TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Družboslovna revija Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1199–1366 Ljubljana, december 2020 UDK 4, ISSN 0040-3598 USTANOVITELJ IN IZDAJATELJ Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani GLAVNI UREDNIK Anton GRIZOLD SEKRETARKA REVIJE Tina CERNCIC TOMAŽEVIC UREDNIKI Anton GRIZOLD, Tina KOGOVŠEK, Marko LAH, Igor LUKŠIC, Breda LUTHAR, Peter STANKOVIC, Zdenka ŠADL, Tomaž KRPIC (recenzije) UREDNIŠKI SVET Milica ANTIC GABER, Marjan BREZOVŠEK, Ljubica JELUŠIC, Maca JOGAN, Andrej KIRN, Miran KOMAC, Janez KREK, Vlado MIHELJAK, Zdravko MLINAR (predsednik), Klement PODNAR, Rudi RIZMAN, Marjan SVETLICIC, Zlatko ŠABIC, Metka TEKAVCIC, Niko TOŠ, Mirjana ULE MEDNARODNI UREDNIŠKI SOSVET Luigi GRAZIANO (University of Torino, Italija), Philippe MANIGART (Bruselj, Belgija), Helmut WILLKE (University of Bielefeld, Nemcija), Peter DAHLGREN (University of Lund, Švedska) OBLIKOVALEC Ismar MUJEZINOVIC PRELOM Leon BETON TISK Tiskarna CICERO, Begunje, d. o. o. Naklada 250 izvodov REVIJA TEORIJA IN PRAKSA V BIBLIOGRAFSKIH IN BESEDILNIH ZBIRKAH PODATKOV SCOPUS, Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), DLib, EBSCO, PROQUEST, COBISS.SI/COBIB, COBISS.SI/ODKLJ, International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts (CSA WPSA), CSA Sociological Abstracts (CSA SA, Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur / International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences (IBR-Online), IBZ-Online, Internationale Bibliographie der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur / International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences / Bibliographie internationale de la littérature périodique dans les domaines des sciences humaines et sociales (IBZ-Online), CSA Social Services Abstracts (CSA SSA). Naslov: Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, tel.: 01/5805–147, e-pošta: teorija.praksa@fdv.uni-lj.si Revija je dostopna na http://www.fdv.uni-lj.si/revije/znanstvene-revije/teorija-in-praksa. Celoletna narocnina za leto 2020: za študente in dijake 40,00 eur, za druge individualne narocnike 50,00 eur, za podjetja in ustanove 100,00 eur. Cena posamicnega zvezka v prosti prodaji je 20 eur. Revija izhaja ob podpori ARRS – Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, posebna številka/2020 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Interdisciplinary journal of social science Vol. LVII, Special issue, pp. 1199–1366 Ljubljana, December 2020 UDK 4, ISSN 0040-3598 FOUNDER AND PUBLISHER Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana EDITOR IN CHIEF Anton GRIZOLD ISSUE MANAGER Tina CERNCIC TOMAŽEVIC ASSOCIATE EDITORS Anton GRIZOLD, Tina KOGOVŠEK, Marko LAH, Igor LUKŠIC, Breda LUTHAR, Peter STANKOVIC, Zdenka ŠADL, Tomaž KRPIC (Book reviews) EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Milica ANTIC GABER, Marjan BREZOVŠEK, Ljubica JELUŠIC, Maca JOGAN Andrej KIRN, Miran KOMAC, Janez KREK, Vlado MIHELJAK, Zdravko MLINAR (Chairman), Klement PODNAR, Rudi RIZMAN, Marjan SVETLICIC, Zlatko ŠABIC, Metka TEKAVCIC, Niko TOŠ, Mirjana ULE INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD Luigi GRAZIANO (University of Torino, Italy), Philippe MANIGART (Bruxelles, Belgium), Helmut WILLKE (University of Bielefeld, Germany), Peter DAHLGREN (University of Lund, Sweden) GRAPHIC DESIGN Ismar MUJEZINOVIC PAGE LAYOUT Leon BETON PRINT Print run: 250 Printing House CICERO, Begunje, d. o. o. Impression: 250 ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING SERVICE SCOPUS, Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), DLib, EBSCO, PROQUEST, COBISS.SI/COBIB, COBISS.SI/ODKLJ, International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts (CSA WPSA), CSA Sociological Abstracts (CSA SA, Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur / International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences (IBR-Online), IBZOnline, Internationale Bibliographie der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur / International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences / Bibliographie internationale de la littérature périodique dans les domaines des sciences humaines et sociales (IBZ-Online), CSA Social Services Abstracts (CSA SSA). Address: Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; Tel.: 00 386 1/5805-147, E-mail: teorija.praksa@fdv.uni-lj.si. Teorija in praksa is available at http://www.fdv.uni-lj.si/revije/znanstvene-revije/teorija-in-praksa. The annual subscription fee for 2020 is EUR 40.00 for students, EUR 50.00 for other individual sub­scribers, and EUR 100.00 for companies and institutions. The price of an individual issue is EUR 20.00. The journal is subsidised by the Slovenian Research Agency. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 CONTENTS SpecIal ISSue: INTeRNaTIONal acaDeMIc MOBIlITY aS a SOcIal cONSTRucTION ARTICLES Danica FINK-HAFNER, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC: INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC MOBILITY AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION: THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK (Editorial) 1203–1215 Pavel ZGAGA, Danica FINK-HAFNER: ACADEMIC MOBILITY, GLOBALISATION AND COSMOPOLITANISM: VIEWS FROM HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMICS AND PRACTITIONERS 1216–1231 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO: LEARNING MOBILITY: A CONTACT ZONE FOR COSMOPOLITANISM OR THE REPRODUCTION OF LOCALISM? 1232–1250 Mitja HAFNER-FINK, Danica FINK-HAFNER: STUDENTS’ INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE AS A FACTOR OF THE TRANSNATIONAL IDENTITY 1251–1267 Barbara N. BRECKO, Maša KOLENBRANT, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC: WHO ARE STUDENTS WITH INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE EXPERIENCES? THE CASE OF THE FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES 1268–1286 1201 Tamara DAGEN: UNIVERSITIES’ STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIONALISATION: CONTEXTUAL DETERMINANTS 1287–1307 Meta NOVAK, Damjan LAJH, Urška ŠTREMFEL: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND YOUTH MOBILITY IN SLOVENIAN SCHOOLS 1308–1327 Danica FINK-HAFNER: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION THROUGH INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC MOBILITY 1328–1344 AUTHORS’SYNOPSES1345–1349 TABLEOFCONTENTSVOL.LVII1350–1355 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 VSEBINA pOSeBNa ŠTeVIlKa: MeDNaRODNa aKaDeMSKa MOBIlNOST KOT SOcIalNa KONSTRuKcIJa CLANKI Danica FINK-HAFNER, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC: MEDNARODNA AKADEMSKA MOBILNOST KOT SOCIALNA KONSTRUKCIJA: TEORETSKO-METODOLOŠKI OKVIR 1203–1215 Pavel ZGAGA, Danica FINK-HAFNER: AKADEMSKA MOBILNOST, GLOBALIZACIJA IN KOZMOPOLITIZEM: POGLEDI ZNANSTVENIKOV IN PRAKTIKOV NA PODROCJU VISOKEGA ŠOLSTVA 1216–1231 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO: ŠTUDIJSKA MOBILNOST: KONTAKTNA CONA SVETOVLJANSTVA ALI REPRODUKCIJA LOKALNOSTI? 1232–1250 Mitja HAFNER-FINK, Danica FINK-HAFNER: ŠTUDENTSKA MEDNARODNA IZMENJAVA KOT DEJAVNIK CEZNACIONALNE IDENTITETE 1251–1267 Barbara N. BRECKO, Maša KOLENBRAND, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC: KDO SO ŠTUDENTJE Z IZKUŠNJO MEDNARODNE ŠTUDENTSKE IZMENJAVE? PRIMER FAKULTETE ZA DRUŽBENE VEDE 1268–1286 1202 Tamara DAGEN: UNIVERZITETNE STRATEGIJE INTERNACIONALIZACIJE: KONTEKSTUALNE DOLOCNICE 1287–1307 Meta NOVAK, Damjan LAJH, Urška ŠTREMFEL: UCITELJICE IN UCITELJI OSNOVNIH IN SREDNJIH ŠOL TER MOBILNOST MLADIH V SLOVENSKIH ŠOLAH 1308–1327 Danica FINK-HAFNER: RAZISKOVANJE SOCIALNE KONSTRUKCIJE PREK MEDNARODNE AKADEMSKE MOBILNOSTI 1328–1344 AVTORSKIPOVZETKI1345–1349 KAZALOLETNIKALVII1350–1355 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 SpecIal ISSue: INTeRNaTIONal acaDeMIc MOBIlITY aS a SOcIal cONSTRucTION Danica FINK-HAFNER, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC* INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC MOBILITY AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION: THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK (Editorial)** Abstract. This special issue has two novel aspects. First, the focus is on better understanding the impact of stu­dents’ international academic mobility (IAM) on stu­dents’ attitudes to the EU’s future while also looking at the bigger picture of relevant agents and factors that co-shape the outcomes of IAM. Second, we take advantage of social constructivism not being a fully self-standing theory and build on the research strategy of combin­ing social constructivist ideas and various theoretical frameworks used in analysing various empirical data in relation to academic mobility. Keywords: academic mobility, higher education, social constructivism, research methods 1203 Introduction In this special issue, we focus on the construction of youth and its atti­tudes to Europe in general and the European Union (EU) in particular by considering international academic mobility. While we take account of social construction relating to globalisation, we largely focus on the EU – European academic mobility, identity, constructing the EU and its future. Another novelty of the special issue is the integrating of globalisation (including European regionalisation) and a variety of factors in research: not only students (their experiences), but also primary and high school teach­ers, universities and internationally recognised academics and practitioners in the field of higher education (HE). The main purpose of this introductory article is to frame the particular research topics analysed in the articles of this issue within a shared and broader conceptual and empirical framework. We also introduce the contributions of the various authors, who approach the issue of international mobility from many different perspectives. * Guest Editors: Danica Fink-Hafner, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Tanja Oblak Crnic, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. ** The article is based on research work in the framework of the Political Science Research Programme (P5-0136) financed by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS). The social constructivism perspective allows us to understand global transformations and the transformation of Europe generally, especially the European Union, while looking at various social and political levels relevant to international academic mobility – macro, meso and micro. Indeed, the constructivist turn in integration processes has proven to be a very useful amendment to rationalist analysis of social integration since the end of the 1990s. This turn helps understand the relationship between an actor and their ability to learn from previous encounters with different institutions (Checkel, 2001: 560–561), while allowing for a reality not only composed of interests, but of ideational, social and material ontologies (Chebakova, 2008: 5). Further, social constructivism recognises the importance of dis­course and the power of language. As they interact, actors are involved in “social learning, a process whereby agent interests and identities are shaped through and during interaction” (Checkel, 2001: 561). Last but not least, social constructivists can engage in meaningful conversations with other meta-theoretical approaches due to either a shared ontology or epistemol­ogy (Risse and Wiener, 1999: 776). Views and elements of social constructivism in European integration processes Views of social constructivism While there is no peculiar social constructivist theory of social learn­ing, social constructivists employ a version of individual learning rooted in cognitive psychology and some branches of organisation theory (Checkel, 2001: 561). However, several clusters of social constructivism are relevant for this special issue. First, social constructivism as a social learning theory derives from the theory developed by the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. He stressed that individuals are active participants in the process of creating their own knowledge while it is important that learning takes place in social and cul­tural settings (Schreiber and Valle, 2013). As successful teaching and learning is believed to depend heavily on interpersonal interaction and discussion, the crucial focus here is on students’ learning mainly through interactions with their peers, teachers and parents, whereas teachers stimulate and facili­tate conversation in the classroom (Powell and Kalina, 2009) and students’ understanding of the discussion (Prawat, 1992; Schreiber and Valle, 2013). In this process, the instructor is actively involved in the students’ acquisition of knowledge (Chen, 2012; Schreiber and Valle, 2013). Second, social constructivism stresses the importance of social institu­tions. Institutions are defined as social structures that influence agents and their behaviour (Risse, 2005: 147). Social institutions are believed to either constrain or widen the possibilities of actors’ behaviour (Risse, 2005: 147– 148). Further, social structures also affect the identities, interests and prefer­ences of actors – that may in turn re-create social institutions. Third, social constructivists stress the importance of actors and networks, which support the travelling of ideas and changes in behaviour. This means constructivism not only questions materialism but also methodological indi­vidualism (Checkel: 1998). Fourth, constructivists see communications, including the construction of meaning, discourse and language, as decisive elements in social construc­tion processes (Risse, 2005: 149–150). Fifth, constructivists build on the thesis that there are collective norms and understandings (‘rules of the game’) which actors are aware of. Yet this does not mean that actors always respect them; indeed, they might violate them (Risse, 2005: 148). Social constructivism in theorising European integration processes Social constructivism has more recently become recognised in the frame­work of theorising European integrations. Integration theories emerged already in the pre-integration stage, stressing their normative message. The first-stage theories (appearing in the context of the European Coal and Steel Community) tried to both answer the questions of why European integra­tion had taken place and explain its results. The second stage was clearly marked by grand theories – especially international relations theories on intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism and to some extent transac­tionalism. Since the mid-1980s, the focus has gradually moved from explain­ing EU-integration processes to analysing policymaking processes and the EU as a political system (ever more including concepts from compara­tive politics and policy analysis) (Hix, 1994; Saurugger, 2013). During this period, also the two clusters of grand theories kept their relevance. The third stage saw a considerable shift from the dominant international relations approaches towards comparative politics. More recently (the fourth stage), macro theoretical issues and approaches have (re-)emerged in the debate on unresolved questions of democracy and (globalised) governance. This recent shift is marked by a split into: a) revival of the importance of grand theoretical approaches in the search for new answers to big questions con­cerning democracy in the globalised world (seeing the EU political system as a unique case of regional political integration); and b) the growing body of empirical research that complementarily relies on social constructivism and several middle-range theories or concepts. While theorising European integration processes, social constructivism is embedded in several political science sub-disciplines/fields. In interna­tional relations, constructivism relates to the view that the processes of cre­ating entities of international reality are not only material, but also ideational (including information and ideas). The term ideational encompasses both normative and instrumental dimensions. The agents involved may be both individual and collective. Further, they depend on time and place (Ruggie, 1998). While international relations constructivism is largely focused on the impacts of the social interaction of states on the international system and national norms on international politics, comparative political science and sociology are concentrated on human agents who reproduce or ‘reconstruct’ the environment through their behaviour and actions. Within European Union studies, constructivism started to flourish after the Amsterdam Treaty was signed (1997). Constructivism is well placed to study European integra­tion as a process because it allows one to delve into how humans interact and produce structures (Rosamond, 2000: 171–174). A focus on agents’ interaction and structural context: While neo-func­tionalism and inter-governmentalism may be ontologically defined as rationalist or materialist, this is not possible in the case of constructivism. Still, we can say that constructivism is strongly focused on actors who are profoundly impacted by ideas, beliefs/attitudes, practices and experiences and beliefs about themselves (also understood as identity). Indeed, human agents are seen as individuals who collectively impact the environment (Kohler-Koch, 2002). While constructivists also believe that agents’ interests are socially constructed, actors’ accounts of self and other as well as of their operational context are also products of interaction (Rosamond, 2000: 173). However, this is not the only direction of the social construction as human agents depend on their social environment and collectively shared systems of meanings, also named as culture in a broader sense (Risse, 2005: 160). This makes constructivism also interested in links with agents’ contexts. More precisely, it looks into how the context affects human agents, how human agent activities’ (re)enforce these human agents’ beliefs and how human agents’ activities re-create the ideational socio-cultural context for other actors. A focus on networks and public spheres: This constructivist focus is chiefly about the societal dimension of integration and is open to several layers of inquiry. First, there is the concept of networks, which integrates agents, their mutual relationships and processes is particularly useful. This includes the policy network concept, referring to clusters of actors repre­senting multiple organisations that interact with each other and share infor­mation and resources on the political meso level (in the policy process) (Peterson, 1995b: 391). In the EU context, European networks, for example, have proven to be a vehicle for the diffusion of (policy) ideas (Kohler-Koch, 2002), as was revealed in studies on the use of policy coordination for pol­icy learning within the EU (Fink-Hafner, ed., 2010). Second, constructivists’ interest also encompasses communication in public spheres. Habermasian theory of communicative action stressing the need for “taking words, lan­guage and communicative utterances seriously” has been applied in inter­national relations while looking at behaviour (argumentation, deliberation), learning, the malleability of actors’ interests, preferences and perceptions and re-defining public spheres (Risse, 2005: 149–150). Third, constructiv-ism helps explain the emergence of transnational identities and functioning of transnational public spheres (Risse-Kappen, 2010). Finally, communica­tion and framing are also opening up new spaces for politics beyond the national level by co-establishing both the transnational political contesta­tion and politisation of European issues (Risse, 2005: 150). A focus on appropriateness: Unlike acting rationally (calculating the material costs and benefits), actors rely on their beliefs and understandings while deciding what is the right thing to do. This means actors take account of what is acceptable in a given society, namely the opposite of rationalism where actors calculate whether to take an action based on expectations of what will happen to them – whether they will benefit or lose due to their actions. However, while “EU membership implies the voluntary acceptance of a particular political order as legitimate and entails the recognition of a set of rules and obligations as binding” (Risse, 2005: 148), the appropriate­ness of actors’ behaviour might not be solely guided by these (as especially seen in the EU after the 2008 international and financial crisis). A focus on identity: According to social constructivism, European iden­tity is the key factor in states’ opting to integrate into the EU. Even more, this may be further complicated by the lack of European identity or differences in European identity among various parts of the country, which may impact the approach taken by a particular EU member toward the EU – such as the United Kingdom (Kuhn, 2019). In addition, research (Risse: 151–152) shows that holding multiple social identities that coexist and complement each other is possible. “Common Europeanness” may also co-form a sense of difference with regard to other communities (Risse, 2005: 152). Here, it is important to stress that the EU has achieved identity hegemony in Europe, particularly in the context of many European post-socialist countries’ efforts to “return to Europe” and the EU’s increasing filling of the meaning of Europe with specific content (Risse: 2005: 154). Taking the EU as a regional and global actor – the EU’s collective identity (Chebakova, 2008) – might be another factor in integrations with other countries, like Turkey (Risse: 2005: 155). European identity’s functioning in real life has been very visible in the Euro and migration crises when European political leaders were reacting largely to the mobilisation of exclusive/nationalist identities by (mostly) right-wing populist parties and movements (Risse, 2018). Overall, European identity is not a given, but constructed in time and space depending on the social and political context in which it is enacted (Risse 2005: 156). Outline of this special issue: conceptualisation, focus and methods This special issue has many novel aspects. First, authors look at interna­tional academic mobility from different angles which, although separated, nicely complement each other. Some contributions focus on academic mobility on the micro level, while others consider the macro level of interna­tional student mobility. Second, this issue is based on the idea of combining constructivist ideas with various theoretical frameworks. For instance, the question of identity is often mentioned in several of the articles included, but in some it is approached from the perspective of citizenship or sub­jectivity while in others it is primarily viewed as an individual perception. Such a mix of approaches thereby takes advantage of social constructivism not being a fully self-standing theory, but a “partial theory” (Hoskyns, 2004: 227), also allowing for more explorative endeavour, in turn stimulating more (self)critical and innovative views for further research. In a very general sense, this special issue is mainly interested in agents – as either students, teachers or academic staff – and networks that contrib­ute to international academic mobility. Both the agents and accompanying networks are contextualised in several ideas of academic mobility, showing how mobility may be viewed as a social, cultural and political phenomenon. In a narrower sense, this issue tries to both identify and explore the larger set of areas, structures and relationships involved in the academic mobil­ity process that construct the position, attitudes, practices and norms of selected agents. Research topics and main questions of inquiry In order to accomplish this quite ambitious outline, the contributors selected for this special issue engage with research questions which may be presented on three main levels of a shared general framework. First, some authors look directly at the level of academic structure and spheres of education, trying to explore the ways in which and to what extent different institutions, disciplines or educational venues (de)stimulate youth mobility. In this regard, one article focuses on the question of how univer­sities create their strategies to promote the international academic mobil­ity of students. Tamara Dagen’s contribution here provides an example of the potential re-affirmation of the former historical constructivism by presenting the strategies for attracting international students in three dif­ferent universities. As Dagen states, the Erasmus exchange programme has served as an impetus for internationalisation processes in higher education on the institutional (university) and national levels, especially in mobility due to goals and policies related to the Bologna Process. In this regard, her article considers three questions: 1) which factors have mainly influenced the selection of different approaches to institutional and national policies in the area of internationalisation; 2) what kind of outcomes are evidenced in the three cases; and 3) how are these approaches connected to the concepts of internationalisation at home and internationalisation abroad. Another contribution largely focuses on the narrower role of teachers in promot­ing the international academic mobility of students, asking how socialisa­tion through primary school impacts the international academic mobility of students. Here, Meta Novak, Damjan Lajh and Urška Štremfel analyse the teachers’ identity vis-ŕ-vis the EU as a stimulating or supporting factor of European mobility. Focusing on primary and high school teachers, the article frames school settings as the most important context in which young people (first) obtain an experience of mobility within the EU, focusing more narrowly on the attitude of Slovenian teachers to mobility within the EU. The second category of contributions views students as one segment of the main agents in the process of student mobility. Therefore, instead of structural factors, their core aim is to reveal the concrete practices of mobility and the potential future ambitions held by students who have experienced or plan to experience study in a foreign educational environment. Articles which consider this level take account of the case in Slovenian higher edu­cation, asking, for instance, how students’ international academic mobil­ity socially re-constructs their identities, involvement in public spheres and political participation. Here, the social constructing of pro-European and pro-EU attitudes is considered, trying to show how international stu­dents’ exchange may be understood as a crucial factor in attitudes to the EU among young people. Danica Fink Hafner and Mitja Hafner Fink, follow­ing the social constructivist theory of European integration processes, test the thesis whether taking part in an Erasmus exchange contributes to stu­dents’ positive attitudes to Europe generally and the EU in particular. They especially aim to reveal how the international academic mobility of students re-shapes their attitudes to Europe/EU as well as to globalisation. Another contribution in this section shows the major limits of the social constructiv­ist ideal by highlighting the structural and individual factors of student (un) mobility. Here, Tanja Oblak Crnic and Barbara Brecko question the idea of student mobility as articulated in the rise of European student exchange programmes and internationalisation, which generally assumed that the ability to study abroad would encourage young Europeans in the direction of greater geographical mobility, multicultural fluidity, cultural tolerance and thereby enforce the idea of European integration and European citi­zenship (Ackers, 2005). Focusing on some studies (e.g. Cairns, 2010) which reveal how practices of study mobility in different European countries also show some limitations and problems of previous idealistic scenarios, the article describes how the share of youth deciding to study abroad is in the minority or even falling (Van de Wende, 2001; Maiworm, 2002). The article thus explores who are the young people that are more frequently and easily deciding to study abroad, and in what sense are they different from students who finish their study years only staying at home. Following this less opti­mistic perspective on the effects of internationalisation of student mobil­ity programmes in higher education, the contribution by Barbara Brecko, Maša Kolenbrand and Tanja Oblak Crnic evaluates in a more focused way who actually are mobile students. In line with other recent studies, the article assumes that mobile students are only a privileged minority and attempts to reveal what is happening in a sample of social sciences students. The contribution by Danica Fink-Hafner and Pavel Zgaga asks how academics and practitioners with rich personal international experience in the higher education area reflect on international academic mobility in a broader historical and global sense. The authors start with the position that academic mobility is a phenomenon that has accompanied the life and work of universities for centuries, but the incentives for it and the way in which it is realised have changed constantly. Understanding academic mobility as a contemporary policy idea, the authors focus principally on the European area, also considering more global processes. Namely, academic mobility is not a new phenomenon, but its significance came with the transition from the elite to the mass phase of higher education, i.e. from the middle of the second half of the last century onwards (Trow, 1974). As many documents testify, the concept of academic mobility began to play the role of a central concept in higher education policy even before the Erasmus programme was introduced (1987). One finds noticeable differences in the definition of the purposes, objectives and functions that academic mobility should have in the modern world. In this broader sense, the authors question whether the fundamental purpose of promoting mobility is to create a modern “cos­mopolitan” or to expand the “industry” of higher education. Empirical approaches: methods used and the data sets of the empirical inquiries While authors in this special issue build on different sets of the litera­ture review while drawing out the main theoretical/conceptual grounds underpinning their thematic focus, they also analyse a variety of empirical material. Each article is hence focused on a specific data collection method. These relate to a quantitative approach, through use of a web survey or sec­ondary data analysis or to a qualitative approach, like focus group and com­parative case study research. More precisely, the whole issue is based on several segments of empirical research conducted in the Slovenian context. The empirical research is based on the following methods: 1. a web survey conducted among domestic and Erasmus students at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana (Fink-Hafner et al., 2019); 2. a web survey conducted among Slovenian elementary and secondary level teachers between December 2017 and April 2018 (Lajh et al., 2020); 3. a comparative case study of three European public universities’ strate­gies of internationalisation (Dagen, 2018; Dagen and Fink-Hafner, 2019); and 4. the focus group method, involving internationally recognised academics and practitioners in the HE field (Fink-Hafner et al.; 2019a, 2019b). A major data set used in different contributions (like Fink-Hafner, Oblak Crnic, Brecko) relates to a recent quantitative research survey conducted in 2018 on a sample of Erasmus and non-Erasmus students at the Faculty of Social Sciences. The survey namely involves a larger set of variables, includ­ing: identity – national/ European/global; particular positive and particular negative views on the EU; obstacles to student mobility, reasons and motives for student mobility, socio-demographic variables, values and future plans of students, attitudes to the EU, and actual Erasmus experience. The second quantitative data set (used by Novak et. al.) arises from a web survey con­ducted among Slovenian teachers between December 2017 and February 2018. For comparison, data from the ICCS survey and analysis of mobility in schools by Cmepius were also used. A qualitative data set was used for comparing three case studies in 2017 in order to explore three different universities’ strategies – universities in Vienna, Lausanne and Granada – in three different national contexts of Austria, Spain and Switzerland. The main aim here was to compare their approaches and policies with respect to the Erasmus programme. In addi­tion, a qualitative perspective is presented in another article that presents focus groups among academics and practitioners in the HE field. By combining the results of the more in-depth qualitative studies with the more general and descriptive focus of the quantitative studies, this spe­cial issue provides a more integrative empirical approach to the selected study phenomena. In a conceptual sense, the selection of the articles pre­sented in this issue show how controversial research international academic mobility is, yet also what a lively area it can be. All of the authors agree that there is an obvious lack of a strategic, systematic and also more longitudinal research tradition concerning the topics presented, at least in the national academic discourse. BIBLIOGRAPHY Börzel, A. Tanja (1997): What’s So Special About Policy Networks? An Exploration of the Concept and Its Usefulness in Studying European Governance. European Integration online Papers 1 “6). Börzel, A. Tanja (1998): Organising Babylon – On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks. Public Administration 76 (Summer): 253–273. Bulmer, Simon (1983): Domestic Politics and European Community Policy-Making. Journal of Common Market Studies 21(4): 349–63. Chebakova, Anastasia (2008): Theorizing the EU as a Global Actor: A Constructivist Approach, The maturing European Union – ESCA-Canada Biennial Conference Paper. Checkel, J. T. (2001): Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change, International Organization 55 (3): 552–588. Checkel, J. T. (2003): Social Construction and European Integration. In: B. F. Nelsen and A. Stubb (eds.): The European Union. Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration, Palgrave, Macmillan: 351–60. Checkel, J. T. (2006): Constructivist Approaches to European Integration. Arena Working paper 2006 (06). Accessible at https://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/ research/publications/arena-working-papers/2001-2010/2006/wp06_06.pdf, 4. 11. 2020. Chen X. (2012): Application of Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) in English Teaching for Non-English-Major Postgraduates Based on Constructivism. In: Xie A., Huang X. (eds) Advances in Computer Science and Education. Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, vol 140. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Accessible at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27945-4_32, 4. 11. 2020. Chryssochoou, Dimitris (1994): Democracy and Symbiosis in the European Union: Towards a Confederal Consortium? West European Politics 18 (1): 118–136. Chryssochoou, Dimitris (1995): European Union and Dynamics of Confederal Consociation: Problems and Prospects for a Democratic Future, Journal of European Integration 18 (2–3): 279–305. Chryssochoou, Dimitris (1998): Democracy in the European Union, London: Tauris Academic Studies. Chryssochoou, Dimitris (2001): Theorizing European Integration, London: Sage. Dagen, Tamara (2018): Utjecaj globalizacije na internacionalizaciju javnih europ­skih sveucilišta (Doctoral dissertation, University of Zagreb: The Faculty of Political Science. Dagen, Tamara and Danica Fink-Hafner (2019): Impact of Globalisation on Internationalisation of Universities. Ljubljana: Založba FDV. Deutsch, Karl W. (1954): Political Community at the International Level. Problems of Definition and Measurement, New York: Doubleday and Co. Deutsch, Karl et al. (1957): Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Diez, Thomas (1999): Riding the AM-track through Europe; or the Pitfalls of a Rationalists Journey through European Integration, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 28 (2): 355–369. Diez, Thomas and Antje. Wiener (2004): Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory. In: A. Wiener and Thomas Diez (eds.): European Integration Theory: 1–21. Oxford University Press. Fink-Hafner, Danica (ed.) (2010): Open Method of Coordination: A View from Slovenia. Ljubljana: Založba FDV. Haas, B. E. (1958): The Uniting of Europe. Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950–1957. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Haas, B. E. (1967): The Uniting of Europe and the Uniting of Latin America. Journal of Common Market Studies 5 (4): 315–43. Haas, B. E. (1970): The Study of Regional Integration: Reflections of the Joy and Anguish of Pretheorizing. International Organization 24 (4): 607–48. Hix, Simon (1994): The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics. West European Politics, 17 (1): 1–30. Hoffmann, S. (1982): Reflections on the Nation-State in Western Europe Today. Journal of Common Market Studies 21 (1): 21–37. Hoskyns, C. (2004): Gender Perspective. In: A. Wiener and T. Diez (eds.): European Integration Theory: 217–236. Oxford University Press. Kohler-Koch, B. (2002): European Networks and Ideas: Changing National Policies?. European Integration online Papers 6 (6). Accessible at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/ texte/2002-006a.htm, 27. 11. 2020. Kuhn, Theresa (2019): Grand theories of European integration revisited: does identity politics shape the course of European integration? Journal of European Public Policy 26 (8): 1213–1230. Lajh, Damjan, Meta Novak, Urška Štremfel (2020): Ucenje evropskih vsebin v slo­venskih šolah, 2018. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Arhiv družboslovnih podatkov, 2020. Accessible at https://www.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/opisi/eusola18/, 4. 11. 2020. Lindberg, N. L. (1967): The European Community as a Political System: Notes Toward the Construction of a Model. Journal of Common Market Studies 5 (4): 344–387. March, G. J. and J. P. Olsen (1996): Institutional Perspectives on Political Institutions. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 9 (3): 247– 264. March, G. J. and J. P. Olsen (1998): The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization 52 (4): 943–969. Moravcsik, Andrew (1993): Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmental Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies 31 (1): 473–524. Moravcsik, Andrew (1995): Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Integration: A Rejoinder. Journal of Common Market Studies 33 (4): 611–628. Nye, Joseph S. (1968): Comparative Regional Integration: Concept and Measure­ment. International Organization 22 (4): 855–880. Peterson, John (1995a): Decision-making in the European Union: Towards a Framework for Analysis. Journal of European Public Policy 2 (1): 69–93. Peterson, John (1995b): Policy Networks and European Union Policy Making: A Reply to Kassim. West European Politics 18 (2): 389–407. Peterson, John and Elizabeth Bomberg (1999): Decision-making in the European Union. Houndmills: Macmillan Press, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Powell, Katherine C. and Cody J. Kalina (2009): Cognitive and Social Constructivism: Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Accessible at https://eric.ed.gov /?id=EJ871658, 27. 11. 2020. Prawat, Richard (1992): Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching and Learning: A Constructivist Perspective. American Journal of Education 100 (3). Accessible at https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/444021, 2. 11. 2020. Risse, Thomas and Antje Wiener (1999): Something rotten and the social construc­tion of social constructivism: a comment on comments Journal of European Public Policy 6 (5): 775–782. Risse, Thomas (2005): Social Constructivism and European Integration. In: Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (eds.): European Integration Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 159–176. Risse, Thomas (2018): Social Constructivism and European Integration. In: Tanja A. Börzel, and Thomas Risse (eds.): European Integration Theory (3rd edn): 128–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Risse-Kappen, Thomas (2010): A community of Europeans? Transnational identi­ties and public spheres, Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press. Rosamond, Ben (2000): Theories of European Integration. The European Union Series. Palgrave, Macmillan. Ruggie, John Gerard (1998): Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. New York: Routledge. Saurugger, Sabine (2009): The social construction of the participatory turn: The emergence of a norm in the European Union. Accessible at https://www. researchgate.net/profile/Sabine_Saurugger/publication/281252499_The_ social_construction_of_the_participatory_turn_The_European_Union_and_ organized_civil_society/links/5d63830392851c619d76f779/The-social­construction-of-the-participatory-turn-The-European-Union-and-organized­civil-society.pdf, 4. 11. 2020. Saurugger, Sabine (2013): Constructivism and public policy approaches in the EU: from ideas to power games. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (6): 888–906. Schmitter, Philippe (1969): Three Neofunctional Hypothesis about International Integration, International Organization 23 (1): 161–166. Schmitter, Philippe (2004): Neo-Neofunctionalism. In: A. Wiener and T. Diez (eds.): European Integration Theory: 45–74. Oxford University Press. Schreiber, L. M., and B. E. Valle (2013): Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research 44 (4): 395–411. Taylor, Paul (1991): The European Community and the State: Assumptions, Theories and Propositions. Review of International Studies 17 (1): 109–125. Taylor, Paul (1996): The European Union in the 1990s, Oxford: Oxford University Press. SOURCES Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tanja Oblak Crnic, Meta Novak, Damjan Lajh, Elena Nacev-ska, Barbara Neža Brecko (2019a): Raziskovalno porocilo: Mladi in EU v izobraževalnem sistemu. Research report: Youth and the EU in educational sys­tem. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Center za politološke raziskave. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tanja Oblak Crnic, Meta Novak, Damjan Lajh, Elena Nacev-ska, Barbara Neža Brecko (2019b): Raziskovalno porocilo: Odnos mladih do Evropske unije in študijska mobilnost. Research report: Youth relationship towards European Union and student mobility. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Center za politološke raziskave. ARTICLES Pavel ZGAGA, Danica FINK-HAFNER* ACADEMIC MOBILITY, GLOBALISATION AND COSMOPOLITANISM: VIEWS FROM HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMICS AND PRACTITIONERS** Abstract. The article questions whether the fundamen­tal purpose of promoting academic mobility is really to create a modern ‘cosmopolitan’ or to expand the ‘industry’ of higher education (HE) in general and con­siders the distinction between HE in the context of glo­balisation as a historical process and globalism as an ideology in particular. Based on theoretical research as well as empirical data gathered from academics and practitioners operating in the HE area with the focus group method, we discuss the historical experiences and present controversy over the future of HE, includ­ing the changes emerging in the current renationalisa­tion and pandemic measures. The main finding is that 1216 the advancement of globalisation has jeopardized and marginalized the possibility that one of the key purpos­es of academic mobility would be the education of the modern cosmopolitan. Keywords: academic mobility, Europeanisation, glo­balisation, cosmopolitanism, globalism Introduction Although academic mobility is a centuries-old phenomenon, it has seen profound changes since the late 20th century. It is particularly interesting to follow its transformation with respect to the Europeanisation process. At the beginning, the education sector was jealously guarded under the juris­diction of nation states and only partly appeared on the European policy agenda in the early 1970s. Since then, it is possible to regard European edu­cational mobility as an idea, a policy and a practice. Academic mobility (the term is used here to cover the mobility of students, academics and administrative staff) as a specific element of * Pavel Zgaga, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Danica Fink- Hafner, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. ** The article is based on research work in the framework of the Political Science Research Programme (P5-0136) and Systemic aspects of educational strategies and encouraging social inclusion in education (P5-0126) financed by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS). educational mobility in a broader sense is fundamentally linked to ques­tions concerned with the aims and objectives of higher education (HE). The emergence and rise of European mobility programmes reflect a combina­tion of economic arguments (mobility as being crucial to students’ future careers in the ‘knowledge economy’) and issues of a shared European cul­ture and identity (Zgaga, 2018). In this article, we are primarily focusing on internationalisation mobility in the European area, but not without considering global processes since even the global context confronts us with various priorities that have been attributed to academic mobility. As we have analysed elsewhere (Zgaga, 2012, 2018), noticeable differences are seen in the definition of the purposes, objectives and functions that academic mobility should have in the mod­ern world. These are not only differences highlighted in various national or supranational documents, but also some profound conceptual differences. Put simply: should the fundamental purpose of promoting mobility be to create a modern ‘cosmopolitan’ (Skrbis et al., 2014) or to expand the HE ‘industry’ (marketisation, commodification and privatisation; Komljenovic and Robertson, 2017)? These and similar questions have become even more acute in the debate on HE in the context of globalisation (as a historical pro­cess) and globalism (as an ideology of neoliberalism; Beck, 2000) and in the 1217 controversy over the future of HE. We focus on the following main research question: How does the dichot­omy of cosmopolitanisation and globalisation (also of cosmopolitanism and globalism) affect the positioning of academic mobility today? Our main point of departure in answering this question is the understanding that we live in the age of the “risk society” (Beck, 2016: 33). Furthermore, we make a terminological distinction between ‘mobility’ and ‘migration’ that is related to the conceptual distinction between ‘freedom’ and ‘necessity’ (Zgaga, 2020). The possibility of going to ‘another place’ generally brings with it the promise of a ‘better life’ and a ‘better future’, whether as an Erasmus student or a Syrian refugee, a researcher or a tourist; however, fulfilling this promise is a complex process. In a detailed consideration of this and related issues, we encounter ter­minological issues as well as dialectical turns as are inherent to the history of ideas. What actually constitutes a ‘cosmopolitan’ in this age of ‘globalisa­tion’? How does (academic) mobility contribute to this? Do migrations in general also add to this? Is history thus far a process of gradually approach­ing the ideal of the ‘world citizen’ or is the very idea of cosmopolitanism internally dichotomous and contradictory? While exploring the relationship between the concepts of mobility, (modern) cosmopolitanism and globalism and pointing to a related phil­osophical and social science debate, we focus on the theoretical lens of Beck’s conceptualisations of globalisation, cosmopolitisation, cosmopoli­tanism and globalism (Beck, 2002, 2016). The novelty of our article lies in the presentation of the views of academics and practitioners in HE on the research question. This is important as the selected academics and practi­tioners are qualified by relevant personal experience of lived history and, following Fisher (2009: 142), have knowledge that contains the richness of a theoretical argument and the potential to reopen it. More specifically, the empirical part of the article is based on two focus groups (FGs) conducted in autumn 2019. While the methodology and some findings have already been presented in more detail in Fink-Hafner et al. (2019), it is important to emphasise here that the FG participants (FGPs) were academics and HE practitioners with extensive personal international experience in different parts of the world1. In the next section, we first draw the theoretical framework and then present findings from the FGs. In a separate section, we comment on the empirical findings from a theoretical point of view. We conclude with some thoughts on the research findings from the perspective of today’s global challenges, including the Covid-19 pandemic. Theoretical framework Academic mobility is often associated with the formation of ‘young cosmopolitans’, yet we must ask what is actually meant by this. This term can hold very different, even contradictory meanings. This leads us to ask together with Beck (2002: 25): Should we approach today’s academic mobility on the horizon of cosmopolitanisation (“globalisation from within, globalisation internalised”) or cosmopolitanism (a “set of political ideas, philosophies and ideologies”)? To borrow concepts from his earlier, very influential book (Beck, 2000: 9, 11): Should we observe it on the horizon of globalism (“the view that the world market eliminates or supplants politi­cal action – that is the ideology of rule by the world market, the ideology of neoliberalism”) or globalisation (which “denotes the processes through which sovereign national-states are criss-crossed and undermined by trans­national actors”)? The FGs were gender-balanced, with participants coming from younger, middle and senior gen­erations involved in teaching and/or research in the HE area in institutions of various kinds – national and also one very globalised institution, 10 countries of the FGPs’ residency at the time of holding the FGs (Ethiopia, Finland, Hong Kong, Mexico, Portugal, UK/Scotland, Slovenia, Sweden, UK/England and USA). The participants also felt that a variety of disciplines were their ‘main’ one, even while doing research in the HE area, such as: educational sciences, including HE, science and technology studies, political science, sociology, philosophy, psychology, ethnology, history, public policy and organisational studies. Cosmopolitanism is a much older concept than globalism. It is important to note that different understandings of the term exist as they have been formed throughout a long history. Rich literature shows that two ideational ‘archetypes’ can be distinguished: cynical and stoic. The question therefore has roots extending far back in ancient philosophy. There is a consensus that we owe the concept to the philosopher Diogenes of Sinope (412 BC – 323 BC). After various historical shifts, the concept returned to the forefront of discussions in the Age of Enlightenment, the mid-eighteenth century. The famous French Encyclopedia defines the “Cosmopolitain, ou Cosmopolite” in a purely cynical way: “un homme qui n’a point de demeure fixe, ou bien un homme qui n’est étranger nulle part” (D’Alembert, Diderot, 1751). Nussbaum (1997: 12) noticed “Kant’s debt to Stoic cosmopolitanism”. Kant’s conception is theoretically thoroughly thought-out and universalistic. On the contrary, another individualistic and unreflected conception can be found in what is today a practically unknown French pamphleteer and pas­sionate traveller called Fougeret de Monbron. These two conceptions offer a framework for defining two understandings of mobility: ‘formative’ and ‘tourist’. Kant often used the term ‘cosmopolitanism’; of particular note is his late work Perpetual Peace (1795) – according to Nussbaum (ibid.) “a pro­found defense of cosmopolitan values”. In this, Kant’s concept of cosmopol­itanism is the complete opposite of Monbron’s. The “double meaning of the concept of cosmopolitanism still exists in our own time, for instance, when one type of cosmopolitanism is considered to be an expression of extreme individualism, while the other is a theoretical system with important links to human rights and contemporary political problems” (Lettevall, 2008: 20). Some kind of legacy of Cynical cosmopolitanism can be found today, for example, in what Zygmund Bauman calls “the tourist syndrome” (Franklin, 2003) while the legacy of Stoic cosmopolitanism may be seen in different contexts, such as the expansion and deepening of the concept of human rights, the idea of a responsible global citizen, the idea of a united Europe, environmental equity etc. However, it is evident that we are still far from ‘perpetual peace’. In recent decades, while the concept of cosmopolitism has become relatively marginalised in discussions, a new concept closely linked to it has appeared at the forefront of discussions over the last 30 years: globalisation (Giddens, 1990; Robertson, 1992; Beck, 2000). In framing of the empirical research presented in this article, we rely on Beck whose work allows us to consider the above noted conceptual differ­entiations as well as an additional one. He points out that the “philosophical debates on cosmopolitanism have tended to neglect actual existing cosmo­politanism or cosmopolitanization” (Beck, 2016: 26). Philosophical cosmo­politanism “may be an elite concept, cosmopolitanization is not an elite con­cept”; “the cosmopolitan philosophy is about free choice, the cosmopolitan 1219 perspective informs us about a forced cosmopolitanization, a passive cos­mopolitanism produced by side effects from radicalized modernization” (ibid.: 27–28). In this context, Beck continues, the distinction between glo­balism and cosmopolitanization is very important: “The cosmopolitan per­spective is an alternative imagination, an imagination of alternative ways of life and rationalities, which include the otherness of the other. It puts the negotiation of contradictory cultural experiences into the centre of activi­ties: in the political, the economic, the scientific and the social” (Beck, 2002: 18). This raises many specific questions in different areas, including HE, and we shall focus on some of them below. We base this on analysis of the dis­cussions in our FGs and on the theoretical framework outlined above. We add a few more clarifications in this regard. According to Beck (2016: 28), globalism “involves the idea of the world market”, while cosmopolitanization “includes the proliferation of multiple cultures” and “the growth of many transnational forms of life, the emer­gence of various non-state political actors”. These actors include, as the analysis of the FG discussions shows, international academic (un)formal networks, institutions and organisations. Further, Beck (ibid.: 26) points to “the growing interdependence and interconnection of social actors across national boundaries” and to the specific side effects of their actions, which “are not meant to be ‘cosmopolitan’ in a normative sense; this is ‘real exist­ing cosmopolitanism’ or the ‘cosmopolitanization of reality’”. The results of our analysis show that this is also true in HE. It is important that Beck (2016: 27–28) distinguishes between a cosmo­politan philosophy (which could otherwise be an aspect of the discussion on the purposes of HE) and a forced cosmopolitanisation, a passive cos­mopolitanism. Here, the debate about the cosmopolitan potential of today’s HE is linked to the debate on globalisation and globalism. Beck continues: “Cosmopolitanization, for example, derives from the dynamics of global risks, of mobility and migration or from cultural consumption (music, dress styles, food)”, etc., all of which are bringing us “to a shift of perspective, how­ever fragile […]. And it leads to a growing awareness of relativity of one’s own social position and culture in a global arena”. Moreover, “actually exist­ing cosmopolitanisms involve individuals with limited choices”. Beck (2002: 37) points to methodological nationalism which, among other things, maintains the still predominant view of cultures as “homoge­neous unities of language, origin and political identity”. The consequences of such a view also have strong impacts in HE. Beck (ibid.: 28–29) reveals that “the experiential framework of national societies, shut off from one another by a unified language, identity and politics, is increasingly noth­ing more than a scam. What appears as and is proclaimed as national is, in essence, increasingly transnational or cosmopolitan”. This is ever more con­firmed in HE. At the same time, he asks: “[I]s there a single cosmopolitanism or several cosmopolitanisms” and answers: “There is not one language of cosmopolitanism, but many languages, tongues, grammars” (ibid.: 35). As the FG discussions reveal, this is also confirmed in HE and especially by aca­demic mobility and encounters between different academic cultures. In considering mobility from a cosmopolitan perspective, Beck (2016: 31–32) draws attention to the difference between the concept of a ‘cos­mopolitan place’ and the concept of ‘cosmopolitanization of places’ and between ‘being cosmopolitan’ and ‘being national’. “If the nation is funda­mentally about belonging to an abstract community, then the cosmopolitan place or space is about immersion in a world of multiplicity and implicates us in the dimension of embodied cultural experience”. The nation is “a space of identification and identity whilst a cosmopolitan place is an existential and experimental space of difference” and opens up “spaces to invent and amalgamate in crucial experimentation the combination of human rights and citizenship, legal status, social identity and political-democratic partici­pation”. This is particularly evident in today’s academic mobility. We applied this theoretical framework to analyse the views of the FGPs in the form of a summary and using selected direct quotes to illustrate their thoughts. Views of the focus group participants The focus group participants (FGPs) looked at the current state of the art in the HE area from a critical distance. Without pointing them to Beck’s theorising, the FGPs prioritised the key themes as summarised in the follow­ing subtitles. Globalisation, Europeanisation The FGPs (whose country of residence at the time of the FGs is shown in brackets) recognise “the speed and the depth at which some of these processes are moving” (Sweden), but have doubts when using the term globalisation, which is widely used. They are more interested in the social construction of terms. “How are the relations, the conceptualisations related with social phenomena? So, if we use a certain conceptualisation, what part of the reality is highlighted, what is left out? Do these globalisa­tion, Europeanisation and internationalisation actually try to understand the same basic idea? HE is changing. How to understand what is changing? What are important things there?” (Finland). From the anthropological point of view, “globalisation is all about the lived experience of our students and our 1221 faculty. And these are influenced by the technological, financial, ideological, and … the massive movement of people from one part of the world into the other. Now all of this is having a direct effect on HE and to me that’s what globalisation is” (USA). While on “the discursive level, on the level of policy talk, globalisation does include convergence, the reality might not go in the same direction” (Slovenia 1). Like globalisation, Europeanisation is socially constructed. “Both a sys­tem of governance and… some policy definitions are not independent of member states, but they are co-constructed between member states at the European level” (Sweden). Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, the FGPs debated whether people actually need to physically move to be part of internationalisation, globalisa­tion, Europeanisation. Do the benefits of new technology, like the Internet, replace the migration of academics, researchers and staff, or at least sub­stantially impact actual academic international mobility? The use of technol­ogy is also critical in searching for ways in which a not-mobile majority may make “use of technologies to embrace intercultural, international experi­ences” (Mexico). Actors While the FGPs recognise that market forces play a role in HE, they par­ticularly stress the numerous levels and varieties of actors involved in the area of HE. Some FGPs specifically pointed out states, international organi­sations, HE systems, universities, academics, students, and students’ families. Namely, there are international organisations like the OECD which promote frameworks and policies as a very strong international com­mon denominator. Supranational institutions – the European Union or the European Commission – “practically jumped over the nation state and directly into HE institutions (HEIs), and to disciplines through qualifications frameworks etc.” (Finland). Nevertheless, states and the policy coordination of multiple actors in fact do co-create institutionalised processes that steer real-life phenom­ena. Actors also enter into a variety of relationships, not only hierarchical ones. In the case of the EU, “there is a lot of participation from the member states in constructing processes of learning” (Sweden). It is particularly the Bologna Process which the FGPs recognise as a social construction, as “a way of making Europe more homogeneous”, “trying to create social change in Europe. Erasmus students’ exchange programmes are the same kind of social engineering, too” (Finland). However, at the same time actors are not isolated. For example, “there are areas of our endeavour in the university that we control – our own budgets, our own personnel, our own curricula. And then there are things that we have to negotiate with our state, or our nation, or our bosses, whoever they may be. But then there are the things that we don’t have a lot of control over, but that are very significant for us” (USA). Nevertheless, HEIs are not only the objects of social changes but are also making social changes. Borders and spaces The FGPs strongly stressed that actors and therefore the dynamics of HE systems vary from country to country. Moreover, regional spaces are (re) forming. One FGP pointed out the “Euro globalisation of people” as well as of “nation states working together at the regional level”. “We also find some regionalisation happening in East Asia, or the greater China area. They are forming the regional culture or traditions through multiple regional collabo­ration… We talk about… student exchange, more student mobility… They get to know the region much better before they jump to the so-called global world” (Hong Kong). Examples like Bologna may serve as a source for les­son-drawing in other parts of the world. “We always looked at the Bologna Process. There isn’t just one model (but it is the main model) and I think that has been very important. Good and bad in some ways. But we have also the Alpha project in Latin America and in my opinion it’s also good and bad, because it has imposed this single model and we sometimes just narrow the debate based on that model and we don’t think outside the box” (Mexico). Still, the FGPs point to considerable differences among continents as well as countries. On one hand, there is a tendency that big parts of continents are inwardly-oriented – “Africa is interested in Africa, Europe in Europe”. On the other hand, some parts of continents are not so interested in their own immediate region. Further, the Netherlands was noted as a country with its own particular list of ‘priority countries’ and a “developed strategy for being more attractive to certain countries compared to others” (Ethiopia). The role of borders is re-emerging. “At the same time that globalisation has opened all these borders in so many parts of the world, other borders have been closed and we are also dealing with that” (Mexico). But the FGPs not only highlight various kinds of state borders, but also spaces (chiefly defined by certain social-cultural phenomena) that have also been trans­forming. “People around the world are connected today in ways that they never were before. That is a part of Appadurai’s conception of a tech-noscape. There is also a finance-scape. Money, and how it moves. And we’ve gotten better and better or worse and worse, depending on how you want to look at moving money around the world. But there are also things like idioscapes. The flow of ideas around the world… we were talking about the rise of populist movements… But the most important one for me, is what 1223 Appadurai calls ethnoscapes. And that relates to something that anthropolo­gists have been looking at for quite a long time” (USA). Changing minds and culture, sharing morality Although the actors involved in internationalisation in HE each come with their own cultural perspectives, some cultures ‘travel’ across state bor­ders. One of these is the audit culture. “Audit culture is the tendency to count everything and to assign economic value to it. There are pockets of resist­ance, there are disintegrations from time to time, but there is an inexorable movement in this kind of direction. Some people call it neoliberal econom­ics, some people call it hegemony… It doesn’t really matter what you call it, but what is it that is actually happening” (USA). Another question arose in a debate as to whether the actors involved in internationalisation in HE also change their minds, culture or morality. The FGPs mentioned the evidence in the literature showing that “if you just send your students on mobility experience, the chance that they learn something is like trial and error” (UK/Scotland). There is no straightforward answer to the question of whether the increased mobility of Europeans is leading to homogenisation. “That was never what I saw in it. I saw the opportunity for mobility, because I thought if people can go to different countries (like Fulbright students can go from the United States to different countries) they are far less likely to fight with each other afterwards. And so it’s going to be an integrative thing for people as they’ve spent time with another group of people. And that’s great” (USA). Nevertheless, the FGPs reflected on their personal perceptions of chang­ing minds and culture through internationalisation. But how can one actually trace such changes? This is also a methodological question. “What I’ve really appreciated in my department with this 20–25 years of Europeanisation… is that the staff have changed their mind. The academic culture at my small department has changed in a positive way… And this is an impact. But you can’t measure in this way – with how many weeks they spend abroad and so on. You need to do maybe interviews and so on and so forth. And this is lacking nowadays” (Slovenia 2). The question of the role of information technologies “as a social force changing societies and HE” (Finland) was posed, but not debated in very great detail. What did occur in this context and in several other parts of the debates was the reflection that researchers in the HE area are themselves part of the social phenomena we are investigating. Changing skills – for jobs, for social and political life What first arises when people move to another country are the basic life needs – “when you move to another country you don’t think immediately about all the intercultural issues, you think about having a roof over your head (yeah) and a bed to sleep in and to eat and get some money” (UK/ Scotland). It is also about “the process of finding yourself in a different place that inspires intense self-reflection… whoever you are, moving, you are say­ing what’s the same, what’s new? How do I cope with what’s new?” (UK/ England). These very personal experiences also contain social dimensions. It is important for one FGP to “understand how the support to poor students to have international mobility will have an impact in terms of reducing the gap of inequality in the country. Because when you give the opportunity to students who normally don’t have the chance, the advancement they can make is really big” (Mexico). Further, the FGPs discussed the skills that HE offers, including “pre­paring for citizenships”, for work etc. FGPs were critical of distinguishing among different education levels in relation to these various skills. “We shouldn’t differentiate that much vocational training from other levels on the way to HE, because at the end we are preparing the citizens. We are pre­paring these future professionals or workers… we are all moving towards this idea of skills… What are really the skills that are needed?” (Mexico). The way we interpret skills generally and skills in terms of job transformation is crucial “because what we don’t want to do is to reinforce HE as cognitive, intellectual, and vocational education as skills to operate a machine” (UK/ England). Beyond that, “everyone needs to understand what is ‘fake news’” (UK/Scotland). Overall, debating the development of skills seemed to be particularly associated with the role of the state, although the FGPs also noted the labour market’s responsibility for training as “most of people won’t have all the ele­ments that they need to develop well in a specific position” (Mexico). Changing contexts, contextual thinking and difference The participants referred to a variety of contextual perspectives: • The history of dominant ideological and policy idea perspectives. “After World War II, in the western world there was a major shift in under­standing how society and the public should be run… Social democracy became… the dominant idea…, to ensure greater opportunity for less privileged classes to have a better life in society and education, including HE. Massification was a result of the shift in dominant ideas after the big conflicts and revolutions of the 20th century” (Slovenia 1). 1225 • The global–local perspective. The FGPs stressed that “the definition of globalisation in HE… should be also defining a relation to what is local, what’s pointing out internal processes in opposition to globalisation, exacerbate what is local. There are globalisms and localisms. The defini­tion is always contingent to the contexts… So, the contingency in relation to… national contexts, local contexts, is relevant for the understanding of what is globalisation” (Portugal). The local perspective may be about ‘following’, namely: “I am thinking about Latin America… we follow a lot what has been produced in the US or in Europe regarding universities…, where you have to chase all the time the best universities… There is this anxiety to feel that if we don’t copy, we don’t follow what these peo­ple have done, and then there is our own capacity building to do that” (Mexico). • The national policy perspective. This is especially important for certain countries: “Both marketisation and competition are concepts that do not particularly apply to a very large number of HE systems. These are very American, British, Australian… processes, but in the Nordic countries, for example, HE does not really compete for students in a way that British universities would… The fact is that HE is not part of a national indus­try in a way that it is in some other countries makes a huge difference” (Sweden). Hence, national systems matter. • The rationale perspective. The FGPs referred to several very different rationales also known in the literature – such as academic, political, eco­nomic. While they are all considered to be present at the same time, the particular balance involved might vary in different countries: “for exam­ple, if you look at the case of Ethiopia, the key reason why they want to be international is to attract foreign academics to improve the quality. They don’t care about foreign students… it’s not so much a commercial or money-making perspective… but it’s really about the quality of HE… the key reason is an academic reason” (Ethiopia). • The HEIs’ perspective. The FGPs stressed that, while HEIs may be gen­erally globally, internationally and locally oriented, they all have these three levels: international, national, and local. “But the importance of each of these connections is different. So, typically polytechnics or ‘Fachhochschule’ or universities of applied sciences have a strong local orientation – but they also have national and international orientation. Whereas… quite often the capital city, metropolitan area university is the most international… but they also have a local importance. Without local importance, you cannot build your parking places at your buildings. You need to have all of these connections simultaneously” (Finland). • Individual HEI historical, geographical and economic perspec­tives. Historical, geographical and economic contexts vary greatly among HEIs even within the same country. “It’s not a one size fits all. Internationalisation is an internal university decision… One univer­sity might decide to privilege research arrangements with one country or another, but another university would do it completely differently” (USA). • Intra-HEI perspectives. There are different realities within universities: “It’s not just about geography and economics, it’s also about research interests on the part of the faculty. So, our university, which is a major research university, has very specific research networks with China, with Toulouse in France because of the aircraft industry, and with Germany because of the engineering” (USA). There are also differences among disciplines and departments. “Physicists have always been international. Sciences have always been very international… Social policy has never been international. And they are all in the same university which aims to be international” (Finland). Language cosmopolitanism? Western-centric use of the English language and beyond At a time of globalisation, the issue of language has become quite contro­versial. The FGPs dealt with the use of English in a complex way. Language was described as an important factor, but from different angles: 1) as a means for non-English-speaking nations to gain international visibility; 2) as not simply a ‘western’ language, but a lingua franca, the world’s ‘Latin’ of the 21st century; 3) as the language which in some parts of the world is used to “keep translating theories, approaches, methodologies… because it is hard when you are also embedded in this globalised world” (Mexico); and 4) as the language that enables international competition in HE: “you have an entire continent, Europe, which is able, willing, and is actually providing a high level education of enormously good quality to people in English from around the world. That is now perceived by most American institutions as competition. Up until that point, if you wanted HE and you wanted to speak the world’s lingua-franca, you came to us or you came to the Australians or the British, and that was it. Not anymore. And so, we are constantly talking in the United States about what are we going to do in the face of competition from high level European institutions” (USA). Conclusion FGPs as individuals with particular knowledge and professional (life) experience debated globalisation, Europeanisation and internationalisa­tion. While the formal nationality of all is tied to a certain country (several 1227 had dual citizenship), they reflected on issues of academic mobility from complex multiple personal and academic identities beyond the scope of ethnicity. In that sense, their contributions may be seen as adding to the building of “cosmopolitan social sciences” in Beck’s terms (Beck, 2002: 19). They thereby also call for the development of methodology that moves beyond methodological nationalism (Beck, 2002: 21; Fink-Hafner et al., under review). The FGPs showed a strong sense of the real-life dynamic of the phe­nomena being debated, taking both historical and spatial perspectives into account. Indeed, they illustrated “a global mobility of risks where people, ideas and things travel from one side of the world to the other and infect or effect at any place in ways that no one can predict” (Beck (2016: 27–28). This might now also be said to apply to the Covid-19 pandemic. They indicated that the enlightenment (cosmopolitan) promise turns into a post-modern menace; free mobility transforms into an immigration threat or even danger (Zgaga, 2020). The era of potentiated globalisation and the radical ideology of globalism have reinforced the characteristics of the risk society, brought security issues to the fore, and pushed aside the demands for (extended) freedom. Indeed, FGPs’ revealed their cosmopolitan perspective also while look­ing at globalisation holistically – taking account of a big variety of synchronic contexts (Beck, 2002: 22), including a plurality of both non-Western con­texts and Western contexts. While debating conceptualisations built on the existing literature and results from Delphi-method research (Fink-Hafner et al., 2019), they pointed to the social construction of meaning – something also recognised in Fisher’s debate on the constructivist theory of contribu­tory expertise (Fisher, 2009: 137–167) – which occurs through the activities of international institutions and associations in the HE area. The glocalisa­tion aspect (Beck, 2002: 23), stressing the interconnectedness within and beyond nation states and transnational sensitivity, emerged quite naturally while discussing the FGPs’ personal experiences that each had gathered in several different parts of the world. In this respect, the participants may be seen as “educated transnationals” (ibid.: 26). Still, they do not follow “the ideology of globalism” (ibid.: 40), but instead point to the current mix of the processes of de-territorialisation, re-emergence of territorial borders as well as re-traditionalisation of the collective national imagination, which reso­nate with Beck’s thinking (ibid.: 27). Indeed, the participants also point to what Fisher (2009: 168) describes as “public policy as a social construct” in the HE area. While it is no surprise that the FGPs from EU countries did not discuss the EU as a project of national homogeneity (Beck, 2006: 173) but as a complex, internally heterogeneous entity whose parts are also integrating beyond the EU’s borders, it is interesting that those FGPs who had settled outside of the EU were not very familiar with the EU’s peculiarities – whether in general or as concerns the HE area. Beside the economic and political aspects, they clearly stressed the ethi­cal issues of the area of HE in current history like problems linked to social inequalities within various entities (social communities, countries, world regions) as well as among them. Also, the participants were very well aware of how the language horizon raises complex problems in globalised HE. Finally, FGPs explicitly challenged the popular claim that academic mobility is undeniably linked to the formation of young cosmopolitans is based on amateurish and naďve notions of modern, highly internationalised HE (also see the article by Hafner-Fink and Fink-Hafner concerning this thesis in this special issue). Indeed, several FGPs stressed that in spite of developing a common European cultural identity has featured among the EU’s policy goals, little evidence has thus far shown that this goal has actu­ally been met. Further, while one cannot deny that student exchange pro-grammes like Erasmus hold the potential to help to strengthen “an imagina­tion of alternative ways of life and rationalities, which include the otherness of the other” (Beck, 2002: 18), the cosmopolitanism concept has entailed extremely complex and sometimes contradictory dimensions in today’s context. So, (with reference to the traditional perspective, which oscillates between a cynical and a stoic archetype) the existing forms of academic mobility may be divided into both formative and touristic forms, i.e. those that assist the emergence of a modern cosmopolitan and those that extend the ‘industry’ of HE. Last but not least, global restructuring (de-globalisation, ‘slowbalisation’, re-nationalisation, re-arrangements of world powers), populism, chauvin­ism, ‘Covidism’ etc. – all of these phenomena indicate that mobility as we know it has reached its limits. The problem lies not so much in a cosmo­politan philosophy as in sociological cosmopolitanization, as Beck puts it. This phenomenon calls for thorough research and reflection both within the area of HE and from the viewpoint of a broader role for higher educa­tion in society today. The FGPs were well aware that “if you just send your students on mobility experience, the chance that they learn something is like trial and error”. And yet, as one FGP described, “if people can go to different countries […] they are far less likely to fight with each other afterwards” (USA). There is a lesson to be learned: If physical mobility is not possible, e.g. now due to the pan­demic (or perhaps for some political reason, like when in 2019 the Chinese government, offended by a Canadian politician, called on all Chinese stu­dents to return home from Canada), we should not accept the notion that the learning process is merely a technical transfer (i.e. the technical transfer 1229 of what the professor did in the classroom to the Internet). We must do all that is possible to take account of not only the lectures but also the contex­tual dimensions, such as the socialisation of students – not simply of inter­national and exchange students but home students on the campus as well. The restriction on physical mobility is temporary and should not in any case become a reason for limiting international academic contacts; HEIs need them now more than ever! Technical means like the Internet allow us to maintain and develop communication, but the real added value lies in the ‘soft’ dimension, in the content of the communication. A proactive approach to the dilemmas in which HEIs currently find themselves can thus provide an opportunity to more comprehensively analyse existing obsta­cles to mobility, rethink previous international mobility strategies, while also using all of the (still unused) potential of internationalisation at home – in order to prepare for new steps for the future of this area. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beck, Ulrich (2000): What is Globalisation? Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, Ulrich (2002): The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies. Theory, Culture & Society 19 (1–2): 17–44. Beck, Ulrich (2006): Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge, UK and Malden, USA: Polity Press. Beck, Ulrich (2016): Mobility and the Cosmopolitan Perspective. In W. Canzler, V. Kaufmann, S. Kesselring (eds.), Tracing Mobilities. Towards a Cosmopolitan Perspective, 25–35. Milton Keynes, New York: Routledge. Diogenes, Laertius (1925): Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. II. London: William Heinemann. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tamara Dagen, May Doušak, Meta Novak, Mitja Hafner-Fink (2019): Delphi method: strengths and weaknesses. Metodološki zvezki 16 (2): 1–19. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tamara Dagen, Mitja Hafner-Fink (under review): Debating Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Higher Education Field. European Journal of Education. Fisher, Frank (2009): Democracy & Expertise. Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Franklin, Adrian (2003): The Tourist Syndrome: An Interview with Zygmunt Bauman. Tourist Studies 3 (2): 205–217. Giddens, Anthony (1990): The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Kant, Immanuel (2016 [1795]): Perpetual Peace. A Philosophical Essay. Translated with Introduction and Notes by M. Campbell Smith. Project Gutenberg. Accessible at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm, 24. 8. 2020. Komljenovic, Janja, Susan Robertson (2017): Making global education markets and trade. Globalisation, Societies and Education 15 (3): 289–295. Lettevall, Rebecka (2008): The Idea of Kosmopolis: Two Kinds of Cosmopolitanism. In R. Lettevall and M. Klockar Linder, The idea of Kosmopolis: history, philoso­phy and politics of world citizenship, 13–30. Huddinge: Södertörns högskola. Nussbaum, Martha C. (1997): Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. The Journal of Political Philosophy 5 (1): 1–25. Robertson, Roland (1992): Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage. Skrbis, Zlatko, Ian Woodward, Clive Bean (2014): Seeds of cosmopolitan future? Young people and their aspirations for future mobility. Journal of Youth Studies 17 (5): 614–625. Zgaga, Pavel (2012): Reconsidering the EHEA principles: is there a »Bologna phi­losophy«? In Curaj, Adrian (ed.), European higher education at the crossroads: between the Bologna process and national reforms. Dordrecht: Springer, 17–38. Zgaga, Pavel (2018): How has mobility become central to the EUďs idea of doctoral education? A brief overview of the history of a policy idea. Learning and teach­ing 11 (2): 5–29. Zgaga, Pavel (2020): Mobility and migration: freedom and threat? In M. Slowey, H.G. Schütze, (eds.). Inequality, innovation and reform in higher education: Challenges of migration and ageing populations, 287–298. Cham: Springer Int. Publ. SOURCES D’Alembert, Jean le Rond, Denis Diderot (1751): Cosmopolitain, ou Cosmopolite. Tome 4, p. 297 In Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. Wikisource. Accessible at https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L%E2 %80%99Encyclop%C3%A9die/1re_%C3%A9dition/COSMOPOLITAIN,_ou_ COSMOPOLITE, 24. 08. 2020. 1231 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO* LEARNING MOBILITY: A CONTACT ZONE FOR COSMOPOLITANISM OR THE REPRODUCTION OF LOCALISM?** Abstract. The idea of student mobility assumes that the ability to study abroad will encourage young Europeans in the direction of greater geographical mobility, multi­cultural fluidity and cultural tolerance, re-enforcing the idea of European integration (Ackers, 2005). Following the concept of everyday cosmopolitanism and viewing education as a social contact zone, the article explores who are the young people who decide to study abroad. Dividing a sample of 208 students into three categories of cosmopolitan, potentially cosmopolitan and local youth, the article analyses: 1) how each group’s type determines their belonging to Europe, attitudes to and visions of Europe and the prevailing citizenship prac­tices; and 2) the extent to which the categories are spe­cific in terms of their socio-demographic characteristics, personal career plans, and future ambitions. This study shows, among others, that the practices and experiences with learning mobility among the student population are far from homogeneous, even within such a uniform sample of students. Keywords: learning mobility, everyday cosmopolitan­ism, citizenship, Europe, youth, quantitative research Introduction An inevitable consequence of globalisation (Collins et al., 2011) is ever more intense global migration. Yet, since the financial crisis the “age of migration” (Castles, de Haas and Miller, 2014) has been changing. Collins notes that as migration flows increase so too does their diversity, ranging from elite groups traveling for prestige to temporary migrations as part of moving around for work. The former are “millionaire business migrants or health and financial professionals who fly first or business class to reach * Tanja Oblak Crnic, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Barbara N. Brecko, PhD, Teaching Assistant, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. ** The authors received public financial support from research grants P5-0136 and P5- 0399 adminis­tered through the Slovenian Research Agency. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO their destination city (…). Other immigrants come with skills and quali­fications that are in short supply in their host country” (Collins, 2011: i). Temporary immigrants are diverse, yet more vulnerable. Some have short stay visas designed to allow migrant labour to fill labour shortages that might soon disappear. (…). Some are unwanted, undocumented immigrants who risk their lives, and that of their families, to escape con­flict, persecution, poverty, tyranny, flood or famine to seek a new life as a refugee or part of the shadow-life of the underground economy. (Collins, 2011: i). A common, yet specific form of crossing national borders, either tempo­rarily or as a matter of prestige, is largely promoted by study programmes of secondary and higher education. The European Commission’s vision of the Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative (2010), also contained in the 2020 strategy, emphasises the need to extend and broaden learning oppor­tunities for young people, including supporting their acquisition of skills through non-formal educational activities (Lejeune, 2013: 29). This vision stresses the importance of promoting learning mobility as a way for young people to strengthen their future employability and acquire new profes­sional competencies, while enhancing their development as active citizens. However, the share of young people deciding to study abroad is in the minority and even shrinking (Van de Wende, 2001; Maiworm, 2002), while decisions to go abroad are both structurally but also very much individually driven. In this respect, Cairns (2010) claims we need to distinguish formal from informal youth mobility: “Learning mobility can be hence viewed as an informal process that may entail an inculcation of values emphasizing the importance of moving abroad to success in education and the labour market” (Cairns, 2013: 90). Young people are thus no longer considered as objects of educational actions, but as autonomous social actors constructing their learning and their active citizenship (see Berg et al., 2013: 16). Following such a contextual view on educational mobility, the question remains to what extent and in which circumstances can such choices be understood as a potential source of “everyday cosmopolitism” (Onyx et al., 2011). In line with the concept of everyday cosmopolitanism and viewing education as social contact zones in which formal and informal, casual and non-casual interactions among people emerge, the article explores who are the young people that decide to study abroad, and in which ways are they different from their peers who complete their studies only in their home country. Since everyday cosmopolitism might construct more global rela­tionships and openness, the main research question is, how experiences with studying abroad affect youth attachments to their local, national and 1233 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO European identity, their citizenship practices and their future career visions. In a narrower sense, the article critically assesses the idea of student learn­ing mobility and empirically evaluates its realisation in practice based on a quantitative research study conducted in 2018/2019 on a sample of 208 Slovenian students at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Dividing the sample into three categories of youth – cosmopoli­tan, potentially cosmopolitan and local – the article analyses how member­ship in each group is determined by structural and individual factors that (de)stimulate students with respect to education mobility. In particular, we are interested in how membership within a specific group is determined by students’ visions of and attitudes to Europe, their study ambitions and per­sonal plans for the future, the dominant practices of citizenship and their socio-demographic features. Hence, the aim is to describe the overall char­acter of each group, especially the main differences between the young cos­mopolitans and local youth. Learning mobility, contact zones and everyday cosmopolitism Within the European Union’s borders and within Europe generally, many educational institutions are systematically joining the international network Erasmus and Erasmus + to encourage the transition of school­children and teaching staff between Member States and their faculties or universities.1 Learning mobility, as transnational mobility for the purpose of acquiring new skills, is a fundamental way through which individuals, especially young people, can strengthen both their future employability and personal development (European Commission 2009, in Lejeune, 2013: 27). Opportunities for study mobility provide young people with several benefits not previously available. In this regard, Lejeune includes foreign-language skills within both insti­tutional and non-formal learning settings as being able to strongly contrib­ute to their development: “the full immersion in another language context, even for short periods of time, allows for daily exposure to the target lan­guage and practice of communication in real situations” (Lejeune, 2013: 27). Expectations of educational mobility are even higher: it can also help foster a deeper sense of European identity and citizenship among young people. Or, as Lejeune continues, transnational friendships and freedom of move­ment across the Continent are building a more positive attitude among young people to the EU and its institutions (Lejeune, 2013: 27). Regardless of the type of evidence showing that certain young people Some of the main characteristics and development of the Erasmus programme within the EU are also discussed in the article by Tamara Dagen in this special issue. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO find it harder to decide to go abroad than others, “educational mobility” is typically seen as a positive opportunity for young people. Educational mobility is supposed to help to stimulate young Europeans in the direction of greater geographical mobility, multicultural fluidity, cultural tolerance, thereby re-enforcing the idea of European integration and European citi­zenship (Ackers, 2005). In this way, universities, faculties and other educational institutions act as additional social spaces that encourage or at least allow intercultural interaction. Pratt (1992) names such spaces “contact zones, or spaces where peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and establish ongoing relations” (1992: 7). Amin (2002) adds that this includes schools and educational organisations, thus also placing jobs, sports clubs, schools and other situations among the “micro-publics of eve­ryday social contacts and meetings”. What all of such diverse spaces have in common is that individuals are “thrown together and required to engage with each other and work together in a common activity, in the process ena­bling ‘unnoticeable cultural questioning or transgression’” (Amin, 2002: 969, in Onyx, 2011: 51). Similarly, certain other more sociologically oriented studies also point to the role of space (and time) in the study of mobility. Berg et al. (2013) warn that research should also include the use of space in the lives of children and young people such as shifts from outdoor to indoor activities, contem­porary streetscapes and streets as homes (e.g. Berg et al., 2013: 17): Linking learning and mobility means crossing boundaries, such as those between school and out-of-school spaces, and those between curric­ular objectives and extracurricular individualised and localised aims. Education is no longer reduced to instruction but mainly means creat­ing opportunities to learn. Learning is seen as an interactive and social process as opposed to a psy­chological process within the individual. This means the concept of learning mobility should also be understood in a broader sense. Or, as Berg et al. state, “the learning space can no longer be conceived as a confined container; it becomes a set of opportunities, corresponding to an open geography includ­ing varied spaces of learning and the paths in between” (2013: 17). Along these lines, Cairns points to the importance of opportunities and differences in external circumstances (Cairns, 2013). With respect to ena­bling/disabling access to the “mobility field”, Cairns adopts the concept of habitus (Bourdieu, 1990). In his theory, “mobility field” refers to the capac­ity to follow educational and work opportunities outside of one’s present country of residence: 1235 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO This means that rather than viewing transnational movement for work or study as the (passive) outcome of the existence of an international structure of opportunities within Europe, emphasis is placed upon the (active if latent) socially mediated means through which mobility plans are made. (Cairns, 2013: 90) This means that realisation of the field of mobility is not primarily struc­turally given, but also individually practised. However, such opportunities are not equally available to all, making their realisation a matter of inter­twined social interactions, habits and everyday routines. Some scholars have turned their attention to the grassroots, ordinary interactions occur­ring between people in their daily lives, focusing on social sites like neigh-bourhoods, schools, workplaces and so on. These interactions represent “a lived cosmopolitanism, which sees individuals of different cultures rou­tinely negotiating across difference in order to coexist within a shared social space” (Onyx et al., 2011: 50). Everyday cosmopolitanism (e.g. Wise and Velayutham, 2009; Noble, 2009; Butcher and Harris, 2010; Onyx et al., 2011) is hence focused on everyday interactions and the importance of hetero­geneous practices that allow for encounters with diversity. Alternatively, as Onyx argues, everyday cosmopolitanism refers to the normal, everyday, banal interaction of citizens across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Such interactions involve the everyday negotiation between individuals as they go about their business within shopping malls, public transport, schools and leisure centers. They are seen as unre­markable by those engaging in them, and they do not necessarily lead to the formation of ongoing or formalized networks. (Onyx et al., 2011) Empirical research One survey (Eurostudent VI) shows that studying abroad is not a very common choice made by Slovenian students.2 In the survey, less than one-tenth students from Slovenia had already studied abroad (8%), one-third had plans to study abroad (32%) and 16% had already agreed to study abroad. Yet, the same study shows (Gril, Bijuklic and Autor, 2018: 68) that altogether 30% of students from Slovenia had experience with some type of international mobility. This may entail internship or work placements The national project Eurostudent VI was based on a quantitative online survey conducted in 2016 that included 4,968 students. A detailed report is also accessible at https://www.eurostudent.eu/download_ files/documents/EVROSTUDENT_VI_Porocilo_SLO.pdf 4. 11. 2020. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO (5%), enrolment at a foreign higher education institution combined with an internship or work (1%) and other types of study activities abroad, research work, field-work, study practice, a summer/winter school, or a language course (17%). This was confirmed among the four countries with the high­est number of mobile students (including Norway, Denmark and France). In more than half of the countries, however, at least 20% of students had a study experience abroad. Nevertheless, the vast majority of respondents had not yet thought about going abroad (61%). The main obstacle to plan­ning international study mobility was the financial burden associated with study activities (for 62% of students), followed by the separation from one’s family (partner and children) and friends (47%). The third obstacle was the loss of paid work (35%). The data used in this article come from a study conducted in 2018/2019 among students of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana.3 The survey included Slovenian and foreign students of the first and sec­ond cycle of Bologna study. The survey was conducted on-line, with the questionnaire for students available in both the Slovenian and English lan­guages. We conducted analysis for three groups of students: students who had already spent some time studying abroad, which we conceptually describe as “cosmopolitan youth”, students who were planning to study abroad, who we labelled “potentially cosmopolitans” and students who had not and had no plans to study abroad, who we denote as “local youth”. These three groups of students were compared to see which factors determine their decision (or opportunity) to study abroad. Like other studies have con­firmed, students with fewer (financial) possibilities do not decide to study abroad as often as students from economically better situated families. Another determining factor is perception of social class. Here, the assump­tion is that students from a lower social class can hardly imagine moving abroad since their aspirations may vary from those who belong to upper social class categories. For the purpose of this article, we only analysed the answers of Slovenian students since we were interested in all three groups (all foreign students belong to the group of cosmopolitan youth), in particu­lar the behaviours of Slovenian students. Another aim was to identify the biggest differences among the given youth categories in relation to their closeness with Europe as a political imaginary. Since everyday cosmopolitism might construct more global rela­tionships and openness, we checked how experiences with studying abroad affect youth attachments to their local, national and European identity. In addition, we measured differences among the young people in relation to The online questionnaire was constructed within the Political Research research programme. 1237 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO their citizenship practices and, finally, in which way the three groups differ in their future career visions. Based on discussions about the positive effects of learning mobility, it is generally assumed that the cosmopolitan group is compared to the other groups the most European, most engaged and sees its future career outside of the nation’s borders. Results The statistical analyses conducted are exploratory in nature with a view to summarising the main characteristics of the three student groups. Statistically significant differences between the groups are presented. Only students who answered the key question about their study plans were included in the analyses (see Table 1). Locals vs. cosmopolitans: elements for/against learning mobility The cosmopolitan group accounts for 39% of all respondents, the sec­ond groups of potentially cosmopolitan youth for 35%, while locals repre­sent 26% of the sample. The majority, two-thirds of the sample, represent young people who had already experienced at least some part of their study outside of their home country or were planning to use this opportunity in the near future. However, quite a stable one-quarter of respondents are firmly immobile and will (probably) never move abroad in order to study somewhere else. Table 1: THE THREE GROUPS OF STUDENTS (N =192) group n % Cosmopolitan youth Yes (studied abroad) 75 39.1 Potentially cosmopolitan youth Not yet, but I plan to (study abroad) 67 34.9 Local youth No, and I don’t plan to (study abroad) 50 26.0 Question: Have you planned or are you planning to do part of your study abroad? Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). In order to provide a social stratification of the three generated groups of students, we first analysed the students’ social background (see Table 2). We calculated Spearman’s rank correlation which shows a minimal nega­tive correlation (ro = -0,157; sig = 0,04) between the three categories and “family social class”.4 The students’ perception of social class obviously has The question with given answers in the survey was: Do you see yourself and your household belong­ing to…? 1. The working class, 2. The lower middle class, 3. The middle class, 4. The upper middle class, 5. The upper class, 6. Other. No student perceives themselves as “upper class”, and the majority see themselves as middle class. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO the anticipated effect: students from the higher-class categories had a better opportunity to study abroad than students from the lower-class categories. Nevertheless, among the locals 38.1% perceive themselves as coming from working-class society or lower middle-class society, while in the group of cosmopolitan youth there are 26.5% of such students. In the group of “local youth”, 9.5% come from the upper middle class of society while in the cos­mopolitan groups this share is 20.6% (already studied abroad) and 26.8% (planning to study abroad). Table 2: PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL STATUS (N =132) Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans Locals N % N % N % Working class 4 11.8% 7 12.5% 9 21.4% Lower middle class 5 14.7% 10 17.9% 7 16.7% Middle class 18 52.9% 24 42.9% 22 52.4% Upper middle class 7 20.6% 15 26.8% 4 9.5% Upper class 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). 1239 The difference among three groups becomes even more evident when we consider how many of them were working for money while studying (see Table 3). Among local youth, 78% were working during their studies, while among the cosmopolitans the share is much smaller – still, the major­ity of cosmopolitans (56.2%) was working and also 65.6% of those planning to study abroad (c2=6,246; df=2; sig=0,04; f c =0,183, sig=0,04). Table 3: PART-TIME JOB (N =187) Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans Locals N % N % N % Working 41 56.2% 42 65.6% 39 78.0% Not working 32 43.8% 22 34.4% 11 22.0% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). One also finds some differences regarding the type of settlement they come from: among the cosmopolitans, there are more of those from bigger settlements compared to the other two groups.5 As the sample is small and the differences between the groups are not statistically significant, we should take this result as informative without drawing any firm conclusions. Besides, we must also take into account the specific situation in Slovenian home settings, which also applies when categorised as urban and bigger towns are still comparatively small in both a geographical and population sense. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO Table 4: TYPE OF LIVING SETTLEMENT (N =135) Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans Locals n % n % n % Fewer than 2,000 people (town) 1 2.8% 3 5.3% 3 7.1% Fewer than 2,000 people (village) 9 25.0% 19 33.3% 16 38.1% 2,000–10,000 people 3 8.3% 8 14.0% 6 14.3% More than 10,000 people 9 25.0% 9 15.8% 5 11.9% Ljubljana, Maribor 14 38.9% 18 31.6% 12 28.6% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). To sum up: The main differences seem to be between students with a learning mobility experience and those who will not travel for study pur­poses at all. The local youth mainly come from smaller settlements and the big majority of them hold a part-time job while studying. One-fifth of them belong to the working class, while half to the middle class. We can prob­ably assume that the locals are more financially limited and that this could help explain why they do not plan to study abroad. On the other hand, the cosmopolitans generally come from bigger settlements, and one-fifth claim they belong to the upper middle class. Their social situation therefore appears to be much more encouraging than the opportunities available to the local youth. In addition, the cosmopolitans were asked about the main reasons affecting their decision to study abroad (see Table 5). The reason most often stated was the possibility to learn about other cultures (100%), establishing personal networks and international connections (94.7%) and experienc­ing other teaching methods (94.6%). The reason least often given was to improve employment opportunities at home (76.3%) and abroad (76.3%). For the potentially cosmopolitans, reason the most often stated would be to improve foreign language knowledge (100%), better study and research conditions (96.9%) and the possibility to learn about other cultures (95.3%). The smallest impact on the decision was to experience independent living (85.9%). On the other hand, for the locals the factor most often stated as to why they decide to stay at home was finances, namely an inadequate mobility grant (59.1%) followed by insufficient knowledge of foreign languages (50%). It seems that an economically less pleasant situation is the most important obstacle, followed by a lack of knowledge or some kind of reduced confidence due to insufficient language skills (see Table 6). TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO Table 5: REASONS IMPACTING THE DECISION TO STUDY ABROAD AMONG THE COSMOPOLITANS (N=38) AND POTENTIALLY COSMOPOLITANS (N= 64) Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans no impact impact no impact impact n % n % n % n % Learning about other cultures 0 0.0% 38 100.0% 3 4.7% 61 95.3% Establishing personal networks and international connections 2 5.3% 36 94.7% 4 6.3% 60 93.8% Experiencing other teaching methods 2 5.4% 35 94.6% 3 4.7% 61 95.3% Improving foreign language knowledge 3 7.9% 35 92.1% 0 0.0% 64 100.0% Experiencing independent living 3 7.9% 35 92.1% 9 14.1% 55 85.9% Better study and research conditions 8 21.1% 30 78.9% 2 3.1% 62 96.9% Improving employment opportunities at home 9 23.7% 29 76.3% 4 6.3% 59 93.7% Improving employment opportunities abroad 9 23.7% 29 76.3% 5 7.9% 58 92.1% 1241 Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Table 6: REASONS IMPACTING THE DECISION NOT TO STUDY ABROAD AMONG THE LOCALS (N=46) no impact impact n % n % Insufficient mobility grant 18 40.9% 26 59.1% Insufficient knowledge of foreign languages 23 50.0% 23 50.0% Part-time employment 28 62.2% 17 37.8% Family obligations 32 71.1% 13 28.9% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Similar attitudes but different visions of Europe? The students were also asked how attached are they to their city, country, the EU and Europe. In their relation to the EU, we can see that the cosmo­politan youth feel much more attached than the local youth (see Table 7). While the majority of cosmopolitans is attached to the EU (62.7%), students who had not studied yet show less attachment (45.5%) while among the locals only 30% say they are attached to the EU (c2=13,119; df=2; sig =0,00; f c =0,222, sig=0,01). TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO Table 7: NATIONAL, SUBNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN ATTACHMENT (N =192) Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans Locals N % N % N % Your city, town, village not attached 21 28.0% 18 26.9% 11 22.0% attached 54 72.0% 49 73.1% 39 78.0% Your country not attached 25 33.3% 19 28.8% 8 16.0% attached 50 66.7% 47 71.2% 42 84.0% The European Union not attached 28 37.3% 36 54.5% 35 70.0% attached 47 62.7% 30 45.5% 15 30.0% Europe not attached 24 32.0% 23 34.3% 18 36.0% attached 51 68.0% 44 65.7% 32 64.0% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Comparing the three groups, we can see the local youth are slightly more attached to their home cities. An even bigger difference exists on the level of “national attachment”: among the “locals” there are more of those who are fairly or very attached to their country (84%) than in the group of “cos­mopolitan youth” (66%). The biggest difference between the groups is in attachment to the EU: among the cosmopolitan youth a majority (63%) are fairly or very attached, while among the “local youth” only one-third (30%) feel this way. The smallest differences between the groups are seen in attachment to Europe. In order to obtain a more coherent perspective of how an individual group perceives Europe and its attitudes to it, we further analyse the data. The students were asked what the EU means to them. Generally, the “cosmo­politan youth” have a much more positive attitude to the EU, but only a few items show statistically significant differences between the groups. Table 8 shows students who indicated that the listed factors mean the EU for them. The students differ in their opinion on three items. All of them positively assess the opportunity of freedom to travel (c2=7,009; df=2; sig=0,03), espe­cially those who had already studied abroad. On the other hand, the idea that European means a waste of money (c2=15,350; df=2; sig=0,00) and not enough control at external borders (c2=9,477; df=2; sig=0,01) is much more present among those students who had not studied abroad. In fact, for all (100%) of cosmopolitan youth the EU means more freedom to travel, study and work, while among the “locals” 90% believe this. In addition, the major­ity (53.1%) of locals thinks that the EU represents a waste of money, while among the “cosmopolitans” only 21% agree. There are more than two times as many “locals” who think the EU means not enough control at the border (48%) than “cosmopolitan students” (22%). TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO Table 8: WHAT THE EU MEANS TO THE THREE GROUPS (N =192) Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans Locals N % N % N % Peace 57 76.0% 54 81.8% 34 68.0% Economic prosperity 66 89.2% 55 83.3% 40 80.0% Democracy 55 74.3% 54 80.6% 36 72.0% Social protection 56 75.7% 51 76.1% 35 70.0% An example to the whole world 42 56.8% 37 56.1% 20 40.8% Freedom to travel, study and work anywhere in the EU 74 100.0% 63 94.0% 45 90.0% Cultural diversity 65 89.0% 54 80.6% 41 82.0% Stronger say in the world 45 62.5% 43 64.2% 25 50.0% Euro 67 90.5% 55 82.1% 45 90.0% Unemployment 17 23.0% 23 34.3% 20 40.0% Bureaucracy 54 74.0% 49 74.2% 37 74.0% Waste of money 15 20.5% 18 26.9% 26 53.1% Loss of our cultural identity 15 20.3% 8 12.1% 13 26.0% More crime 5 6.8% 6 9.0% 9 18.0% Not enough control at external borders 16 21.6% 22 32.8% 24 48.0% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Europe as a collective imaginary Although the opinions and attitudes are not dramatically different, they might be related with the general interest in European conditions and gen­eral importance of Europe as a political and not just a cultural entity. Perhaps the results can somehow be related to the next variable, as the “locals” are not as interested in European affairs as the “cosmopolitan youth” (see Table 9): Among “cosmopolitan youth”, 75% are fairly or very interested in European affairs, while among “locals” the figure is only 56%. In addition, about half the students from the cosmopolitan group think they are informed well enough and one-tenth is very well informed, while among students who are more locally oriented 44% are informed well enough, but no one is very well informed. In fact, the majority of the locals (50%) admitted to not being well informed about Europe (see Table 10). Nevertheless, students who were planning to study abroad were the most interested in European affairs (82.1% fairly or very interested) (c2=16,629; df=6; sig=0,01). While no firm conclusions can be drawn here, the students who had studied abroad or who were planning to seem more interested and more informed about European affairs. 1243 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO Table 9: INTEREST IN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (N =176) Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans Locals N % N % N % Not at all interested 1 1.3% 2 3.0% 3 6.0% Not very interested 18 24.0% 10 14.9% 19 38.0% