Social Determinants of International Student Mobility in Hungary: Inclusive or Selective Features of European Mobility Programmes?

Author(s):

Adam Hamori(presenting / submitting)Ágoston Horváth(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 06 A,

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-23

15:30-17:00

Room:

K5.04

Chair:

Monne Wihlborg

Contribution

International student mobility has become a focus of the sociological research into higher education especially by the European integration and the widening mobility opportunities within the EHEA, mainly through the ERASMUS programme. Promoting intra-European student mobility has been one of the central objectives of Bologna process, too (Teichler 2012). Although its role in promoting social inclusion and a European identity has been repeatedly emphasized and its economical determinants and effects on a national level has been amply scrutinized by Gonzalez et al (2011), micro-level empirical evidence has suggested that several obstacles hindered these objectives to be realized. Vossensteyn et al (2010) identified, among other factors, financial barriers as the most important obstacles of taking part in mobility programs being present in all the 27 EU member states.
While observing the variation of mobility plans along fields of studies in Hungary, Kiss (2007) underlined the importance of income differences of students as also soundly evidenced earlier by Souto Otero&McCoshan (2006). Souto Otero (2008) observed a moderately widening access of students from lower social status, but he also noticed a considerable economical difference between the background of mobile and non-mobile students. Disadvantaged social status in Hungary has been related both to a weaker command of foreign languages and a lower willingness of studying or working in foreign countries as Nyüsti (2012) stated.
Analysing graduate tracking data from 2012 in ELTE university, Budapest, Czakó&Koltói (2012) concluded that parental educational background as well as financial status of the family proved to be positively correlated both with ERASMUS mobility plans and mobility experiences of students. They also observed that financial support from the family was the third important source of financing mobility. They suggested further analysis for revealing underlying mechanisms like, e.g., self-selection through students’ motivations.
Rodrigues (2012) has cited ample findings which suggested more a cultural and educational than a financial basis for the bias towards advantaged students participating in mobility programs. However, she has also emphasized the lack of scrutinizing non-mobile students as a comparison. Reflecting this need, Souto Otero et al (2013) conducted an international on-line survey, the results of which revealed the lack of information as a further distinctive factor between participating and non-participating students. Based on EUROSTUDENT V survey, Kiss (2014) also concluded that while financial status was clearly related to student mobility, a combined effect of the position within the higher educational structure, parental educational background and social status impacted international mobility plans and experiences. The results of this survey presented that financial, relational and institutional obstacles were the most significant ones for students, the first of which being the most important in the surveyed countries (Hauschildt 2016). This finding was in line with that already asserted by Grabher et al (2014). However, Netz (2013) observed differing national patterns in the effect of deterring factors through multi-variate models based on EUROSTUDENT IV data. It is also remarkable that in a different on-line survey Van Mol (2014: 47) found no significant relationship in most of the surveyed countries between social background of the family and student mobility.
The aim of our paper is to analyse the social background of international student mobility in Hungary. Our hypothesis is that both student participation in mobility programmes and making plans to do so are very closely related to the students’ family background and their detected social status and, at the same time, we expect the disadvantages to cumulate.

Method

We use the Hungarian database of the international student research programme EUROSTUDENT VI for our analysis. It has been for the second time that Hungary took part in the research aiming at analysing the students’ study plans, mobility plans and living conditions. The target group of the survey consisted of students who had active student status in the spring of 2016 in any form of tertiary education (BA/BSc), master’s (MA/MSc), undivided Master’s, colleges or universities. We have chosen 25 institutions from the whole of 64 as our target, by stratified and clustered sampling method on the basis of the typology of institutions (Hrubos 2013). We conducted a full-scale online survey in the chosen institutions, and as a result we have gained a database containing 7,202 students’ answers. In order to verify our hypotheses we developed two binary logistic regression models. In the first statistical model we predict the probability of our students to take part in mobilities. We consider students to have taken part in mobilities (N=929) who either had studied at least a term at a foreign university or took part in any other form of education during their studies (i.e. research, field work or internship, summer or winter courses, language courses or any other type). In the second model we examine the plans to study abroad. To start with, we reduce the database to those who had never taken part in any mobilities before and we examine what kind of students with what kind of attributes (N=6,240) were planning to study abroad (N=1,782). The explanatory variables of our models can be allocated into the following thematic groups: influence of the training (place of study, degree of study, fields of study, work schedule); influence of the institution, categories of the typology of the institution (Hrubos 2013): (church colleges; private colleges with relatively low student populations; colleges with higher student populations; universities with broad profiles; relatively small universities with special profiles; classic universities); family background (financial support of the family, parents’ highest qualifications, family financial status at the age of 14), present socio-economic status (monthly income, working during studies, gender, dependents). We build multi-stage logistic regression models in four steps concerning both dependent variables according to the thematic groups of the independent variables, through which we control more and more aspects (background to the training, the institution and the family, socio-economical/demographical status).

