipated DG V would show interest in trying to publicise the next round of ERASMUS more efficiently, she suggested to approach them showing them the possibility for a EUPRIO newsletter to help achieve their objective. A draft submission for Newsletter support was discussed and agreed on this basis. The submission also referred to the usefulness in the longer term of a welledited and produced magazine that could advertise such programmes in European universities. Finally, she prepared an application to support two study visits, the first one to Benelux and Germany and the second to the United-Kingdom and Ireland, for two different groups of university PR staff from Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy. Lists of university public relations and press contacts had been prepared earlier for a European Investment Bank contract in July 1986. There was a general agreement on the necessity to update those lists on an annual basis and to make them available to all registered members. A study visit was carried through in Greece, with the help of an ERASMUS Study Visit grant. Charles O’Rourke took part in this study visit, which indicated limited development of professional public relations in the Greek university system but allowed him to pick up a lot of useful information and potential contacts. The results of this study visit were incorporated in the “Information Flow Report” of the Rectors’ Liaison Committee in October 1987.

Inge Knudsen Aarhus Universitet Denmark

1987 1989

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

Amsterdam, 1987. The EUPRIO Steering Committee. From the left: Charles O'Rourke, Inge Knudsen, Ray Footman, Maria Van Der Donk, Edoardo Brioschi and Filomena Carvalho.

ne of the highlights of Inge Knudsenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presidency is the Network Bulletin. The first issue is published in Aarhus University in March 1989 thanks to a grant from the ERASMUS Programme under Action IV. The Editorial Board is composed of Ray Footman, Alf McCreary, Charles Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Rourke and Inge Knudsen. Five thousand print outs are issued. The first Network Bulletin is sent together with a letter of introduction to the heads of institutions of higher education, asking them to hand it over to people in charge of information and PR. For the production the cheapest possible procedure has been adopted, first of all by producing a tabloid-format bulletin, leaving the setting up and the layout to an experienced group of students in Aarhus University, using the printers with whom they have a favourable agreement. However, a new application form 1989-1990 is sent to the ERASMUS Bureau

in Brussels in February 1989 in order to get a new grant for the continued production of the Bulletin. Indeed, distribution costs have turned out to be much higher than anticipated. Also the question of distribution in itself turns out to be a far greater problem than foreseen. A solution is temporarily found with HEURAS in Brussels, to act as distribution office for EUPRIO. But distribution costs still seem to exceed production costs. In the meantime, EUPRIO has introduced ways of meeting the costs from their own end, i.e. raising the membership fees for EUPRIO members and introducing from the second issue a special subscription for the Bulletin alone. Travels are also kept to a minimum but with no office space, secretarial and other kinds of help at their disposal, travels of the Editorial Board are needed in order to keep a Bulletin of this sort going. The Bulletin is published in English only. The costs involved in translating articles into other Community languages are far beyond budget at the time.

The year 1989 was pivotal. The first Network Bulletin was produced in a wintry Aarhus by the editorial board of Inge Knudsen, the then chairman, Ray Footman, a founder member, and a combination of hands across the Irish border ‒ Charles O Rourke from

E U P R I O

Dublin, and Alf McCreary, then a newcomer, from Belfast. The title was chosen with typical pragmatism by Inge Knudsen, and the publication was produced in style by students at Aarhus University. The cover featured a drawing of leering gargoyles (not the editorial

board) and a key article was titled I learned to play basketball through Italian! — Alf McCreary Success Story. The History of EUPRIO, in Network Bulletin, February 1999.

for European. Our main arena is the twelve Members States of the European Community, but we also look wider afield, particularly to our colleagues in other European countries. for University. But also comparable non-university institutions. for the series of Publics with whom we seek to communicate on behalf of our universities. for Relations we try and help establish between our universities and between them and their various publics. for Information, the essential commodity in which we all deal. for the Officers we are ‒ professionally engaged across the Universities of the European Community in Public Relations and Information.

So what is the need for yet another association or network of university PR people? In many of the countries of the EC there are already well-established national groups of university PR professionals, who have found that regular contact between them is a useful means of improving their effectiveness. The sharing of experience in university information and PR problems, and successful techniques, gives members access to a personalised data bank of expertise. In most cases, however, that expertise stops short at national boundaries. We should within our countries know who or where to turn to for information or advice on media contacts, alumni relations, industrial exhibitions, developments in higher education policy, or how to set up press conference facilities in the capital city. But if we, on behalf of our universities and their members, try to look wider afield, it is not at the moment so easy and as European integration moves forward, we increasingly need familiarity with the European dimension and sources of information across Europe, whether from the Commission, other EC institutions or on practices in particular countries, which touch on our Universities interests. EUPRIO is designed to try and provide that framework for those working professionally in information and PR and those they serve across the Universities of the European Community, with links also beyond the Community s boundaries. This is the first main issue of EUPRIO s Network Bulletin, which is intended to come out quarterly in the future, with occasional special supplements for hot new items . For the funding of our initial issues, we are indebted to the ERASMUS Programme of the EC. For its contents, modest though they are, we have had to rely on the part time services of some of our founding members in between their own professional commitments. The focus on this issue is somewhat North European; this reflects not bias, but the backgrounds of those who have helped to get it off the ground. The next issue intends to look firmly southwards across the Community. It will also be featuring a survey of the various EC programmes of particular interest to universities. We also, mainly on resource grounds, will publish only through the medium of English, at least for initial issues. If you have articles or other contributions for the next issue, contact any member of the Editorial Board. Editorial, Network Bulletin, 1, March 1999.

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

Above: Leuven, 1989. The Director of the Irish Institute in Leuven, Malachy Vallely (second from the right) introduces Inge Knudsen and Alf McCreary to the Irish harpist who provided entertainment at the gala dinner.

The second issue is published in June 1989 in Aarhus, then sent to Brussels (HEURAS) and then to members and people on the HEURAS list. The publishing of this second issue brings some problems to light: deadlines have not been observed as carefully as the Editorial Board should have liked, which means that some of the Steering Committee members will see their articles or information in a slightly different form than expected. This has caused some problems in Aarhus because of the printer’s deadline that had to be respected. The late time of arrival of a great part of the material also means that proofreading has not been taken care of by Editorial Committee members with English as their native language. Another problem regards the illustrations: it is impossible to make lively articles without illustrations and in many cases they have to do with what they find in Inge’s office or home in Aarhus. Besides, colour pictures don’t make good black and white pictures. Nevertheless, the third issue continues to be prepared by students of the University of Aarhus. The print run has been reduced to 2500. The HEURAS office in Brussels is supplied with a set of labels by the secretary Fabienne de Strijker so that a copy can be sent directly to all EUPRIO members. The central theme for this third issue is Southern Europe and it includes articles based on the study visits to Portugal, Spain and Italy, which are due to take place in April/May. It is agreed to institute a membership drive for early 1990 in each Steering

Committee member’s country, particularly those which have a national information officers association. Everybody is asked to let Ray Footman know how many copies they would need for a direct mailing to all members of their national group. Steering Committee members are asked to write a covering letter and arrange a circulation, encouraging further membership. The University of Aarhus students confirm they can take on production of the fourth issue.

s a result of the recent mailing of the Network Bulletin new members are joining EUPRIO. The membership fee has been set at 35 ECU. Membership is extended to PRO’s in institutions of higher education others than universities. Therefore the item “university institutions” is changed into “universities or comparable institutions” in the presentation of the association. The ERASMUS Bureau definition of such institutions will be used to decide on which institutions are eligible. A membership application form has been drafted and is sent to all Steering Committee members, who are asked to use it when recruiting new members. Sometimes, membership requests arise from more distant countries, bringing along their lots of questions. Tamas Kozma, professor of Educational Research at the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research sends Inge Knudsen a letter in April 1989, to stress their engagement for cooperating with EUPRIO. The Institute would like to be a member of EUPRIO and

intends to submit shortly an article about the Institute, which is a full-profile research organization concentrating mainly on higher educational issues. This request raises a few questions: how can the problem of the status of Hungary be solved, Hungary not being a member of the EC? Are there any solutions to the problems of weak-currency countries? Are they allowed to pay the fees in their own currency? Are there counter-institutions in the network which the Institute could get in touch with in order to collect data on higher educational systems and research?

The first point worth noting is that communication between universities in Northern and Southern Europe is not always easy. This is partly because the Southern universities do not have the same network of Information Officers as in the North, where communication in professional and personal terms is now well-developed. However, our Italian colleagues were extremely charming and hospitable, and in our visits to Siena and Rome they showed a keen interest in the practical advantages of an efficient Information and Public Relations system within a university network. (…) Despite the wide spread of universities and student numbers, only a handful of

Together with the grant from the Programme under Action IV, enabling EUPRIO to publish the Network Bulletin, EUPRIO receives funding for one of their study visit projects, which is to send colleagues from the North of the EC to the South. The study visits are organised in April / May 1989. The objective is to gain firmer contacts in Southern Europe and members from those countries. Four Steering Committee members are allowed to make a study visit to Italy, Spain and Portugal. ERASMUS

institutions in Italy have an Information Officer or Public Relations Department. For example, there is a Director of Information at the Universities of Bologna and Milan and no fewer than two Public Relations Officers in the Private University LUISS in Rome. There is also a Public Relations Officer in another private university, the Bocconi in Milan, but, generally speaking, Public Relations and Information in Italian universities is in its infancy.

All these developments point to the need for a professionallyorganised and well-staffed university Public Relations and Information network, as events have dictated elsewhere in Europe and particularly in the North. At the moment this is not on the major agenda in Italy, but it is being talked about, and in the long-term there is nothing quite so engaging as an idea whose time will come.

(…) However, the Italian universities are now very aware of the potential and challenges of international relations, through Erasmus and other European Community schemes.

— Alf McCreary Success Story. The History of EUPRIO, in Network Bulletin, February 1999.

(…) ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

K.U. Leuven Director of Information (centre) with Inge Knudsen and EUPRIO colleagues visiting the town of Æbeltoft near Aarhus.

number of Italian colleagues with the longer term objective of setting up a EUPRIO conference in Italy the next year. The Italian colleagues they meet –mainly Edoardo Teodoro Brioschi from Catholic University of Milan, the first Italian representative – show a keen interest in the practical advantages of an efficient Information and Public Relations system within a European university network. Public Relations and Information in Italy are still in the beginnings. Ray Footman is also planning to attend the meeting of the Spanish Information Officers in the Baleares at the end of December, 1989. A session is set aside for EUPRIO and they hope to encourage further membership. Besides, he is exploring the possibility of an application under Erasmus for a visit by a group of Spanish colleagues to northern Europe.

n agreement is signed between and HEURAS (Secretariat of European Associations in Higher Education), located in Brussels. EUPRIO will make use of HEURAS’ services for a certain amount of money. HEURAS will spread EUPRIO information whenever possible, will they promote the organisation and send out the Network Bulletin. HEURAS will undertake the mailing and administration of membership (payment of fees, handing out of membership cards and directory to members) and deal with general inquiries about EUPRIO. They will also help EUPRIO

EC.EUROPA.EU

Dietmar Schmidt, from Germany, visits three Portuguese universities: Universidade de Porto, Universidade de Coimbra and Universidade Classica de Lisboa. There is no national organization of university information and press officers in Portugal at the time and some of them do not even know each other personally. Looking forward to Europe after 1992, Dietmar Schmidt has the impression that universities in Portugal will be well prepared. Ray Footman travels to Spain to meet some information officers colleagues from Madrid (Madrid Complutense University), Cordoba and Barcelona. Information and PR officers in Spanish universities are newly created jobs. They have already been appointed in most universities and have begun to meet informally on a national basis over the last three years. Ray Footman’s visit brings to light a considerable interest from the Spanish universities both in enhanced links with the university system in other parts of the European Community and in better contacts with opposite numbers in other European Universities. Fabienne de Strijker (University of Antwerp) and Alf McCreary (Queen’s University Belfast) visit Siena and Rome. The purpose of their visit is to gather information on the Italian university system for an article in the EUPRIO Network Bulletin. They also want to give EUPRIO a “human” face and to meet a

The Berlaymont Building in Brussels that houses the headquarters of the European Commission.

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

establishing contact with countries in order to make EUPRIO better known (e.g. Greece, via the Greek Embassy). They will even draft a project for EUPRIO which will result in obtaining an ERASMUS grant of 10,000 ECU. However, in December 1991, Ray Footman writes a letter to HEURAS to put an end to the arrangements they have had over the last two years. In comparing limited income with future commitments, the Steering Committee have come to the decision that they would better revert to administering their own membership and covering their mailing arrangements through their national networks, rather than centrally through Brussels. It is therefore asked to pass on to Fabienne de Strijker, the treasurer, any future applications or membership inquiries that HEURAS should receive. One of the main problems EUPRIO has to face is the lack of active members, which has been the main reason for joining HEURAS. None of the Steering Committee members has got time to run EUPRIO full time and now that EUPRIO has been launched full scale they need a post box, a “clearing house” and a place where people can get information and material. To that purpose, Inge Knudsen visits the ERASMUS Bureau in Brussels in November 1988 to discuss the possibility of setting up some kind of mail box service in Brussels for EUPRIO. It turns out

that the Erasmus Bureau has got its former building back at its disposal and will use it for the various associations funded by the ERASMUS Bureau under the Action IV of the ERASMUS Programme. EUPRIO is welcome there as well but will have to pay for the services. No decision is taken so far. Inge Knudsen has also been in contact with the General Secretary of the Liaison Committee of the European Rectors, Harry Luttikholt. The Liaison Committee has welcomed the EUPRIO folder, and further cooperation is discussed between Harry Luttikholt and Inge Knudsen, one of the issues being a follow-up on the Information Flow Report from 1987, another being a promise from Harry Luttikholt to give a speech at the Leuven conference in April 1989 on Information Flows and Communication between the CEC and the Liaison Committee / Institutions of higher education throughout the EC. The EUPRIO Directory of Information Officers in Universities in the European Community is launched under Inge Knudsen’s presidency. This directory has been prepared for the information of EUPRIO members. It does not have a comprehensive listing of all institutions of higher education in the member states of the community, but seeks to list all relevant institutions with a designated person or office responsible for PR / information.

Above: Leuven, 1989. Harry Luttikholt, secretarygeneral of the Liaison Committee of Rectors' Conferences, giving a presentation at the ﬁrst EUPRIO

Conference.

Dear Sir/Madam, I hope that you will enjoy reading the first edition of EUPRIO Network Bulletin which is sent to you with this letter. I should be very grateful if you could also pass this to the staff member responsible for Public Relations/Information in your institution. You will see that we are breaking new ground in the field of European cooperation in our special area of interest, i.e. the interchange of information between all higher educational institutions in the Community. A full explanation of the aims and objectives of EUPRIO can be found on page 2 of the Bulletin. Having created this effective means of communicating information, we now rely on the participation of all institutions involved in higher education to ensure its future growth and effectiveness. Higher education should not lag behind the economic and business integration which is now developing so rapidly between our countries. Membership of EUPRIO via your institution’s information officer should offer further opportunities of making important contacts in Community countries and institutions, and will help to ensure that you keep abreast of changes in Community higher education plans and programmes. Specifically, I would ask you to: ~ encourage whoever is the appropriate member of your staff to become a member of EUPRIO; ~ contact your national representative of the Steering Committee or myself, if you have any suggestions about how we can help to improve information flows to and from your particular institution; and consider the submission of an article from your institution for our next edition. EUPRIO’s first international conference on “Information Flows in Europe and 1992” at Louvain in Belgium from 6-9 April 1989 is already heavily booked. This is further indication that the aims of EUPRIO are meeting a long-felt need among higher education institutions in the Community and for many others as well.

Yours sincerely, Inge Knudsen Chairman of EUPRIO

The information on which the directory is prepared has been supplied via national information or PR groups or, where they do not exist, has been drawn from various reference sources. In countries where there are separately designed sectors of higher education, e.g. universities and polytechnics/colleges, these are listed by country in separate sections. In other countries, there is a single list. This directory will be updated periodically and will be complemented from 1990 on by a EUPRIO Directory of Media Contact in Member States of the European Community. All these actions, visits and interventions show that EUPRIO is searching for notoriety. Following the same idea, Inge Knudsen sends a letter to the directors and presidents of European universities and higher education institutions.

nge Knudsen is the first EUPRIO president to chair a conference. The first conference is held in Leuven and Brussels, some sessions being held at the Irish Institute in Leuven and others at the Berlaymont, the headquarters of the CEC in Brussels. The first day session aims at providing a layman’s guide to the structure of the Commission and to show how it interrelates with higher education, as well as a brief explanation on Information Flows to and from Brussels. After the morning session, lunch is offered by the Commission at the restaurant at the top of the building. The early afternoon is taken up with an analysis of the higher education activities of the Commission and the session ends by a reception at the Berlaymont and dinner at the Irish Institute in Leuven. The second day session is devoted mainly to the ERASMUS programme and

information flows between the CEC and institutions of higher education of the EC, the social programme being improvised that evening: a regular sing-song develops spontaneously with everyone still sitting at their places in the dining hall. Saturday morning consists of presentations from delegates of participating countries, including the Nordic countries, on their own national higher education systems. This is a unique opportunity to study the way similar problems are tackled in countries other than one’s own, and to compare and contrast national developments in the public relations and information areas. After lunch, a historical visit to the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven is organised, including a walking tour to the Begijnhof, 13th century religious houses now used as university residences. The conference dinner of that evening is the highlight of the conference. An Irish harpist plays during the meal, which is, according to all, of high standard regarding the food and its presentation. After the usual speeches, the delegates move to “The Wink” night club, where they dance until a late hour. The closing speech of this first conference is given by Inge Knudsen on Sunday 9th April 1989. The title she chooses is “The Way Forward – An Evaluation and Proposals for the Future”. The question of the Steering Committee membership is also discussed

in the first years of EUPRIO. Steering Committee members should be appointed by national bodies where in existence. From countries not having a national body, the steering committee appoints members from among persons suggested to them. Following EC practices the full steering committee consists of two members from the larger countries and one from the smaller member states. If Steering Committee members are unable to attend a meeting they should arrange a replacement from their country. At the end of her presidency (November 1989), Inge Knudsen, regrets to see that some Steering Committee members are not even members of EUPRIO. EUPRIO folders are enclosed in the letter she sends to all Steering Committee members. An updating of the folder is planned early in 1990. She sincerely hopes to see not only Steering Committee members but also more members from EC countries as paying members of the association. For the year 1989 EUPRIO intends to mount regular research programmes leading to European conferences on matters of professional interest. The activities of EUPRIO have to be selffinancing but the management plans to obtain sponsorship from universities and their national bodies, the EC as well as commercial and industrial organisations. The association communicates by means of the Network Bulletin, news sheets and, more informally, by means of private exchanges of information.

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

Amsterdam, 1987. Harry Luttikholt (left), Giovanni Finocchietti from ICU (Italy) and Inge Knudsen.

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

Above: the front page of the Information Strategy Project , 1987.

was asked to take over the chairmanship of EUPRIO when Anne Lonsdale retired from the post in September 1987. During her chairmanship I was involved in the study for the European Commission, the “Information Strategy Project”, carried out by a working group bringing together members of EUPRIO, representatives from Rectors’ Conferences and their Liaison Committee, and representatives from the Office for Cooperation in Education, later the ERASMUS Bureau. The study provided important input to information policies and we received excellent feedback from almost all target groups – except the European Commission. The print above adorned the front page of the study report – do remember that at the time there were twelve Member States of the European Communities – so here are eleven of them pulling the load while the twelfth is looking on – guess who… The important thing about the study was that it showed the strength of the EUPRIO network, but it also made us aware of the importance of our own internal communication needs, something which had to be balanced by a considerable lack of funds, of course. EUPRIO members throughout Europe had functioned as unique sources of information and willing respondents to the questionnaires and had also succeeded in bringing national Rectors’ Conferences on board.

One memorable meeting was in Amsterdam in 1987 when the working group met up to mull over the conclusions and the wider use of the study in a EUPRIO setting. In the next page are two Steering Committee members, Filomena Carvalho, our Portuguese anchor, and Edoardo Brioschi from Milan mulling over a cold glass of Dutch beer. We were hosted in Amsterdam by Maria van der Donk, a long-time Steering Committee member and Inge Knudsen constant contributor to EUPRIO. Another of our Dutch

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

Amsterdam, 1987. Edoardo Brioschi and Filomena Carvalho at the Steering Committee meeting.

hosts in Amsterdam was Harry Luttikholt, the secretary-general of the Liaison Committee of Rectors’ Conferences, who contributed to the study as well as to EUPRIO activities in the years to come. And it was Anne Lonsdale’s last meeting as EUPRIO Chair. I was not completely certain that my university would be overjoyed when I returned from Amsterdam to tell them the “good news”, but to my delight they backed the choice made by my EUPRIO colleagues and even contributed to activities by leaving me sufficient space to invest time and energy in the new activities we had discussed.

ith a lack of funds creativity became the most important contribution in the months ahead. With the assistance of a small grant from the new ERASMUS Programme and from the Student Union at Aarhus University we launched the very first issue of the “Network Bulletin” in March 1989. The collaboration with the Student Union provided us with first-class editing tools and with highly creative young people – and it was a truly low-cost enterprise.

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

One thing one should remember is that we are talking about 1987-88 – there were no e-mails, desktop publishing had only just been introduced by printing companies, the main forms of communication were telex (anyone remembers the telex machines?) or fax, quite a modern solution at the time. The Student Union were the proud owners of a modern machine which made it possible to work with photo montage and printing on normal paper for newspapers which made it a highly costsaving option. Furthermore, it provided our members with a recognisable tabloid format bulletin – anyone remember that the tabloid format was the height of modernity in the late eighties?

Below: the Editorial Board of the ﬁrst EUPRIO Network Bulletin: Ray Footman, Inge Knudsen and Charles O Rourke.

We had formed a small working group, the “Editorial Board” as we later called it, in 1988 to create the Bulletin, being keenly aware of the need to communicate directly with colleagues throughout Europe. In the previous page are Ray Footman, my successor as EUPRIO chairman, and Charles O’Rourke from Dublin hard at work in my office in Aarhus – the fourth Editorial Board member, Alf McCreary (and fifth EUPRIO Chair) took the photo.

he first issue consisted of basic information about EUPRIO – our mission statement, a list of Steering Committee members, the editorial outlining our main priorities, a presentation of higher education in Ireland and one on Italian ERASMUS students in Ireland – one of the reasons we succeeded in obtaining a grant from the ERASMUS Programme was to inform about the Programme and ERASMUS student experience. The first issue also contained a presentation of the Irish Institute for European Affairs in Leuven, the venue for the very first EUPRIO Conference, and the preliminary conference programme. The Network Bulletin was one way to reach colleagues, it was low-cost – so we could produce several issues a year – and it brought identity. But we needed to talk to people, needed to provide members with an opportunity to learn from each other, exchange experience, meet and discuss, something that a bulletin could not provide however many we produced. The idea was to organise a conference – and we then started to look for ways in which to fund it.

Above: the ﬁrst issue of the EUPRIO Network Bulletin, March 1989. Right: the statue of Erasmus in Mechelsestraat, Leuven.

We knew that individual information officers would be able to fund their travels, probably also room and board if the programme was sufficiently interesting. Top of the list of European items in the late eighties was the “1992 agenda” – probably nobody remembers the information campaigns undertaken by Jacques Delors’s Commission to promote the Single European Act? Except perhaps those among us who came from Denmark, the country that voted “no” to the “package” as it was called – remember the summer when the Danish football team won the European Championship, celebrated the Queen’s silver wedding anniversary and voted “no”? When the Danish Foreign Secretary arrived at the summit in Lisbon with supporter scarf and portable television and said to Helmut Kohl, “if you can’t join them, beat them”? Well,

We managed to obtain support from the Information and Communications Directorate-General of the European Commission to arrange a full day in Brussels on 1992, with the second and third days in Leuven with presentations on the ERASMUS Programme, the Rectors’ Conferences – and finally a session about and for ourselves. The conference took place on 6-9 April 1989, and here is the happy bunch outside the Irish Institute on the last day of the conference. All was of course documented in the next issue of the Bulletin.

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

pardon me for getting ahead of myself, but “1992” was top of the agenda and so was the Erasmus Programme.

Inge Knudsen and Alf McCreary

Other funding opportunities had presented themselves to the new Steering Committee members to undertake fact-finding missions and establish contacts to colleagues in other European countries (within the European Communities, as it was still called at the time). EUPRIO members as the study visit programme within ERASMUS Programme provided opportunities for

One such visit also provided the venue for the next conference as Alf McCreary from Belfast and Fabienne De Strijker from Antwerp visited Italy where they were met with hospitality and generosity – the second EUPRIO conference took place at the University of Siena’s lovely Certosa di Pontignano conference centre on 27-29 April 1990. But by then I had left Aarhus, Denmark and EUPRIO – knowing that EUPRIO was in good hands and could walk on its own. Happy Anniversary!

Below: Leuven, 1989. A session during the ﬁrst EUPRIO Annual Conference.

ARCHIVE I. KNUDSEN

Theme: Information Outreach 1992 Venue: The Irish Institute for European Affairs, Leuven Languages: English, French and German, with translations of plenary sessions. Number of participants: 60, among whom an Australian Information Officer from the University of Sydney (Susanne Ainger). Representatives from EUPRIO and United Kingdom, Irish and Nordic universities are also taking part

The 1992-process and how to follow it William Martin Head of 1992-Unit

Plenary sessions The Commission and how it works Niels Jørgen Thøgersen Director

The ERASMUS Programme Sandra Pratt Task Force on Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth.

The Commission Offices and decentralisation of information Hank Beereboom Head of Offices Unit

Present Situation and Information Flows between the CEC and Institutions of Higher Education of the EC Harry W. Luttikholt Secretary General of the Liaison Committee of Rectors’ Conferences of Members States of the European Community.

Universities and 1992 Jacqueline Lastenouse & Peter Dixon Head of Unit Higher Education and DG X IWAN BEIJES

Leuven (Belgium), the City Hall.

Ray Footman University of Edinburgh United Kingdom

1989 1991

FINGALO

A view of Edinburgh, the University town of the fourth president Ray Footman.

s president, Ray Footman aimed to maintain and increase the dynamism the organisation had gained over the past couple of years. This included a determined membership drive and a continuous search for adequate funding, not only in Brussels but also in areas where a strong European network of university information was considered necessary. Ray Footman was determined to keep up the level of association activity, including the annual conference and three issues of The Network Bulletin. Another priority of his presidency was the development of relationships in the information sector between universities in Northern and Southern European countries. The year 1989 would be the year of the “move South”.

In the summer of 1989, Ray Footman spent five weeks in the USA, during which he attended the National Assembly of the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) in Washington as well as a CASE Summer Institute on communications at NotreDame University, Indiana.

ay Footman organised the second and third conferences in EUPRIO’s history. The second one, the Siena Conference, took place in April 1990. It was intended for staff in European higher education institutions professionally concerned with information and public relations. The conference focused more particularly on the organisation of university information services and their roles in relation to European Community education programmes such as ERASMUS and LINGUA

in southern European countries. Topics and sessions welcomed Commission speakers on ERASMUS and LINGUA, as well as various contributions on information systems in all member states, with more emphasis being given to Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain. The maximum capacity for the Siena conference was settled at 62, which meant that a number of places had to be allocated to each country. Since southern Europe was the focus, the suggestion was to allocate ten to twelve places to Steering Committee members, fifteen to Italy, ten to Spain, two to Portugal, two to Greece, three to Germany, France and The United Kingdom, two to Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland, one to the Nordic countries and three to speakers. All these places were put on offer.

The Austrian and Swiss university information officers organisations were contacted. Contact was also made with East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia. It was agreed that eastern and central European colleagues who wanted to become members would pay the full rate but in their local currency. Ray Footman was invited to represent at a very important meeting of Spanish colleagues in Palma de Mallorca in December 1989. His objective in taking part in this meeting was to try and attract new members and to encourage Spanish colleagues to register to the Siena Conference. He was also invited to the Danish association annual meeting. A small brochure was produced for further recruiting needs. EUPRIO

CHRISTIAN BICKEL

Since demand was unlikely to exceed supply, any national representative who would not receive enough applications for the places available for their country was asked to let the president know so that the places could be reallocated to other countries where there was more demand. The Siena conference was notable for seeing the first representative from Greece and the first from a university in the GDR who, enrolling as a member at Siena, had the distinction of becoming EUPRIOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first member from eastern / central Europe.

As far as recruitment was concerned, it had been especially successful over the past six months in several countries â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and not only in the South. The Leuven conference had generated enthusiasm for membership from countries outside the EC, such as Sweden, Norway and Finland, which raised the question of non-EC membership. Steering Committee members agreed they should try and get members from non-EC countries, since membership was open to all professionals in Europe. It was decided that members from non-EC countries would be welcome but would have no voting rights.

University of Edinburgh, St. Leonard s Hall.

Dear Colleague, Some of you may have heard about the establishment of EUPRIO, an organisation designed to encourage closer contacts between those professionally concerned with, or interested in, university information and public relations activities in Europe’s universities and other institutions of higher education. As a member of the EUPRIO steering committee, I hope you will be prepared to consider joining the organisation both as a useful body through which you can promote your own professional interests within the European university scene and through whose network of contacts you will be able to assist your own institution’s information and PR work in Europe. EUPRIO’s newspaper, the Network Bulletin, is currently published 3 or 4 times a year, with the support of the ERASMUS Bureau in Brussels, and a copy of the most recent issue is enclosed. As well as providing you with useful information, it is also intended to serve as a source on which individual information offices may wish to draw for their own magazines and newsletters. EUPRIO is also publishing this month a Directory of Information Officers in European Universities and Polytechnics (mailed free to members). Later this year it will be compiling and distributing a directory of press and media contacts across the countries of the European Community. EUPRIO has also begun to organise a series of annual conferences, the first of which was held in Spring 1989 in Leuven. It will be followed by a conference for southern Europe to be held at Siena in April 1990 and EUPRIO will be co-sponsoring a major conference in Berlin in the spring of 1991.

An application form, which gives details of the different categories of membership, is enclosed. The membership fee for 1990 is 35 ECU (xxx in local currency). I hope you will be prepared to join us by completing the form and sending it with your payment for that sum to the Office of the European Associations (HEURAS) in Brussels, which administers our membership and deals with membership enquiries. If, in this country, I can help with further information, please let me know.

Yours sincerely, Ray Footman

s 1990 began, EUPRIO would continue to search for new members. A letter was sent to that purpose by all national representatives to all university or polytechnic information officers in their country who were not already members.

Assuming a membership of at least 300 by the end of 1990, EUPRIO would be able to cover half of the running costs from membership fees. For 1990, the gap between income and expenses was largely bridged by an ERASMUS grant for the Bulletin. But EUPRIO would face problems in the future if it did not come up with proposals for either extra income or cost cutting – especially as raising membership fees seemed a bad idea at a time when all efforts were on recruiting new members.

At the Berlin Steering Committee meeting in October 1991, the chairman stressed that some minimum requirements had to be met if the association was to stay financially sound in the future: membership levels had to be constant to provide a sound financial basis and EUPRIO had to continue offering its members an annual conference and a news bulletin, even if the last ERASMUS grant to fund the Bulletin (10,000 ECU) had already been paid by the ERASMUS Bureau. Since University of Aarhus students had been doing a very good job at a very reasonable production cost, it was decided to continue producing the Network Bulletin there. It was agreed to limit the number of issues of the Bulletin to three per year and to distribute it in the future

In professional terms, Ray Footman has long experience as a committee man and a reputation for steering constituent bodies to which he belongs into areas of new opportunity and outreach. As such he is well placed to identify the challenges facing EUPRIO and to help guide it past the more diﬃcult obstacles. In personal terms, Ray is a charming companion with a penchant for malt whisky and an eye for the latest bestselling books near the top of the British charts. His interests include higher education, the theatre and cinema and he is also a skier ‒ of sorts! Some time ago he had a bruising encounter on a skislope but he recovered with characteristic good humour and tenacity. Ray is very much a clubbable man, but at heart he is very much a private person. He has put a great deal of thought and energy into the post of Chairman of EUPRIO and he will

face squarely all the challenges that arise. All his colleagues on EUPRIO wish him well. — Alf McCreary Network Bulletin, December 1989.

