Questionnaire on student and staff mobility
Preliminary results
Andrea Herdegen
Federal Ministry of Education and Research
Meeting of the BFUG working group on mobility
04 November, 2010, Budapest
The questionnaire –
some organisational details
Deadlines and number of answers…
•
•
•
•
1st deadline: 30 September 2010  10 answers
2nd deadline: 20 October 2010  17 answers
5 answers later
First results are based on 30 answers (2 answers
have been transmitted too late to the data collectors
to include them in the first results)
• Return rate until now: ~ 65%
2
The questionnaire –
some organisational details
Remarks by respondents on the nature of the
questionnaire
• More time  possibility of updating answers in 2011
was welcomed
• More space to explain answers
• Situation of small states?
Quality of answers
• High quality for about half of the responses
3
Preliminary results I
National strategies & action plans to foster mobility
• Almost all countries have national strategies &
action plans (differing in nature, scale and impact)
• In ~ 50% of the strategies, national quantitative
targets for the different forms of student mobility are
included
• Staff mobility is included in most of the national
strategies, but only in one third of those strategies,
quantitative targets for staff mobility are set
• Emphasis on EHEA countries, USA/Canada and
Asia
4
Preliminary results II
National strategies & action plans to foster mobility
• Almost all countries have strategies or programmes
below the national level to foster mobility (mainly on
the institutional, to a lesser extent on the regional level)
• Financial support of students‘ mobility: in half of the
countries, students studying abroad or in the country
have access to the same financial support
• Various restrictions concerning this equality
• Restrictions are more frequent for degree than for credit
mobility
 Major differences among the EHEA countries in this
field
5
Preliminary results III
Main obstacles to student mobility (according to number of entries)
30
25
20
Incoming mobility
15
Outgoing mobility
10
5
M
O
th
er
ud
en
ts
g
st
su
es
ot
iva
t in
g
an
d
in
fo
rm
in
Le
ga
l is
or
ga
ni
sa
t io
n
ge
Cu
rri
c
ul
um
/S
t
ud
y
La
ng
ua
n
Re
co
gn
itio
Fu
nd
i
ng
0
6
Preliminary results IV
Main obstacles to staff mobility (according to number of entries)
25
20
15
Incoming mobility
Outgoing mobility
10
5
0
Immigration
restrictions
Recognition
issues
Language
issues
Incompatibility
of pension
and/or social
security
systems
Legal issues
Other
7
Preliminary results V
Balanced student mobility flows?
More incoming than outgoing
students
More outgoing than incoming
students
Approximately the same
number of incoming and
outgoing students
Other
8
Preliminary results VI
Is the situation described above regarded as
balanced mobility?
Yes
No
No or no clear answer
What is “balanced mobility“?
Possible definition, proposed by the majority of countries: balanced
mobility is when numbers of incoming and outgoing individuals
are approximately the same.
9
Preliminary results VII
Imbalances of student mobility flows with particular
countries or regions
• Tendency to go to English speaking countries (for
credit and degree mobility)
• Increasing numbers of incoming students from Eastern
European and Asian countries
• High fluctuation between neigbouring countries and/or
countries sharing a common language
• Non-EU countries have a strong imbalance towards EU
member states
 Different positions (e.g. declining working age
population, brain drain, economic factors etc.)
10
EHEA Strategy for Mobility
•
•
•
•
What do we learn from those results for a future
mobility strategy?
Important guidelines for our discussion could be…
Do we need to develop further our national strategies?
How can we tackle different obstacles to mobility?
How to come to a common definition of the term “balanced
mobility“?
How to balance the differences within the EHEA
(e.g. imbalances of mobility flows, EU countries,
ERASMUS etc.)
Input from discussions today is welcome!
11
Thank you for your
attention!
12