Expected Outcomes

The aim of our research is to examine the background to the international student mobility on two levels on the basis of the above mentioned EUROSTUDENT VI Hungarian database. The first step is to examine the background to the realised mobilities and then the background to the plans of studying abroad. By doing so we also have a chance to discover the structure of these backgrounds by examining the relationships between the effects of the groups of independent variables and reveal the differences between these backgrounds by comparing the two patterns. Owing to the fact that in Hungary we had taken a much wider set of data concerning family backgrounds, financial and social-economical status in childhood than the European survey had, now we take the chance to make a broader study as to the possible aspects of our analysis compared with international EUROSTUDENT data. Our further aim is to compare the patterning of the impeding factors of student mobility revealed by the research with students' subjective experiences, concerning which we also have data. Since it is the second time that Hungary has taken part in the EUROSTUDENT survey, our data can be compared in time, too. Therefore we are going to compare our data with the findings of the previous Hungarian EUROSTUDENT survey results (Kiss 2014). We expect the main tendencies to be very similar to the present ones, i.e. the impact of the position in the structure of tertiary education and social status on international student mobility will be justified, namely that the access to these programmes is determined by selective mechanisms, most typically reinforced by social inequalities, causing further cumulation in disadvantages also in the dimension of student mobility.

References

Czakó, A., Koltói, L. (2012) Hallgatói mobilitás. Felsőoktatási Műhely, 2012/3, 67–86. Grabher, A., Wejwar, P., Unger, M., Terzieva, B. (2014) Student Mobility in the EHEA: Underrepresentation in Student Credit Mobility and Imbalances in Degree Mobility. Research Report. Wien: IHS Gonzalez, C.G., Mesanza, R.B., Mariel, P. (2011) The Determinants of International Student Mobility Flows: an Empirical Study on the Erasmus Programme. Higher Education, 62/4, 413–430. Hauschildt, K. (2016) What are the Obstacles to Student Mobility During the Decision and Planning Phase? Intelligence Brief No. 02/2016, EUROSTUDENT V, eurostudent.eu Hrubos, I. (2014) Horizontal Diversity of Higher Education Institutions. The Case of Hungary – in European Context. Journal of the European higher education area, 2014/2, 75–94. Kiss, L. (2014) Structural and Socio-economic Background Factors of International Student Mobility. In: Kiss, L. (eds.): The Social Dimension of Higher Education. The Results of EUROSTUDENT V in Hungary. Budapest: Educatio, 27–38. Kiss, P. (2007) Pillanatfelvételek a nemzetközi mobilitásról. Felsőoktatási Műhely, 2007/1, 37–42. Van Mol, C. (2014) Intra-European Student Mobility in International Higher Education Circuits: Europe on the Move. Palgrave Netz, N. (2013) What Deters Students from Studying Abroad? Evidence from Four European Countries and Its Implications for Higher Education Policy. Higher Education Policy (28) 151–174. Nyüsti, Sz. (2012) Hátrányos helyzetben – helyzeti hátrányban a felsőoktatásban. Felsőoktatási Műhely, 2012/2, 33–49. Rodrigues, M. (2012) Determinants and Impacts of Student Mobility: A Literature Review, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Souto-Otero, M. (2008) The Socio-Economic Background of Erasmus Students: A Trend Towards Wider Inclusion? International Review of Education, 54, 135–154. Souto-Otero, M., McCoshan, A. (2006) Survey of the Socio-Economic Background of ERASMUS Students, Final Report, DG EAC 01/05. Birmingham: ECOTEC Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., de Wit, H., Suncica, V. (2013) Barriers to International Student Mobility: Evidence From the Erasmus Program. Educational Researcher, 42/2, 70–77. Teichler, U. (2012) International Student Mobility and the Bologna Process. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7/1, 34–49. Vossensteyn, H., Beerkens, M., Cremonini, L., Besançon, B., Focken, N., Leurs, B., McCoshan, A., Mozuraityte, N., Huisman, J., Souto-Otero, M., Pimentel Bótas, P.C., de Wit, H. (2010) Improving the Participation in the ERASMUS Programme. Study, EP DG Internal Policies, IP/B/CULT/IC/2009-053, July 2010, PE 438.603

Author Information

Adam Hamori (presenting / submitting)

Educational Authority

Department of Higher Education Research

Budapest

Ágoston Horváth (presenting)