In 1990, the Steering Committee took an important decision to try to extend EUPRIO s inﬂuence to Southern Europe. With EC money, study tours were arranged by Steering Committee members to Spain, Portugal and Italy and as a result a Conference in Siena was organised for April 1990, particularly with the help of Professor Valerio Grementieri, who was a good friend of EUPRIO. The Siena Conference was based in a delightful former monastery in the Tuscan countryside, and its theme was Higher Education Information Flows in Europe ‒ a Southern

only to members and a limited number of institutions and key figures (rectors’ conferences or equivalent organisations) as well as to hand out a number of copies to all Steering Committee members for recruiting purposes. The print run would therefore be brought down to 2,500. There was discussion on co-operation with several EC agencies such as HEURAS, EAIEA, FEDORA, CASE, Liaison Committee and the European Student Fair. The latter had offered a free stand at the Brussels and Barcelona fairs in exchange for an advertisement in the Network Bulletin. But as the European Student Fair visitors were not potential EUPRIO members the offer was not accepted by EUPRIO. EAIEA wanted to participate in the Network Bulletin whereas CASE were thinking of moving into the European market and asked EUPRIO to announce the first two European training courses they organised in the Bulletin, which was accepted.

revision of the constitution was felt to be necessary in order to allow the association to become a formal organisation under Belgian law. But final decisions regarding this constitution were postponed until co-

Perspective . Significantly a large number of colleagues from Southern Europe participated for the first time, in an atmosphere of hard work, plus excellent social contacts in a beautiful setting. The Steering Committee was keen to alternate such gatherings between North and South, and in 1991 the Conference was held in Berlin, with the theme Higher Education and PR Competition within the European Community . It was one of the more cerebral conferences and, of necessity, the members had to stay in farflung accommodation across the city, but it was nevertheless a memorable experience at a period shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

— Alf McCreary Success Story. The History of EUPRIO, in Network Bulletin, February 1999.

operation discussions with HEURAS were completed. Indeed, HEURAS in Brussels had agreed to provide administrative and membership services at 1,000 UK pounds per year, which included, among other things, the distribution of the Network Bulletin. Moreover, EUPRIO had agreed to participate in a joint HEURAS / EUPRIO project, the “Directory of Directories”, i.e. a reference manual of all Higher Education reference books in all European countries, which would include up to 15 titles per country. One reason for EUPRIO’s cooperation with HEURAS was that it was located in Brussels and it was thought that it would be a good thing for EUPRIO to be linked in some way with Brussels. Unfortunately, since membership administration was not working well, it was decided not to continue the contract after 1991. From that time on, membership administration would be taken on by one Steering Committee member in each country and payments would be made by them directly to the treasurer. In the end of 1990, Alf McCreary visited the Technical University of Berlin, which would lead to the organisation of

Ray Footman represented EUPRIO at the Conference on Higher Education and 1992: planning for the year 2000 , organised by the Commission of the European Communities and the Italian Ministry of the University and Scientiﬁc Research, in cooperation with

third conference in Berlin in October 1991. This Conference was organised by the Technical University of Berlin, together with the Universities Rectors’ Conference, the German Universities Association of Press and Public Relations Officers and EUPRIO. A press conference opened the conference. Three main workshops were organised: “Science writing and public image”, which was about examining the role of media science journalists in relation to higher education in Europe, “PR and the EC”, which focused on the development of this discipline within the European Community and “PR and the competition between universities”, which focused on the role of PR, press and publicity in a single market where students, teaching and research staff from all member states were beginning to be more and more mobile and discerning about the institutions they were considering, in competition with others right across the EC. Round-table discussion between

institutions, civil servants from education ministries, representatives of various national higher education organisations and European international groups, as well as a smaller number of members from industry and parliament.

editors, science writers and journalists about science writing and information flows in the EC were also provided. By 1992, Steering Committee members had to be appointed by their national organisations when possible. Two representatives were allowed for larger countries and one for smaller ones. In case of one member it was advisable for the national organisation to appoint a substitute member who would be allowed to take the representative’s place when she was unable to attend. Since not all countries had national organisations yet, the formulation of this paragraph in the new constitution had to be written with carefully chosen words.

IPOHKIA

EUPRIO’s

the European Parliament, at the University of Siena. Nearly two hundred people took part in this conference, which was novel in that it brought together delegates from diﬀerent backgrounds: executive heads from over 80 universities and other higher education

University of Edinburgh, Old College.

f course, I’ve been out of it – that is to say retired from the university PR scene – for nearly ten years now. The last – of some 13 – EUPRIO Conference I attended was in Barcelona. Then, out of the blue, nearly a decade later comes an approach from EUPRIO asking for reminiscences. The pleasurable thing about that is, if I am to be reminded at all about aspects of my old – pre-leisure – life of professional practice, then EUPRIO would be a side of that life about which I am entirely happy to be reminded. For while, like any activity, it had its downside, that was minimal. Most of EUPRIO consisted of mixing with interesting people from diverse backgrounds, talking and learning about their circumstances, experiences and ways of approaching issues that were usually not completely the same as, but often really quite like, those I dealt with, in settings which were invariably impressive, frequently stimulating and often beautiful as well. So I will mostly settle on people and places.

eople first; recollections about people are difficult, particularly when your group covers hundreds of individuals over some ten years, (the length of time approximately I was more actively associated with EUPRIO), so I am resisting the – strong – temptation to mention particular people, whether Presidents, national reps, speakers, organisers or Conference attendees (several of whom went on to become, and still remain, good personal friends); so many played a part in making EUPRIO the lively and collegiate body I found it became. But perhaps my own thoughts go back particularly to the group of Flemish-speaking University Information Officers who, in the mid eighties, had the idea of a European association in the first place and the energy and drive first to involve others in in Northern Europe and then beyond. Then I remember the handful of “builder colleagues” who in the first three or four years turned an ambitious aspiration into an institutional reality. And thereafter, so many contributors from across the Continent. Policy next: it was not, I guess, immediately obvious that the notion of a EUPRIO would necessarily come to fruition. It had to appeal to information officers across various countries, gain acceptance in official circles, become financially viable, be able to claim a truly European membership, and to meet the needs of a diverse constituency; it also had to address a number of politically complex issues in the early years that will be familiar to anyone, I guess, who knows something of trying to get an international organisation going. The Western Europe of the mid eighties, as EUPRIO started out, was, albeit diverse, much smaller and less various than today’s entity, for the Iron Curtain would not finally go up and the Berlin Wall would not go down for another three years. Also from an initial UK perspective, the “offshore” Brits were, if anything, looking westwards – rather than east – for new

Ray Footman

patterns of professional practice. For this was the decade when Thatcherite cutbacks pushed British universities to seek additional sources of income and associated initiatives in FR & AR (fundraising and alumni relations). I was to have a foot in both camps – I had undertaken a twenty North American universities study tour in the early eighties and by the end of the decade was already involved in helping develop US-style training institutes in Britain. So while serving as the president of a EUPRIO which was still developing its own identity, and modes of operation, rather than as a whole looking for corporate links with North America (with a few exceptions, continental European interest in AR & FR took a little longer to develop) in part, thanks to my dual role, I was able to help keep Euro-colleagues in touch with such Transatlantic developments. As for places, I have already acknowledged how special many of these were and perhaps this is the right place in which to anchor recollections around my period as EUPRIO president. This, for me, is the tale of an Island and four Cities, all with great memories attached.

ne of my first tasks, having undertaken a study of Spanish higher education, was to help bring Spanish information officers more closely into a relationship with EUPRIO which involved my attending what may have been one of the early Spanish national professional meetings, in Mallorca. The welcome was warm and the style distinctive and it was the only conference I ever attended in my working life where a presentation was given on a tourist bus, between desirable destinations... but our Spanish colleagues were soon on board. Involving southern Europe was also a function of the second annual EUPRIO Conference held at the University of Siena, for the most part in the University’s former monastery study centre up in the hills outside the city. The qualities of the setting did much to pull the different national groups together with our host – entirely appropriately in musical Italy - dragooning at least one rep from each country to deliver a song from their homeland. Also memorable from this period was the progressive inclusion of colleagues from eastern Europe whose institutions’ previous PR practices had proved not always totally relevant to changed circumstances. And as in many examples of EUPRIO’s working, this was very much a two-way process where western information officers also had a steep learning curve. A very useful element in this process involved a Steering Committee held in Budapest. In line with the new policy of alternating north and south venues, the third EUPRIO conference was welcomed to the Technical University of Berlin, organised very effectively and stylishly in the heart of that lively city which, as a great admirer of Berlin, I was more than delighted to chair. Of course, hosting a EUPRIO Conference, as well as furthering professional education, knowledge and understanding, also provided an opportunity for the host institution and city to promote their profiles… and very effectively they did it too in the City gatherings I was involved in. Thereafter, having also become directly involved with professional training via the international Washington DC-based Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), I determined to step down as EUPRIO president, but failed to escape

TILMANDRALLE

Edinburgh, Arthur s Seat.

entirely since, as a true swan song, three years later, I was called in to provide a venue and Programme for the next Conference, in Edinburgh, my own University. “Europe 2000. The Challenge of the Market” was the result with, up till then, the largest-ever (205) attendance for a EUPRIO gathering. After a very tight-packed and serious programme, we allowed our delegates a rather special evening off which, in the intervening period when I have met a former colleague attendee, I am always reminded of. Managing to get our dates overlapping with the end of the Edinburgh International Arts Festival, we closed the show with a single malt cask whisky tasting and Festival fireworks over the Castle, which since then, I am sure, has produced a continuing boost for one of Scotland’s main non-academic exports… And if my recollections are mostly social and personal, rather than directly work-related, it is not because these events were without substance. Professional education and information sharing was the consistent theme and, of course, the meat in the conference sandwich, but, strangely enough, 15-25 years on it is the memories of people and places that particularly endure; I wonder why…

Theme: Higher education information flo fl ows in Europe. A southern perspective Venue: Collegio “Mario Bracci” di Pontignano, Siena Languages: English and French. Plenary sessions Opening Speech Luigi Berlinguer Rector of the University of Siena Southern Perspectives Edoardo Brioschi University “Cattolica del Sacro Cuore” of Milan Spanish Press Offi fic cers and their National Organisation Carlos Miraz University of Cordoba

The growth in the number of universities in the Irish Republic Ruth McDonnell University of Cork Danish PR and information offi ficcers and their links to the Nordic group Michael von Bülow Outlines of the PR and publicity positions in The Netherlands and Germany Maria van der Donk University of Amsterdam Dietmar Schmidt Ludwig Maximillian University in Munich Higher education in France Annie-Claude Guisse Fédération Universitaire de Lille ERICA DONOLATO

The Brussels View on ERASMUS Matters Philip Clist Information Officer at the ERASMUS Bureau How the University of Siena handles its very successful ERASMUS partecipation Valerio Grementieri University of Siena Introduction to LINGUA and TEMPUS Programmes Sandra Pratt Commission’s Task Force Overview of press and information offi fic cers in the United Kingdom Ray Footman University of Edinburgh

Plenary sessions Science writing and public image

UNIVERSITY PRESS OFFICE / BÖCK

Theme: Higher Education and PR Competition within the European Community Venue: Technical University of Berlin Languages: English, German with simultaneous translations.

University of Siena, Complesso San Niccolò.

PR and the EC

PR and the Competition between Universities

Technical University of Berlin. The Nike statue in the hall of University s main building.

Alf McCreary Queen s University Belfast United Kingdom

1991 1993

WWW.THEBADGERONLINE.CO.UK

Belfast, Queen s University, which expressed the ďŹ fth president of EUPRIO.

lf McCreary chaired two conferences during his presidency: Granada in October 1992 and Stockholm in June 1993. The Granada Conference focused on four main topics: information on Spanish higher education, which was changing rapidly, information on universities in other Spanish speaking countries, the transatlantic flow, and short country-bycountry presentations centred on important issues facing higher education PR. The latter presentations were given by twelve speakers from each EC country. The social programme included a night visit to the Alhambra and an optional visit to the Universal Exhibition of Seville.

After the Granada Conference, decisions on new directions for future conferences were taken at the Coimbra Steering Committee meeting (March 1993). Workshop sessions would be more interactive in the future and would require the participation of delegates. The new rules included the fact that workshops leaders would be asked to make sure their opening contribution was no longer than five minutes, and to produce a paper before the opening of the conference listing the issues that would be discussed during the workshop. Papers would then be copied in sufficient number for all the participants, who could then choose which workshop they wished to attend, with the result that some might be full and others poorly attended. Workshops would be conducted in one language but a

fifteen English sessions were programmed for the workshops. The delegates were asked to attend three of them. About half of the workshops were given twice to increase the delegatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; choice. And, as discussed, an evaluation form was given to the participants in the Stockholm Conference. At the Stockholm Conference delegates were invited to a reception at the Royal Academy of Sciences. A presentation of environmental research connected to the Royal Academy of Science and information and PR-activities related to the Nobel Prize were on the agenda. Informal discussions were also organised, giving an opportunity for groups to meet together to discuss issues identified by the delegates themselves. Membership was a relevant matter throughout Alf McCrearyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presidency. In 1992, EUPRIO counted 180 members from EC countries and about a score from non EC countries. The total number of members increased to 264 in 1993. The membership fee was 45 ECU and did not increase in 1993 or 1994, as the financial situation was considered to be satisfactory. Recruitment or renewal of membership was conducted by national representatives in their own country and this system seemed to work very well. National

XISKYA VALLADARES

balance of languages other than English would be made available. The success of the sessions would be evaluated at the end. An informal briefing for all workshop leaders was organised just before the opening of the Stockholm Conference to ensure that the new rules were understood by everyone. It was also decided that the final session of future conferences should be devoted to EUPRIO business matters to make sure that members were involved as fully as possible in the forward planning of the association. These business sessions would include a brief written financial report from the treasurer and a written policy report from the chairman. Finally, a discussion was held about establishing new directions for future conferences to take into account the different needs of members. In particular, it was suggested that it would be good to provide alternative sessions for experienced and less experienced members. This implied a need to diversify the contents of group sessions and make sure members participated, as well as ensuring lectures were organised for to larger audiences. The application of this new conference structure could be seen at the Stockholm Conference: three Spanish sessions, four French sessions, two German sessions and

Granada was the venue of the 4th Conference. A visit to the Alhambra (here: the Patio of the Lions) was organised.

Still on track, the Steering Committee guided the next Conference to Granada on October 1992, where the theme was New Horizons . The highlights included a session on Corporate and Visual Identity, a lively ﬁnal session attended unexpectedly by a deputy Rector, a visit to the Alhambra and, for those who had the time, a day-trip to Expo-92 in Seville. The early absence of transport was more than compensated by the warm and generous hospitality of our Spanish hosts. (...) In 1993, EUPRIO returned North to a splendid Conference in Stockholm, with the theme Communications and the responsible University . Membership of EUPRIO had reached 264 and the Steering Committee appointed a Nordic representative ‒ Christer Hjort. The keynote themes and conclusions from

Stockholm were prophetic ‒ the diﬃcult time facing all universities which were no longer sacred cows , the need for change, and the danger of losing core idea of a university in the scramble for funding. Socially the Stockholm Conference was outstanding, and the highlights included the dinner when members from various countries gave impromptu and unforgettable contributions in song, and also verse. When Irene from StPetersburg sang a Russian folk-song, the international sense of solidarity across all the barriers of history and politics was tangible. The other major highlight was the ﬁnal session in the Golden Room of Stockholm Town Hall, and the arrival of bag-pipes to herald the next Conference in ‒ where else? ‒ Edinburgh. — Alf McCreary Success Story. The History of EUPRIO, in Network Bulletin, February 1999.

representatives were sent a series of leaflets and membership cards to use as they reenrolled or enrolled new members. After paying their fees, members would receive their “benefits package”, consisting of a completed membership card, a copy of the latest EUPRIO Directory, a copy of the latest Network Bulletin and next conference details, if available. Budget forecasts showed that if EUPRIO were able to register at least 150 members a year, two copies of the Network Bulletin, an annual directory and minimal other costs could be covered by membership fees only. Three kinds of membership existed: “Full Membership” was open to all those professionally engaged in university institutions in the European Community, in the fields of press, public relations and information. The term “university” referred to all types of higher education institutions regardless of designation in the individual member states. “Assistant Membership” was open to individuals in universities within the European Community who were interested in information and public relations but were not themselves directly professionally involved. And finally, “Associate

Since I returned, life at Queen s has been very busy, and somewhat diﬃcult. Some days ago terrorists murdered a 29year-old law student, while, on the same day, the leader of our Air Squadron was killed, and a student badly injured, in an air crash. Otherwise I would have written to you a little sooner. (…) I enclose, somewhat belatedly, a memo from the Executive Director of EAIE, which is holding a conference in Berlin on 5-7 November. EUPRIO has been given a courtesy waiver of the conference fee, so if any of you wish to attend please let me know. I suspect, however, that after Granada you have used up all your University time and ﬁnance available for this year s conference round. — Alf McCreary From a letter written to the Steering Committee members after the Granada Conference.

Membership” was open to colleagues outside the European Community and also engaged in those activities in nonuniversity institutions within the EC. In the end of the eighties, a draft constitution had been started but not taken further, mainly because EUPRIO had to face more immediate priorities. By 1993 is was time to try and agree on the main shape of the new constitution. An updated draft was circulated among Steering Committee members who were asked to send their comments so that a definitive version could be adopted to take effect from autumn 1993 onwards. Some members reaffirmed their will to maintain the links that had originally been established with the Commission and the Liaison Committee of the European Rectors’ Conference, while expressing the wish to be as flexible as possible as regards a wider membership across Europe. It was also suggested that membership eligibility should be left in its current form and not to have restrictions on the eligibility of PR professionals, since the exact job specification in different countries could vary considerably from one institution to another. Finally, it was suggested that it would be better for future Steering Committee members to be nominated by

national bodies after discussion with the chairman. As new countries had joined in the EC and more and more countries were present in conferences (17 countries in Stockholm), it was considered necessary to think about enlarging the Steering Committee. It was suggested that the constitution should be modified in such a way as to allow new representatives to join the Steering Committee, especially Scandinavian members. A little later, changes in the constitution were presented for approval. They concentrated on a number of issues regarding, among others, the aims of EUPRIO as well as the programme, membership and Steering Committee matters. As for the programme, the number of issues of the Network Bulletin had to be determined with the Directory editing becoming annual. Membership fees should be discussed every year by the Steering Committee and collected by national representatives. The total number EUPRIO

In a note published in May 1993, Klaus H. Grabowski pointed out that the functions of EUPRIO s Network Bulletin were to be deﬁned in three dimensions: within the profession, within the system of higher education, and beyond this system, serving partners and potential partners of the system. Membership had increased considerably during the last years; on the other hand, only a limited number of members were taking part in EUPRIO s major activities; the word Europe was referring to more and more countries; for all these reasons, the objectives of EUPRIO could only be achieved with the support of eﬃcient and simple communication between EUPRIO members and an increased support for EUPRIO s work from partners and potential partners within the system of higher education and beyond. The situation of EUPRIO within the new map of Europe and the competitive situation of the system of higher education (competing for limited budgets and funds with other parts and subsystems of society) seems to indicate that we will have to solicit support from a broader

of Steering Committee members should be changed. At the chairman’s discretion the Steering Committee would from then on be allowed to co-opt up to five members from other non EC countries. No one would be allowed to sit in the Steering Committee for more than two periods of two years. Any country which had two members in the Steering Committee would not change them at the same time in order to ensure continuity. Steering Committee meetings would be held at least twice a year. The posts of chairman, deputy chairman, secretary and treasurer were assigned for two years. EUPRIO could end its activities if proposed by at least fifty percent of the national bodies. Bearing in mind the establishment of relationships with Eastern Europe, two EUPRIO members represented the association at the TEMPUS Conference organised in Hungary, on 31st May. Alf McCreary established contacts with Dr Lajos in Budapest, who expressed his enthusiasm for a possible seminar

public, and especially from opinion leaders and decision makers within the public , Grabowski said. The best policy in this situation would be to clearly define the functions of EUPRIO s publication. To that purpose, Grabowski proposed the following moves: EUPRIO s publication should interest opinion leaders and decision makers; it should be obvious to EUPRIO s natural partners that communication was necessary for the survival of an efficient and creative system of higher education; everybody in the profession should be convinced that you couldn t really be in the profession if you were not a member of EUPRIO, and finally, all the members who were not able to attend meetings and conferences regularly should be kept informed on what was going on within the association. To achieve these objectives, the front page, the editorial and at least one substantial article in the Network Bulletin ought to be written with the aim of interesting opinion leaders and decision makers beyond higher education. The Network Bulletin should also address colleagues within the profession by offering

experience sharing articles, presenting case studies and substantial opinions. At last, the Network Bulletin would be a forum where formal and informal communications of members could be exchanged. These functions have been served to some extent in the previous issues of the publication but not formally. It has been very difficult to find out which function has been served in which issue of the Bulletin. And if we continue that way we will, instead of reaching new readers, lose more and more of them because nowadays people are very impatient when dealing with the media , Grabowski added as a conclusion. At the same time, the need to find an editor was put forward. The editor could be a member of EUPRIO who could dedicate his or her professional skill and policy to the Bulletin for two years at least, beginning from 1994. The new editor was felt to have a good knowledge of English, to be a member of the Steering Committee (or at least attend meetings) and to have the support of an Editorial Board.

involving Steering Committee members and representatives of Hungarian as well as other East and Central European universities. The objective would be to share information and techniques on how information offices were operating in European universities. As a result of the established contacts, a Steering Committee meeting was organised in Budapest in September 1993, together with a seminar during which a number of EUPRIO members gave a presentation of their work to an audience of Hungarian journalists and university PR officers. A guided tour of Budapest followed by a journey to Lake Balaton completed this joint meeting.

Steering Committee members wished to increase study visits from the South to the North. But money had to be found for that purpose. In Scandinavian universities information officers were already used to visiting other services for short periods. They would be asked whether they would also be interested in welcoming information officers from other European countries. Scholarships were beginning to be discussed in 1993. Three to four people could be given scholarships for the Edinburgh Conference.

y journey to the chairmanship of EUPRIO was slightly unusual because it began with a long career in daily journalism. As an editorial writer, columnist, and senior feature writer with the Belfast Telegraph, and many other publications, I was closely involved in reporting the long conflict in Northern Ireland at the height of what we called “The Troubles”. I interviewed and wrote about many of the perpetrators and victims of the violence, and after some 22 years reporting on the pain and loss of so many people, I decided on a career switch. At that time, in 1984, Queen’s University in Belfast was advertising for its first Information Director and Head of Information Services. This was a senior management post, but I had no direct experience of management. However, I had a deep loyalty to my old university, as well as over 20 years of experience as a communicator in front-line journalism, so I applied for the Queen’s job. Somewhat to my surprise I was appointed, and I joined the rarified atmosphere of university life. I soon discovered that some of the top-flight academics, who were also blessed with uncommon common sense, were extremely impressive, and that they were also good colleagues with whom to work. I also discovered that many other academics were unbearably arrogant, and also extraordinarily poor communicators, outside their own discipline, with poor people skills. It was against this background that I tried to sell Queen’s University to the wider world, and also to the university itself – which was the difficult bit. It was obvious that most academics were primarily loyal to their own disciplines, then to their peers worldwide, and that the University came third. Perhaps they did not realise this, but it became very clear to any outside observer like me who was never really allowed to become an academic “insider”. The university, like all similar institutions, was run by academics with largely Government money (as well as its own specially-raised funding) and outside specialists like me were basically hired hands. Alf McCreary

This was not a personal relationship, and it was important to accept the professional background to the then new idea of appointing outside advisers, even if leading academics did not always accept their advice. We gradually established a new and more professional attitude to presenting the good news about academia in general and about Queen’s University in particular. Within a relatively short period, I had become chairman of the UK-based public relations and information group, known as SCUIO, and around 1988 I became a member of the then newlyformed EUPRIO. My early memories are those of the dynamic leadership of Inge Knudsen from Denmark, who became and remains a good friend, and also of Ray Footman, then of the University of Edinburgh, who became one of my closest colleagues in the United Kingdom universities circuit.

ne of our most successful conferences was held in the Irish Institute in Leuven, which as one of the biggest gatherings in the history of EUPRIO. It was a considerable professional and social success, and the forerunner of many similar conferences. Inge was succeeded as chairman by Ray Footman, and we worked together closely as the two UK representatives on the Steering Committee. Towards the end of Ray’s term, we held a Committee meeting in Paris, and again much to my surprise, I was elected as EUPRIO chairman. I was surprised because it seemed unusual to appoint two UK-based presidents in a row, but I was glad to have been given such an opportunity to serve in this way. One of the key roles was to continue with the publication of EUPRIO News, the magazine which was established some years earlier by Inge, Ray and myself, together with Charles O’Rourke from Dublin. During my time the magazine was one of the unifying factors within the wider EUPRIO network. My first annual conference as chairman was held in Spain, which was a great social success, although there were organisational difficulties. Ray and I roomed together, and on the second day he said “You run the conference and the plenary sessions, I will organise the transport!” My second major as chairman was held in Stockholm with the help of a number of very good Swedish colleagues, and once again there was a record turn out. The conference dinner was particularly impressive with a great sense of a shared European identity and personal camaraderie. Altogether I served for about four years as chairman, during which there were two major themes facing EUPRIO. One was the continuing problem of communicating information about universities to the outside world, and also to the universities themselves. A second major problem was in trying to construct a practical model to serve the needs of all universities within the European network. In practice the “Northern” universities, including those in the UK, Germany and Scandinavia, had more advanced systems of disseminating university information, and better funding, than our colleagues in the “Southern” groups, including Spain, Italy and Portugal.

My recollection is that EUPRIO, and its successive Steering Committees, tackled these problems, but with limited success. This was partly because the Governments of various memberstates kept changing the national rules about university education, and overall the universities had an ever-increasing need for greater funding. In the mid-nineties I had another major career change, and I left Queen’s University to pursue a career in full-time writing. It was a decision which I have never regretted, and during the past decade and more I have not had to work for committees or university presidents, but merely for my latest publisher or editor! However, I look back on my university days as one of the more difficult and challenging parts of my career, but on the positive side I made many great friends and met some wonderful people.

Theme: New Horizons Venue: University of Granada Languages: English, French and Spanish with simultaneous translations. Number of participants: 150 Attendance was allowed to EUPRIO members only, up to a maximum of 15 from larger countries and 7 from smaller countries, excluding Steering Committee members, plus Spanish members. Countries not taking up the allotted number of places were to make them available for people from other countries. Plenary sessions Corporate Identity - UK and the USA experiences Ray Footman Director of the Information and Public Relations Service at the University of Edinburgh

Corporate identity – a Southern approach Edoardo Brioschi University “Cattolica del Sacro Cuore” of Milan Internal communication – How? Why? New tools… A Spanish speaker and a South American speaker Europe: a common language? European communication and people: an overview Domenico Lenarduzzi Task Force “Education, Training, Youth, Human Resources” of the European Community Europe: branching out – Europe and the world: new ways of collaboration Antonio Marín Ruíz Director of the Communication and Documentation Service at the University of Granada

Theme: Communications and the responsible university Languages: English. Plenary sessions translated into French and Spanish. Number of participants: limited to 200. Places reserved for EUPRIO members only.

Plenary sessions The essential role of communications in an effective and responsible university Barbro Berg Head of Information, National Agency for Higher Education Inge Jonsson Rector of Stockholm University Bjarne Kirsebom Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Education

Presenting and publicising university research to the community, with particular reference to environmentrelated issues Anna-Greta Dyring Head of Information, Swedish Council for Planning and Communication of Research Henrik Mickos PhD, Stockholm University The future of higher education institutions in Europe Thorsten Nybom Head of the Council for Studies of Higher Education Madeleine von Heland The Institute for Research on Business and Work Life Issues

Wim Janssen Rijksuniversiteit Groningen The Netherlands

1993 1997

ARCHIVE W. JANSSEN

Edinburgh, 1994. OďŹ&#x192;cial reception of the 6th Annual Conference at the Town Hall.

im Janssenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presidency can be characterised by two major developments: a new constitution for the association; and the opening of EUPRIO to non-EU countries, especially from Northern and Eastern Europe. The first development paved the way for the second. A new constitution had been discussed at the Prague Steering Committee meeting and was approved in its final version at the Zurich Steering Committee meeting in August 1995. The new constitution

removed the difference between EU and non EU members, with each country now being allowed one representative and one deputy on the Steering Committee. Both representatives can attend Steering Committee meetings, but each country only has one vote. No distinctions are to be made any longer between full, associate and assistant members while Executive Committee members, including president, past-president, secretary and treasurer, are to be elected for a two-year term, renewable once. The new constitution was unanimously approved in Zurich and published in the next issue of the Network Bulletin. It was never been registered, though.

Wim Janssen was the first president to remain in post for four years. During his term, he chaired four conferences: Edinburgh in 1994, Zurich in 1995, Rotterdam in 1996 and Strasbourg in 1997.

he Edinburgh Conference took place during the Edinburgh International Arts Festival, which sees hundreds of theatre, opera and dance companies, symphony orchestras, jazz bands, comedians, artists, singers, authors and film makers gathering every year. Several other outstanding cultural events were also taking place in Edinburgh at the same time: the Edinburgh Military Tattoo at the Castle, the International Film Festival, the International Jazz Festival and the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, which brings hundreds of dance, music, theatre, comedy performers and companies to smaller and larger venues across the city.

ARCHIVE W. JANSSEN

No need to tell the reader that this conferenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s social programme was at a very high level. It began on the first evening with a whisky tasting session, where the participants were provided with explanations of the intricacies, variety and quality of Scotlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s numerous single malt whiskies. After that, guides took

participants to the city centre to take part in the Festival Fireworks and Concert in front of Edinburgh Castle. Following a reception, there was a Scottish evening offering traditional Scottish music, and a demonstration of Scottish country dancing, with the opportunity to join in. On the second evening there was a night-time guided tour around parts of the City where the 19th century serial killers searched for victims before supplying their bodies to the anatomy lecture theatre where Dr Knox taught his medicine students. A really thrilling evening that still haunts the nightmares of all who took part! The Edinburgh Conference was planned to be the beginning of a more systematic involvement by colleagues from Eastern and Central Europe. The Swedish had already supported the participation of a Russian colleague, and the president indicated he would also like to see at least one representative from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine attending conferences. Once those people were identified in their own country and had shown their their willingness to attend conference they would receive hard currency subsidies so that the conference

Edinburgh, 1994. Wim Janssen (right) with some EUPRIO colleagues.

In 1993 the Steering Committee widened its horizons with a seminar in Prague, and a meeting in Hungary at which Wim Janssen of the University of Groningen took over as chairman, and the title was subsequently changed to president. Wim instituted a number of important developments during his term of oﬃce, and he became the only president to serve for four years, after which he handed over to Ingeborg Christensen ‒ a most appropriate choice. Incidentally this was a rare distinction for the University of Aarhus, which has supplied two women presidents ‒ Ingeborg and in 1987 Inge Knudsen. The Edinburgh Conference of 1994 was one of the most memorable, with its theme Europe 2000, the Challenge of the Market . Intellectually it was robust, with an examination of, among other things, the Higher Education System in Scotland, the EC Summit in Scotland in 1992, and Marketing Science. Socially, it was unforgettable with visits to concerts as part of the Edinburgh Festival, a whisky tasting and a stupendous ﬁreworks display which the sophisticated Europeans from EUPRIO watched with the awe of

enjoyment of children. It was choreographed to classical music, and those present will remember it for the rest of their lives. In 1995 EUPRIO moved slightly South to Zurich for a delightful Conference organised by our Swiss colleagues. The theme Threats to Universities, Challenges to PR tackled with important topic of how we deal with a university of the world that is no longer campus based. The Conference became very aware of the challenges facing PR and information professionals in the age of new technology. Socially it was a good Conference, with warm hospitality in a beautiful city, and memories of a wonderful Alpine evening where, among other things, we said farewell to Phil Radcliffe, an old colleague from Manchester. By 1996 the Steering Committee was very aware of the difficulty of staging a Conference in Southern Europe, for financial and other reasons. So the 1996 Conference was held in Rotterdam and presented with typical Dutch style and hospitality by our colleagues from The Netherlands. Under the theme of Communication and the Changing University we considered the impending

fees could no longer be a reason for not taking part. The academic part of the programme began with group briefings and discussions on the theme: “Trends in higher education and public relations across Europe and beyond”. A selection of nine countries was proposed, with participants having to choose one country to study the university system and PR practice. Each session was introduced by a higher education PR officer from the considered country and there was an opportunity for those attending to raise questions and discuss issues. The areas chosen were: France, Germany, Italy, Benelux, Scandinavia, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and North America. Case studies followed, where participants were able to choose between

changes in European Higher Education. The talk at the farewell breakfast was challenging ‒ the president of the University of Amsterdam Dr Jankarel Gevers asked the question Communication in Higher Education ‒ Sense or Nonsense? , and in so doing he pointed to values beyond ﬁnance and other generally accepted criteria of success. A major highlight was the 10th anniversary of the founding of EUPRIO, with most of the former chairmen and presidents sharing in a reception at the tower building in Rotterdam. In 1997 EUPRIO ﬁnally made it to France, and the Conference was held at Strasbourg, courtesy of our hard-working French colleagues, and particularly Monique Mizart. The theme was timely The Impact of New Technologies on the Communication of Universities in Europe , and the social life was uniquely geared to the distinctive role of Strasbourg, with visits to the European Parliament and other institutions ‒ and for the lowbrow, an afternoon at the Kronenbourg brewery.

— Alf McCreary Success Story. The History of EUPRIO, in Network Bulletin, February 1999.

two successful European universities: the University of Siena – a university from the Renaissance – and the University of Warwick – a university from the sixities. Workshops on “Aspects of the university in the market place” took place on the second day. Participants had to choose topics in which they were most interested. Each session was introduced by a PR officer but the larger part of the session was devoted to examining and discussing how the approach presented could be applied. Group briefings and discussions on the theme “The media and higher education in Europe – How to penetrate particular national media markets” filled in the afternoon programme. Participants were asked to choose between several regions where they were most interested in the

media: Scandinavia and the Low Countries, the English Language media, the French Language media, the German Language media and the Mediterranean European media: Spain and Italy. Each session was introduced by a small panel of higher education PR officers from the considered countries and there was an opportunity for those attending to raise questions and discuss issues.

ARCHIVE W. JANSSEN

he Zurich Conference offered both the traditional plenary sessions and an outdoor workshop, taking participants to research institutes in the outskirts of Zurich. A wide variety of workshops featured practical topics. The fifth plenary session, chaired by Alf McCreary, took place on Sunday morning and was followed by a business meeting and the closing of the conference. The University of Utrecht and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam organised preconference visits before the Rotterdam Conference, which were only open to a limited number of members. The subject of the pre-conference master class in Utrecht was “Universities and public understanding of science”. The objective was to present national and local activities in the considered subject and to discuss new ideas and strategies with participants. It was sponsored by the University of Utrecht in the context of its 360th anniversary.

This was the presentation of the Rotterdam Conference by the organising team: “Higher education in Europe is under a lot of pressure. In various European countries there are discussions about the quality and organisation of higher education and the institutions within. New demands from within society often go hand in hand with simultaneous cutbacks in budgets. Strong fluctuations in the number of students and on the job market for graduates have their effect on the institutions of higher education. These developments lead to huge changes for universities: changes in educational and research programmes and changes within the organisation. The university as a sanctuary of academic values is being forced to operate more and more like a business. The university finds itself caught between being an ivory tower and becoming a business. That gradual change takes some time getting used to. Communication can fulfill an important role in the process of change that universities are going through. At a strategic level communication helps set the course of action that the organisation will take and at a practical level it effectuates the communication policy and goals.” The welcome address by Wim Janssen, chairman of EUPRIO, Doctor Henk J. van der Molen, president of the Erasmus University and Hans den Oudendammer, alderman of the Municipality of

President Wim Janssen prepares the Zurich Conference with the Swiss colleagues. On the left, Heini Ringer (University of Zurich).

ARCHIVE W. JANSSEN

Zurich, 1995. Frank Munnichs announces the Rotterdam conference with Wim Janssen and Rolf Guggenbühl, while Dutch cheese is being served.

Rotterdam was followed by a boat trip on the ship Friesland through Rotterdam’s harbour and included an informal dinner on board. As one of the aims of the conference was to learn from each other’s experiences and expertise in the area of higher education communication, a presentation of papers took place at the beginning of the conference. Participants were given the opportunity to meet colleagues with similar interests in groups of up to 25 and give presentations based on papers that had been specially prepared for the conference about subjects related to the conference theme. After selection by the organising team, the best papers were presented during a plenary session and all the papers published in a conference report. In the afternoon, outdoor visits were organised to different places in town: the Communication and Marketing Department of the Port of Rotterdam, the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra, the Museum Boymans-Van Beuningen, and the Feijenoord football stadium. “EUPRIO Master classes in communication” took place on the second day. They constituted an opportunity for participants to take part in a master class lecture given by top class professionals in communication on subjects related to the conference theme. Each master class lasted 75 minutes and was repeated twice.

At lunchtime, participants had an opportunity to present posters on “The EUPRIO market of good project and good practical experiences or: How to steal your colleagues’ good ideas without any risk!” Posters were produced containing practical communications information and a jury chose the best poster(s) which were awarded a prize. And, finally, the closing brunch was chaired by Jankarel Gevers, president of the University of Rotterdam, who gave a speech on the theme: “Communication in higher education: sense or nonsense?” It was decided before the Strasbourg Conference that proposals from members of the Baltic countries who were willing to come to the next conferences would be collected. The members were to be chosen from among those with whom EUPRIO already had links and would have to fulfil two conditions: be fluent in English; and work in the field of PR or communication. They were to be sent a questionnaire to measure their motivation. Up to six members were to be invited to come to Strasbourg and four scholarships were to be offered to members of the universities of Bucarest, Ostrava and Latvia. They were supposed to meet the Executive Committee there to discuss the best strategy to attract more members from Eastern countries. They were also to be helped in creating and professionalising

Network Bulletin Editorial Board After a discussion at a meeting of the Network Bulletin Editorial Board in Amsterdam, in May 1994, Andrea Rayner, Ben Herbergs and Wim Janssen made some proposals. They suggested a restructuring with the Bulletin being divided into sections: policy discussions, good practice presentations, case studies and how to articles and lists of services to members. The front page should attract the reader s attention with a strong leading article and with headline summaries of the Bulletin s content. So far, it had been devoted to pictures. Each issue should also contain a page of short news items on higher education and PR topics from each country represented on the Steering Committee. Each Steering Committee member would therefore be asked to send the editor one or two short news items about PR developments in their own countries to be published in each issue of the Bulletin. In order to make the Network Bulletin more accessible and interesting to those whose ﬁrst language was not English, contributors were invited to submit articles in French as well as in English. Summaries in

French were also to be provided for articles in English and viceversa. It was hoped that this innovation might stimulate more participation in the Bulletin from Italian, Spanish and French members of EUPRIO. Andrea Rayner accepted an invitation to be editor of the Network Bulletin for the years 1994-1996. In actual fact, she continued in the role to the autumn 1997 issue. Ben Herbergs was her deputy. The planned number of issues was three or four a year, with publication in January, April, September and December. The 1994 spring issue contained an article on the Edinburgh Conference, and others about the Italian situation, the German PR experience in small universities, the Campus Information System, the Greek situation, and about Dutch universities and the parliamentary election. The biggest problem the editor had to cope with was collecting articles, rather than ﬁnding subjects. She therefore invited Steering Committee members to dedicate more time to the Network Bulletin and reminded them to regularly send all their national short items that may be

their national networks. Christer Hjort and Marja Sadeniemi were placed in charge of contacts with the Baltic States and the Eastern countries. The Strasbourg Conference began with a visit to the European Parliament and a boat tour of the old parts of the city. The social programme for the next days included outdoor visits to Alcatel, Kronenbourg, the Human Rights Building and the Cybergalerie in the town, before a trip along the “Route des vins” of Alsace, wine-tasting and, at last, an Alsacian evening. This conference also saw the creation of an annual prize of 500 ECU, which was attributed by a jury to the author of an article on the conference theme. The conference was closed by a speech from Inge Knudsen, from the Confederation of European Rectors’ Conferences.

of interest to readers. The 1996 spring issue was considered to be very good. A few problems in relation with distribution cropped up, particularly in Italy. The system involved copies being sent in bulk to national representatives to distribute to members and it sometimes didn t work very well. The 1996 autumn issue contained articles about the past conference in Rotterdam and the pre-conference event in Utrecht, an overview of the Italian press, and a report of the result of demonstrations that took place in Paris the previous winter. The 1996 winter issue was unanimously approved for its interesting content. However, the 1997 spring issue was not published due to particular circumstances. The editor suggested producing the autumn issue with the same content as planned for the spring issue, including a report of the Strasbourg conference. The next editor, Tony Scott, begans his two-year term with the 1998 spring issue. He proposed a change in the format, quality of paper and design of the Bulletin.

trasbourg was the last conference of the current executive committee, with the chairman, the treasurer, the secretary and the deputy chairman all stepping down together after the conference. The Steering Committee elected unanimously Ingeborg Christensen as the next chairman, Rolf Guggenbühl as the next treasurer, Marc Permanyer as the next secretary and Wim Janssen as the next deputy chairman at the Cambridge Steering Committee meeting in September 1996. All of them would begin their two-year period in office after the Strasbourg conference in September 1997. After Strasbourg, EUPRIO entered a period of uncertainty with the venue of the next conference still unknown. Since the Greek representative had retired from her position at the University of Athens, the possibility of a conference in Greece being organised no longer existed. Other possibilities were discussed, but it was also considered that there would be no conference in 1998 if there were no offers to organise it.

ARCHIVE W. JANSSEN

Strasbourg, 1997. Executive Board s change. A toast between Wim Janssen, Ingeborg Christensen, Rolf Guggenbühl and Wolfgang Mathias.

The financial situation of EUPRIO was quite satisfactory during these years, although the expenses were felt to be a little too high in comparison to the association’s anticipated income, especially during 1994. From 1995 on, the problem became more worrying for a few years. Treasurer Wolfgang Mathias made a number of proposals to cope with the finances in the future: the costs of the Network Bulletin could be lowered, part of the bank charges could be spared if every country transferred membership fees in one transaction, and membership fees could be raised to 50 ECU from 1995. It would be the first rise since EUPRIO began collecting membership fees. The treasurer also suggested that the press directory and the scholarships should be financed with EU money. He even planned to visit Brussels in November 1995 to discuss this matter. His last idea was to try to raise money from EUPRIO ’s conferences, asking conference organising teams to pay a certain amount of money to the association itself. Eventually in 1996 finances improved, due both to increased membership fees and lower expenditure. As a result, some projects were considered for a grant from the general fund. There were a number of ideas: granting more scholarships to enable more delegates from Eastern Europe and

the Baltic States to attend conferences, providing funds to help national groups organise themselves, e.g. the Prague Seminar, enabling exchange visits by members, lowering conference fees, instigating a EUPRIO Prize, facilitating more official languages at conferences, defraying the cost of production of the EUPRIO Press Directory and creating a EUPRIO Web site. Among all those ideas came the rapid launch of the new EUPRIO Web site. It was designed and implemented by the University of Groningen, which was congratulated for its design and the contents. The two directories (EUPRIO members and press) were maintained by the University of Aarhus Web team. Only EUPRIO members were to have free access to the press directory, using the password “Europe”. Between April 1994 and August 1995, close relationships were established with Brussels. In the first instance with HEURAS; in the second with DAAD (Deutsche Academische Austauchs Dienst); third, with the Coimbra Bureau, a newly established network of some thirty prestigious universities, most of which were members of EUPRIO. Last, with the Liaison Bureau of European Rectors, where Inge Knudsen, the former president of EUPRIO, was working as director.

Czech and Slovakian participants at the EUPRIO Prague Workshop a membership free of charge for 1995. The idea of the “Scandinavian meetings” appeared in Edinburgh, where people realised that work conditions in European countries were very different, depending on the system of education and the cultural environment. It was decided therefore that, beside the annual conferences, members sharing more similar systems would be offered the opportunity to meet and work in smaller groups. People from The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Belgium were invited to meet in Aarhus, Denmark, on 2-3 September, 1996. A first meeting had already been organised previously in Antwerp and Gent, Belgium. The Aarhus meeting programme included discussions about the organisation of an external relations office, a talk from Denmark and Norway about the present and the future titled “What do we do and what do we want to do”, a guided tour through Aarhus ending up in the Quartier Latin, and a visit to the Science Park and the Steno Museum situated in the University Campus Park. Wim Janssen left the academic world in 2001 after attending twelve conferences as a member of EUPRIO and chairing four of them. During his presidency, EUPRIO took a new turn, that will be followed up and strengthened under the leadership of the next president, Ingeborg Christensen.

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

In August 1995, the deputy president Alf McCreary met Inge Knudsen in Brussels. They came to the following agreement: the Liaison Committee of Rectors’ Conference were to offer EUPRIO their Brussels office as an official address, to be used when necessary. This service was offered free of charge to EUPRIO. In return, EUPRIO offered a regular section in the Network Bulletin to disseminate matters of importance and of interest to members. EUPRIO was also to provide access to the database when necessary. Moreover, the Liaison Committee of Rectors’ Conference offered EUPRIO conference facilities at the Brussels office, although this was not completely free of charge. Other optional services, such as a mail-shot of the EUPRIO Bulletin or the collection of membership fees, was be charged to EUPRIO on a prorata basis. A Steering Committee meeting was organised for Prague in March 1995 at the same time as a EUPRIO Workshop on Public Relations, intended for university rectors and PR professionals in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The theme was “Behind the headlines – The challenge of university information and public relations”. The seminar was conducted by Wim Janssen, Alf McCreary, Wolfgang Mathias and Edoardo Brioschi, all of whom were senior EUPRIO representatives. Topics included PR strategy, dealing with the media and internal communication. Since the financial situation was quite good, the president proposed to offer the

Rotterdam was the venue of the 8th Conference. In the picture the Blaak Station.

Wim Janssen

t is a cold but sunny Friday morning in April. I am walking along the Boulevard St. Michel in Paris on my way to the École des Mines, where in half an hour's time the meeting of the Steering Committee of EUPRIO will start. I have already attended conferences of this club in Leuven in Belgium and in Siena in Italy. Today I feel privileged to be the representative of the Dutch universities at this illustrious gathering. Last night I took another close look at the Constitution; after all, you want to be well-prepared for such a meeting. “EUPRIO was established on 12th May 1986 in Brussels with support of officials of the European Community...” reads the first sentence of this Constitution. It differentiates between full members, assistant members and associate members, and between big and small countries. When the Steering Committee takes decisions, big countries have two votes, small countries one. During the meeting I keep a low profile; when you are new you must not be loud. But then I take a deep breath and ask a loaded question: “What is it that makes a country big? Its size? The average intelligence quotient? The number of universities? The number of EUPRIO members?” The chairman, Alf McCreary, is nonplussed. The other representatives do not react either. Of course, I know the answer: we are governed by the rules and regulations of the EU; large EU countries have two votes, small ones one. Representatives of universities from non-EU countries can only become associate members and non-EU countries have no vote. Then and there I make up my mind: if I ever get a say in this club, there'll be changes. To my surprise, at the end of the meeting I am appointed treasurer of EUPRIO.

t the end of Alf McCreary’s term as president, the Steering Committee chooses me as his successor. In an interview with me in EUPRIO’s Network Bulletin, no. 9 (Autumn 1993), Andrea Rayner from Bristol noted: “Finally he hopes for more members from the Nordic countries and especially from Eastern Europe. The EUPRIO Steering Committee will meet in Budapest in September and will gain its first contacts there. Our new chairman believes that colleagues from the former Eastern bloc countries will play an important role in EUPRIO in the future.” My (hidden) agenda is to transform EUPRIO from an organization within the EU, guided by EU regulations, into a Europe-wide club of universities: “from European Union Public Relations and Information Officers Association tot de European Universities Public Relations and Information Officers Association”, an organization for the whole of Europe not differentiating between large and small countries and between full and associate membership. At the university of Groningen I switched on my PC and drafted a new Constitution for EUPRIO. It took a lot of persuading, many one-on-ones with representatives of large countries (which would lose votes) and a number of meetings of the Steering Committee before the new Constitution was passed in 1995. Before I left the academic world in 2001, I attended twelve conferences as a member of EUPRIO. It was my privilege to chair four of these – in Edinburgh (1994), in Zurich (1995), in Rotterdam (1996) and in Strasbourg (1997). That is way back, but fortunately I can rely on my editorials in the EUPRIO Network Bulletins.

CHRISTO SPYKER

ooking back to the successful conference in Edinburgh I wrote in December 1994: “…Many things are still in the dark, but two things are evident: even in PR and Information Offices, we are talking more and more about markets and about the European dimension. The Edinburgh Conference has helped us to develop a strategic vision at our home base: to think about, to talk about and perhaps to decide what position our university should adopt in a changing world. And – this is our main responsibility – to think about the development of our own profession and the place and function of the PR and Information Office in a university.” In that same editorial I sounded a warning. “In the seventies and the first half of the eighites, the place and function of the university were undisputed and there was growth: the Leitmotiv of PR and Information Offices was ‘The Public Right to Know’ and ‘University Extension’. From the second half of the eighites onwards , student recruitment became an important issue in a number of European universities because of the post-war bulge and PR activities became more focused on protecting the universities’ own interests. The nineties bring to the universities a focus on the market. The language of the market is definitely taking hold of our PR departments. A couple of years ago we were still talking about target groups: now we talk market segments. Our Leitmotiv of the ‘The Public Right to Know’ is threatening to change into ‘the challenge of coping with the markets’. We should not let these changes creep unnoticed, and we should take constant care that ‘The Public Right to Know’ is not consigned to the dustbin.”

The main building of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, which expressed the 6th EUPRIO president.

“Communication and the Changing University” was the theme of the Rotterdam Conference two years later. I remember that this theme was embraced by the first and last key-note speakers: “Wim Deetman, former Minister of Science and Education in the Netherlands and now (in 1996) chairman of the Dutch Parliament, and Jankarel Gevers, president of the University of Amsterdam. They asked, what is the core business of the university, or as they put it: ‘What is the heart of the university?’ Core business sounds much too businesslike; the core business of a university is that it is not a business! Wim Deetman stated in his opening speech that universities should lead the way, and should enter the social debate. The university is not like a normal business; it is – or rather should be a beehive of creative scholars and scientists. Deetman lamented the non-visibility of top researchers in debates on national and international themes and problems. Whatever the future may bring for universities, he said, this social function will be the most important one. Jankarel Gevers touched on the same theme from another point of view: he more or less concluded that the university does not exist at all. There is something approaching a communal view of what the university was in the past and what it will be in the future. There are hundreds of ideas about what the university is or should be at present. This has led to confusion. Jankarel Gevers came to the same conclusion as Wim Deetman: the university is a beehive of individual scholars and scientists.” “Does this mean” – I wrote in my editorial – “that we as communication professionals should put our ideas on corporate communication in the dustbin? I don`t think so. We have learned in recent years to devote a lot of our attention (and budgets) to corporate communication, but perhaps the pendulum will swing back the other way. We may have to devote more attention to individual scholars and scientists, to persuade them to enter the social debate. In this way we will get back to the heart of the university. We must make the university more open and transparent and allow the world a view of our best men and women within the ‘black box’ of corporate communication.” Introducing Wim Deetman I reminded the audience how as Education Minister in the early eighties he had made deep cuts in the Dutch unversities' budgets. They would be announced at nine on a Monday morning. On the preceding Sunday an envoy of the Ministry delivered the sealed proposals for the cuts to the chancellors of the universities. That evening the three members of the Board of the University of Groningen and I as communication professional met to discuss the impact of these cuts on our university. No other executive – not the finance officer nor the personnel chief – had been invited. Only the communication professional was asked to join this important cabal. I thanked Deetman: “Your financial intervention has put my profession in the limelight.” should like to conclude this trip down memory lane with two anecdotes. In March 1995 the Steering Committee met in Prague and convened a workshop for Czech and Slovak universities. This was the first time all universities of these two countries had gathered to exchange views about communication. Among them were three military academies which tried to cooperate in matters regarding communication. When I walked to the conference hotel in the morning, I was struck by the number

of military vehicles parked at the entrance. In the conference hall I met military personnel in military dress. After speeches by Alf McCreary, Wolfgang Mathias, Edoardo Brioschi and myself, and the usual question and answer game, one of the military approached me. “We would very much like to shed our old image,” he told me; “would you have suggestions how to?” Without thinking I answered: “If I were you, I would start by putting on a different suit.” As chairman of EUPRIO I made it my habit to offer a present, on behalf of my university in Groningen, to all prominent speakers at conferences; it was a Delft blue bottle of Dutch gin. In my speeches I referred to these gifts as the “spirit of EUPRIO.” Once, at Zurich airport, I was stopped by customs. They went through my luggage and found four bottles of Dutch gin. “One is for the Minister of Education, one for the Governor of Kanton Zurich, one for the Mayor of Zurich and one for the Rector Magnificus of the university,” I sternly told the official on duty. He did not know whether I was kidding, he did not know whether I was trying to fool him, he did not know what to do. He let me pass.

Theme: Europe 2000: the Challenge of the Market Venue: University of Edinburgh Languages: simultaneous translations between English, French and Spanish. Number of participants: 180 people coming from all across the Western European countries, along with a number of colleagues from other parts of the continent and beyond (a small group from Central/Eastern Europe plus a colleague or two from North America and even Mexico). Plenary sessions Achieving European positioning in the higher education market Higher education in Scotland and the United Kingdom European Community policy forum What does it mean for a university to enter the market place as a commercial concern?

Europe and the media Promoting science by celebrating science? The Edinburgh International Science Festival approach Suggested topics • how universities are adjusting to the free market • playing the league table game; competing for students – strategies and techniques • the student as customer and the concept of customer service • student charters – what are they and what are they for? • PR payment by performance; the role of advertising in higher education marketing • why governments want value for money and accountability from universities • design in university marketing – using outside agencies and internal units

Theme: Threats to Universities: challenges to PR Venue: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and University of Zurich Languages: English, German and French were the official languages of the conference with simultaneous translations for the plenary sessions.

The university – A personal view Franz Hohler Writer and satirist

Plenary sessions Are universities falling apart? Martine Brunschwig-Graf Minister of Education, Canton of Geneva

Science and the media – The missing link Rosmarie Waldner President European Science Journalists’ Association

The university as a team: fi ficction and reality Helga Nowotny University of Vienna

• professional education and training for modern PR practice • taking on board alumni relations and fund-raising Workshops • corporate and visual identity programmes • university magazines and the external audience • the electronic media for media interaction • desktop publishing and print buying; • making use of radio • use of market research in public relations • running internal TV training programmes • crisis planning for PR • campus wide electronic information systems • university newsletters • readership and other feedback studies on university publications

Hans Peter Peters Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Science and the moral dimension Walter Zimmerli Bamberg

Venue: University of Rotterdam

Plenary sessions Changes in European higher education Frans van Vught

Languages: English; Plenary sessions are simultaneously translated in German and French. Number of participants: more than 160.

From public to private enterprise’: the transformation of Royal PTT Nederland (KPN) Philip van Tijn

Theme: Communication and the changing university

Communication as part of the strategy of Cornell University, USA Susan Murphy

Theme: Impact of new technologies on the communication of universities in Europe Languages: French, English and Spanish. Simultaneous translations were provided for plenary sessions.

Technology watch and the Internet: the amount of material available on the Internet is enormous. We need to learn how to pick it out and to exploit it effi ficciently Michèle Van Hollebeke Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie, Paris What are we doing in European universities? session shared by France and Denmark New technologies and society Philippe Breton CNRS, Strasbourg

ARCHIVE W. JANSSEN

Plenary sessions New technologies: Internet, multimedia, hypertext, e-mail, CD-rom, what are we talking about? The introduction of new technologies into universities raise numerous questions: Who is the webmaster? Serving the press via the Web? Graphic presentation of the web? Quality control? Financing the Web? Copyright? Rolf Guggenbühl

From paper to on-line: training and professions, information and security, legal framework are taken into account

Picture of the group of the 9th Conference in Strasbourg.

Ingeborg Christensen Aarhus Universitet Denmark

1997 1999

ARCHIVE I. CHRISTENSEN

Alnarp (Sweden), 1999. Ingeborg Christensen hands over the presidency to Rolf Guggenbühl on a carriage leading them to the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

or the second time in the history of EUPRIO the University of Aarhus allowed a woman the opportunity to become president of the association. After Inge Knudsen, who chaired from 1987 to 1989, Ingeborg Christensen was elected ten years later for a two-year term, from 1997 to 1999. Two conferences marked Ingeborg Christensen’s presidency: the Heidelberg conference on innovation and challenges in the communications of European universities and the Danish / Swedish conference on transnational university information systems. 72

he Heidelberg conference opened on Thursday 3rd September 1998 with a welcome speech by Ingeborg Christensen, Jürgen Siebke, Rector of the University of Heidelberg, and Joseph Bricall from the Conférence des Recteurs Européens. The next morning, the Rector of the University of Heidelberg and Ingeborg

Christensen chaired the opening session together, giving a speech on “The University of Heidelberg reorganizing management and communication”. In the afternoon the workshops took place in various research institutions in the Heidelberg area, among which the Center for Molecular Biology, the Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, the German Cancer Research Center, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, the European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications, the European Media Lab of the Klaus Tschira Foundation and the Technology Park Heidelberg. The 1998 EUPRIO Prize was attributed to the University of Oulu (Finland), after long deliberations by the jury, headed by the president Ingeborg Christensen. Up to 52 brochures were submitted for the contest, which was about university publications. The winner’s name was announced during the dinner at the castle of Heidelberg:

“The winning brochure tells about ten fictional stories about life at the University of Oulu, mainly from a student’s point of view. It is aimed at prospective students and is written in an informal and humorous style. The brochure is the result of a joint project of the Press and PR Unit, Students’ Union, Students’ Accomodation Foundation and a company which runs students restaurants. It is part of the 40th anniversary of the University’s publications.” Both the contents and the social programme satisfied the needs and the tastes of the audience – Alf Mc Creary commented on the Network Bulletin: “The Conference included a memorable debate (the first such in the history of EUPRIO) and a number of challenging addresses in the beautiful Great Hall of the University of Heidelberg. Socially it was a wonderful experience just to be in Heidelberg in late summer, and the icing on this European cake was the Conference dinner in the Castle of Heidelberg. The next evening there was a stunning fireworks display viewed from the River Neckar, a ‘riverboat shuffle’ complete with a jazz band. When they played the last number ‘Bye, Bye, Blackbird’ they created many a fond memory not only of this Conference but also of the many splendid moments at euprio over the past ten years.” After Heidelberg, since EUPRIO was willing to support universities in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in other upcoming European countries to help them develop their public relations, the Steering Committee invited colleagues from those countries to the following conference with the aim of discussing with them the possibility of giving them support and involving them in the EUPRIO network. Information officers from such universities taking part in TEMPUS or other EU-financed programmes were asked to finance their participation through these programmes. To other colleagues, who were strongly interested in joining the EUPRIO activities, the Steering Committee decided to offer a limited number of scholarships. The amount of 3,000 € was decided to sponsor five EUPRIO delegates from upcoming countries to go to Copenhagen. Finally, nine participants from upcoming

countries received scholarships for the conference. Regarding cooperation with upcoming countries, the Universities of Lund, Helsinki, Odense, Bochum and the Business School of Copenhagen created a network with the money received from a grant from the TEMPUS programme. With this grant they would arrange seminars to help upcoming countries professionalize and create their national networks in their own countries. The directory of members and the directory of press contacts were published both on the Web site and on paper by the University of Aarhus. However, since the maintenance of the two directories had become onerous for Aarhus, it was taken over by the University of Groningen, at least for one year. Tony Scott, the editor of the Network Bulletin, reported at the Steering Committee meeting in April 1999 that a total of 1,000 copies were sent out in March 1999. The cost of that issue amounted to 2,500 DM, which was less than the previous issues. The following issue was due to come out at the end of October 1999, a month after the Copenhagen conference. It would be printed in another colour. The next issue was planned for March 2000, with the Lecce conference as main topic. At the same Steering Committee meeting, the treasurer recommended a 10% rise in the number of fees to increase the budget. The number of members should not drop any more and less represented countries were encouraged to raise their membership figures in order to cope with future financial problems. Future possible co-operation with CASE Europe was discussed at a first informal meeting between Ingeborg Christensen, Arne Abrahamsen, Rolf Guggenbühl from EUPRIO, and Ray Footman and Colin Boswell from CASE Europe. This meeting, called on the initiative of EUPRIO, took place on 26-27 March, 1999. It aimed at exploring the likely future developments of both organisations and the potential future relationships between them, including possible opportunities for cooperation and collaboration. EUPRIO, which was – and still is – organised entirely on a voluntary basis, had established itself as an informal

Having read the archives and having lived through and taken a sometimes pivotal role in many of the developments of EUPRIO, I personally am delighted at all that has been achieved from such humble and hopeful beginnings. To my mind these are among the major successes: 1. remaining loyal to the central purpose of communication, networking and professionalism; 2. retaining a large membership ‒ the numbers are now circa 250-275; 3. remaining financially viable. Our estimated income is around 31,000 ECU. This was not always so, and I recall an early Steering Committee meeting in Brussels where we feared bankruptcy; 4. helping others ‒ using our resources to provide scholarships, etc.;

5. moving with the times ‒ including the establishment of a Web site, running a Conference on IT, widening our membership (all members are now equal), new initiatives with Eastern Europe; 6. maintaining a (fairly) regular bulletin; 7. providing regular services for our members, including our directories; 8. continuity of management in which tribute is due to hardworking chairmen / presidents and Steering Committees who have taken much of their own valuable time to do their work; 9. maintaining a high level of content and attraction for our annual conferences. Again many thanks are due to our colleagues in all countries who helped stage these gatherings at no little cost in time, effort and money;

European university PR network, but was not at that time in a position to expand its activities. On the other hand, CASE was extending its activities across continental Europe, thanks to a permanent secretariat in London, which made it possible. CASE was focusing more and more on European professional practice, though drawing on North American expertise. Among factors seen as relevant to the future by those attending the meeting were the increasing professionalization of their job, an increasing demand for lifelong learning and a likely increasing financial pressure on higher education institutions. After EUPRIO and CASE representatives completed the meeting, it was suggested a small joint group was established to undertake a more detailed examination of the areas where co-operation might be particularly relevant to both EUPRIO and CASE and to prepare proposals of cooperation. Among other ideas, they examined the possibility of publicising each other’s activities, of CASE offering initial discounts to EUPRIO members at selected CASE events, of some administrative services that could be offered to EUPRIO via the CASE office, of some activities that could be jointly undertaken or sponsored by the two bodies, and of each organisation

10. maintaining a delightful and unique camaraderie and also a professional attitude throughout. Finally, as I write this article on a grey Saturday afternoon in Belfast I am reminded of all the sunshine, friendship and fun (as well as the hard work and creativity) of EUPRIO, which will always remain close to my heart like a special child. I hope that you who carry on the work will remember this ‒ take EUPRIO seriously, but not too seriously, and, above all, do not take yourselves too seriously at all! I wish you well.

— Alf McCreary Success Story. The History of EUPRIO, in Network Bulletin, February 1999.

nominating a representative at each other’s principal annual event. Whatever the outcome of this project would be, a first step had been made connecting the two institutions and the link would be kept open to make sure that, for example there should be no clashes of dates in any forward planning.

he second and last conference Ingeborg Christensen had the honour to chair was the joint Danish / Swedish conference, organised in Malmö, Copenhagen and Lund at the end of August 1999. A special optional pre-conference training seminar took place on the island of Hven from 24th to 26th August, just before the opening of the conference. This seminar was organised for newcomers in the profession. It was based on active participation in group work led by four experienced informants from various European universities. The aim of the seminar was to help participants formulate a university’s internal and external communication strategy. “Four groups will be formed taking each university’s size, age and generalisation / specialisation into consideration. The group’s task is to formulate a plan of action for internal

On Saturday 28th August the conference moved to Sweden. Malmö, Lund and Alnarp were visited by the delegates, who were invited on a boat trip from Copenhagen to Malmö. The programme included a presentation of Malmö University by Vice-Chancellor Per-Olof Glantz, a presentation of Lund University by Vice-Chancellor Boel Flodgren and a presentation of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences at Alnarp by Vice-Chancellor Thomas Rosswall. A traditional Swedish dinner followed before a bus ride back to Copenhagen. When sending the minutes of the Copenhagen Steering Committee meeting Ingeborg Christensen wrote: “I think you will agree with me that the crawfish dinner in a tent in a park in the Swedish countryside in Alnarp was an event which it will be difficult to beat”. The total number of members in 1999 amounted to 232. Membership fees were fixed to 55 € in 1999 and did not change in 2000. Payment for 1999 had to be made on a Swiss bank account because the treasurer, Rolf Guggenbühl was Swiss. Iceland had one member (depending on Denmark).

ARCHIVE I. CHRISTENSEN

communication, national and international study information, and public relations. Each plan should include the purpose of each stated main point, short and long term goals, strategies for implementation, suggestions for activities and forms of evaluation. Work during the seminar will be carried out in projectform: thus achieving one of the aims, i.e. giving all the participants the skills required for project-oriented work.” The actual conference began by a boat trip on the canal, followed by a walk to the University of Copenhagen, where the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Copenhagen, Kjeld Mollgaard, and EUPRIO president Ingeborg Christensen welcomed the delegates. A dinner was offered in the Ceremony Hall of the University with musical performance by the Copenhagen University Choir. The next day the conference took place at the Copenhagen Business School and the afternoon sessions were followed by a dinner offered at the Tivoli garden in Copenhagen. The 1999 EUPRIO Prize was awarded to the university which provided the best university gift article. The jury was composed of Ingeborg Christensen, Alessandro Ciarlo and Elmar Hein.

Heidelberg, 1998. Plenary session of the10th Annual Conference in the Old Hall of the University.

Verweile doch! Du bist so schön! (O stay! Thou art so fair!) Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust

“What did you think of the conference?” This was a question asked to Italian Edoardo Brioschi at the end of the 1995 EUPRIO conference in Zurich, professionally and efficiently organised by Rolf Guggenbühl, where the catchword during the three days had become “sharp”. “We will meet at such and such a place at three o’clock,” Rolf would announce, whereupon we would all sing out happily, “Shaaarp.” “Well,” replied Edoardo pensively, “I think it was a little too sharp for me. You see, they think in minutes. We think in centuries.” I love both of them dearly and, since then, this story has been one of my party pieces whenever the conversation has touched on differences between the north and south of Europe. For me, EUPRIO meant the entry into other European countries, regarded not as amorphous landscapes, but as real people of flesh and blood – as well as intellect, wit and humour. The first EUPRIO conference I attended was in Granada in 1992, where I did not know a single soul and was feeling a bit lost. On the first evening of the conference, I felt somewhat left Ingeborg Christensen out when all the other guests seemed to recognise each other in the crowd. They all knew one another and were obviously pleased to meet old acquaintances. And then I was saved by Klaus Grabowski – a man who had spent his early childhood years in Denmark, in a camp for German refugees at the end of the war. He came up to me and started talking about my country, and introduced me to others – and we have continued to talk ever since. At later conferences, I used to say to newcomers, “Don’t despair. Klaus will come and save you. Or, if he’s got too much to see to, somebody else will.” When I look at the European countries, I connect Norway with Torny, Arne and Anne Katharine. Sweden with Ulla, Anette, Lena and Christer, and Finland with Marja and Irma. For the Netherlands, I think of Joop, Jacques and Wim, while Belgium is definitely represented by Marcel. For Germany, I think of Klaus, Bernt and Heidi, and for Switzerland, it is Rolf. Then, of course, there is Austria with Christian, and Italy with Edoardo, Alessandro and Paola. Great Britain is personified by Ray Footman – the European university information officer – along with Peter, Alf and Nic, and Ireland for me is Tony. France is, of course, Monique, while Spain has Marc, Carlos and Victoria, and Portugal has Ana Bela. Being given the opportunity to meet these people, all of whom became friends, has been one of the highlights of my career. It has been an incredible boon to make the acquaintance of people representing so many different nationalities, and to learn where the differences between us lie. Of course, there are many similarities – not surprising when you consider that we all work within the same field, albeit in different countries, and under different systems. For us, the explicit aim of EUPRIO and its renowned conferences was to share our experiences, to learn new tricks, and to borrow – and perhaps steal – one another’s ideas. To meet old friends, make new friends, and strengthen professional and personal

ARCHIVE I. CHRISTENSEN

relationships. Here we could find the enthusiasm other colleagues at our universities did not exhibit, and here we could find a shoulder to cry on – something our day-to-day colleagues did not provide. I chaired two EUPRIO conferences, one in Heidelberg in 1998 and one in Copenhagen, Malmö and Lund in 1999. Flashbacks from Heidelberg, the oldest university in Germany, include a learned disputatio in the old Great Hall at Heidelberg University, a formidable banquet at the city’s medieval castle and a cruise on the Saturday night along the Neckar, complete with sensational fireworks that re-enacted the razing of the castle on 6th September 1693. The disputatio – debate – was carried out between two Brits, the proposer of the motion Frank Albrighton, then Director of Public Affairs at the University of Birmingham, and the opposer John Izbicki from The Independent. The thesis was The Journalistic View. Serious Science Doesn’t Sell. A debate on media coverage in the age of paparazzi. Frank Albrighton argued eloquently for the motion that science is boring and that scientists are boring, closely followed by John Izbicki taking the opposite view. The votes for the more convincing argument went to the proposer with a total of 79, while the opposer was given 47 votes. Nevertheless, we all went home and continued to try and “sell” serious science. Ich hab’ mein Herz in Heidelberg verloren, goes the old song (I lost my heart in Heidelberg). Perhaps not, but to Heidelberg, certainly. At Bridging the Gap, the Danish–Swedish conference in 1999, the rain came down in torrents the very afternoon we had organised a Copenhagen canal cruise in open boats, and the hotel rooms were miniscule and cramped. In Marianne Mörck, however, the Swedish actress, singer and stage manager, we met a fantastic performer. One of her aims is to make opera available to everybody, and to take away its flavour of being high-brow and difficult to understand. She wants the audience to experience a totality of time, music, emotions, mind, and spirit, and told us what she does to achieve these aims, demonstrating with gusto the means she uses. She was met with thunderous and well-deserved applause.

Heidelberg, 1998. Musical entertainment in the Königssaal closing the 10th Annual Confernce.

Not less heartfelt was the applause given in a tent in the Alnarp parkland the next night to the Malmö Högskolas Old Boys, a lively band that led us through all the intricacies of a Swedish kräftkalas, the traditional midsummer crayfish party, with schnapps, paper hats, and more or less organised lusty singing of native songs by the different nationalities. This was a party that took off with a panache that is still talked about. But was it all partying? Well, no, of course not, but partying was an essential and important part of our getting together. When we are all able to let our hair down, it is easier to head a conference workshop the next morning and be confident of getting a friendly welcome by the participants. The 1999 Copenhagen conference made a profit, which was used to establish a EUPRIO scholarship fund for the so-called upcoming Eastern European countries, to be known as The Bridge Fund. For the 2000 conference in Lecce, the scholarships were published in 37 universities in Eastern Europe, all of which were working with other universities. Eleven applications were received with nine offers made and accepted. Most of the scholars had previously taken part in EU programmes and bilateral training periods. This was the time when we were advancing into cyberspace. EUPRIO’s Web site was based at my office until 1999, with my colleague Nils-Jørgen Rasmussen in competent charge. It provided him with quite a lot of entertaining challenges, but fortunately Wim Janssen from the University of Groningen agreed to take over the Web site. In 1999, all members received a directory of the people involved in PR in European universities. For the first time, this information was also made available on EUPRIO’s Web site. In 1999, it was reported that the use of email between the conference organisers and the national representatives had been a success. That same year, I held a talk in Bologna, stating scenarios that now seem self-evident and pathetically naïve: “We have always had to be well versed in areas such as communication, journalism, written proficiency and layout. Now, we need to have skills in other areas that were irrelevant to most of us only a few years ago. And even though do not have to master these skills ourselves, we must at least know how these areas work to be able to navigate: marketing, technical know-how, proficiency in written English, proficiency in oral English, knowledge of computer programs in word processing, desktop publishing, spreadsheets and email systems. This poses the question whether we have the kind of staff we need. In other words: Can the staff we have change? Or do we have to change our staff?” There is no doubt that we have all changed, and that the circumstances we find ourselves in have changed as well. The part played by the universities has also changed, and their need for international cooperation has changed beyond our wildest dreams – quite substantial changes in little more than ten years. But EUPRIO remains.

Theme: The networking university of tomorrow – Innovation and challenges in the communications of European universities Venue: University of Heidelberg Languages: English, French and German, with translations of plenary sessions. Number of participants: Almost 250 delegates attended the conference coming from 23 countries across Europe and from the US. Delegates came from Albania, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Poland and Romania thanks to the EUPRIO scholarships.

The view from industry – Efficient universities – the basis for competitiveness in global markets Friedrich Reutner FRIATEC AG, Mannheim

Plenary sessions The view from politics 1 – Information society and education in Europe Jimmy Jamar Commission for Science, Research and Development of the European Union

The Amsterdam knowledge network Dave D. Simons Stichting KennisKring, Amsterdam

The view from academia – New management structures at universities – their impact on university public relations Klaus Landfried President of the German Rectors’ Conference

The view from politics 11 – Science policy and communication of the Universities of Baden-Württemberg Klaus von Trotha Minister of Science, Research and Arts of Baden-Württemberg The BioRegio concept in the RhineNeckar-triangle Ulrich Abshagen Heidelberg Innovation GmbH

A virtual company for collaborative R&D Claudio Carrelli EURESCOM, Heidelberg On the way to a global expert network Dan Forbush ProfNet, USA, Barry Jackson, ExpertNet, UK Jochen Brinkmann Clausthal University of Technology, IDW, Germany The journalistic view: serious science does not sell – a debate on media coverage in the age of paparazzi John Izbicki The Independent, London, Frank Albrighton University of Birmingham. Debate chaired by Ray Footman.

Theme: Trans national co-operation – Trans national university information systems. The theme was chosen because of the new bridge between Denmark and Sweden, which was at that time under construction and was planned to be opened in the year 2000. Venue: The conference was organised by the Öresund University, a regional university network for research and learning. Its originality lay in the fact that it took place both in Denmark and in Sweden, the delegates being driven from one country to another according to the programme. All the participants were staying in the same hotel, the Cab-Inn Hotel.

Communicating with or without singing Marianne Mörck Opera singer The role of the European universities through the centuries, and their position in society today Uffe Ostergaard University of Aarhus

Plenary sessions The importance of cooperating across boundaries Albert Hamm Director of “Le Centre d’Innovation de l’Enseignement supérieur d’Alsace”

ARCHIVE I. CHRISTENSEN

Danish/Swedish museum co-operation – About the effect on nature in the Oeresund region as a result of the Oeresund fixed link Ole E. Meyer, Associate Professor, The Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen

A pause during some Steering Committee works. Alessandro Ciarlo, Heidi Neyses, Tony Scott and Wim Janssen toast the future of EUPRIO.

Rolf Guggenb端hl ETH Z端rich Switzerland

1999 2003

ARCHIVE AICUN

Lecce, 2000. Rolf Guggenbühl opens the 12th Conference with the Italian authorities and Antonio Lezzi, the local organiser.

olf Guggenbühl, from ETH Zürich was elected president during the Steering Committee meeting in Copenhagen on 26th August 1999. During the gala dinner of the annual conference just three days later Ingeborg Christiensen presented him with the virtual keys of the association. Rolf would go on to chair EUPRIO for two years. After a 13-year history with seven presidents from just three Nordic countries (UK, the Netherlands and Denmark) this was the first time that the presidency had gone to the middle of Europe. As former treasurer of EUPRIO Rolf was determined to keep EUPRIO and its accounts in order. He also wanted to provide EUPRIO with a much longer term inspiring vision. Alessandro Ciarlo from Bocconi University in Milan became the new treasurer. Whilst he was reassured that

EUPRIO’s

financial situation was stable he was surprised to see that, for some inexplicable reason, membership levels frequently went up and down and back up again. During Rolf’s presidency membership levels went from 231 (1999) to 207 (2000) to 251 (2001) and to 312 (2002). There were always fifteen countries represented with Sweden, Italy and Denmark constantly having the most members. At this time EUPRIO was fortunate to have the “Bridge Fund” which had been set up using the € 20,000 surplus from the Copenhagen conference (1999). The Steering Committee planned to keep this fund going for five-ten years and to use it to enable EUPRIO to offer a a discounted conference fee to enable members from emerging European countries to attend the annual conference. It was hoped that the Steering Committee meeting in Ghent (7th April 2000) would prove to be a turning point in EUPRIO’s history. Rolf presented his

vision for the next five years which set out his personal priorities. He stressed that the annual conference, the Web site and Network Bulletin, EUPRIO ’s newsletter were important and should be continued. He also suggested that the association should look at organising a series of small seminars during the year which would enable members to network more frequently. Rolf also talked about setting up an online discussion board or chat room where members could share ideas at any time and he suggested that it would be a good time to undertake some research to look at the state of communications across European universities. These were not new ideas, in fact they had been discussed for more than ten years, but even though the new president was talking about these as important initiatives which would support members. The members of the Steering Committee were not quite ready to take the plunge and move these ideas into action. Indeed, at the same meeting Christer Hjort's proposal that EUPRIO organise a seminar jointly with Lund University to look at “The Communicative University” did not attract much interest. Although EUPRIO did not get involved in the organisation of this seminar we did at least donate € 1,000 to support this event. By now Rolf was inundated with EUPRIO work and suggested that it was critically important that individual members of the Steering Committee take on more work themselves to support him

ARCHIVE AICUN

and EUPRIO as an organisation. Steering Committee members stepped forward. Marcel de Cleene volunteered to reestablish the lost links with France, whilst Finn Kjeruff Hansen agreed to become the link between EUPRIO and EU administrators. Wim Janssen continued to be responsible for the Web site and Tony Scott for producing the Bulletin. Alessandro Ciarlo and Peter Reader (the new secretary), agreed to take care of administrative and financial matters. But, despite this, Rolf continued to drown in work.

Above: Lecce, 2000. Paola Scioli, Alessandro Ciarlo and Victoria Ferreiro, during a round table chaired by Ray Footman. Below: a group picture at the same Conference.

hose who attended the annual conference in Lecce remember it as one of the friendliest and best organized conference in EUPRIO ’s history. The conference was co-promoted by AICUN, the Italian association of university communicators, and by the local University, whose head of communication was Antonio Lezzi. Antonio’s hard work ARCHIVE AICUN

MATTI SINISALO

A view of Rovaniemi, venue of the 13th Annual Conference.

and enthusiasm played a key part in the success of this conference. It opened at the City Hall with excellent seafood, incredible views, tons of pasta and most importantly lots of fine Italian hospitality. The theme was “Universities’ Communication – Torn between Academia and Business?” and was introduced by Edoardo Brioschi the president of AICUN. Over the four days participants discussed this topic during plenary sessions and a range of workshops which ranged from marketing to strategic thinking, from case studies to new technologies. We were fortunate to receive financial support from Regione Puglia which enabled us to publish all the abstracts. The 2001 Spring Steering Committee meeting took place in Dublin on 10th March. Members were delighted to hear that membership levels had risen to 251 and that France was back, not only with members but with Monique Mizart as their national representative. The committee voted for a small rise in membership fees from 55 to 60 Euros. A study on expenditure on communication and advertising across European universities was launched as a part of the “Future of EUPRIO” programme. Relationships with CASE were improving all the time and during a joint meeting representatives from CASE expressed how impressed they were by our conference

plans. During this meeting it was noted that, although the EUPRIO constitution stated that “membership is on individual basis”, in practice many institutions were paying fees for several individuals which actually penalised institutions who encouraged their staff to join our association. It was proposed to change the membership from an individual to an institutional basis but sadly no firm decision was taken and this issue would remain on the agenda for many years to come.

nother sparkling annual conference was celebrated during Rolf ’s presidency. Marja Sadaniemi and Irma Kuukusjärvi, with their teams, organized a packed conference in Rovaniemi with 194 participants from 24 countries. At this time the way of communicating could be expressed as in an Italian teleoperator’s advertisement slogan, as: “Parla. Wappa. Clicca”. Changing technologies and new ways of communicating were providing challenges for us all and universities were rapidly “going virtual” on global, national and regional levels. So, “The Challenge of Change” was chosen as the main theme for this conference. The keynote speeches, round table and workshops provided participants with ample opportunities to discuss the challenges they were facing.

uring 2002 Euprians flocked to the Iberian Peninsula. The Spring Steering Committee meeting took place in Aveiro on 15-16 March and the annual conference in Barcelona. For the meeting in Aveiro Ana Bela Martins prayed to all the Portuguese saints for a warm Spring welcome for members and organized a spectacular social programme for us in the streets of Aveiro. The atmosphere was so magical that members were able to work their way calmly through a mountainous agenda which included revising EUPRIO’s Constitution. Peter Reader, as secretary, was asked to review the Constitution and to prepare a proposal that would allow for both institutional and individual memberships. The new Constitution was approved. It gave more power to the Steering Committee and clearly set out the roles and responsibilities of the national representatives. This Constitution, de facto, remained for five years , but did not solve the main problem EUPRIO faced, how to gain professional and legal status. Rolf lamented the fact that the word “change” remained at odds the everyday

BLOGS.SAPIENS.CAT

A quote from Learning to be Circumpolar by Richard Langlais sums up this conference wonderfully: “We share a dream with many others of a circumpolar Arctic community. In that world, our neighbours are at least as much to the West and East of us as they are to the South, and it makes good sense to learn from each other about how to thrive in the lands of long winters and brilliant, intensive summers”. With the midnight sun, the wonderful countryside and the free spirit of Lapland the conference was opened on the 15th of June. Our hosts put together a fantastic social programme, with the highlight undoubtedly being the informal evening spent outdoors at a traditional reindeer farm. During the parallel Steering Committee meeting, Rolf Guggenbühl was re-elected president and Alessandro Ciarlo treasurer for a second year. Off the record, somebody commented that it was about time EUPRIO had an Italian president, as Italy was always first or second when it came to the number of members However, despite the title of the Conference, the Steering Committee decided not to embrace that particular change.

Barcelona, Casa de la Convalescéncia de l Antic Hospital de la Santa Creu, venue of the 14th Annual Conference.

realities of running EUPRIO. The trend towards electronic media was moving apace and members were increasingly coping with the challenges posed by working in a more competitive world. EUPRIO members believed that it was important for the association to gain professional and legal status but thought that this would be beyond the capabilities of EUPRIO at that time. However, the desire to achieve these never went away. The conference in Barcelona was brilliantly promoted through different media. Four newsletters were prepared to announce, launch and describe the programme and to sum up the results. The focus for this conference shifted to strategy and quality and the plenary sessions, workshops and round table provided

ample opportunities for participants to discuss communications from a much wider perspective. Speakers came from Mexico, Cuba and Canada, which gave a special international feel to the conference. It was definitely a huge, well-prepared and professional conference, thanks to Marc Permanyer and Victoria Ferreiro Serrano supervision. Barcelona will be remembered as both the most popular (260 participants) and the emptiest conference in EUPRIO’s history! Barcelona’s attractions proved far too tempting for many participants and a lot of the workshops were empty. On the bright side however EUPRIO’s membership had expanded to 312 members and the financial situation was healthy.

ARCHIVE EUPRIO

The Spirit of Barcelona is alive Most Polish people associate Barcelona with the 1992 Olympic Games, with artists Gaudí and Picasso, and as a lively seaport. The city streets have a lively spirit of their own. When I received a scholarship from the EUPRIO Steering Committee to attend this conference I felt like a lottery winner. I was to go to Barcelona to see how the best European universities create their policies to help them to be the latest centres of education and research; and to see how they make their mark and build their image. Four days for spying ! I must say that the conference s organizers helped me to meet the objectives I had set myself. They had prepared a very detailed programme of

A plenary session in Barcelona. lectures and meetings, from open-for-all panels and lectures to small task group meetings for specific topics. (…) The Conference programme followed a simple recipe: link the best topics to the best lecturers to provide great lessons in PR and communication. But the job of a good spy is not only listening to lectures, but also talking with other people. I had the opportunity to talk with many of the participants, mainly from my own region. As a result, I know we are in better situation than we were five years ago, when the first PR office was opened in our university.

We changed our thinking about universities, learnt the tools of modern day PR, and so built our mark which is recognized all over the world. But we still have much to do in this respect when compared to our Western colleagues. Events such as EUPRIO afford great opportunities to build professional relationships (even if you are a shy Pole meeting shy Finns). And we enjoyed the spirit of Barcelona at every step ‒ its music, dance, tolerance, art and the sea.

— Arthur Lompart Network Bulletin, March 2003.

JEAN-ETIENNE MINH-DUY POIRRIER

Durham, venue of the 15th Annual Conference: the University courtyard.

he last year of Rolf ’s presidency began in Oslo, with the Steering Committee meeting held on 22nd March 2003. Since Barcelona members of the Steering Committee had been the possibility of forming a strategic partnership with HEIST, a marketing services agency whose activities focused on higher education HEIST was particularly interested in obtaining support from EUPRIO to develop both its Education Marketing magazine and annual awards for Educational Marketing. After much debate members decided that EUPRIO should not sacrifice its independence and concerns were voiced that the HEIST magazine would eclipse the Network Bulletin. Members did discuss the possibility of a sponsorship deal but negotiations did not lead anywhere. Sadly the retirement of Tony Scott coincided with the last issue of EUPRIO’s Network Bulletin. During 2003 EUPRIO continued to provide support to the Baltic countries. A request was received to organize a “EUPRIO-badged” seminar in Riga in May for 20-30 participants from academies and universities across Latvia. The event was sponsored through the Bridge Fund. Durham was chosen as the venue of the 15th annual conference and was organised by a panel of UK universities, led by Nic Mitchell from Teesside University. This conference focused on how to effectively communicate a key message: Universities represent a valuable resource of skills and expertise which supports the economic and social regeneration of Europe. This issue was of particularly importance for those working in Universities based in

areas hit by the decline of traditional industries, such as coal, steel and shipbuilding who were seeking to build a strong knowledge-based economy. This Europe-wide issue was also closely linked to where the Bologna process was going in trying to implement the European Higher Education Area. The North East of England proved to be an excellent case study of a region seeking renewal. Some 200 people from 20 countries flocked to enchanting Durham for a rainy conference (an umbrella was most definitely needed and we found it in our Conference bag!). It wasn’t all rain, we did have some wonderful sunny spells which allowed participants to make the most of wonderful social events at Durham Castle, Hartlepool Historic Quay, the Centre for Life in Newcastle and the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead. The plenary sessions and seventeen workshops (a record) sketched a challenging landscape which would force us all to rethink the role universities should be playing in their local areas and how EUPRIO could be supporting them. Many participants told us later that they had successfully imported many of the models of working to their own universities and countries. At the gala reception dinner at the Centre for Life in Newcastle Rolf Guggenbühl handed over the presidency to Peter Reader from the UK. Peter had been elected in Barcelona the previous year. So, a new chapter was opening but Rolf remained involved and committed to EUPRIO and, when the new Charter was signed a few years later, he was appointed as a member of the Auditors’ Board.

GREAT YEARS WITH EUPRIO Time runs... ...and time also runs with EUPRIO. When Véronique Eloy asked me on the shores of Lago Maggiore in Stresa in September 2010 to contribute to the 25-year history of EUPRIO, a wave of memories struck my mind. I wondered where I should begin with my memoires and I ended up with a sheet of paper, full of notes, indicating happenings during my years with EUPRIO, starting in Berlin 1991 and ending in Malta 2004 after a good time with the “Euprians” from all over Europe. So let me dwell on these memories... Lecce ‒ Lecco ‒ Lucca It was the Italians’ turn to organize the annual conference in Y2K. And everything seemed to go well; at the Steering Committee our dear Italian colleagues came with the proposal to have the conference at Lecce, a place they described as very pleasant, charming, historically interesting and just waiting for Rolf Guggenbühl the chance to host such an important association as EUPRIO. There was practically no resistance to the plans and, as usual, everybody in the Steering Committee was happy to have someone happy and willing to organize the event. As President, it was my task to present the Italian plans to the Steering Committee and I did that with calmness, great pleasure and with a convincing tone in my speech because Lecce would really be a splendid place to go. When I was a boy, I learnt at school that Lecce was in Northern Italy, on the slopes of the Alps, near a beautiful lake and not far away from Switzerland. An excellent location also for Swiss colleagues to join the conference. So these convincing arguments helped to support the plans. To be truthful, I was absolutely astonished when my secretary got me an airplane ticket to go to the conference - in the very South of Italy. I had mixed up Lecce (near Brindisi and Bari), Lucca (Northern Tuscany) and Lecco, close to Switzerland. I had thought that Lecce was just across the Swiss border. It wasn’t. But it was a great conference! And, since then I know where Lecce, Lecco and Lucca are...

Beer in Amsterdam How do you organize a congress? This introductory lecture was given to me, when it was clear that I should take over the presidency of EUPRIO. The Executive Board met in Amsterdam on a cold January day to check and evaluate the proposal from the Dutch Section of EUPRIO to host the forthcoming conference in Rotterdam. Their suggestions about the hows and the whereabouts were very satisfying. Everybody seemed to be happy and the successful day finished with a nice meal which ended at about 9 o’clock. Then it was decided by the Irish, Scottish and Dutch members that there should be a final beer. No final beer, no conference. So we walked and looked for a pub. No pub. And we walked and we walked. And it was cold. Chillingly cold. We walked along the Grachten, the beautiful channels of Amsterdam, along the boats towed to the walls, through the cold Amsterdam air. Till we finally we found the pub. The conference could take place!

Nobel-Prizes I think it was in 1992, one year after Richard Ernst of ETH Zurich, my university, had won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The EUPRIO Conference took place in Stockholm. We visited the Nobel Prize Committee and its premises. I was still remembering what happened the year before. Our press office had some sort of reliable hint that Professor Ernst might be the next winner about one hour before the official announcement. We had to do a hell of a lot of work to prepare media releases and find ways to bring Ernst into the print and electronic media – not helped by Ernst being on an airplane somewhere between Moscow and New York and not in Zurich. So, in the lecture hall of the Nobel Prize Committee I complained very strongly about the way the Nobel Prize committee handles this information. The visit over, some Euprians told me that I had exaggerated and they would have loved to have my problems at their universities and to be overrun by the mass media in the same way I had been. At that time nobody knew that the Internet would change communications in such a radical way as it did. Today, you can expect, that four hours after the Nobel Prize announcement, nobody will bother the press office anymore, because all the information would be available via the Web.

ARCHIVE R. GUGGENBÜHL

Learning for presidents As president of EUPRIO you can learn a lot of things. You get to know a lot of friendly, communicative people, you learn that they all cook with water and you learn a lot about the European System of Higher Education. And you learn that money is the central discussion point everywhere. Or you learn that a change of the President/Rector may have a dramatic impact on the communication offices. Or you can learn how to behave when such changes take place. In addition, I also learned about the language of animals: a cow says “Moooh”, the horse says “Weeheehee”, the duck “Weeek”; in Rovaniemi, Finland, I learnt that rendeers say “Öööh”... and that Santa Claus is still alive and lives there.

Rolf Guggenbühl and Peter Reader, incoming and current president in 2003, enjoy the party at Hartlepool Historic Quay.

Does science sell? This topic has accompanied EUPRIO for several years. Quite clear: sex sells in the media. But science? It was never quite sure if this would be the case. The discussion was opened during the Stockholm conference by a Swedish lady, who asked everybody if it was wrong to give away the results of science practically for free. In the honourable University hall of Heidelberg that controversy was still going on. Since we have Internet, the question is still open â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but there might one day be a chance that some secret channels will only open if we pay for the excellent results our researchers put in front of the general public. Perhaps. Perhaps? No, probably not. Local politicians and science What struck me during all these years is the fact that whenever we had the opening ceremony of any conference, the local politician stressed the great importance of communication from the University to the general public and the crucial role played by the press and communication offices. We have never heard anything other than words of praise. To say the truth, no Euprian ever objected or pointed to the fact that most press offices experience major problems being accepted in the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s kingdom. Sheltered talks The EUPRIO conference is an excellent place for an isolated European University press officer to evaluate himself and to rate his / her personal work in the light what he / she hears from others in the same position somewhere else. Consequently the conference is always very well attended and the social events are just the background for talks, which, had they been held at home, could have been disastrous and eventually even end in a dismissal. But in the well-sheltered surroundings of the conference, everybody is equal and can find out and learn what he could do better next time. Just because the knowledge fundus of the Conference participants is very, very rich.

The best time The best time for the President is when the Conference is under way, when the opening ceremony with all the authorities is over and the professional discussions, working groups and lectures have started. The absolute highlight is certainly the conference picture, when he is in the middle of his crowd of friends. Then he can relax and enjoy the fruits of the long time of preparation of the programme. But even the so-called best time is not always without clouds: I remember cases of theft â&#x20AC;&#x201C; even in safe Zurich, a car accident, some unexpected health problems of participants. The bigger the congress, the greater the chance of accidents. One of the most memorable accidents happened in Vilnius: some friends went to the airport to find out that their flight was one day later. They had booked the wrong date to fly home...

ARCHIVE AICUN

Theme: Universities’ Communication: torn between Academia and Business? Venue: University of Lecce Participants: approximately 200 Opening speeches Rolf Guggenbühl President of EUPRIO Angelo Rizzo Rector, Università di Lecce, Italy Adriana Poli Bortone Mayor of Lecce Keynote speeches and round tables Universities’ communication: torn between Academia and Business or pulling them together? Edoardo Teodoro Brioschi President of AICUN Challenges facing Higher Education Luciano Guerzoni Italian Ministry of University and Scientific Research What lies in Universities’ future? Cooperation or competition? Luciano Modica President of Italian Universities Rectors Conference (CRUI) Ingeborg Christiensen Vice-President of EUPRIO Domenico Lenarduzzi Deputy Director, DG Education and Culture, European Commission Marketing the Universities, a sea change in communication? The view from different European perspectives Round table moderated by Ray Footman, past-president of EUPRIO, University of Edinburgh, UK

Changing task of information officers Kenneth Edwards President of CRE Rolf Guggenbühl President of EUPRIO Rosanna Santonocito Journalist, “Il Sole-24 Ore”

How to develop an enticing Web site Peter McKieman University College Dublin, Ireland

Workshops Marketing a University. A comprehensive approach from prospective students to employers Edoardo Teodoro Brioschi Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy Roberto Piovan Università di Firenze, Italy

Using Information Technologies, innovatively, to connect with prospective students and with Alumni Vito Coviello CILEA, Milano, Italy

Strategic thinking in University communication. The steps to take to be sure that what you do is really what your institution needs Alessandro Ciarlo Università Commerciale “L. Bocconi”, Milano, Italy

How to maintain a Web site once you have created one. Problems, responsibilities, how to get everybody involved Brunella Marchione Università di Parma, Italy

An example of affinity programme: Bocconi University Alumni Association Credit Card Lucrezia F. Cosentino Università Commerciale “L. Bocconi”, Milano, Italy

The University magazine: a useful dinosaur in the modern digital world Elmar Hein Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany

A successful example of merchandising programme Gianni Montemagno Università di Catania, Italy

How to communicate through pictures: information and emotions Federico Brunetti Politecnico di Milano, Italy

Establishing 21 pieces of art during 21 years as a major communication tool Wim Janssen How to organise an effective press office Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands Antonella Maraviglia

Università di Firenze, Italy

Student recruitment: what is likely to work and what is not Arne Abrahamsen Universitetet i Bergen, Norway

The growing role of advertising in Universities communication dealing with ad agencies Roberto Carcano Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy

Theme: The Challenge of Change Venue: Lapin yliopisto (University of Lapland), Rovaniemi, Finland Participants: 193 from 23 countries Opening speeches Rolf Guggenbühl President of EUPRIO Esko Riepula Rector, Lapin yliopisto, Finland Keynote speeches and round tables New technology, future and cultural values: challenge for society and university Sam Inkinen Vaasan yliopisto, Finland

What is the role of the PR and communication office in forming and implementing the strategic goals of the university? Round table chaired by Ingeborg Christensen Aarhus Universitet, Denmark

Improved status on the global market place through efficient press contacts Brigitte Fournier Noir sur Blanc, France International audits, a plague or a challenge? The role of the communications department Timo Niitemaa & Jaana Puukka Turun yliopisto, Finland Integrated office – from friendraising to corporate service – all under the umbrella of marketing and communications Tiina Laitinen Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulu, Finland From scenarios to reality. Strategic planning at Luleå University of Technology Eva Moe & Erik Höglund Luleå tekniska universitet, Sweden Making friends and influencing people: a crash course in crisis management Peter Slee & Keith Seacroft University of Durham, UK

JOHN KIRRIEMUIR

Workshops Virtual campuses. Future or just a temporary phantom? Is contemporary University in ruins or Albert Sangrá is the Renaissance of higher education Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain under way? Professor Tapio Varis Competition is getting harder. How to Tampereen yliopisto, Finland differentiate from competitors? Merja Lankionen Strategic approaches to the internal CIMO, Finland and external communication of universities Challenge and change start your own Elisa Juholin company and have your university as a Helsingin yliopisto, Finland client. A Dutch example. Veronica Gieben Organizational communication and 3G Communicatie, the Netherlands change management: incentives and strategies for Universities Developing and managing an online news service Pertti Hurme Jyväskylän yliopisto, Finland Peter Reader & Jonathan Cole, University of Southampton, UK @-environment for organizational communication: from sending Painting a student profile helps target information to telling stories future recruitment efforts Professor Pekka Aula Lisbeth Wester Leandersson Helsingin yliopisto, Finland & Leif Bryngfors

Lund universitet, Sweden

Part of the campus of the University of Lapland, in the Finnish city of Rovaniemi.

ARCHIVE EUPRIO

T h em e : University Communication: a Strategy to Achieve Quality. Ven u e : Barcelona, Casa de Convalescéncia P a r ti c i p a n t s : 260 from 25 countries L a n g u a g e s: Spanish and English O p en i ng s pe ec he s Rolf Guggenbühl President of EUPRIO Lluís Ferrer Rector, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona Marc Permanyer President of the Organizing Committee of Barcelona 2002 Andreu Mas-Colell Generalitat de Catalunya Keyn o t e s p ee ch es an d r o u n d t a bl es L a co m u n i c ac i ó n co m o i n s t ru m en to pa r a a l ca nz ar l a c al i d ad Ulrich Sander Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey, México I n d i c a do r e s d e c a l i d a d d e l a U n i ve r si d ad Joan Cortadellas Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya, Spain L a U n i ve rs i d a d d e c al i d ad . E l p u n t o de vi s t a d e l os ag en t s l o ca l es Gemma Rauret Agencia per a la Qualitat del Sistema Universitari a Catalunya, Spain Ramon Ollé President ejecutivo, EPSON Europa y EPSON Ibérica, Spain Carlos Arroyo Periodista, Instituto Universitario de Posgrado, Spain

Salvador Cardús Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain Mesa redonda moderada para Carles Targa, Universitat Ramon Llull, Spain

Susan Bloch-Nevitte University of Toronto, Canada

M an ag i n g i n s ti t u ti o n a l ch an g e t ow a r d s ex ce l l en ce Alberto Jorge Acosta Universidade de Matanzas, Cuba

Luis Ángel Fernández Hermana Journalist, en.red.ando, Spain

T h e r o l e o f i n t e r n a l c o m m u n ic a t i o n fo r u n d er s ta n d i n g c h a n g e a n d fo r p e o p l e ’ s i nv o l v e m e n t Susan Bloch-Nevitte University of Toronto, Canada T h e U n i ve r si t y p o rt a l . S t r at e gi e s in a g l o b a l ma r k e t. T h e U n i v e r s i a c a s e Andrés Pedreño Universia.net, Spain To c o m m u n i ca t e, t o t ra i n a n d t o l e a rn i n a g l o b al w o r l d . T h e n ew c h a l l en g es of t he uni ve r si t y Gabriel Ferraté Rector, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Wo r k s h o p s C o mm u n i c a t i o n a n d t h e c r e a t i o n o f d i s t i n c ti ve va l u e s Ramön Guardia Chairman, Valores & Márketing, Spain To w ar d s t h e g l o b a l i sa ti o n o f t h e r br a nd Peter Reader University of Southampton, UK M an ag i n g ri s k c o m m u n i ca t i o n a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n b r e a k do w n s Miguel López-Quesada Weber Shandwick Ibérica, Spain

C o m p et i t i ve M ar k e t i n g

T h e s o c i a l c o m mu n i c a t i o n o f s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o gy

T h e sc i e n t i fi c co m mu n i c at i o n o b se rv a to ry : a b r i d g e b et w e en sc i en ce an d s oc i et y Raimundo Roberts Biomedia Scientific Communication Observatory, Pompeu Fabra University, Spain A ch i ev i n g Q u a l i t y i n c o r p o r at e p u bl i c a t i o n s Ray Footman University of Edinburgh, UK O n e b i g h ap p y f am i l y. S t r at e gi c i n t er n al c o m m u n i ca ti o n s Eleanor Harwood & Keith Seacroft University of Durham, UK F un dr a i si n g as w a y of ext r a i nc om e fo r S p an i sh u n i ve r si t i e s Ricard Valls Spanish Fundraising Association, Spain S t r at eg i c p l an n i n g a s a m o d e l fo r m an ag i n g th e c h a n g e an d fo r i m p r ov i n g t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n a t u n i ve r si t i e s Alberto Jorge Acosta University of Matanzas, Cuba

MARTIN BROOKS

Theme: Universities and their Regions. The communication challenge for the 21st century Venue: University of Durham Participants: 184 from 22 countries Opening speeches Sir Kenneth Calman Vice-Chancellor of University of Durham John Bridge Chair of NorthEast Keith Seacroft Head of PR, University of Durham Plenary sessions The regional role of the universities: Communication issues Professor John Goddard Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Universities and regions: The European Parliament perspective Barbara O’Toole Member of the European Parliament for North East England, UK Toward a vision for higher education for the 21st century Sir Howard Newby Chief Executive, Higher Education Funding Council for England, UK NHSU: A new kind of corporate university Professor Bob Fryer Chief Executive of the National Health Service University, UK Universities at the heart of the North East of England’s economy Phil Shakeshaft Head of Strategy, One NorthEast, UK Workshops Developing an Alumni Communications Strategy Adrian Beney Deputy Director of development and Alumni Relations, University of Durham, UK

10 Years of University Communication Development: the case history of Italy Paola Claudia Scioli Centennial Coordinator, Università Bocconi, Milano, Italy Alessandro Ciarlo Co-Director Bocconi Comunicazione, Università Bocconi, Milano, Italy

The Durham Cathedral. Zoe Whitby Director, HEIST, UK Step by step – Widening participation in a welfare system Kristine Lyngbø Ingeniørhøjskolen Odense Teknikum, Denmark Getting to Grips with your Audiences: Re-Branding the University and refocusing the Marketing message Sean Figgis Head of PR and Communication, Northumbria University, UK Chris Watts Head of marketing, Northumbria University, UK Meteor Project Pat White Assistant Director, Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Teesside, UK Creating a Public Face for the European Research Area Peter Green AlphaGalileo Foundation, UK

Northumbria University, UK How are we doing? Evaluation and benchmarking of communications Olle Alexandersson Senior consultant Strategic Communication, The Communcative University Forum and ARC AB Arne Abrahamsen Communications Adviser, Argument, Bergen, Norway Christer Hjort Former Head of Information, Lund University, Sweden Technology can make a difference Janice Webster Chief Executive, Virtual Reality Centre at Teesside Limited, UK Media and the Region Ged Henderson Editor, The Journal, Newcastle, UK

Slime, spacemen and frozen bananas Sue Reece Head of Student Recruitment and Admissions, University of Sunderland, UK Alison Steel The Stockholm universities and the regional program for economic growth Head of Corporate Affairs, University of Sunderland, UK Michel Wlodarczyk & Maud Bergman Stockholms Akademiska Forum, Sweden

Making the Web Work: Managing the University’s Web Presence Benchmarking your marketing practise Sean Figgis Dave Roberts Head of PR and Communication, Chief Executive, HEIST, UK Northumbria University, UK Nigel Bradley Trends and Good Practise in UK Web Development Manager, Higher Education Websites

Peter Reader University of Bath United Kingdom

2003 2005

ÖZER ÖZBEY

La Valletta, 2004, venue of the 16th Conference. The Lighthouse on the harbour.

eter Reader’s presidency, as he describes it in the “President’s Word”, was troubled by many circumstances. He changed job, moving from the University of Southampton to Bath just six months after stepping in as president. Management methods needed updating to cope with the changing higher education landscape. The conference at Malta, though attractive, did not magnetize enough participants and membership levels had fallen again. However, the major problem EUPRIO was facing came to the fore again: the president was overwhelmed with work and an association run by volunteers began to show its limitations; but this would continue to be a problem for EUPRIO’s presidents.

Let’s not be too gloomy though. There were great things happening as well during Peter’s presidency. Firstly we must mention the conference in Krems, Austria in 2005. This was probably one of the best of the decade and provided participants with an excellent programme delivered by first rate speakers. Secondly we launched the updated EUPRIO Web site which finally incorporated the much talked about discussion forum.

t the Steering Committee meeting held in Graz on 20th March 2004, hosted by Christian Reiser, the future of EUPRIO was again debated at length. Challenges included how to strengthen the membership base, provide more comprehensive services to members that went beyond an annual conference and market EUPRIO to a more diverse audience. Helge Kjøllesdal

he conference at the University of Malta (2-5 September) was not as bad as many veterans tend to describe. The main reason why the number of participants (130) was so low was the high cost of accommodation which was due to the conference being held during the high season in Malta. The conference was well organised, people were delighted with the social programme and there were no major problems. The general theme was focused and stimulating; “Communicating across cultures” and could well have been a keynote presenting EUPRIO’s vision for the future. The venue was wonderful. Unfortunately the speeches and the workshops were locally oriented and a couple of speakers were probably delivering a speech for the first time in their life. This was EUPRIO’s fault and we learnt a lesson in time for Krems – do not leave the entire organisation of an annual conference to a local team. Patricia Camilleri did her best but other members of EUPRIO did not support her to find a wider range of speakers. This issue was debated at length during the next Steering Committee meeting in Bath on 23rd April 2005. After the Malta conference a task force was set up with the remit of supporting the local organizing team and providing quality control of the contents to ensure that they would be

relevant to all members. It was decided that for the workshops, value would be added by having presenters from at least eight different countries. The Bridge Fund continued to enable EUPRIO to offer a 50% discount to delegates from emerging countries and even with this commitment the overall balance was still increasing (a balance of € 102,000). Whilst it could be argued that EUPRIO was in a very healthy financial situation, it could also be stressed that having such a large balance was not a good sign, that it clearly highlighted the lack of investment being made for the future. Worse still membership levels had mysteriously crashed down to 240 people. Relationships with other organizations were at a standstill, except from some exchange of correspondence with CASE, whose activities we kept a close eye on.

he conference at Krems was a highlight of Peter’s presidency and also gave us another great president in EUPRIO’s history. Though Durham would be used as an example of an excellent conference for many years, Krems was the first conference where the programme moved away from looking at communications from regional and local angles to concentrating on looking at a key issue from a much wider perspective. This was achieved by including speakers from sectors other than higher education. ALESSANDRO CIARLO

summed up these new challenges for with the slogan “Build capacity, competences and networking”. But something didn’t quite work and history shows us that these discussions, as important as they were, were not sufficiently supported by either a true strategic vision or by enough people volunteering to support their achievement. A proposal was accepted to change how the Bridge Fund was used. It was established that this fund, which was curiously growing like the overall balance, would also support the development of workshops akin to the one held in Riga the previous year. Whilst no seminar was organized, a limited number of scholarships were offered to support attendance at the conference. Steering Group members were delighted that Lithuania and Poland were able to reach the minimum number of five members to allow them to nominate national representatives to join the Steering Committee. EUPRIO

Below: Austria, 2005. Gabriele Pfeifer welcomes the participants on the boat gliding across the Wachau valley during the 17th Annual Conference.

Some words that had previously been “taboo” in universities started to appear in the titles of workshops: branding for universities; lobbying as a communication tool; marketing of higher education; managing corporate channels; campaigning for lifelong learning; the importance of benchmarking. Every sector of higher education communications was examined from different standpoints and the best practices across Europe were presented. The majestic landscape and the outstanding social programme (but let’s

say that EUPRIO has always been famous in this respect) were memorable; Judith Bauer and Gisela Gruber got many rounds of applause. The boat trip on the Danube following the Wachau valley, the gala reception dinner at Schloss Grafenegg, where Peter Reader concluded his s presidency provided the cherries for the top of the cake. The 175 participants congratulated Peter Van Dam as they elected him President for 2005-07. At that time he could not know what the fate had in store for him.

aving previously been the Secretary of EUPRIO, and also having been heavily involved in organising the very successful conference held in Durham, England, in September 2003, becoming president should not have been a shock for me. But it was. Why? Because running an international organisation on a few hours a week stolen, in effect, either from “the day job” or from personal time is a huge challenge. In two years, there were to be two conferences and four Steering Committee meetings, all in different locations, with endless correspondence and emails to answer. And always a nagging doubt that I could do more, if only there was the time. But no support and no secretariat. Nor any funds to pay for this support. It probably didn’t help either that I changed job, moving from one university to another, just six months into my two years as president. The inheritance from Rolf Guggenbühl was, well, interesting. We all have our own ways of doing things; let’s just say Rolf had his own particular way. And, as Rolf had been president for four years, the way Rolf did things Peter Reader had become the norm for EUPRIO. Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t a criticism – I’m well aware of the huge amount of time Rolf so generously gave to EUPRIO – but it did mean that any change was always going to be difficult.

t was inevitable then that my term of office would start with consideration of the future direction for EUPRIO. At the first meeting of the Steering Committee I chaired as president, in Graz in Austria, we reflected not only on our past achievements, particularly on a succession of successful conferences, but also on the limitations of an organisation run entirely by volunteers. There was a dilemma: the employment of professional staff would change the organisation, yet not to employ such staff ran the risk of EUPRIO being marginalised, as a club for those “in the know”. Was there a middle course, perhaps? From this discussion came the impetus to widen the membership and, once achieved, to develop more services and to become more professional. The acknowledged risk was that without doing so EUPRIO would be no more than an annual conference.

So, change just had to happen. And, on reflection, I am pleased about the changes we made whilst I was president as they helped EUPRIO to become a stronger organisation. One change was setting up the conference Task Group. We did not realise until too late that the programme for the 2004 conference in Malta, the first of my conferences as president, had too much of a local focus. No-one should fault the team from Malta; they had not been given enough support and help by EUPRIO itself. But many members voted against the conference in the simplest possible way, by not attending. Okay, the distance between Malta and from where most of the then members came, Scandinavia and northern Europe, didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t help either. But, with around 130 delegates only, Malta is still one of the smallest EUPRIO conferences ever held.

ALESSANDRO CIARLO

lesson was learnt, my second and last conference as president, was in Krems, Austria. Planning for this conference had started as early as 2003, and showed through in much greater attention to the quality of the programme than in previous years, with some outstanding speakers. Considerable added value came too from the workshop presenters, with contributors coming from eight countries, making it a truly European conference. The Task Group also had far greater input into the programme for the Vilnius conference, being planned for 2006. The same danger of a relatively remote location existed as for Malta. But Nic Mitchell and Lars Holberg were heavily involved. They visited Vilnius, met key supporters like the Deputy ViceChancellor and the Deputy Mayor, gained university and civic support, and shaped the â&#x20AC;&#x153;academicâ&#x20AC;? programme. In fact, things only changed when things moved from a conference in X or Y organised by X or Y to a EUPRIO conference organised by EUPRIO. But it is for my successor to report on the conference itself.

Malta, 2004. The welcome of the musicians at the gala reception at Castello Zamitello in Mgarr.

PAOLO POMATI

Above: Krems-an-derDonau, 2005. A cruise on the Danube. In the foreground Véronique Éloy, Marcel de Cleene and Anders Frølund.

100

Another change was in communication. But here it was one step forward and one step back. Tony Scott, the long serving editor of EUPRIO’s printed Network Bulletin stood down, and retired too, with the final edition of the Network Bulletin being published in January 2004. With Tony’s retirement, the Network Bulletin ceased publication. This was EUPRIO’s only printed publication and it was not until late in 2005 that the absence of any printed material was remedied. In its place, EUPRIO turned to e-communication, with mixed success. The Web site was developed by Cynthia Mars, who, as editor-in-chief, had managed the Web site since May 2003, and by Peter Van Dam. The new site went live in December 2003 providing much richer content than previously, with both open access and members-only sections. As President, I also experimented with writing, usually monthly, an e-bulletin distributed initially to Steering Committee members, for onward distribution. This was less successful than the Web site, with Steering Committee members not always having the time to add local content or to distribute to their national members.

rowing EUPRIO and having more members was a recurring issue throughout my two years as president. Again, a dilemma; we needed to grow the membership but we had no-one who could concentrate on this work. Membership had been falling from a peak in 2002 but the tide was turning. Not only did the number of members begin to grow, but with the help of the Bridge Fund, more members were attracted from Eastern Europe. Bridge Fund scholarships continued to be offered, through the sterling work of Lars Holberg, with scholarships being offered to PR staff from universities in a growing number of countries. This sowed the seeds for the growth in membership in the years after my term of office as president. Indeed, at my last Steering Committee meeting in September 2005, it was noted the number of members from Poland had exceeded the threshold then set in EUPRIO’s constitution for nomination of a member of the Steering Committee. Yet when I had taken over as president, there were no members at all from that country. They say an organisation is only as good as its membership; how true. So what do I remember most about my time as president? Of course, the professional knowledge I gained was unrivalled. Nowhere other than through EUPRIO could I learn so much in such a short time, and from first-hand experience too, about communication and PR issues in European universities. EUPRIO benefits too from the hard work of its Steering Committee members; thanks to all. I also remember the social side – Euprians sure know how to party – but above all it was the friendships, some very special, I will always treasure.

Theme: Communicating Across Cultures Venue: University of Malta Number of participants: 130 from 20 countries. Opening speeches Roger Ellul-Micallef Rector of the University of Malta Louis Gales Minister of Education, Malta Plenary sessions Communicating Europe: Common Values Across Cultures Charis Xirouchakis Responsible for Public Relations, Council of Europe The search for a common ground in European Higher Education César Álvarez-Alonso Executive Secretary, Santander Group Secretariat, Spain Anti-racism advertising: what does it take? Biljana Scott University of Oxford , UK Communicating in two cultures: The Franco-German University, a university without wallsand two countries as a joint campus Ulrike Reimann Deutsch-Französische Hochschule

Theme: Integrated Communication – Fact or Fiction? Venue: Donau-Universität Krems Number of participants: 176 from 20 countries Welcome speech Ada Pellert Vice-Rector, Danube University of Krems Plenary sessions Integrated Communication – an Overview Karin Kirchner General Motors, Zurich, Switzerland PR and Marketing: Brothers in aims? Dejan Vercic University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Markus Langer CHE Center for Higher Education Development, Gütersloh, Germany A Vision of University Communication Inga Persson ONPACT, Munich, Germany Workshops The Secret of Emotional Connections. Branding for Universities Peter Baumgartner Siemens Austria, Vienna, Austria Getting Support and Finding Strong Friends. Lobbying as a Communication Tool

The role of jokes in transcultural academic administration: Towards a Quality Audit Peter Serracino Inglott Former Rector of the University of Malta, Malta's representative at the Convention of Europe The infl flu uence of national culture on strategic public relations: The Malta Experience Laura Mifsud Bonnici Communications Coordinator for the Minister for the Family and Social Solidarity, Malta Workshops Public Discussion of 'Diffi fic cult' Scientifi fic c Topics Rolf Guggenbühl Public Relations Officer at ETH, Zurich A European Public Relations Dimension: the E.B.O.K. experience Carmel Bonello PR Manager, BPC Advertising Communicating in two cultures – universities without walls Ulrike Reimann Deutsch-Französische Hochschule Alessandra Saletti Università di Trento, Italy

Thomas Hofer Kovar & Köpple Public Affairs Consulting, Vienna, Austria Do's and Dont's for Advanced. What Journalists Really do Expect Jan-Martin Wiarda Die Zeit, Hamburg, Germany The Challenge of Integrated Communication. A Case Study from Finland Jorma Laakkonen University of Helsinki, Finland From Strategy to Implementation. PR Concept Development Nicola Stanisch Interbrand, Zurich, Switzerland From Theory to Practice. Managing Integrated Communication Karin Kirchner General Motors, Zurich, Switzerland Marketing of Higher Education. A Dutch Approach Paul Schott NUFFIC, the Netherlands Academic Education for Sale? Tuition Fees: A European Comparison Nic Mitchell University of Teesside, UK Josef König Rühr-Universität Bochum, Germany

The infl flu uence of national culture on strategic public relations. The Malta experience Laura Mifsud Bonnici Communications Coordinator for the Minister for the Family and Social Solidarity, Malta Mary Anne Lauri Lecturer in Social Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of Malta The Power of the BBC (Branding, Benchmarking and the Competitive edge) Peter Slee & Sean Figgis Northumbria University, UK Controversy, Communications and Cambridge Susannah Baker & Nick Champion University of Cambridge, UK Designing web sites for maximum impact Chris Harris Executive Director, HERO, UK The importance of institutional branding and the role of a house style Jolanda van den Broek Head office of Public and External Affairs, Tilburg University, the Netherlands

Getting Prepared for the Worst Case Scenario. An Introduction into Crisis Communication Peter Reader University of Bath, UK Campaigning for Lifelong Learning. The Danube University Krems – A European Pilot Project Gisela Gruber Donau-Universität Krems, Austria How to Get that Good? Rising Importance of Benchmarking for Universities Markus Langer CHE Center for Higher Education Development, Gütersloh, Germany Messages from the Command Bridge? Guidelines for University Spokespersons Peter Van Dam TU-Eindhoven, the Netherlands The Counselling Fair. A Case History of an Integrated Campaign of Counselling and Communication Paolo Pomati Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli, Italy Promoting Research Excellence by TV. A Success Story from Great Britain Ian Rowley University of Warwick, UK Kevin Johnson Research-TV, UK

101

Judith Bauer

Peter Baumgartner

Gisela Gruber

Thomas Hofer

Kevin Johnson

Karin Kirchner

Jorma Laakkonen

M. Langer & D. Vercic

J. Kรถnig & N. Mitchell

Ada Pellert

Inga Persson

Paolo Pomati

Peter Reader

Christian Reiser

Paul Schott

Peter van Dam

Jan-Martin Wiarda

102

CREDITS: DANUBE UNIVERSITY KREMS.

Nicola Stanisch

Peter Van Dam

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven The Netherlands

Karin Carlsson Uppsala Universitet Sweden

2005 2008

LEONARDO D’AMICO

N 104

either saints nor martyrs: it was an intriguing comment about university communicators made by the author of this chapter during the conference in Stresa, 2010. If we went back through the list of EUPRIO presidents, as historians do with emperors, kings, popes and bishops, we surely couldn’t resist the temptation to envision Peter Van Dam with a little halo over his head, if not a saint, at least very near to. As an academic working in a scientific university (Technische Universiteit Eindhoven), Peter ferried EUPRIO across the eras. He chaired EUPRIO for three years, looking after an association, somewhat tied to the past, yet looking forward to professionalization and reorganization. The first two years went smoothly but the third year was more problematic, but more about that later. Peter sailed through his presidency, never raising his voice and steadfastly ploughing

his way through mountains of paperwork. He replied to each and every email he was sent; so neither a saint nor a martyr but certainly a gentleman.

eter was installed as president during the farewell party in Krems and his first task was to chair the Spring Steering Committee meeting in one of the most iconic cities in the world, Paris. No other meeting had been held in such a spectacular venue and even now, glancing at the programme, one can remember the “live and let live” atmosphere that the capital of France exudes. Members were welcomed and worked at ParisTech Grignon in the 5e arrondissement, stayed in a boutique hotel near the Luxembourg Gardens, lunched in the Rue Mouffetard, dined in a “dauphinois” restaurant. The social programme included a trip by bateaumouche from Place de l’Alma and an informal dinner at the organiser’s home, just three steps away from the Sacré-Coeur Basilica at Montmartre.

Monique Mizart, the French national representative, who could speak a dozen of languages fluently, certainly lived up to her reputation as an outstanding host and managed to transform a heavy agenda into a light and achievable programme. Jacob Jensen, the new secretary, kept such excellent minutes that we can still go back and understand what was happening for EUPRIO at that time. EUPRIO was facing a problem with membership levels which had dropped for no apparent reason. Many European countries were still either not represented or represented poorly. Collecting membership fees was a big problem and it appeared that many people were just registering their name on the Web site without paying the fees. It was stressed again that the national representatives must take responsibility for collecting the fees and transferring the money to the treasurer within the deadline set. It was hoped that setting tighter deadlines would solve the problem of the Web site stating that there were 400 members and the bank account showing fees received from less than 200. It was also decided that fees would need to rise from € 60 per year to € 90 and that this would be done gradually, € 75 in 2008 and € 90 in 2009. This was not a decision that members took lightly and was only taken after protracted and sometimes heated arguments.

he president proposed that a new working group should be created to specifically come up with ideas for some new EUPRIO initiatives. Ingeborg Dirdal, Uwe Steger, Karin Carlsson volunteered to participate and Andrea Costa was invited to join. The working group created a forum online where they could discuss ideas with other members and present a list of initiatives. Plans to develop new initiatives were further developed during the Steering Committee meeting which took place in Vilnius just before the start of the annual Conference. Karin Carlsson presented a working paper looking at how to better define what the nature of EUPRIO ’s business should be. It was clear that EUPRIO served all Europe and should be more concerned with major issues facing European universities such as how to raise funds and how to increase student mobility and Europe. The ideas from the working group included formalising the

two task groups (Conferences and New Initiatives) and providing them with a budget to support their activities. It was recognised that, to more tangible products needed to be offered to members such as exclusive surveys on key relevant topics and enhancing the Web site. Costs for these initiatives were estimated between € 15,000 to € 40,000 and it was decided to finance these through raising membership fees, obtaining support from participating universities, using EUPRIO capital and getting EU support. These proposals resulted in a lot of comments and, after taking note of them, the president decided on three things, that: • EUPRIO should remain an informal volunteer-led network for communication professionals working in or for European higher education institutions; • the main mission should be to stimulate the professional development of its members and to encourage them to exchange knowledge and experiences with each other; • the two task groups would be formalised. Ulrike Reimann was appointed as chair of the Conference group and Karin Carlsson as chair of the New Initiatives group. The latter was to continue its work on updating the mission and vision for EUPRIO and preparing a survey on a relevant professional issue which would be presented at the 2009 Conference. € 50,000 from the capital was allocated. History tells us that this should have led to a transformation for EUPRIO but perhaps too little money was spent. At the end of the meeting Karin Carlsson was elected vice-president of EUPRIO with a view to her succeeding Peter Van Dam in 2007.

ilnius University, the oldest university in the Baltic states and, founded in 1579, one the oldest in North Eastern Europe was the venue for the 18th Conference in 2006. Nijolė Bulotaitė, Edita Kirlytė and their teams were complimented by delegates for their outstanding organisational skills. Due to some sponsorship the team had obtained this conference made a healthy profit. After a guided walk through the old town 174 participants from 21 countries were welcomed by the Rector of the University and by the Mayor of Vilnius.

105

In the previous page: Stresa, 2007. Peter Van Dam welcomes the members of the Steering Committee. From left to right: Paola Scioli, Anne Fuynel and Pasquale Mastrodomenico, head of administration of University of Piemonte Orientale.

LEONARDO D’AMICO

106

Grenoble, 2007. Lunch at the Congress Centre during the 19th Annual Conference.

The Conference programme was quite traditional: a welcome speech, four plenary sessions, a panel of sixteen workshops around the central theme of, “Communications in a changing Europe: the implications for higher education Public Relations”. One of the plenary sessions was turned into a lectio magistralis from Marcel De Cleene, from Ghent University, one of the veterans of the Steering Committee, who was going to retire. Out of interest Marcel was probably the only person who retained all EUPRIO’s documents from 1990 and without his personal thanks to his spontaneous archive this book would never have been written. The highlight of the social programme was undoubtedly dinner at Trakai Castle which is set on an island on Lake Galvė and dates back to the 15th century. Trakai Castle is one of the main centres of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Fish directly roasted on spits, rivers of wine and beer made the rather windy evening not only very comfortable but also unforgettable. The next Steering Committee meeting took place in the little town of Vercelli, North-Western Italy, place of the young, competitive University of Piemonte Orientale, on 31st March 2007. Paola Scioli and I intended to showcase this area to the members of the Committee, so we could put Stresa forward as the venue for the 2010 conference. Once again the

beauty of the landscape with the wonderful lakes and mountains helped “lighten the load”. The collection of membership fees was still problematic and Paola Scioli was lamenting that many countries were incredibly late with payments with some having not transferred fees from 2006, The discrepancy between members listed on the Web site and fees collected was still enormous. Peter Van Dam exercised all his virtues (patience, calmness, à plomb) to convince some rather reluctant national representatives that they should behave in a more responsible way; and the Piedmont wine and the gran fritto misto brought everybody together at the end. Since the last Steering Group meeting the New Initiatives group had held three constructive meetings. Karin Carlsson explained that they had decided that the first step should be to send out a questionnaire to all members to find out what benefits they wanted from their membership of EUPRIO. The group had also decided to undertake a benchmark study which would run parallel to the survey and would be undertaken by a professional company at a cost of € 20,000. Beautifully situated on the Drac and Isère rivers and surrounded by mountains, lively Grenoble hosted the 19th conference. It was intended to be a Franco-Swiss

arin Carlsson’s is the shortest presidency in the history of EUPRIO; it lasted only eight months and the only event that she chaired was the Steering Committee meeting in Cordoba on 16th February 2008, which will sadly be remembered as a disaster. Yet everything started out so positively. The New Initiatives task force, which Arwin Nimis and Jorma Laakkonen had since joined, had been working hard and put forward five proposals looking at the future development of EUPRIO: enabling the Executive Board to work more proactively and efficiently; developing a new Web site, ensuring that EUPRIO’s activities are better targeted to members’ jobs by segmenting them according to function; further enabling members to be able to exchange skills and experience; systematically repeating the membership survey to ensure that members had a regular forum to air their views. It was hoped that this clear view of where EUPRIO was headed would ensure that Karin’s time as president would prove fruitful.

The chink in the armour proved to be the candidacy of the future president of EUPRIO. Karin, without consulting the Executive Board, suddenly introduced two candidates, one from the South of Europe (Paolo Pomati) and one from the North (Jorma Laakkonen), emphasising that both candidates were excellent. After asking Paolo and Jorma to leave the room Karin asked the committee to come to a decision. Anna-Maria Raudaskoski, who was now secretary, reports in the minutes that this break with procedure prompted a great deal of criticism and that members were unhappy that the Executive Board had not been involved or consulted. Out of respect for the two candidates members felt that they needed to take a decision there and then. Peter Van Dam proposed that members voted for the Italian candidate because it would be the first time in EUPRIO’s history that a president had come from Southern Europe. Peter also proposed to change the byelaws to enable the Finnish candidate to join the Executive Board as an extra member. After a somewhat confusing discussion, Karin Carlsson decided in the end not to go ahead with voting and postponed the elections. Karin was probably disappointed that members had expressed unhappiness at her break from the usual procedure and neither the outstanding social programme which had been LEONARDO D’AMICO

event, but then it was decided to leave the organisation to the French. Anne Fuynel, Mary Zaccai and Monique Mizart convinced everybody that the venue was worth a visit, by welcoming the participants with a mouthwatering buffet of wines and cheese. The charismatic Rector of Grenoble École de Management, Thierry Grange, opened the Conference and then stayed and participated in the plenary sessions and workshops. Ulrike Reimann and the task force had prepared sessions on ranging from political institutions, the business community, young minds and future scientists and the media. Members of the Steering Committee were appointed as session moderators (Jorma Laakkonen, Karin Carlsson, Nic Mitchell and Paolo Pomati). 14 workshops provided the 176 participants from 22 countries with the opportunity to learn about best practices and innovative techniques. The social programme included a dinner at the Museum of Art and the gala dinner was held the city’s Bastille with wonderful views of Mont Blanc. At the end of the dinner Peter Van Dam handed over the chair of the association to Karin Carlsson. He appeared somewhat relieved and happy, but he didn’t know what was about to happen.

Grenoble, 2007. Karin Carlsson takes the presidency from Peter Van Dam s hands

107

STEFANO BODA

Above: Stavanger, 2008. The new Executive Board after the election. From right to left: Ingeborg Dirdal (Webmaster), Paola Scioli (treasurer), Arwin Nimis (vice-president), Paolo Pomati (president) and Anna-Maria Raudaskoski (secretary) at the National Petroleum Museum.

108

prepared by Carlos Miraz Suberviola and Victoria Ferreiro Serrano nor the warm weather could break the chilly atmosphere. One week later members received Karin’s resignation by email. Karin’s resignation was probably not only prompted by the outcome of the Cordoba meeting. She was also due to retire from the University before the end of her term as president and was aware that the president of EUPRIO needed to be actively working in higher education. This was a pity, because Karin could have gone on to be a good president but history, alas, cannot deal with “ifs” and “buts”. An incontrovertible fact was that Peter Van Dam, in light of his sterling work as both president and vice-president was called back in again to chair the association and try to resolve difficult issues in time for the conference in Stavanger. With the support of Nic Mitchell, Anne Fuynel and Ulrike Reimann the large from Stavanger University led by Ingeborg Dirdal, Anne Selnes, Hege

Skjelbred-Knudsen prepared an interesting programme focusing on “Challenges and solutions: communication strategies for the future”. As Stavanger was the European Capital of Culture in 2008, the Mayor offered to host the welcome reception at the National Petroleum Museum and the town provided a wealth of cultural activities for guests. Mary Miller, director of Events for Stavanger Capital of Culture, delivered the opening speech which looked at issues around culture and the role of universities. A series of plenaries on student recruitment, research and internal communication were followed by workshops. The midnight sun of Norway heralded a new beginning of a new chapter for EUPRIO. During the Steering Committee meeting Paolo Pomati presented his vision and strategy for the future of EUPRIO and was unanimously elected as new president. Paolo was installed at the end of the conference by Peter Van Dam, EUPRIO’s Guardian Angel.

NINETEEN YEARS IN EUPRIO! In the past nineteen years EUPRIO and its members have certainly conquered my heart. I also have warm memories about the eighteen conferences (especially the social programmes) that I have attended since my first conference in Granada in 1992. I hope you will forgive me for singling out one conference, but the conference in Rotterdam in 1996 holds a special place in my heart, perhaps because I was a member of the organising team led by our host, Frank Munnichs of the Erasmus University. I have only missed one conference, regretfully the one in Lecce in 2000. From operational to strategic Over the years I have learned a lot from more experienced colleagues who were also willing to share their expertise and experiences with me. This was especially true for the first ten years of my membership of EUPRIO. The networks I made and the knowledge I gained gave me more confidence to meet the demands of a demanding job as communications manager at the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands. Somewhere along the way I began to notice that I had become “the more experienced colleague” and that I was having interesting discussions with well educated young colleagues who brought with them new ideas. At the same time new media was emerging and university communications and marketing were becoming more professional and more strategic. We can see the development mirrored very clearly in the changing themes of successive conferences which had gradually shifted from the operational to the more strategic. Indeed many university communication managers are now respected advisers and members of academic boards. This change is more than I could ever have dreamt of when I started as a university communications manager in Eindhoven in 1989. Third Dutch President In March 2001 I had the honour of being invited to become the National Representative for the Netherlands within EUPRIO, succeeding Adriana Esmeijer. My first Steering Committee meeting was on June 14th, 2001 in Rovaniemi when Rolf Guggenbühl was president. Since that time I have attended Steering Committee meetings in Aveiro, Barcelona, Oslo, Durham, Graz, Valletta, Bath, Krems, Paris, Vilnius, Vercelli, Grenoble, Cordoba and finally Stavanger; 15 meetings in all, 5 with Rolf Guggenbühl, 4 with Peter Reader and 1 with Karin Carlsson as President. I was later elected as Vice-President for 2004-2005 and 2007-2008. At the end of conference in Krems Peter Reader handed over the Presidency to me (2005-2007) I remember how proud I felt to become the third Dutch President of EUPRIO, following on from my dear former colleagues Lauris Beets and Wim Janssen. E(UPRIO)-mails As the manager of the Web site, with my colleague Cynthia Mars, I had experienced working for EUPRIO but I had idea about the sheer amount of much time the presidency of EUPRIO would take (and fortunately neither did the Executive Board of Eindhoven University of Technology). Looking back I have to confess that I sometimes thought that the “e” in “e-mail” stood for

109

Peter Van Dam

EUPRIO because there were many weeks when I exchanged over 100 e-mails with EUPRIO colleagues. Nevertheless being president of EUPRIO was an experience I would not have missed. I learned a lot during my years as president and, in particular, gained valuable insights into how people from different countries needed different approaches. So, whilst I might be able to argue my point with a German colleague, I might need to take a different approach to a colleague from the UK. Southern Europeans have a completely different temperament to Scandinavians and the academic year in France starts at a different time to the academic year in Poland. It was also an extremely valuable experience to preside over an organisation run on a voluntary basis by communications professionals. I knew that all members had great ideas but as president I was fortunate enough to be able to realize mine. But, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!

VILNIUS UNIVERSITY

From Paris to Cordoba As president I chaired a total of four Steering Committee meetings. At the first one in Paris, April 1st 2006, I was able to announce the completion of the new EUPRIO Web site which that had been developed in conjunction with Cynthia Mars. During this meeting we also started a discussion about the future of EUPRIO and members all expressed the view that EUPRIO should offer its members more than just one annual conference and a Web site. It was felt that the association needed to offer more value to members. In my second meeting as president on August 24th 2006 in Vilnius we were pleased to see that the support offered to the organisers of the Vilnius Conference had resulted in an excellent programme. This was the first EUPRIO conference to be hosted by an Eastern European country and was a great success. I was honoured to be invited to give the opening speech. I spoke about the future position of European universities and the changing role of communication officers within the universities: â&#x20AC;&#x153;We have to help our universities to become more communicative, more responsive to their stakeholders, more open for partnerships with the business community and other potential partners in society, more transparent, more accountable and more attractiveâ&#x20AC;?.

110

Vilnius, 2006. Picture of the group at the 18th Annual Conference.

LEONARDO D’AMICO

111

Grenoble, 2007. Anne Fuynel closes the 19th Conference with a representative of the town municipality.

At the third Steering Committee meeting, which took place in Vercelli on 31st March 2007, we decided to hand over responsibility for the EUPRIO Web site to a different university at the end of 2007. At this point the Eindhoven University of Technology had managed the Web site for nearly five years after taking the task over from Groningen University in 2003. The committee also decided to stop using the Bridge Fund to offer reduced conference fees to new members. To encourage people from countries who were currently unrepresented within EUPRIO it was decided to sue this fund to offer reduced conference fees to people from specific eastern European countries. The committee also approved a proposal from the New Initiatives task group to conduct a survey of all members to find out what membership benefits they would value. My fourth and last Steering Committee as president was held in Grenoble on June 7th 2007. The committee were pleased with the final programme for the Grenoble Conference and discussed plans for future conferences (Stavanger in 2008, Aveiro in 2009). In my opening speech at Grenoble I highlighted that universities were experiencing heightened international competition, amongst themselves, for students, scientific staff, partners, funds, political support and, last but not least, attention from the media and the public: “Reputation is the most determinant factor in this competition. The growing attention for international university rankings shows that a global reputation race between universities is going on. Good performance as we all know is the primary driver for a good reputation. But it is also obvious that wellmanaged communications can help a university to perform better and to get more credit for its good performance. A good reputation comes from making sure that what you do is what your audiences want you to do, from doing the right things well and from communicating this to your stakeholders”. At the Steering Committee meeting in Grenoble we gratefully accepted Ingeborg Dirdal’s (University of Stavanger) offer to take over responsibility for the Web site from the end of that year. On

UNIVERSITY OF CORDOBA

Cordoba, 2008. Picture of the Steering Committee in front of the University Rectorate.

behalf of the New Initiatives task group Karin Carlsson presented the results of the survey. Perhaps the most notable result was that members were much more willing to become active members of EUPRIO than I had expected. The next meeting of the Steering Committee took place in Cordoba on February 16th 2008 with Karin Carlsson as president. Sadly whilst travelling on the Madrid Metro towards this beautiful Southern Spanish city with its rich history I was robbed of my wallet which contained all my personal credit cards and a lot of money. Never a dull moment in the life of a EUPRIO globetrotter! At the meeting in Cordoba Jorma Laakkonen, on behalf of the New Initiatives task group, presented five interesting proposals concerning the future of EUPRIO. The reaction from committee members was very positive and this work resulted in a EUPRIO policy paper which was delivered by the Executive Committee at the next meeting in Stavanger.

112

Acting President and Stavanger There was also meaty discussion about the procedure that president Karin Carlsson had set out for the election of a new vice president / president. It appeared that she had invited two Steering Committee members to present themselves as candidates and wanted to delay the actual election till the next committee meeting in Stavanger. The majority of the committee were not at all happy with this approach. As a result of this and within a week after this meeting Karin Carlsson felt obliged to step down as president and as a member of the Steering Committee. It was then that one of the senior members of the committee asked me if I would be willing to serve as acting president up to and including the Steering Committee meeting in June 2008. Members of the

Steering Committee put their trust in me and supported this invitation, so I agreed and stepped forward to lead EUPRIO through this difficult situation. Well, that is what I tried to do. The first thing I did was to let Karin know that I respected her decision and to thank her, on behalf of EUPRIO for her valuable contributions to the development of the organisation. The last Steering Committee I chaired, this time as acting president, took place on June 12th, 2008 in Stavanger in advance of what was to be a very successful event. In my opening speech to the conference I again argued the necessity for university communication managers to move up to the boardrooms and to act as respected senior advisers to Executive Boards. I described some “archetypes of communications managers” and I introduced “a new role of the communication manager as a so called boardroom editor who coordinates policy making processes in interaction with different groups of stakeholders and is responsible for the formulation of position and policy papers”. The question I put forward was: “Is a boardroom editor still a communication professional or has he/she become a general senior adviser to the Executive Board?” For myself this question still has not been answered in a satisfactory way.

STEFANO BODA

Policy paper, Paolo Pomati & Arwin Nimis Steering Committee members agreed with my proposals for the presidency and the vice-presidency of EUPRIO by electing successively Paolo Pomati and Arwin Nimis. Both know how grateful I was (and still am) that they were willing to take over from me. Members also agreed with the Policy Paper that I had presented to them in April. The most critical objectives were included in the new president’s mandate. At the end of the Stavanger Conference I laid the responsibility to realize the vision and plans for EUPRIO into the hands of the new president Paolo Pomati and the new vicepresident Arwin Nimis. Looking back I can see that my trust in them has been justified. So far they have done very well. Just an enjoying member After the Stavanger Conference I experienced a feeling of great emptiness. No more plans to make, no e-mails and telephone calls to respond to, no more inspiring contacts with other Steering Committee members, no conflicts to smooth, etc. But after a few days I recovered and took hope from the thought that it would be great to participate in the next conference as just an ordinary member. And that's precisely what I did at the successful conference in Aveiro and what I intend to do for many years to come. Because I can't imagine how life would be without all my EUPRIO friends...

113

Below: Stavanger, 2008. Peter Van Dam hands over the presidency to Paolo Pomati during the gala dinner at hotel Radisson.

VILNIUS UNIVERSITY

Theme: Communication in a changing Europe - The implications for higher education Public Relations Venue: University of Vilnius Number of Participants: 174 from 21 countries Opening speeches Benediktas Juodka Rector of Vilnius University Peter Van Dam President of EUPRIO Plenary sessions Communiticating in the new Europe Peter Green Development Director, AlphaGalileo Foundation, UK Bettina Gneisz Vice President Corporate Communications of OMV AG, Austria Saulius Vengris Vice-rector of Vilnius Academy of Fine Arts, former secretary of Ministry of Education, Lithuania The Brain Drain Charles Woolfson University of Glasgow, UK Linas Čekanavičius Vilnius University, Lithuania European University Ranking Gero Federkeil CHE - Centrum für HochschuleEntwicklung, Germany John O’Leary Editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement, UK Andrea Costa Bocconi University, Italy Communication by Nature Marcel De Cleene University of Ghent, Belgium Workshops How to Handle The Change of the Rector, Principal or Vice Chancellor Wolfgang Mathias University of Cologne, Germany

114

How to implement a name change and new corporate identity. Willem Hooglugt Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands Ingeborg Dirdal University of Stavanger, Norway How to be more creative in getting your university into the media John O’Leary Editor of the Times Higher Educational Supplement, UK Nic Mitchell University of Teesside, UK Finding out what the customers of higher education think:

Peter Van Dam and rector Benediktas Juodka chair the 1st plenary session. Communicating with students Chris Harris HERO, UK Marek Zimnak Wrocław University of Economics, Poland Promoting science and research via the Web to the press and public – the German and Swedish experiences through IDW and ExpertAnswer. Josef König Rühr-Universität Bochum, Germany Sylvia Träris IDW – Universität Bayreuth, Germany Ingemar Björklund Swedish Research Council, Sweden

Friendraising to fundraising: the role of effective communication in development Anna Mundell Iain More Associates, UK Peter Reader University of Bath, UK How to deliver good media training Arwin Nimis Hanzehogeschool Groningen, the Netherlands How to promote more exchanges of students, scholars and scientists between East and West European universities? Charles Woolfson University of Glasgow, UK Raimonda Markevičienė Vilnius University, Lithuania

International student recruitment: Attracting international students from outside the European Union. Piet Bouma University of Groningen, The Netherlands Abandon the paper for the Web Ann-Christine Nordin & Åsa Ekval Anne Fuynel Grenoble École de Management, France Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden Evaluating Higher Education Public Ana Bela Martins Relations University of Aveiro, Portugal Bernt Armbruster The use of Weblogs in Public University of Kassel, Germany Relations and communication management How can industry and higher education work better together in the Philip Young new Europe? Including industry view University of Sunderland, UK on public relations in new EU member states. Bettina Gneisz OMV AG, Austria Working together with PRagencies Hans ten Brinke ABP, The Netherlands Do’s and Don’ts of Internal Communication Rolf Guggenbühl Guggenbühl Communications, Switzerland Communiqué - support for press offices in European universities Peter Green Development Director, AlphaGalileo Foundation, UK

Theme: Future Issues for European Universities Venue: Grenoble Congress Centre Number of participants: 176 from 22 countries. Opening speeches Thierry Grange Dean of Grenoble École de Management Peter Van Dam President of EUPRIO Christina Ullenius Vice-president of EUA Plenary sessions How to communicate with and influence political institutions? Sheree Anne Kelly Director, Public affairs council, Washington DC, USA Louise Simpson Managing Partner, The Knowledge Partnership, UK Jorma Laakkonen Communications director, University of Helsinki, Finland How to communicate wit and influence the business community? Thierry Grange Dean of Grenoble Ecole de Management, France Pierre Page Founder and CEO of the TKS Group, France Nic Mitchell Press and Public Relations Manager, University of Teesside, UK How to communicate with and influence young minds and future scientists? Dianne Stilwell Public Relations Manager, Institute of Physics, London, UK Matteo Merzagora Freelance science journalist, TRACES Advisors in science communication, Paris, France Karin Carlsson Head of Information Office, University of Uppsala, Sweden How to communicate with and influence the media? Alan Thomson News Editor, Times Higher Education Supplement, UK Ivor Gaber University of London, UK Paolo Pomati Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale, Italy

Workshops Communicating with companies Dieter Leonhard President of the Franco-German University Alessandro Ciarlo Director of Career Service and Alumni Relations, Università Bocconi, Milan, Italy Innovate marketing towards international recruitment Matt Symonds Director of QS, UK Damien Roux Director Promotion & International Development EM LYON Grande Ecole, France Science at school – science for the children Michael Seiffert Head of Public Relations Department, University of Tübingen, Germany Colin Wilkinson Sector Manager – Engineering, North East Higher Skills Network, University of Teesside, UK Adapting press relations to different countries Mary Zaccai International Press Officer Grenoble Ecole de Management, France Eoin Bedford Press and PR Manager, Imperial college, London, Tanaka Business School, UK Communicating with women Amelia Lake Research Fellow, University of Newcastle, UK Beckie Lang External Affairs Officer and Press Officer, Association for the Study of Obesity, UK La communication événementielle au service de la science Marie Collin Communication office at INRIA, France Monique Mizart Communications officer at Institut National Agronomique Paris Grignon, France How to effectively promote an innovative local environment to attract researchers? Catherine Blanc Project Manager, Promotion, AEPI, France Pedro Olivas Responsable de la communication Grenoble Universités, France

Fundraising Yaëlle Aferiat, Director of the “Association Française des Fundraisers”, France Monique Rubichon Head of Communication at ENSAM, Paris, France Ethics in public relations Philip Young Senior Lecturer in Public Relations specialist, University of Sunderland, UK Albert Hamm Professor in English Linguistics, University Marc Bloch in Strasbourg, France Science on the street Ingeborg Dirdal Communication consultant, University of Stavanger, Norway Joachim Lerch President of the Foundation “Science and technologie”, active member of the European Science Event Association New trend in communication Michael Murtough Head of Business Development, Research Media, University of Warwick, UK Research in the media Judith Moore Press officer, Home Office, UK Ivor Gaber Media consultant and trainer, broadcaster and journalism professor, University of London, UK National initiatives to promote science and research at large Grégoire Polet Deskman, Brussels Studies, Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Brussels, Belgium Andrei Mogoutov Editor in Chief, Technology Review France Lobbying – How to influence your political government Sheree Anne Kelly Director, Public affairs Council, Washington DC, USA Florent Got Communications Manager, INPG, France

115

UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER

Theme: Challenges and solutions: communication strategies for the future Venue: University of Stavanger Participants: 215 from 21 countries Opening speeches Anne Selnes Director of strategy and communication, University of Stavanger, Norway Peter Van Dam Acting president of EUPRIO Plenary sessions Culture and the university Mary Miller Director, Stavanger 2008, European Capital of Culture, Norway Daniel Hansson Artistic director and Conductor, Malmö University, Sweden Why students stay away from STEM: how teenagers’ values and self image clash with the image of science Ursula Kessels Researcher and lecturer at the Freie Universität Berlin and HSU Hamburg, Germany Promotion and marketing. Key components of an internationalisation strategy Bernd Wächter Director, ACA, Belgium

116

Risks and pitfalls in communication with the media Ole Didrik Lærum University of Bergen, Norway Making sense of organisational change: the role of communication Inger Stensaker Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Norway

Workshops Anniversaries as PR and Marketing Instruments – The 550th Anniversary of the University of Freiburg Eva Opitz University of Freiburg, Germany

Best practice in internal communication. Example of a Grande École and its networks Christine Legrand & Emmanuelle Almendra CPE Lyon, France

Embedding Widening Participation to obtain Equity in HE: Communication strategies Ida Marie Andersen Head Communication Adviser, Oslo University College, Norway

Communicating change - maximising the potential of the University Web site Martin Herrema Media relations manager, University of Westminster, UK

The Academic Community Meets the Digital Community – How do they relate? Asbjørn Bartnes, Lasse Knutsen & Bente Schøning University of Tromsø, Norway University of Bologna - UniBo Portal System Luca Garlaschelli & Andrea Paolo Ciani University of Bologna, Italy The impact of heritage and how to use it Nijolė Bulotaitė University of Vilnius, Lithuania Paolo Pomati Università del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”, Italy Merger of the 3 universities of Strasbourg in 2009: an opportunity to rethink the organisation of a communication device and its strategy Anne Goudot Université de Strasbourg, France Who Talks To Whom? Analysing Networks Laura Blake, National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Universities of Manchester / York, UK

The role of Universities in Cultural Renewal Sanna Holmqvist University of Malmö, Sweden Cultural renewal – lessons for the UK from the ‘Swedish model’ Natasha Vall University of Teesside, UK WEB – Extreme make-over Monique Jipping Director of Communication Services, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Market Research for Universities Andrea Costa Bocconi University, Milan, Italy Targeting your message for the international press Andrew Miller Deputy Director of Communications, EUA, Brussels, Belgium The UK track record of Academic Enterprise Marcus Gibson Gibson Index Ltd., London, UK Who talks to whom? Internal communications. Perceptions vs/ reality David Penney Oxford Brookes University Louise Simpson The Knowledge Partnership, UK

Paolo Pomati UniversitĂ degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale Amedeo Avogadro Italy

2008 2012

L'aventure commence l'aurore, à l'aurore de chaque matin; l'aventure commence alors que la lumière nous lave les mains… — Jacques Brel

118

es, that summer’s morning in Stavanger heralded the start of a big adventure for the author of this chapter which by necessity coincides with the “President’s Word”. My time as president has not finished yet so it is quite difficult to write, at the same time, an impartial report about what has happened and what is yet to come. For these reasons, I will try to keep to the facts and will explain the vision which supported the unexpected candidacy of an Italian representative during those turbulent months at the beginning of 2008. As I reported in the previous chapter, the Steering Committee meeting in Cordoba concluded without an elected president and was followed by the resignation of the current one a week later. Furthermore, Jorma Laakkonen, one of the two candidates, decided to retire his candidacy. Peter Van Dam as vice president took on the role temporarily and asked me not to withdraw my candidacy. His appeals to me were at all levels, to my sense of responsibility, my affection for EUPRIO, the honour attached to bringing the presidency to a southern country for the first time in the history of EUPRIO and so on. To be honest, I was not excited at the prospect of becoming president. I knew that the entire association wanted major changes and that the direction EUPRIO needed to be taking was still unclear. However, AICUN, the Italian association of university communicators, put me under

Paolo Pomati

siege albeit in a pleasant way. I found it impossible to refuse and managed to say a rather feeble “Yes”. I was steadfast in one point however. I was adamant that the Steering Committee should not elect me just to avoid the danger of a prolonged vacancy; the members’ vote should be based on what was best for EUPRIO in terms of the strategic direction it should be taking. I decided that my motto would be: “Care. Share. Dare”. It was quite evident to me that members were determined that EUPRIO should become more professional, acquire legal status, be acknowledged by European institutions, enlarge its horizons and provide more tangible benefits to members. An association based only on a common job friendship and on a yearly journey to some part of Europe had

to obtain professional status this should be achieved without the association losing the things that made it great, its informality, spontaneity and its friendly “human” character. Under the umbrella of “care” there was also the urgent need to update the Web site. This issue had been highlighted previously by Peter Van Dam. A working group, chaired by Ingeborg Dirdal and composed of Ann-Elin Andersen, Nijolė Bulotaitė, Paola Scioli, Ingrid Stensland and Marek Zimnak, was set up. They were asked to define what was needed and to find the best people to set up the new Web site. A team from Norway were selected and the new site was launched on 3rd March 2009. Over time it became clear that technology was changing rapidly and this, combined with Ingeborg starting a new career outside higher education, led to a decision in 2011 that it was time once again to restyle the site. Maastricht University have now stepped in to undertake this important job. Another tricky challenge we were facing at that time was how to revamp future Conferences. A working group, chaired by Chris Coe and composed of Ann-Elin Brattebø Andersen, Laura Blake, Anne Fuynel, Sanna Holmqvist, MarieCatherine Mouchot and Ingrid Stensland LEONARDO D’AMICO

become out of step with the times. I was also aware of another issue facing the association, that nobody had previously felt it necessary to either register the association in a specific country or to have an official bank account; the pro tempore treasurer was the holder. This does not mean that one way is better than another, but, purely and simply, times had changed and it was now critically important to ensure EUPRIO became the professional association that its members wanted and needed. The first verb which came into my mind when I was thinking about my motto (and my strategy) was “to care”. For me this represented paying close attention, ensuring good maintenance and providing watchful oversight and support to current and future activities. I was probably influenced by that beautiful John Updike’s quotation: “Any activity becomes creative when the doer cares about doing it right. Or better”. The first priority was clear, to equip the association with a new Charter, legal status and a registered place of business, possibly in Belgium but most certainly near to the most important European institutions. I had already started to plan how these might be achieved before the extra Steering Committee meeting in Leuven, where the delegates would be voting for the articles of the new Charter which would formally reconstitute the association. History tells the story and thanks to the efforts of Ronny Vandenbroele, the board of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven accepted to host the official seat of EUPRIO. The Charter, written in Dutch and translated in English, would be voted by the General Assembly and become effective in 2009. At that point EUPRIO would become a not-for-profit association under the Belgian laws and would acquire rules and professional management. It was clear that this would mean we could not delay taking a decision about our investments. A bank balance of over € 170,000, an embarrassing gift from previous presidents, could not be maintained as a not-for-profit organisation should always break even, not be in profit. So it was decided to use this money wisely and to provide ongoing funds for: IT services and developments; organising a new-look Conference; supporting working groups to meet their goals and objectives. We all recognised that although it was important

119

Below: Aveiro, 2009. Anna-Maria Raudaskoski, Uwe Steger and Josef König sign the new Charter.

120

LEONARDO D’AMICO

Left: Aveiro, 2009. Participants at the ﬁrst plenary session of the 21st Annual Conference. Right: Aveiro, 2009. Rector Helena Nazaré opens the 21st Annual Conference.

met in Oslo and proposed a new way of running the annual conference. They proposed that conferences should be more proactive forums where members could obtain information and discuss trends in communication and education policies in Europe. Their vision was to provide opportunities for members to attend practical master classes, workshops, matchmaking and speed-working sessions at levels appropriate to their role. This new format was accepted and was taken up by the group organising the Conference in Stresa for September 2010. I will talk more about this later. Robert Louis Stevenson told readers to “Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others”. The verb “to share” was added to my motto. For me this means to relate experiences, to promote participation, to recognise and support cooperation. EUPRIO had to move from having a “seasonal” responsibility to members to having an “everyday” responsibility. It became important that Steering Committee members took on more responsibility to ensure that the president was not left alone to drown in work. A series of working groups were set up and some of them were open to all EUPRIO members, not just those from the

Steering Group. These groups were given a clear remit. The EUPRIO History working group, chaired by Véronique Éloy, was set up and their work has resulted in this book. Great expectations were held for the Relationships working group who were tasked with supporting new members and further developing links with relevant local, European and international organisations. We then launched a big campaign to improve entries from countries whose memberships were low or unsteady. Little by little the membership figures rose from 386 (end of 2007) to 609 (end of 2010) and the number of countries from 17 to 25. EUPRIO not only started to be acknowledged by several European institutions and associations, like the DG Communication of the European Commission, EUA, ESMU; we also began to develop meaningful partnerships with them. As any self-respecting Italian, I studied Latin at school and a third issue was at the front of my mind. In his Epistulae Morales (104. 26), Seneca declared: “Non quia difficilia sunt non audemus, sed quia non audemus, difficilia sunt”, which means: “It’s not because things are difficult that we do not dare. It’s because we do not dare

that they are difficult”. “To dare”, then, became the third part of my motto, So, in what way could Euprians dare? Whilst remaining up-to-date is important it is not enough. Euprians should be constantly enlarging their horizons, being creative, making grand plans, hoisting the sails and going where the sea is bluest; ducere in altum (= put out into the deep) as Pope John Paul II taught, following Luke, 5:4.

hese were the foundations on which I both built my candidacy and based my motto – “Care. Share. Dare”. I was also careful to look at ways we could sensibly manage the changes needed, so I proposed a gentle reorganisation over time, nothing too new. The Steering Committee seemed to like my plans and I was elected as president for the term 2008-10. I was later re-elected, this time by the General Assembly, for the term 2010-12. I proposed the members of the Executive Board – Arwin Nimis as vice-president, Paola Scioli as treasurer – and confirmed Anna-Maria Raudaskoski as secretary, who would later step down in favour of Laure Schönenberger Rüffieux. A sparkling ensemble to which I owe so much. Before focusing on the events that have happened so far, let me just say that the

work undertaken to increase the tangible benefits to members proved beneficial. Times of crisis and financial cuts would force members to justify to managers how exactly membership of EUPRIO would benefit their university. Without offering what individuals and their organisations needed it is unlikely that we would be here today celebrating our 25th anniversary. With the first two steps taken (the acquisition of an official legal status, with charter, mission statement and a permanent seat in Leuven; the new conference format) EUPRIO was ready for the third and final phase which was planned to smoothly coincide with my stepping down. We set up a special “New Strategies Working Group”, chaired by Andrea Costa and composed formerly of Arwin Nimis, Denis Ancion, Chris Coe, Achim Fischer and Petra Ljung, and laterly joined by Uwe Steger, Marie-Catherine Mouchot, Alexandra Hroncova and Anita Byström. This group were tasked with outlining the priorities for the 2010-2012 presidency. Different scenarios was outlined and the Steering Committee decided that the one which felt like the best “fit” for EUPRIO was to become a sort of an “outside-in association”. To achieve this it was decided that we would:

121

LEONARDO D’AMICO

The Mayor of Aveiro Élio Maia welcomes president Paolo Pomati at Casa Major Pessoa.

LEONARDO D’AMICO

Above: Aveiro, 2009. The ceremony of EUPRIO Awards. From left to the right, the winners: Achim Fischer (1st prize), Uwe Steger, Gudrun Pichler, Laure Schönenberger, Jens Fink-Jensen and Marek Zimnak (2nd prize ex aequo) and Vicky Rabensteiner.

122

• focus on subjects that were important in Europe and in higher education and examine their implications for communication; • formalise systematic, institutionalised contact with key relevant European organizations and associations and/or universities who led the field in a certain subject; • concentrate on giving members the tools to enable them to keep up with trends in communications, with the Web site being the most important medium to use, e.g. providing relevant links grouped by subject on current trends; • strengthen the role of the communicator within the complex organisational worlds of universities; • ensure that the starting point for conferences would no longer be Communication per se but higher education issues and their consequences on communication. Conferences would focus on the communications issues for one key higher education issue and might be hosted by universities who led the field in this subject. So, we moved out focus onto future Conferences. The Steering Committee, on the basis of a detailed proposal from the Conference Working Group, decided to transform the Conferences from a series of independent and unconnected events, as

they had been to date to being the culmination of a 18-month process which would involve members and national organisations. Members themselves would decide on the general themes and area of best practice to be covered. This would happen only after strategic discussions at both national and international level, with the consistent involvement of associations and partners.

hinking about the events which dotted the period from my installation in Stavanger to the Conference in Prague, which will celebrate the 25th anniversary of EUPRIO’s foundation, I cannot help but describe the positive development of the association and not only in terms of its membership. On Friday 31st October 2008, from 3 to 8 pm, at the University Hall of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, twenty-two national and deputy national representatives wrote the course of EUPRIO’s history. Every article of the new Charter’s text was read, discussed and voted and at the end the Charter was approved in its entirety. A new era which began serendipitously the day before a EUA-meeting of communication professionals took place in Brussels. It was the first time that the EUA had invited the president of EUPRIO to chair a round table and it was heartening

the role of the “European University Communicator”. Mission impossible, you will say and I am afraid you are quite right, because after various years in EUPRIO I still haven’t made much headway. Salaries, positions, titles, profiles, strategies, budgets all differ from one country to another; many presidents and rectors consider the communication function as a big basket into which they can throw everything. So who is guilty? Those in charge? The system? The global financial crisis? Or is it our fault, the university communicators who still do not share a common view of communication? I think that this is the problem. We do not make it clear enough that we are not here to sell courses, set up red tape, provide the cushion between the university and the outside world, we are not here to deal with complaints and we are certainly not responsible for operating call-centres. What people do not understand is that the university communicator is a true knowledge worker, a strategist who works in knowledge networks. The communicator should be the key figure in the university, because he / she is the one who can understand the nuances and messages that pass from one to another and make them work; he / she is the one who understands the hierarchy of decision-making, he / she is the one who can write a communication plan, which is not a list of things to do, but a vital strategic document which enables the

GIORGIO SAMBARINO

to note that many participants were either members of EUPRIO’s Steering Committee or were EUPRIO members. The wall (or, at least, the lack of communication) was definitely down. Ulrike Reimann certainly played an important role in the development of our relationship with EUA. An icy Wrocław was the venue of the next “Spring” Steering Committee meeting, the first time that Poland had hosted EUPRIO. Marek Zimnak, the Polish representative, offered us all a friendly and warm welcome on 27th February 2009. I was in particularly high spirits that evening because my second niece had just been born. We had a huge amount of work to get through, in particular going back over the Charter to ensure it would conform to Belgian law. During the discussion it was stressed that the deadline of paying fees was compulsory and that the same strict policy should be used while dealing with members and non-members at conferences. Véronique Éloy was nicely surprised to hear an Italian president barking “A deadline is a deadline”. No privilege for nobody. The University of Aveiro, consistently ranked as one of the best in Portugal, hosted the 21st Annual Conference. The Rector Maria Helena Nazaré, who would later be elected president of EUA, delivered the opening speech, followed by my first one as EUPRIO president. One of my objectives has always been to get clarity on

Stresa, 2010. Participants cross-pollinate ideas during the European Café.

123

GIORGIO SAMBARINO

Stresa, 2010. Picture of the group of the 22nd Conference in front of Hotel Regina Palace.

institution to deliver its mission. The knowledge workers are the holders of content which has to be developed appropriately for diverse audiences. We cannot develop communications strategies if we do not understand the nuances, networks, processes, routines and their technological management. We cannot develop information services, assistance, counselling to students if we do not truly understand the dynamics of external and internal communication.

124

n Aveiro I told the audience that for university communication it was the time of some “digital neohumanism”, according to a theory of Elisabetta Zuanelli. Today we have got the link between the period in which liberal arts and mechanical civilization began to work together thanks to the insights of Leonardo da Vinci, and the contemporary world, in which liberal arts are created and channelled digitally. We live in the world of “virtual artifacts”, where a book, a drawing, a piece of music become an ebook, e-photo, a “mp3”. The university communicator must be up-to-date, but without making a Copernican revolution. Humanism puts the person at the centre of the world: the person, who declares his dignity, his liberty, his capacity. Rules no longer matter; what matters is the critical consciousness of the human condition. Humanists claimed the value of

eloquence, of the “verbum”, of the words, of the speech. This then is the modern university communicator of today: a neohumanist, a knowledge worker, who considers language to be the foundation for all his work. We live in a world that is fast, interconnected and overwhelmed by the cult of the image. We put techniques and tools at the centre of our world and we forget people. To paraphrase Edwin Schlossberg, true interactivity is not just about clicking on icons or downloading files, it’s about encouraging communication between people and building relationships. Putting people where they belong, at the centre of the system, requires a radical change in how we view communication. It means returning to the essence of things, taking a step back, leaving hierarchies and devoting ourselves to the essential. We don’t belong to an association like EUPRIO to get benefits. On the contrary we belong because it’s the most effective way we can create networks, build relationships, and develop convergence and participation. The verb “communicare” in Christian Latin, means “to break the bread together” and implies the highest gift that a person can give to his equal. So, we found ourselves in the strange position of having changed how we thought about things whilst remaining in

hanging over members’ heads but they kept working hard. We were very happy but not surprised to see that so many efforts were tangible benefits. Lots of associations and institutions had contacted EUPRIO to establish relationship but we played it cool and they requested again! The new strategies developed by the working group were being developed and the members of the Auditors’ Board were finally appointed: Rolf Guggenbühl, Alessandro Ciarlo and Anna-Maria Raudaskoski were asked to join the association again and to take on prominent roles; and they accepted.

o words can begin to describe my ‘pre’ and ‘post’ feelings about the Conference in Stresa, which, through the support of my University (Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”) and of AICUN, returned to Italy. Paola Scioli, the EUPRIO treasurer, and my indefatigable colleagues Stefano Boda and Leonardo D’Amico (the former “babies”, later promoted to “boys”) helped to make our dreams become reality. An ambitious conference took place in the glittering Hotel Regina Palace, facing Lake Maggiore. I leave you for now with the words of Jay Rubin, a professor from NYU was one of the distinguished speakers of the fifteen master classes, which marked the big change in EUPRIO’s conferences.

LEONARDO D’AMICO

a context which had not changed yet. We decided that the new Conference format would not start until 2010 so in Aveiro plenary sessions and workshops traditionally filled the days and a spectacular social programme brightened the evenings. Ana Bela Martins, a veteran of the Steering Committee, planned to step down from the committee and leave the communication sector after the Conference. Her tears at the farewell party released the tension she had accumulated during organising the conference and showed the true affection she felt for an association to which she had given an extraordinary contribution. It was at Aveiro that we held the first General Assembly of the revamped association. Arwin and I were given a new mandate. The Charter was definitely signed. EUPRIO was moving forward towards a new future. At the two day Steering Committee Meeting in Mannheim, 12th-13th March 2010, we had barely enough time to work through the twelve points of the agenda but this meeting was perfectly hosted by Achim Fischer. My loose tongue often leads me astray… but I have to tell my readers that Achim would have been a good candidate for the next presidency. But sadly he left the university world for a career elsewhere and we had to start searching again for new candidates. Financial cuts and the global crisis were

Stresa, 2010. The Orchestra of Università del Piemonte Orientale welcomes the participants during the opening ceremony of the 22nd Conference.

125

The Inherent Metaphors of EUPRIO The tangible skills-building opportunities provided for EUPRIO members at Stresa were stellar. I hope the attendees found the contributions of the master class coaches and speakers, to be close to the bar of excellence that the scientiﬁc committee set by example. Throughout the conference, I was struck by the subtle messages - the inherent metaphors - reﬂecting the underlying transformation EUPRIO is seeking for the role of the university communicator across Europe. During the welcoming remarks, I shall admit, I thought that talking

126

about poor EUPRIO members suﬀering the wounds of Saint Sebastian seemed questionable, as they were sitting in the majesty of the gilded Hotel Regina Palace. Until, that is, I released the necessity of the surrounding glitter as ego-building ammunition toward empowerment. I found it hard to believe that past EUPRIO conferences oﬀered the constant reinforcing metaphors that university PR folks are as deserving as their bosses and in right place to be heard. An actor making a cameo to read to them? A world renowned philosopher and parliamentarian respecting them enough as important

Jay Rubin hit the mark twice: noticing both the “metaphor effort” we made in developing the Conference, and my personal intention to carry on with shaping the portrait of the European university communicator. 2010 was a crucial year for Universities; financial cutbacks had decimated the budgets for many higher education institutions. Communicators were in the middle of perhaps the most important crisis facing their sector. This situation led me to go beyond the figure of the “digital neo-humanist”, enriching it without the Jungian archetype of the Wounded Healer: the person who has gone through suffering, and by transcending it, he is led to a path of service, he becomes a source of great wisdom and inspiration for others. Jung said: “The doctor is effective only when he himself is conscious that he can fall sick. Only the wounded physician heals. But when the doctor wears his personality like a coat of armour, he has no effect”. The Wounded Healer is the teacher who is able to self-empower others to trust themselves to the extent that they finally give themselves permission to feel that which before had been too painful for the emotional body to cope with and feel. As communicators we have the ability and perseverance to go beyond our issues, problems and troubles and our job has become something similar to the Wounded Healer’s therapies. Whilst we count our wounds day by day on our skin,

professionals to share his time? Master class teachers from both sides of the Atlantic? Conscious or not, these and more conﬁdence-building cues during EUPRIO 2010 had to sink into some extent. Maybe the pace of the conference was the clearest medium/message signal. By avoiding the counterproductive neverenough-time herding of attendees to this session or that, EUPRIO gave its constituents a taste of the more leisurely meetings, most often reserved for rectors, deans and senior executives. — Jay A. Rubin

we will not surrender. We provide helpful, tangible, positive responses to our Rectors to enable them to solve e problems. Because of this we ourselves are part of the wounds, we experience the effects of them, we overcome them and we can extract the good from them, for all our futures. We can offer so much, a portfolio of professional skills, contacts to share, the ability to sustain productive relationships with diverse audiences, to speak in public, to solve problems, to manage crises. In exchange, yes, we would all love to have better salaries and more senior positions within our organizations but most of all we need to be given respect for the job that we do and a recognition of our role. Respect and recognition are considered fundamentally important across all cultures. I must say that we found a healer of our communicators’ wounds in the Conference itself. Please read in the “Ipse Dixit” box what Professor Jean-Marc Rapp, president of EUA and keynote speaker, declared during the Conference. Euprians discussed the guidelines described by the President of EUA in a lively and productive European Café, a tool that was introduced for the first time: an innovative, yet simple conversational process for hosting conversations about questions that matter; people were moving between groups, cross-pollinating ideas and discovering new insights into the issues that had arisen. This was followed by a series of intensive master classes which were delivered by leading international experts on a wide range of

The next decade will be a period devoted both to completing the implementation of the reforms already agreed and setting quite specific targets for the future. In order to frame this process we believe that, looking forward, it is really important that the Bologna Process focuses on creating a clear vision of what we expect from higher education in the future and what type of graduates we need for the future rather than concentrating purely on measurements or the more technical aspects of the tools. Only in this way will universities and their staff and students be inspired to continue the challenging reform process we are all involved with and one which is so important for the future of our societies. One key aspect in this continuing process will be improving communication about the reforms so that all stakeholders understand both the purpose and the benefits of Bologna. As Ministers noted earlier this year, protests in some countries, partly directed against developments and measures not related to the Bologna Process, have reminded us that some of the Bologna aims and reforms have not been properly implemented and explained . At national level, we also strive to improve communication on and understanding of the Bologna Process among all stakeholders and society as a whole. We recognise that a more supportive environment for the staff to fulfil their tasks, is needed. We commit ourselves to working towards a more effective inclusion of higher education staff and students in the implementation and further development of the European Higher Education Area. We fully support staff and student participation in decision-making structures at European, national and institutional levels. This is the first time that the importance of communication has been so specifically addressed in a Ministerial communiqué ‒ and it is an element that EUA as well as its individual Rectors Conference members have underlined and also believe will be crucial to success in the future. However, given the complexity of

LEONARDO D’AMICO

Towards 2020 with Strategic Communication

the reform process it is easy to see why communication has been a problem. Its fair to say that the reforms haven t been properly communicated to student and their parents or to university staff. This is partly due to the initial focus being placed, understandably, on trying to develop the necessary and rather technical basis of the reforms rather than actually explaining to those directly concerned why reform is necessary. Moreover, for those implementing the reforms it has very much been a period of learning by doing . While governments and technocrats, as well as university leaders across Europe and the European student unions, have understood the need for, and Jean-Marc Rapp wholeheartedly backed the Bologna reforms, this has not clearly the public responsibility of always been the position of other national authorities across Europe key stakeholders. Efforts have been for higher education. Bologna is insufficient to either persuade therefore Europe s response to academic staff or to communicate globalisation, the creation of a the purpose of the reforms to common framework for Higher employers, young people and their Education that at the same time families. It will be important to would allow Europe to maintain explain that Bologna is actually a and uphold its varied traditions. package of reforms that make Over the last few years this has also sense when seen as a whole. meant an increasing diversification Communications should explain of Higher Education Institutions in the relationship between the Europe, with each institution structural reforms introduced and paying more attention to defining the overall goal of improving the its own specific mission, profile and quality of our study programmes strengths. Here again, that can only come about through communication professionals have adapting and rethinking curricula a key role in communicating the at each level using the learning specific mission of each institution outcomes based approach, that is and ensuring that its profile and at the centre of the concept of strengths (in teaching and student centred learning . research) are clear to all key In terms of communication, audiences (students, parents, another issue is that in many employers, staff and of course countries the Bologna reforms public authorities). have often been packaged by In my opinion, this all means that national policy makers along with university communicators will other national Higher Education need to play an increasingly reforms or global developments. strategic role both within and This has led to mixed and, at the outside the university community very least, confusing messages through their contribution to the being developed. development of communications One example of this concerns the strategies in line with the overall link often made between the aims and missions of the Bologna process reforms and the university. A modern University privatisation/commercialisation of needs a communication strategy higher education, not to mention and highly qualified experts to the introduction or increase of communicate and disseminate this tuition fees. If one looks closely at strategy in a way which supports the Ministerial Communiqués over the interests of the university as a the years, and indeed at what has whole. And the University system been achieved, it becomes clear itself has the same needs. that Bologna is, on the contrary, a process that seeks to improve the attractiveness of European higher — Jean-Marc Rapp education while underlining very

127

128

disciplines and topics. Delegates learned how to build an effective Web site with a user-centred design, how to write and deliver a persuasive presentation in good English, how to handle crises, how to unleash creativity, how to adapt the old rules of PR writing for new communication mediums. New techniques were presented to enable participants to organize a special event, to spread scientific messages, to raise funds, to successfully manage branding in the complex world of marketing, to lobby effectively. Over the conference it became clear that communicators must be socially responsible for developing their own roles and that higher education institutions would need to significantly change their attitude towards communication.

t is not my place to comment about this Conference but the results of the evaluation questionnaires speak for themselves. Participants were unanimously enthusiastic. Many positive comments were made concerning the quality of the master classes and many suggestions were made about how next year’s conference could be further improved. The working group, composed of Laura Blake, Anne Fuynel, Sanna Holmqvist, Ulrike Reimann and Ingrid Stensland should be happy with the result. There was no time to rest though with the Spring Steering Committee meeting already knocking at the doors. It was a very challenging time because we had to decide which strategy to follow for the next presidency. I have already talked about the strategic direction which EUPRIO

LEONARDO D’AMICO

Above: Stresa, 2010. The opening and closing speeches are delivered by: Brunella Marchione, president of AICUN; prof. Gianni Vattimo, philosopher and member of the European Parliament; prof. Fabiola Sinigaglia, vice-rector for International Relations of Università del Piemonte Orientale.

will shortly be following. The Conference in Prague, where we will celebrate our 25th anniversary and where this book will be distributed, will be yet another new departure point for our organisation. My “Care Share Dare” programme was entirely inspired by the words of President Theodore Roosevelt: “Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits, who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat”. So it seems that EUPRIO is taking new steps and making news starts all the time – we are Caring Sharing and Daring. So, was I right? Are we moving in the right direction? Ai posteri l’ardua sentenza, wrote Alessandro Manzoni – only those that come after us will decide.

LEONARDO D’AMICO

129

The farewell speech of Ana Bela de Jesus Martins. Theme: How to manage the communications function Venue: University of Aveiro Number of participants: 184 from 22 countries.

Workshops Heading for a communication plan for the Spanish Conference of Rectors Esther Huerta García CRUE, Spain

Opening speeches Helena Nazaré Rector, University of Aveiro Paolo Pomati President of EUPRIO

How did I become a top communications professional? Arja Suominen Senior Vice President of Communications, Nokia Corporation, Finland

Plenary sessions What are universities for and how do communications reflect that? Júlio Pedrosa President of the Portuguese Council for Education, Portugal João Paulo Oliveira President Bosch Thermotechnology S.A., Portugal Luis Fagundes Duarte Member of the Portuguese Parliament Role of Communications / How to manage the communications function? Arja Suominem Senior Vice President of Communications, Nokia Corporation, Finland Charlotte Lindsay Vice-Director of Communications, International Committee of the Red Cross, Switzerland Developing a global brand for a university Chris North Chairman of Fishburn Hedges, Brand Consultants, UK

How to bring 30 thousand youngsters to campus Margarida Almeida University of Aveiro, Portugal

A creative campaign for high school students Alexandra Hroncova CVUT Prague, Czech Republic Overcoming Geographic and linguistic barriers in branding a small country university online Aukse Balcytienė University of Vytautas Magnus, Kaunas, Lithuania New tricks: how social media is revolutionising the role of the PR professional Tracy Playle Pickle Jar Communications Ltd., UK

The theory of merging a University vs. the practical possibilities and all the problems which could appear in the process. The example of the merging process of the Universities of Essen and Duisburg, in Germany Sabine Zix Universität Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Managing and developing a university brand Christine Ayre King’s College London, UK

Branding in the 21st century Katrin Androschin Embassy, Berlin, Germany

The unique experience of Polish PRIO: how to build a model of Community Promotion Marek Zimnak Wrocław University of Economics, Poland

The University in the Second Life Carlos Santos & Luís Pedro University of Aveiro, Portugal Creating, managing and developing a university design programme Pete Burke, Jens Fink-Jensen & Signe Lund-Sørensen University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Marketing or communications? Laure Schönenberger Université de Fribourg, Switzerland

A Rhetorical and Semiotic Approach of the Actual Modality to Promote National and Local Identity in Romania Odette Arhip University of Iaşi, Romania

LEONARDO D’AMICO

Theme: University Communicators establish thier roles towards 2020 Venue: Hotel Regina Palace, Stresa Number of Participants: 245 from 25 countries Opening speeches Fabiola Sinigaglia Vice-Rector for International Relations of Università del Piemonte Orientale Paolo Pomati President of EUPRIO Keynote speech Jean-Marc Rapp President of EUA Lectio magistralis From communication to solidarity Gianni Vattimo Philosopher, former professor of Theoretical Philosophy (Università di Torino), member of the European Parliament Chaired by Edoardo Teodoro Brioschi Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy European Café Facilitator: Pepe Nummi Grape People International, Helsinki, Finland Chairs: Euprio National Representatives Master Classes Usage centered design and sites architecture. Guidelines and practice for University digital communication Elisabetta Zuanelli Full Professor of Glottodydactics and Digital communication, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Italy Persuasive presentation: building powerful presence and gravitas Raleigh E. Mayer Principal, Raleigh Mayer Consulting, New York; Adjunct Professor, New York University & Columbia University, USA What makes a great University Website Andrew Crisp Founder & Director, Carrington Crisp, London, UK

130

What we can learn from teachers: learning to communicate well in spoken English Paul Seligson Freelance author, trainer and consultant, Brighton; formerly at British Council, London, UK Keeping trust in a crisis Helio Fred Garcia Executive Director, Logos Institute for Crisis Management & Executive Leadership, New York; Adjunct Professor, New York University, USA

Standing ovation at the Gala dinner at Hotel Regina Palace. Public Relations Writing. Adapting old rules to a new age Jay A. Rubin Principal, Jay Rubin & Associates, New York; Adjunct Professor, New York University ,USA Managing your brand and engaging its ambassadors in a new, empowering conversation Saralie R. Slonsky SRS Strategic Communications; Adjunct Professor, New York University, USA All you need to know about creativity Andy Green Fellow of the Chartered Institute of PR; Partner, Green Communications, Wakefield, UK How to get the media interested in non-easy subjects Anja C. Andersen Associate Professor at Dark Cosmology Center, Niels Bohr Institute; Københavns Universitet, Denmark The successful event management. The new protocol, trends and strategies in Europe Giuseppe Gattino Former spokesperson of the XX Winter Olympic Games, Italy Carlos Fuente Lafuente President of the Escuela Internacional de Protocolo and of the Academia Internacional de Protocolo, Madrid, Spain Fundraising. More resource for your University Michael Urselmann Professor of Social Management, Fachhochschule Köln, Germany Lobbying the European Parliament after Lisbon: changes and challenges Wilhelm Lehmann European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium

The strategic role of branding in international marketing Elisabeth Tissier-Desbordes Professor, Brand & Communications Director of ESCP Europe, Paris, France Communicating change within institutions of higher education Walter Kühme Vice-President, Jade Hochschule Wilhelmshaven / Oldenburg / Elsfieth, Germany Communication and Social Responsibility Nicole D’Almeida Full Professor in French Universities, Paris-Sorbonne, France Special workshop All the world’s a stage: sharing the best practice in building a global brand John Cavani & Robert Tomlinson University of Edinburgh, UK

Elisabetta Zuanelli

Michael Urselmann

Raleigh E. Mayer

131 Helio Fred Garcia

Saralie R. Slonski

Walter K端hme

E. Tissier-Desbordes

Wilhelm Lehmann

Andrew Crisp

Anja C. Andersen

Andy Green

Paul Seligson

Nicole D Almeida

C. Fuente Lafuente

John Cavani

Robert Tomlinson

Giuseppe Gattino

Jay A. Rubin

Lectio magistralis Transparency instruments: communicating research and higher education Frans Van Vught (10) President of ESMU Opening speeches Lauris Beets (15) Director of International Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Netherlands. Founder and first President of EUPRIO Paolo Pomati President of EUPRIO European Café Facilitator: Arwin Nimis Hanzehogeschool, Groningen, The Netherlands Master Classes Are there laws in the scientific production? Daniele Archibugi (14) Research Director, Italian National Research Council, IRPPS, and Professor of Innovation, Governance and Public Policy, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK Generation Y: They don´t dare to ask! How to communicate with Generation Y Kathryn Havlová (5) Graduate of the University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic Raising your university profile by communicating ERC-funded research Massimo Gaudina (19) Head of Communication Unit, European Research Council, Brussels, Belgium Angels, Demons and Black Holes – turning threat to opportunity in science communication James Gillies (6) Head of Communication, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

132

Science Communication for Children – especially in Children’s Universities! Pia Schreiber (8) Scientific Assistant, Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate at Bremen University of Applied Sciences, Germany When PR tends to fail: Science communication during crisis situations Gerhard Schmücker (2) Head of Press Office, NürtingenGeislingen University, Germany

WWW.WORLDCITYPICS.COM

Theme: Communicating knowledge transfer from reasearch to practice Venue: Czech Technical University, Prague Number of Participants: approx. 220

The Elevator Talk: training researchers in the art of being concise Carolyn Gale (4) Founder, Clear Communication Group; Instructor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, USA

Michael Londesborough (22) Science researcher at the Institute of Inorganic Chemistry, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and science populariser / communicator on Czech Television, Czech Repulic

Knowledge Transfer as a profession in the UK. Support and communication challenges for managing the process of turning technology, know-how, expertise and skills into innovative products Sue Gunn (17) Director, Research and Enterprise, City University London, UK

The Role of Design in Education and vice versa Jan Kremláček (18) Experience designer and creative coach, Prague, Czech Republic

Cultural Exchanges in the Arts and Humanities. Partnerships and Knowledge Transfer Christopher Megone (12) Professor of Inter-Disciplinary Applied Ethics, University of Leeds, UK Developing the next generation of leaders: the challenges faced by colleges and universities worldwide Kathryn Kolbert (11) Professor of Leadership Studies; Director of the Athena Center for Leadership Studies, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, USA Workshops The eruption of volcano Eyjafjallajökull – complications for the whole world, but fuel for University PR! Jón Örn Guðbjartsson (7) Director of Marketing and Communication, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland Promoting the benefits of doing research on a national and international level Andreas Archut (3) Head of Press and Communication, University of Bonn, Germany Adrenaline Teaching: Appealing to all our Senses – How to communicate scientific knowledge to Generation Y in a way they will never forget

How to make university related issues appealing to a TV journalist Alessandro Baracchini (13) TV journalist and anchorman, Rai Radiotelevisione Italiana, Rome, Italy Mission to Carbon City: how to attract young people to science Sophie Suc (20) Project Manager / Axelera, the Chemicals and Environment competitiveness cluster, France Digital Public Engagement: Moving from Communication to Engagement Robin Hamman (9) Director of Digital at Edelman (London) and Visiting Journalism Fellow at City University London, UK Understanding of science by use of simple experiments Per-Olof Nilsson (1) Professor at Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Hope and Hype: Science and Engineering in the National News Media Tom Sheldon (21) Press Officer, UK Science Media Centre, London, UK How to reach half a million potential students. Viral Marketing of Higher Education, the Case of SLU Jonathan Sohl & Marie Halling (16) Student Recruitment Officers at SLU, the Swedish Agricultural University in Uppsala, Sweden

133 5

LEONARDO Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;AMICO

19th Annual Conference, 2007. The Gala reception at La Bastille, Grenoble (France).

APPENDIX

1986 2011

EXECUTIVE BOARD

Paolo Pomati PRESIDENT Italy

Laure Schönenberger SECRETARY Switzerland

Arwin Nimis VICE-PRESIDENT the Netherlands

Paola Claudia Scioli TREASURER Italy

AUDITORS COMMITTEE

Rolf Guggenbühl Switzerland

WEBMASTER

Anna-Maria Raudaskoski Finland

Alessandro Ciarlo Italy

Atticus Mullikin the Netherlands

STEERING COMMITTEE

Uwe Steger Austria

Gabriele Pfeifer Austria

Véronique Éloy Belgium

Isabel Paeme Belgium

Pieter Knapen K. U. Leuven

Alexandra Hroncova Czech Republic

Søren Toft Denmark

Jens Fink-Jensen Denmark

Eeva Lehtinen Finland

Marianne Mustonen Finland

Marie-Catherine Mouchot

Christine Legrand France

Josef König Germany

Nijolė Bulotaitė Lithuania

Denis Ancion the Netherlands

Ann Elin Andersen Norway

Marek Zimnak Poland

Isabel França Portugal

Victoria Ferreiro Spain

Anita Byström Sweden

Tina Zethraeus Sweden

Marcus Moser Switzerland

Ergün Yolcu Turkey

Nic Mitchell United Kingdom

Christopher Coe United Kingdom

France

136

Country

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2009

2010

Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lebanon Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

5 18 0 0 25 12 1 15 3 0 0 6 28 0 0 0 0 0 14 8 0 4 0 0 16 34 9 9

5 14 0 0 30 12 0 17 3 0 0 6 34 0 0 0 0 1 19 30 0 5 0 0 11 32 18 14

6 18 0 0 31 23 0 21 1 0 0 6 53 0 0 0 0 1 20 8 0 7 0 0 33 40 29 15

6 19 0 0 24 24 3 22 1 0 0 4 40 0 0 0 0 1 21 14 0 3 0 0 6 49 29 12

6 20 0 0 19 12 4 19 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 1 0 1 21 14 0 1 0 0 3 45 23 8

12 20 0 0 30 20 0 21 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 2 0 1 22 0 5 1 0 0 3 45 23 17

0 24 0 0 22 26 0 22 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 6 0 0 26 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 26

6 25 1 3 47 49 5 25 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 8 0 0 28 27 0 3 0 0 10 44 25 62

21 30 1 3 76 49 24 25 0 2 0 0 24 0 1 6 1 0 32 44 6 8 0 0 14 28 23 82

24 48 1 11 88 40 22 37 0 3 1 2 24 4 1 8 0 0 36 48 5 5 1 2 7 51 82 58

TOT

207

251

312

278

240

260

188

386

500

609

137

Members from all over Europe The global target of EUPRIO covers 30 countries. EUPRIO has 18 countries oﬃcially represented in the Steering Committee (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom). Other 8 countries have members: Cyprus, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lebanon, Romania and Russia and University communicators from Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia attend the annual conferences as well. Currently (2011), EUPRIO has members from these universities and higher education institutions: AUSTRIA Donau-Universität Krems Technische Universität Wien Universität Graz Universität Innsbruck Universität Salzburg Universität Wien BELGIUM European University Association Faculté universitaire des sciences agronomiques Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles Haute Ecole Blaise Pascal Haute Ecole de Namur Haute Ecole Léonard de Vinci Haute Ecole Libre Mosane Howest University College West Flanders IES Parnasse Deux-Alice Institut Libre Marie Haps Karel de Grote-Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Brugge-Oostende Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Université Catholique de Louvain Université de Liège Université de Mons Université libre de Bruxelles Universiteit Antwerpen Universiteit Gent Universiteit Hasselt Vrije Universiteit Brussel CZECH REPUBLIC České Vysoké Učení Technické v Praze Masarykova univerzita Ministerstvo skolstvi, mladeze a telovychovy Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Univerzita Pardubice

138

CYPRUS Πανεπιστήμιο Κύπρου DENMARK Aalborg universitet Aarhus universitet Copenhagen Business School - Handelshøjskolen Danmarks biblioteksskoles bibliotek Danmarks tekniske universitet DTU Danske Universiteter ‒ Universities Denmark Fróðskaparsetur Føroya - University of the Faroe Islands Ilisimatusarﬁk - University of Greenland

Ingeniørhøjskolen i København Københavns universitet SFI- Det nationale forskningscenter for velfærd FINLAND Aalto-yliopisto Hanken - Svenska Handelshögskolan Helsingin yliopisto Itä-Suomen yliopisto Jyväskylän yliopisto Lapin yliopisto Oulun yliopisto Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto Turun kauppakorkeakoulu Turun yliopisto Åbo akademi FRANCE CELSA Paris Sorbonne CPE Lyon EHESP ENIB ESCP Europe (Paris) EURECOM Grenoble École de Management INP Toulouse INP-ENSEEIHT INSA Lyon INSA Rennes Télécom Bretagne Télécom Ecole de Management Université de Cergy Pontoise Université de Haute-Alsace Université de Strasbourg GERMANY Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Brandenburgische TU Cottbus Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln Deutsch-Französische Hochschule Fachhochschule Flensburg Fachhochschule Kiel Fachhochschule Köln - Cologne University of Applied Sciences Fern Universität Hagen Folkwang Universität der Künste Hochschule der Medien Hochschule Esslingen Hochschule für Film und Fernsehen Potsdam Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Umwelt NürtingenGeislingen Hochschule Ravensburg-Weingarten Hochschulrektorenkonferenz Internationales Hochschulinstitut Zittau Ludwig-Maximilian Universität München Ruhr-Universität Bochum Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg RWTH Aachen TU Braunschweig TU Kaiserslautern Universität Bonn Universität Bremen Universität Duisburg-Essen Universität Hohenheim Universität Kassel Universität Konstanz Universität Mannheim Universität Trier

HUNGARY Budapesti Kommunicációs és Üzleti Föiskola Kereskedelmi és Idegenforgalmi Továbbképző ICELAND Háskóli Íslands IRELAND Dublin City University Dublin Institute of Technology ITALY AICUN Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna Libera Università di Bolzano ‒ Freie Universität Bozen Università Bocconi Milano Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milano Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale Amedeo Avogadro Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro Università degli Studi di Parma Università degli Studi di Pavia Università degli Studi di Trieste Università per Stranieri di Perugia Università Politecnica delle Marche LATVIA Latvijas Universitāte Rīgas Tehniskā Universitāte LEBANON Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth LITHUANIA Vilniaus Universitetas Kauno technologijos universitetas Mykolo Romerio Universitetas - Vilnius THE NETHERLANDS 3G Communicatie Fontys Hogescholen Hanzehogeschool Groningen HBO-Raad Hogeschool InHolland Hogeschool Rotterdam Hogeschool van Amsterdam Hogeschool van Utrecht Hogeschool voor de Kunsten Utrecht Maastricht University ‒ Universiteit Maastricht Open Universiteit Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Technische Universiteit Delft Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Universiteit Leiden Universiteit Twente Universiteit Utrecht Universiteit van Amsterdam Universiteit van Tilburg Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam VSNU Wageningen Universiteit en Research Centrum NORWAY Holberg Prisen (Universitetet i Bergen) Høgskolen i Akershus Høgskolen i Bergen Høgskolen i Bodø

Høgskolen i Oslo Høgskolen i Sør-Trøndelag Høgskolen i Vestfold NHH Norges Handelshøyskole NMH Norges Musikkhøgskole NVH Norges Veterinærhøgskole NTNU Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet UHR Universitets- og høgskolerådet UMB Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap Universitetet i Agder Universitetet i Oslo Universitetet i Stavanger Universitetet i Tromsø Universitetssenterert på Svalbard POLAND Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu Uniwersytet Warszawski PORTUGAL Universidade de Aveiro Universidade Técnica de Lisboa ROMANIA Universitatea din Bucureşti RUSSIA Томский государственный университет SPAIN Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Universidad Complutense de Madrid Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya SWEDEN Blekinge tekniska högskola Borås universitet Chalmers tekniska högskola (Göteborg) Göteborg universitet Karlstads universitet Karolinska institutet (Stockholm) Linköpings universitet Linnéuniversitet Luleå tekniska universitet Lund universitet Malmö universitet Mittuniversitet Kungliga tekniska högskolan Stockholms universitet Umeå universitet Högskolan Väst (Trollhättan-Uddevalla) World Maritime University SWITZERLAND Berner Fachhochschule Bundesamt für Berufsbildung und Technologie Eawag: Das Wasserforschungs- Institut des ETHBereichs, Dübendorf Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL, Birmensdorf Empa, Swiss Fed Lab Mat Testing & Res École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne ETH-Rat, Zürich ETH Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz

139

Fachhochschule Ostschweiz Fonds national suisse Hochschule Luzern Paul Scherrer Institut SAMW Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften Basel SATW Schweizerische Akademie der Technischen Wissenschaften, Zürich Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften SCNAT Akademie der Naturwissenschaften / Swiss Academy of Sciences, Bern Scuola Universitaria Professionale della Svizzera Italiana SWITCH ‒ The Swiss Education and Research Network, Zürich TA-Swiss Università della Svizzera italiana Universität Basel Universität Bern Universität Luzern Universität Neuchâtel Universität St. Gallen Universität Zürich Université de Fribourg Université de Genève Université de Lausanne Zürcher Hochschule ZHAW TURKEY Atatürk Üniversitesi Erzurum İstanbul Üniversitesi UNITED KINGDOM Aston University Europe Unit (at Universities UK) Goldsmiths University of London Higher Education External Relations Association (HEERA) Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) King s College London Northumbria University Oxford Brookes University Teesside University Universities UK University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Kent University of Leeds University of Plymouth University of Ulster University of Warwick University of York

140

We have or have had contacts also with these institutions: ESTONIA Tallinna Ülikool GREECE Εθνικόνκαι Καποδιστριακόν Πανεπιστήμιον Αθηνών LUXEMBOURG Université du Luxembourg MALTA L-Università ta' Malta SLOVENIA Universa v Ljubljani

1986 LAURIS BEETS

The Netherlands

LONSDALE 1987 ANNE University of Oxford

United Kingdom

Universiteit Leiden

KNUDSEN 1987-1989 INGE Aarhus Universitet

Denmark

FOOTMAN 1989-1991 RAY University of Edinburgh

United Kingdom

McCREARY 1991-1993 ALF Queen s University Belfast

United Kingdom

JANSSEN 1993-1997 WIM Rijkuniversiteit Groningen

The Netherlands

CHRISTENSEN 1997-1999 INGEBORG Aarhus Universitet

Denmark

GUGGENBÜHL 1999-2003 ROLF Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich

Switzerland

READER 2003-2005 PETER University of Southampton, then Bath

United Kingdom

VAN DAM 2005-2007 and 2008 PETER Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

The Netherlands

CARLSSON 2007-2008 KARIN Uppsala universitet

Sweden

PAOLO POMATI Università del Piemonte Orientale Amedeo 2008-2012 Avogadro Alessandria Novara Vercelli

Italy

Vice-President: ARWIN NIMIS Hanzehogeschool Groningen (until 2011)

The Netherlands

141

1993-1997 BRUNELLA MARCHIONE

Italy

1997-1999 MARC PERMANYER

Spain

1999-2002 PETER READER

United Kingdom

2002-2005 VIRGINIE BOREL

Switzerland

2005-2007 JACOB JENSEN

Denmark

2007-2009 ANNA-MARIA RAUDASKOSKI

Finland

2009-2012 LAURE SCHÖNENBERGER-RÜFFIEUX

Switzerland

1986-1987 JEAN-PIERRE GROOTAERS

Belgium

1987-1991 FABIENNE DE STRIJKER

Belgium

1991-1993 WIM JANSSEN

The Netherlands

1993-1997 WOLFGANG MATHIAS

Germany

1997-1999 ROLF GUGGENBÜHL

Switzerland

1999-2004 ALESSANDRO CIARLO

Italy

2004-2012 PAOLA CLAUDIA SCIOLI

Italy

Università di Parma

Pompeu Fabra Universitat University of Southampton Université de Neuchâtel Aarhus Universitet Oulun Yliopisto

Université de Fribourg

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Universiteit Antwerpen Rijkuniversiteit Groningen Universität zu Köln

Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich Università Commerciale L. Bocconi Milano AICUN Milano

142

* Due to the scattered documentation, these lists could not be considered exhaustive.

AUSTRIA CHRISTIAN REISER UWE STEGER GABRIELE PFEIFER BELGIUM JEAN-PIERRE GROOTAERS FABIENNE DE STRIJKER MARCEL DE CLEENE ISABELLE POLLET VÉRONIQUE ÉLOY ISABEL PAEME CZECH REPUBLIC ALEXANDRA HRONCOVA DENMARK INGE KNUDSEN INGEBORG CHRISTIENSEN FINN KJERULFF-HANSEN SVEND-AAGE MOGENSEN LARS THORSEN ANDERS RENDTORFF JENS FINK-JENSEN JACOB JENSEN SØREN TOFT FINLAND MARJA SADANIEMI IRMA KUUKASJÄRVI JORMA LAAKKONEN ANNA-MARIA RAUDASKOSKI EEVA LEHTINEN KARI HIPPI MARIANNE MUSTONEN FRANCE JEAN-PIERRE DHOURY MONIQUE MIZART MONIQUE RUBICHON CATHERINE FLECHNIAKOSKA ANNE FUYNEL MARIE-CATHERINE MOUCHOT CHRISTINE LEGRAND GERMANY JÜRGEN BOCKLING DIETMAR SCHMIDT JOSEF KÖNIG WOLFGANG MATHIAS HEIDI NEYSES FELICITAS VON ARETIN ULRIKE REIMANN ACHIM FISCHER GREECE SOFIA MANOUSSAKA-POLITI ANNA GEORGIA HELMI IRELAND CHARLES O ROURKE TONY SCOTT

ITALY EDOARDO TEODORO BRIOSCHI BRUNELLA MARCHIONE ALESSANDRO CIARLO PAOLA CLAUDIA SCIOLI PAOLO POMATI LITHUANIA NIJOLĖ BULOTAITĖ the NETHERLANDS LAURIS BEETS WIM JANSSEN MARIA VAN DER DONK ADRIANA ESMEIJER PETER VAN DAM ARWIN NIMIS DENIS ANCION NORWAY ARNE ABRAHAMSEN HELGE KJØLLESDAL MORTEN THORESEN INGEBORG DIRDAL ARVID ELLINGSEN ANN-ELIN ANDERSEN BRATTEBØ ASBJØRN BARTNES POLAND MAREK ZIMNAK PORTUGAL FILOMENA CARVALHO ANA BELA DE JESUS MARTINS ISABEL FRANÇA SPAIN MARC PERMANYER CARLOS MIRAZ SUBERVIOLA VICTORIA FERREIRO SERRANO SWEDEN CHRISTER HJÖRT LARS HOLBERG ULLA NORDLINDER KARIN CARLSSON ANITA BYSTRÖM PETRA LJUNG TINA ZETHRAEUS SWITZERLAND ROLF GUGGENBÜHL VIRGINIE BOREL MARCUS MOSER LAURE SCHÖNENBERGER-RÜFFIEUX TURKEY ERGÜN YOLCU UNITED KINGDOM ANNE LONSDALE RAY FOOTMAN ANDREA REYNER ALF MC CREARY NIC MITCHELL PETER READER CHRISTOPHER COE

143

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV

144

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

LEUVEN/BRUSSELS SIENA BERLIN GRANADA STOCKHOLM EDINBURGH ZURICH ROTTERDAM STRASBOURG HEIDELBERG COPENAGHEN/LUND/MALMÖ LECCE ROVANIEMI BARCELONA DURHAM LA VALLETTA KREMS-AN-DER-DONAU VILNIUS GRENOBLE STAVANGER AVEIRO STRESA PRAGUE GOTHENBURG

12.05.1986 16.05.1986 19.09.1987 1988 10.05.1989 20.10.1989 27.04.1990 11.10.1991 27.03.1992 04.10.1992 19.03.1993 09.06.1993 18.09.1993 15.04.1994 31.08.1994 01.10.1994 18.03.1995 30.08.1995 13.06.1996 28.09.1996 28.02.1997 04.09.1997 03.09.1998 17.04.1999 26.08.1999 08.04.2000

Leuven-Brussels (BE) The Hague (NL) Amsterdam (NL) Leuven (BE) Rome (IT) Brussels (BE) Siena (IT) Berlin (DE) Paris (FRA) Granada (ES) Coimbra (PT) Stockholm (SE) Balaton (HU) Milan (IT) Edinburgh (UK) Poitiers (FR) Prague (CZ) Zurich (CH) Rotterdam (NL) Cambridge (UK) Barcelona (ES) Strasbourg (FR) Heidelberg (DE) Milan (IT) Copenhagen (DK) Ghent (BE)

Belgium Italy Germany Spain Sweden United Kingdom Switzerland The Netherlands France Germany Denmark/Sweden Italy Finland Spain United Kingdom Malta Austria Lithuania France Norway Portugal Italy Czech Republic Sweden

07.09.2000 10.03.2001 14.06.2001 16.03.2002 05.09.2002 22.03.2003 04.09.2003 20.03.2004 02.09.2004 23.04.2005 01.09.2005 01.04.2006 24.08.2006 31.03.2007 07.06.2007 16.02.2008 12.06.2008 31.10.2008 28.02.2009 25.06.2009 12.03.2010 01.09.2010 25.03.2011 01.09.2011 2012 2012

PARTICIPANTS

COUNTRIES

60 ND ND 150 200 180 ND 160 ND 250 ND 200 193 260 184 130 176 174 176 215 184 245 200 ca.

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 23 ND ND 23 25 22 20 20 21 22 21 22 25 24

Lecce (IT) Dublin (IE) Rovaniemi (FI) Aveiro (PT) Barcelona (ES) Oslo (NO) Durham (UK) Graz (AT) La Valletta (MT) Bath (UK) Krems-an-der-Donau (AT) Paris (FR) Vilnius (LT) Vercelli (IT) Grenoble (FR) Cordoba (ES) Stavanger (NO) Leuven (BE) Wrocław (PL) Aveiro (PT) Mannheim (DE) Stresa (IT) Maastricht (NL) Prague (CZ) Brussels (BE) Gothenburg (SE)

145

Nic Mitchell

Teesside University UNITED KINGDOM

21/23

Josef König

Ruhr-Universität Bochum GERMANY

20/23

Klaus H. Grabowski

Pilar Cuena Botrán

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid SPAIN

19/23

Paola Claudia Scioli

Peter Van Dam

19/23

Aicun, Milan ITALY

Kommunikation für Kunst & Kultur, Wissenschaft & Forschung

Uwe Steger

Lisbeth Wester Leandersson

ė Bulotaitė ė Nijolė

17/23

14/23

13/23

GERMANY

Edoardo Teodoro Brioschi Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano ITALY

12/23

Universität Innsbruck AUSTRIA

Victoria Ferreiro Serrano Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

SPAIN

12/23

Lunds universitet SWEDEN

Giampiero Viezzoli

Università di Trieste ITALY

12/23

Vilniaus universitetas LITHUANIA

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven THE NETHERLANDS

Michael Winther Ingeniørhøjskolen i København DENMARK

13/23

1998 1st

University of Oulu

FINLAND

1 2nd 2nd 2009 2nd 2nd 2nd

University of Mannheim University of Economics of WrocĹ&#x201A;aw University of Graz University of Fribourg University of Copenhagen University of Innsbruck

GERMANY POLAND AUSTRIA SWITZERLAND DENMARK AUSTRIA

1st 2010 2nd 3rd

TELECOM Bretagne Grenoble Ecole de Management RWTH Aachen

FRANCE FRANCE GERMANY

146

THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY PUBLIC RELATIONS AND INFORMATION OFFICERS Non Profit Association

147 PREAMBLE

TITLE II ‒ Mission, activities and duration

1. The Association European University Public Relations and Information Officers (EUPRIO) was established in Brussels on 12th May 1986 with the support of the European Community (now European Union) and it was announced to the public at a press conference of the Education Ministers of the Community in The Hague on 16th May 1986. 2. During the first twenty-two-year history, the European Ministers of Education, starting from the Convention signed in Lisbon in 1997 and especially in the Declaration signed in Bologna in 1999, affirmed that higher education is a public good and a public responsibility for the present and future prosperity of Europe. In this context communication, in the broadest sense, has the task of supporting the successful development of the higher education system and helping to make its performances accessible and sustainable for the society, hence to contribute to Europe as competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy in global perspective. EUPRIO shares this vision and considers it while updating its mission and aims. 3. The present Memorandum re-establishes the Association, which formerly had no legal structure, remaining loyal to its history and its mission.

Article 5. Mission.

TITLE I. Name, status, seat and official language Article 1. Name. 1. The Association is called European University Public Relations and Information Officers , thereafter abbreviated EUPRIO . 2. In this Charter the terms European and Europe are defined as the geographical area which includes all the Council of Europe s Member States, who are the States candidates for membership and the States observers to the Committee of Ministers of the Council. Article 2. Status. EUPRIO is an non-profit association under the Belgian

NPA-act of 27th June 1921.

Article 3. Seat. 1. EUPRIO s registered office is established c/o the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, at 13, Oude Markt, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 2. It may be moved by decision of the Steering Committee. Article 4. Language. The official language of the association is Dutch. Other European languages can be used for business affairs upon necessity.

1. The aims of EUPRIO are: • to promote exchange of ideas, techniques and experiences amongst its members, both within the whole communication field and particularly from the institutions of higher education s perspective; • to encourage and promote collaboration and partnership between European institutions of higher education and research in the field of communications; • to create a network to assist members in their tasks as professional communicators within their institutions; • to promote the professional excellence of all members in their work; • to professionalise higher education information, public relations, marketing, and other forms of corporate communications by sharing best practice and holding conferences, workshops and the like; • to represent European higher education communication in other organisations; • to represent the interests of higher education communication in national and international policy making; • to encourage and enhance cooperation between European members and professionals in and outside Europe. 2. The association may carry out all activities directly or indirectly connected with its aims. It may in particular assist with or be involved in any activity similar or complementary to its aims. Article 6. Duration. The association is formed for an unspecified period. Article 7. Activities. 1. To pursue the aims as described in Article 5, the Association may: • organise conferences, workshops, meetings, exhibitions and every other initiative that will provide updating experience or lifelong learning for its members; • organise an Annual Conference during which the General Assembly will take place; • prepare and distribute promotional stuff; • maintain a Web site, newsletters, audiovisuals, and the like; • produce consulting services in the field of communications; • build a network to assist higher education and research institutions or other European organisations in communications programmes. 2. Every year it updates the directory of the members, making it accessible to all of them.

TITLE III ‒ Membership, resources and financial year Article 8. Membership. 1. Members are persons who come from the countries stated in Article 1. The members vary from a minimum of three to an unlimited number. 2. Membership is articulated into four categories: • individual members; • institutional members; • associate members; • honorary members. 3. Individual membership is open to all professionals who are engaged in the field of communications (press officers, public and external relations, marketing, information, Web, protocol, counselling, internal and external communication, etc.) in higher education and research institutions situated in Europe. 4. Institutional membership is open to higher education and research institutions situated in Europe. Institutions, though, are not members; each institutional membership entitles groups of up to four employees engaged in the field of communications at the same institutions to register as members, saving money and increasing memberships. One institution can subscribe several institutional memberships. These members have the same rights and duties as individual members. 5. Associate membership is open to: • professionals who are engaged in the field of communications but not employed in higher education and research institutions; • companies that are involved in higher education and research communications, but are not universities or related organisations. 6. Honorary membership is awarded to persons who have attained acknowledged excellence in the field of communications and/or higher education and/or have made major contributions to EUPRIO. Article 9. Admission.

148

1. Candidates to individual and institutional membership must present an admission form to the National Representative of their country. If their application meets the criteria set out in Article 8., the Steering Committee gives them the status of Members of EUPRIO and they commit themselves to respect the Charter and the Regulations of the association. 2. Should the National Representative be vacant or the country have not reached the sufficient number to have a Representative, candidates may present the admission form to the President. 3. Candidates to associate membership present an admission form to the Executive Board. If accepted, they acquire the status of Associate Members of EUPRIO and they commit themselves to respect the Charter and the Regulations of the association. 4. Candidates to honorary membership must be proposed and recommended to the Steering Committee by at least two members. Each nomination should be accompanied by a curriculum vitae of the nominee and letters of endorsement. Article 10. Subscriptions. 1. All categories of members are required to pay annual fees, except from the Honorary Members, who are exempt.

2. Members will pay the fees to their National Representative or, if vacant, or if the country have not reached the sufficient number to have a Representative, directly to the Treasurer. The National Representatives, after collecting the fees, will send them to the Treasurer with a complete and detailed list of the memberships. The Treasurer will issue a receipt. 3. The amounts of the annual dues are fixed by the Steering Committee each year, will not be higher than five thousand Euros and shall be paid not later than thirty days before the General Assembly. 4. Members who have paid the due subscriptions are entitled to attend the Annual Conference, to vote in General Assembly and to enjoy all rights derived from the membership. Associate companies have only one vote. 5. A member, person or institution, who fails to pay the subscriptions, will be reminded by a Treasurer s letter and an e-mail within a month. If no answer is given a month, he/she shall be deemed to have resigned and deleted from the membership list. 6. Only new members who join the association after the 31st May will pay reduced annual dues scaled to the effective period of their membership. Article 11. Exclusion. 1. Members who are no longer deemed to be supporting the aims of the association may be excluded from the association by a resolution of the General Assembly, voting by a two thirds majority. 2. The excluded member or the rightful claimants of an excluded or deceased or voluntarily resigned member shall assert no claim on the association s assets. Article 12. Resources. 1. The association lives on the annual subscriptions and other proceeds from annual conferences and the like. 2. It may receive grants, gifts, endowments, bequests or other forms of donations from public or private sources, whether or not allocated to specific purposes covered by its aims. 3. Any bank account in which any part of the assets of the association is deposited shall be operated by the President, by the Vice President, by the Treasurer or by the Secretary and shall indicate the name of the association. Cheques over five hundred Euros need two signatures. Article 13. Financial year. The financial year of the association shall run from 1st January to 31st December. TITLE IV ‒ Structure Article 14. Bodies. EUPRIO has the following structure: • the General Assembly; • the Steering Committee; • the President; • the Executive Board; • the Auditors Committee.

Article 15. The General Assembly.

Article 16. The Steering Committee.

1. The General Assembly is the supreme governing Body of the association. It shall: • elect the President and the Vice President on the basis of the candidacy or candidacies proposed by the Steering Committee; • ratify and dismiss the members of the Steering Committee; • decide on the exclusion of Members; • have the power to dissolve the association; • review and amend the Charter of the association; • approve the annual accounts, the budget for the forthcoming year, receive the reports of the President, Vice-President, the Secretary and the Treasurer on the activities of the past year and plans for the future; • discharge yearly the Steering Committee • approve the Regulations proposed by the Steering Committee; 2. The General Assembly comprises all the Members of EUPRIO: individual, members listed in an institutional membership, associate and honorary. 3. Each member, individual or listed into an institutional membership, has only one vote; voting by representative or by proxy is not admitted. 4. The General Assembly shall meet at least once per year, during the Annual Conference. 5. The place, the time and the general theme of the Annual Conference shall be announced during the previous Annual Conference. The programme shall be available on the Web site at least three months before the Conference. The Members shall receive the agenda of the General Assembly by e-mail three weeks before the Conference. If it is proposed to table resolutions amending the Charter or to discuss the dissolution of the association, sixty days notice shall be given. The accidental omission to give notice of a meeting to, or the non-receipt of notice of a meeting by, any person entitled to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings at the meeting. 6. The President shall preside as Chair of the meeting. 7. A quorum of 10% of the total membership is requested to validate the General Assembly. 8. The General Assembly may decide upon its mode of voting: show of hands, secret ballot, acclamation, electronic voting, etc.. 9. The President s election shall be decided by secret ballot. The secret ballot is requested whenever personal affairs or conflict cases occur. 10. When a poll is taken, the President shall appoint scrutineers and fix the time and the place for declaring the results. 11. Decisions shall be made by simple majority of the members present. In the case of an equality of votes, the President has the casting vote. 12. Decisions for excluding members need two-thirds of the number of votes. 13. Extraordinary meetings may be convened by the President or by the Steering Committee or by a formal request in writing from at least one-tenth of the Members. 14. The decisions of the General Assembly shall be kept at the head office and published on the Web site. 15. Interested third parties can ask the executive office to see the Minutes.

1. The Steering Committee is the ordinary governing Body of the association. It has all the powers not attributed to the General Assembly by the Statutes or the Law. It shall among other • be the principal forum for discussion of the association s policy positions; it may make statements on behalf of the association, taking initiatives or participating actively in the international debate regarding communication issues; • recommend the strategic direction of EUPRIO to the General Assembly; • develop priorities and guidelines on policy issues and on services to members; • appoint its members normally on recommendation of the relevant national organisations; • examine the candidacies for the Presidency, which shall be accompanied by a general policy statement; • propose a short-list of candidates, from one to three names, to the General Assembly for the President s election; • appoint the Treasurer and the Secretary; • appoint the Auditors; • approve the programme and the venue of the Annual Conference and of any other initiative and support organizers in setting the content, by finding possible speakers and themes; • establish and dissolve working groups as it sees fit; • propose the level of the annual membership fees; • receive and approve the annual accounts and the budget prepared by the Executive Board and the report of the President on the activities of the past year and plans for the future, for submission to the General Assembly; • decide on the admission of Individual and Institutional Members when the National Representative is vacant, of Associate Members and of Honorary members; • receive and approve agendas for meetings of the General Assembly prepared by the President; • propose reviews and amendments of the Charter and of the Regulations to the General Assembly. 2. The Steering Committee is composed of: • the President; • the National and the Deputy National Representatives. 3. Each European country that has at least five Members can propose a National Representative to the General Assembly that approves. It can propose a Deputy National Representative to the General Assembly that approves when it has at least twenty Members. Where national membership has collapsed or does not exist, the Steering Committee can propose to the General Assembly that approves, a member for co-optation for a period of two years to build or rebuild the national membership. 4. Where possible, the candidate National Representatives are nominated by their national organisations. When this latter is missing, the National Representative is proposed by the informal group of Members of the same country. 5. Both the National Representatives and the Deputy National Representatives can attend the same meeting of the Steering Committee, with peer rights and duties.

149

6. All the members of the Steering Committee are appointed by the General Assembly for a two-year term and can be re-appointed the General Assembly for a maximum of two further two-year terms. A national representative would be required to have the endorsement of his/her national members to continue his/her for another term. 7. The National Representatives, assisted by the Deputy National Representatives, are the link with their own national associations, where present, and are responsible for all EUPRIO matters in the country concerned, including: • membership recruitment and retention; • collection of the annual membership fees and transfer of fees to the Treasurer; • promoting the Annual Conference and the other EUPRIO initiatives; • organising meetings of EUPRIO members and other interested parties in that country, where appropriate. 8. The Steering Committee shall meet at least twice a year; one meeting coincides with the Annual Conference. The President shall convene and chair the meeting and prepare the agenda. 9. The quorum for which a meeting is valid shall be one-half of the members plus one of the Steering Committee. 10. Decisions shall be made by a simple majority of those present and voting; in case of equality, the President has the casting vote. 11. The members of the Steering Committee who fail to participate to three successive meetings of the same Body without reason shall be excluded. The President shall immediately contact the national organisation to substitute the representative. 12. A member of the Steering Committee, for valid reasons, can resign sending a letter and an e-mail to the President. Article 17. The President.

150

1. The President is the figurehead of the Association. He/she leads, represents it and acts as the spokesperson for it to third parties for all activities. 2. He/She shall: • convene and chair the meetings of the General Assembly, of the Steering Committee and of the Executive Board; arranges the agenda and provides for the enforcement of the decisions; • see that order and running are kept; • guarantee the observance of the Charter and of the Regulations; • draw up or rescind contracts, agreements, insurance policies, leases; open and close accounts; • appoint a paid employee, who shall work directly under his/her instructions; • prepare the annual report on the activities of the past year and plans for the future for submission to the General Assembly; • exercise every other function and competence pursuant to the Law. 3. The President is assisted by a Vice-President while carrying out his/her duties. The Vice-President shall deputise for the President in his/her absence. 4. The President must be a Member of the association and work in a higher education institution.

5. He/She shall be elected by the General Assembly on a short-list of candidates (1 to 3) proposed by the Steering Committee. 6. The elected President shall have received the simple majority of votes. The ballot will be repeated in the case of an equal number of votes; if equality persists, the winner is the eldest candidate. 7. The President shall hold office for two years and shall be eligible for one re-election. 8. The President shall be elected one year before the start of his/her term as President and shall serve as Vice-President for this period and for one year after the end of his/her Presidency. 9. The President shall cease to hold office and will be replaced by the Vice President if he/she: • becomes incapable by reason of illness; • resigns his office spontaneously; • is absent without reason from two successive meetings; • is directly or indirectly interested in any contract and fails to declare the nature of that interest; no longer works in the field of higher education communications and is therefore not eligible for membership. Article 18. The Executive Board. 1. The Executive Board is responsible for the implementation of the policy of the association, for the planning of its activities and for the management of the day-to-day affairs. It shall, among other: • prepare discussion papers; • prepare proposals for the annual budget for approval by the Steering Committee and then by the General Assembly; • be responsible for the implementation of the budget; • arrange programmes for the exchange of information and experience on matters of common interest to individual and collective members and to identify and disseminate good practice in institutions of higher education and research. 2. The Executive Board consists of the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary and the Treasurer. 3. Each member must be a Member of the Association. The President and the Vice-President are elected by the General Assembly; the Secretary and the Treasurer are appointed by the Steering Committee. 4. Executive Board members shall serve in a personal capacity, not as representative of any country or Body. 5. The members of the Executive Board may be paid all reasonable travelling, hotel and other expenses properly incurred by them in connection with their attendance at meetings. 6. The Secretary shall: • make a written account of the meetings; • publish a record of the decisions taken; • monitor the membership and the composition of the Steering Committee; • monitor membership s applications where no national representative exists, in collaboration with the President. 7. The Treasurer shall: • prepare the budget and accounts; • collect the membership fees from the National Representatives and/or the other Members; • manage the bank accounts and investments;

• recommend the level of the membership fees. 8. The Executive Board shall meet at least three times per year. The President shall convene and chair its meetings and prepare the agenda. 9. Decisions shall be made by a simple majority of those present; in case of equality, the President has the casting vote. Article 19. The Auditors Committee. 1. The Auditors Committee is the Body which shall: • examine the correspondence of the annual accounts to the account books; • check the general management of the association; • make appropriate cash and property assets inspections; • assess the regularity of the account books. 2. The Auditors Committee is composed of three members nominated by the Steering Committee, preferably among former members of the association, who have not been excluded nor have resigned. 3. The Auditors can participate to the Steering Committee meetings without right to vote. 4. The Auditors hold office for two years and shall be eligible for another appointment. 5. The Auditors can use, within reasonable limitations, paid external financial expertise, if necessary. TITLE V ‒ Amendment of the Charter and Dissolution of the Association Article 20. Amendment of the Charter. 1. A proposal to amend the Charter may be made by the Steering Committee on its own initiative or acting on the initiative of the President or upon a request of at least 1/20 of the Members. 2. The Charter may be amended by a decision of the General Assembly at which at least two thirds of the Members are attending the meeting. If this condition is not met, a second meeting may be convened, which shall deliberate validly, irrespective of the number of the Members present. 3. Amendments shall be adopted only with a majority of two thirds of the vote of the General Assembly. Article 21. Dissolution of the Association. 1. A proposal to dissolve the association may be made by the Steering Committee on its own initiative or acting on the initiative of the President or upon a request of at least ten percent of the Members. 2. The association may be dissolved by a decision of the General Assembly at which at two thirds of the Members are attending the meeting. If this condition is not met, a second meeting may be convened, which shall deliberate validly, irrespective of the number of the Members present. 3. The decision to dissolve the association shall be adopted only with a majority of four/fifths of the vote. 4. In the event of dissolution, the assets of the association shall be transferred according to a decision made by the General Assembly. This allocation shall be necessarily made in favour of an association whose aims are similar to those of this association.

Dated 27th June 2009 Signed by: Denis ANCION

Maastricht University, Nederland

Ann Elin ANDERSEN BRATTEBØ

Universitets- og høgskolerådet, Oslo, Norge

Asbjørn BARTNES

Universitetet i Tromsø, Norge

Nijolė BULOTAITĖ

Vilniaus universitetas, Lietuva

Anita BYSTRÖM

Luleå tekniska universitet, Sverige

Christopher COE

King s College London, United Kingdom

Véronique ÉLOY

Facultés Universitaires Saint Louis Bruxelles, Belgique

Victoria FERREIRO SERRANO

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, España

Jens FINK-JENSEN

Københavns Universitet, Danmark

Achim FISCHER

Universität Mannheim, Deutschland

Anne FUYNEL

Grenoble École de Management, France

Josef KÖNIG

Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Deutschland

Eeva LEHTINEN

Aalto yliopisto, Suomi

Petra LJUNG

Chalmers tekniska högskola, Sverige

Ana Bela de Jesus MARTINS,

Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal

Nicholas Peter MITCHELL

University of Teesside, United Kingdom

Marcus MOSER

Universität Bern, Schweiz

Marie-Catherine MOUCHOT TELECOM Bretagne, France

Gabriele PFEIFER

Universität Salzburg, Österreich

Paolo POMATI

Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale Amedeo Avogadro , Italia

Anna-Maria RAUDASKOSKI Oulun yliopisto, Suomi

Paola Claudia SCIOLI

Associazione Italiana dei Comunicatori di Università, Milano, Italia

Laure SCHÖNENBERGER RÜFFIEUX Université de Fribourg, Suisse

Daniel SOBOTKA

Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy, Praha, Česká Republika

Uwe STEGER

Universität Innsbruck, Österreich

Ronny VANDENBROELE

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, België

Marek ZIMNAK

Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu, Polska

151

contents 3

The Authors Word

The Logo

Euprio or the Way of Science Communication An introduction by Jean-Pierre Grootaers

1986 ‒ Lauris Beets (V. Éloy)

1987 ‒ Anne Lonsdale (V. Éloy)

1987-1989 ‒ Inge Knudsen (V. Éloy)

1989-1991 ‒ Ray Footman (V. Éloy)

1991-1993 ‒ Alf Mc Creary (V. Éloy)

1993-1997 ‒ Wim Janssen (V. Éloy)

1997-1999 ‒ Ingeborg Christensen (V. Éloy)

1999-2003 ‒ Rolf Guggenbühl (P. Pomati)

2003-2005 ‒ Peter Reader (P. Pomati)

103

2005-2008 ‒ Peter Van Dam / Karin Carlsson (P. Pomati)

117

2008-2012 ‒ Paolo Pomati (P. Pomati)

152

135

Appendix

152

Contents

153

154

a 25-year euprio success story

Véronique Éloy Paolo Pomati