Is Erasmus for the ‘Second-Class Citizens’ of the University? Student Mobility Programmes and Inequality in the Irish Higher Education System.

Author(s):

Aline Courtois(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

28. Sociologies of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

28 SES 04, Data and Policies in the Fabrication of the European Space of Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

09:00-10:30

Room:

NM-B101

Chair:

Paolo Landri

Contribution

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Erasmus student mobility programmes are framed and implemented in Irish higher education institutions. It pays particular attention to differentiation and stratification, rather than homogenization, within the Irish higher education system, under the effect of European policies in the area of student mobility. It illustrates the enactment of these policies at national level and how they are translated in institutional practices; how Erasmus mobility is used by the various agents and where it is located in relation to other (non-EU) mobility programmes. Universities are here envisaged not only as passive recipients of policy changes imposed from above, but as agents in the processes which transform them and attention is paid to local variations, mediations and interferences, including the power relationships between and within institutions. The consequences in terms of equality are examined, in particular the relationship with the stratification of higher education institutions, stratification of courses or faculties within institutions, stratification of types of mobility and how these may translate in new mechanisms of distinction that the most privileged students may use to further their competitive advantage.

In particular it aims to answer the following research questions:

- How is student mobility framed at national level? What are the opportunities and risks associated with such an approach?

- How does national policy translate at institutional level? How is it mediated by institutions and by agents within these institutions? Does internationalisation and in particular exchange partnerships and student mobility schemes amplify the differentiation of higher education institutions? Should we speak of differentiation or perhaps even stratification instead of homogenization? How relevant is the European framework in these institutional strategies and in particular, is Erasmus mobility valued by institutions and why? Are particular hierarchies discernible within institutions, for instance in terms of faculties and subject areas?

- What are the consequences for equality?

The paper draws from several strands of research, in particular (a) relationship between internationalisation and marketization in higher education, (b) diversification and stratification of higher education institutions (c) international student mobility and inequality.

(a) The internationalisation of higher education systems has become a policy imperative in many countries (Albach, 2007). It is deeply connected to the growing marketization of the sector and increasingly envisaged as a way to increase national revenue (Ball, 2012; Lynch, 2013). University leaders tend to focus overwhelmingly on the ‘economic or brand-enhancing concepts of global engagement’ (Jones, 2011). In parallel international university rankings have become extremely influential, pervasive and normalised (Hazelkorn, 2015). Social justice debates on the role of higher education have been side-lined as universities are increasingly governed by the market principles, which underpin these rankings (Lynch, 2013; Štech, 2011).

(b) The massification of higher education may lead to both vertical and horizontal stratification within higher education systems (Teichler, 2002-03). How institutions position themselves in relation to each other depends on their history, orientation and structure (Paradeise, 2015). These characteristics influence their ability to ‘make use’ of the international and to reposition themselves on the national and international markets (Ballatore and Bloss, 2008).

(c) In addition internationalisation expands the strategic possibilities, which the most privileged can deploy (Brooks and Waters, 2014; Robertson and Dale, 2013). In times of uncertainty, when third-level qualifications no longer constitute a guarantee against downward mobility (Brown et al. 2003, Tomlinson, 2008), the accumulation of ‘international capital’ (Wagner, 1998) through student mobility may be perceived as a worthwhile investment to maintain class advantage. In a globalized education market, privileged students perceive themselves as consumers of ‘global opportunities’ (Rivzi, 2009, p. 269) and their strategies of distinction intersect with those of institutions.

Method

The proposed paper is drawn from my research project untitled ‘The significance of international mobility in Irish students’ strategies at third level’ under the NUI Garret Fitzgerald Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Social Sciences, 2014-2016. While the main focus is on students, national and institutional strategies were also examined as the latter in particular constrain the strategic possibilities offered to students and also frame their approach to mobility. The present paper is informed by an analysis of national and institutional policy (documentary research); statistical analysis of university partnerships and Erasmus figures; and interviews with international officers and academic coordinators (N=10) across five universities and one third-level college. It is complemented with data collected through a qualitative questionnaire (N=110) and in-depth interviews with students returning from Erasmus and other exchange schemes (N=22). Documents examined include national policy documents (e.g. DES 2010; HEA 2014; Hunt, 2011) as well as the strategic plans of HEIs. These were analysed through a critical lens, individually and comparatively. Academic coordinators and international officers were contacted directly. Students were recruited through international offices, directly at events and though personal contacts. Although no strict sampling method was used they were recruited across a range of institutions, destinations and subjects and from both genders. Interviews were semi-structured and lasted from one to three hours. Students were asked about their motivations, their experiences abroad and the benefits they thought they had drawn from the experience. Their experiences in negotiating institutional frameworks to secure their places were of particular relevance to the topic of this paper. Academic coordinators and international officers were invited to share their insights on student mobility and to discuss institutional strategies in the field. The rationale for the establishment of partnerships were discussed as well as the allocation of resources to the various strands of student mobility and the logics underpinning student selection for these programmes. Interviews were coded and analysed individually, thematically and cross-sectionally.

Expected Outcomes

The national policy in the area of internationalisation is focused on economic benefits and global ambitions. Outgoing mobility is framed as a way of increasing students’ employability and more broadly their human capital, in line with the discourse of the ‘knowledge economy’ and insurance against risk (Hay and Kaptizke, 2009; Peters, 2005). It overlaps partly with the EU discourse around the Erasmus mobility scheme, although it is turned to the global rather than the European. National policy translates in different behaviours at institutional level. While institutional autonomy is a much touted objective of recent strategic plans for higher education, so are efficiency and accountability. The national strategy advocates efficiency at the national level. The goal is to work towards an integrated system, where HEIs would complement each other rather than compete with each other. Yet HEIs are discreetly stratified in a way that reflects typological distinctions and history. International rankings replicate and formalise this status hierarchy. The way they implement internationalisation strategies is constrained by these factors (as well as by the size of the institution), translates in differentiated organisational strategies (e.g. centralised/decentralised, different levels of academic involvement and control). This reflects and reinforces the hierarchy as highly ranked HEIs are more likely to partner with highly ranked HEIs abroad and to concentrate their efforts on non-EU partners. Erasmus destinations are relatively neglected in this framework as they carry less prestige, and this is even more visible when dominant subject areas and faculties (e.g. Business) are examined in isolation. Thus the socio-economic characteristics of students are not the only factor which influence their ability to participate in and draw benefits from mobility: institutional frameworks, organizational features and internal hierarchies potentially amplify inequality in this respect.

References

Altbach, P. (2007) Tradition and Transition: The International Imperative in Higher Education. Boston: CIHE. Ball, S. (2012) Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neo-liberal Imaginary. London and New York: Routledge. Ballatore, M. and Blöss, T. (2008). ‘Le sens caché de la mobilité des étudiants Erasmus’ [The Hidden Meaning of the Mobility of Erasmus Students]. In F. Dervin and M. Byram (eds), Échanges et mobilités académiques: Quel bilan? Paris: L’Harmattan, 17-42. Brooks, R. and Waters, J. (2014). Student Mobilities, Migration and the Internationalisation of Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, P. (2013) ‘Education, Opportunity and the Prospects for Social Mobility’. British Journal of Sociology of Education 34(5–6): 678–700. DES (2010) Investing in Global Relationships. Ireland’s International Education Strategy 2010–15. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills. Hay, S. and Kapitzke, C. (2009) Smart state for a knowledge economy: reconstituting creativity through student subjectivity. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30(2): 151-164 Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. HEA (2014). Higher Education System performance Framework 2014-2016. Dublin: HEA. Hunt (2011). National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030. Dublin: HEA. Jones, E. (2011). ‘Internationalisation - Aid, trade, pervade.’ University World News 195, October 30. Lynch, K. (2013). ‘New Managerialism, Neoliberalism and Rankings’. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 13: 141-153. Paradeise, C. (2015) In Search of Academic Quality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Peters, M. 2005. The new prudentialism in education: Actuarial rationality and the entrepreneurial self. Educational Theory, 22(3): 267-82 Rivzi, F. (2009). ‘Global Mobility and the Challenges of Educational Research and Policy.’ In T. Popkewitz and F. Rivzi (eds), Globalisation and the Study of Education. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 268-289. Robertson, S. and Dale, R. (2013) The social justice implications of the privatisation of education: a relational account. Oxford Review of Education, 39 (4): 426-445. Teichler, U. (2002/3). Diversification de l’enseignement supérieur et profil individuel des établissements [Diversification of Higher Education and Indidual Profile of Institutions]. Politique et gestion de l’enseignement supérieur, 14: 199-212. Tomlinson, M. (2008) ‘“The Degree is not Enough”: Students’ Perceptions of the Role of Higher Education Credentials for Graduate Work and Employability’. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29(1): 49–61. Wagner, A.-C. (1998) Les nouvelles élites de la mondialisation: une immigration dorée en France [The new elites of globalisation: Wealthy migrants in France]. Paris: PUF.

Author Information

Aline Courtois (presenting / submitting)

National University of Ireland

N/A

Dublin 7

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.