Erasmus Mundus programme: a model of joint programme

Another notable development and policy action in the EHEA related to the emergence and spread of JP practice was the decision made in 2003 by the European Parliament and the Council of European Union to establish the Erasmus Mundus programme (hereafter, EM). The EM has been chosen as one of the policy instruments supporting higher education internationalization and the modernization agenda in order to address global competition in HE. The decision was guided by strategic European Community aspirations to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world and driven by forces affecting higher education globally: rising competition in the global knowledge economy, especially the regions of North America and Asia, the increased demand for a highly skilled, adaptable workforce as well as the need for talents. The EM programme was also part of an external EU policy agenda aimed at the development of societies through the enhancement of intercultural understanding and cooperative activities in education, training and research between EU and other regions of the world.

Selected EM JPs at a Master’s level and related activities, so called actions such as mobility of students and scholars, curriculum development and cooperation of consortia were promoted and financed. After the programme’s extension in 2008, EM activities could also take place at the third cycle of education, i.e. Doctoral level. In 2014 EM became part of a larger EU programme in education, Erasmus+.

With time the EM became a ‘flagship’ programme delineating parameters for JPs, markers of excellence, and a model programme for JPs in general. As such it became one of the building blocks in the institutional work of JP practice. In order to aid our understanding of current JP practises and their developments, I analyse how EM goals and elements were constructed in the policy documents.

The EC was responsible for setting the EM programme aims, objectives, targets, and selection criteria. The overarching aim of the EM is the ambition to contribute to the enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation with third countries. It was

envisioned that the programme would contribute to Europe’s aspirations to modernize the HE system by strengthening it through increased quality and innovation, and consequently enhance EHEA’s attractiveness in the face of growing internationalization and competition of HE around the globe. While the launch of the EM programme heavily focused on excellence for the inward-oriented purpose, the extension of the programme in 2008 emphasized more the outward orientation through the contribution to the sustainable development of the third countries. The promotion of European higher education, its quality, attractiveness and competitiveness worldwide were much more explicit than in 2003. References were made to Barcelona EU Council meeting in 2002 when the objective of making the European Union’s education and training systems “a world quality reference by 2010” was set (Council of the European Union, 2002a). The extension of the programme in 2008 also paid more attention to aspects of equal opportunities and non-discrimination when selecting programme beneficiaries.

Table V-3 illustrates the EM programme linkages with European developments.

Table V-3. Erasmus Mundus programme in the context of European developments

Erasmus Mundus objectives³ European developments to contribute to the development of quality education

through cooperation with third countries

to contribute to the sustainable development of third countries in the field of higher education

Bologna (1999)

External policies

‘opening-up’ to the wider world

to help improve and enhance the career prospects of students

to promote intercultural understanding through cooperation with third countries

The concrete future objectives of education systems (European Commission, 2001)

Education and Training 2010 (Council of the European Union, 2002b)

(London Communique, 2007) to meet the challenge of globalisation and the

demands of the knowledge society Lisbon strategy (Council of the European Union, 2000) to ensure that the European higher education system

acquires a worldwide degree of attractiveness Bologna (1999)

3 EM objectives set in the EU legislation (L340, L345)

The programme had the following overall aims which were set initially when the programme was introduced in 2003 with some additions at the time of extension of the programme in 2008:

o to enhance the quality of European higher education (EP and EU Council, 2003);

o to improve the development of human resources and enhance the career prospects of students (EP and EU Council, 2003; 2008);

o to promote intercultural understanding through co-operation with third countries (EP and EU Council, 2003; 2008);

o to contribute to the sustainable development of third countries in the field of education (EP and EU Council, 2008);

o to promote European higher education (EP and EU Council, 2008).

In addition, a set of four operational objectives listed below has been outlined.

These objectives together with support activities promoted cooperation, exchange of experience and good practice, the importance of language skills together with intercultural understanding, and innovation:

o to promote a quality offer in higher education with a distinct European value through cooperative activities in teaching and research, and, in particular by developing and running JPs collaboratively by a few European institutions;

o to encourage incoming mobility of third-country graduate students and scholars to participate in these cooperative activities;

o to foster structured co-operation with third-country higher education institutions as partner institutions in JPs and members of Consortiums created for the purposes of running JPs;

o to improve accessibility and enhance the profile and visibility of higher education in EU (2003) and in the world (2008) by providing

scholarships for students to participate in JPs, a ‘distinct’ product of EM programme;

o supporting the promotion and capacity building for cooperative activities, sharing of best practices.

To achieve the programme aims, funding mechanisms and management structures were put in place. EM JPs and related activities of student and scholar mobility, curriculum development and consortia cooperation received separate budgets and targets. The Erasmus Mundus Unit of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC of the European Commission) together with the

Directorate-General International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO) were assigned the responsibility of the strategic management, and the evaluation of the programme, whereas the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) is held responsible for the day-to-day management and administration of the programme, selection of projects, and collection of data and reports from beneficiary organisations. National Structures (NS) of Bologna countries are responsible for promoting awareness about the programme among HEIs, their participation in EM, as well as for providing ad hoc ongoing support to HEIs involved in EM activities.

Erasmus Mundus as ‘high-quality’ product

In the policy arena EM JPs have been referred to as ‘high-quality’ programmes.

While that has not been explicitly defined in policy documents, one might argue that the descriptive elements of the programme give an indication as to how high-quality is constructed and what that would mean in the context of EM JPs. Due to the EM label of ‘high-quality’ programme, it is important to analyse aspects and characteristics of its quality, and trace how they contributed to the overall discourse and practise of JP programmes and their quality.

The assumptions put forward at the outset of EM programme and the criteria used by European actors managing the selection of projects stipulate the following:

integration of study programmes through joint curriculum provided by at least three European institutions, joint criteria for admissions and examinations, student mobility to at least two institutions, award of joint, double or multiple degrees and common tuition fees. In addition, EMs were to be selected “on the basis of the quality of the proposed training and hosting of students” (EP and EU Council, 2003, p. 4). The extension of the programme in 2008 was consistent with the objective of excellence. The quality of studies together with the quality of student reception arrangements and a competitive scholarship scheme in order to attract the ‘best’ students was emphasized. Transparent joint admissions procedures are seen as facilitating equity based access to the programme (EP and EU Council, 2008, p. 92). Appropriate organizational arrangements for information provision, facilities, accommodation, services regarding visas, and other services had to be set up. Rules had to be followed for the selection procedure of grant beneficiaries.

“Stringent self-evaluation procedures” (ibid.) as well as external peer review to ensure high quality of programmes were reinforced in the policy document. As will be shown later, many of the EM programme principles and elements indicated above feature in the practice of JPs.

Each stage of the EM programme has undergone both an interim and final evaluation followed by a set of recommendations for further implementation and development of the programme. For the purposes of this study, I particularly paid attention to and analysed how the quality of EM was addressed and measured in the evaluation process. It was found that the evaluations focused on programme relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and added value, and also on certain impacts at different levels (personal, institutional and inter-institutional, system, EHEA, and its cooperation with third countries). For instance, the ex post evaluation (European Commission, 2009) of the first stage of the programme (2004-2008) undertaken on behalf of DG Education and Culture by ECOTEC-ECORYS group confirmed that EM programmes “indeed [have] been of high quality” (p. iii). The quality indicators used in the evaluation have primarily been

‘input-driven’ measures such as the profile of departments and institutions offering EM programmes, the excellence of staff and students attracted into the programmes, and academic facilities. In addition, added value to domestic course offerings, intercultural experience and a general standard of support to students have been noted. In terms of direct impact, the obvious outcomes observed were new curricula/courses. Among indirect outcomes, evaluators highlighted a strengthened

‘Europeanisation’, measured by the practical application of ECTS, increased mutual awareness of characteristics of HE systems, and increased internationalisation. The evaluation included recommendations regarding programme sustainability, a more balanced non-EU and EU student participation, and pertained to the level of curriculum integration.

In the interim evaluation of EM II (European Commission, 2012), due to some novelties in the programme and the expansion of the geographical scope of cooperation with third countries, the impact of a collaborative element of EU and third countries in the EM, the issue of ‘brain drain’ and the counterpart of sustainable development of some third country regions, the relevance of the EM programme for the specific needs of third countries were more explicitly addressed than in previous evaluations. The added value of EM was measured both at the individual level as well as the system level. At the individual level, attention was paid to the success of graduates when looking for work and/or further research positions (through a Graduate Impact Survey instrument). At the system level, the analysis took into consideration the contribution of the programme towards certain EU strategies such as the Lisbon (Council of the European Union, 2000), Europe 2020 (European Commission, 2010), and the implementation of Bologna principles at the national level.

Erasmus Mundus evaluation reports have highlighted and thus confirmed a complex nature of these programmes. In general, such JP issues as qualification recognition, the award of joint degrees, quality assurance, and financial schemes surfaced most often as the areas of contestation for these programmes. For instance the 2012-2015 Bologna report (EC, EACEA and Eurydice, 2015) revealed a lack of funding and an inflexible regulatory environment related to the recognition and QA schemes of JPs. These issues have been identified as major hindrances to the expansion of programmes of collaborative nature and were identified as requiring further attention in domestic HE policies and developments.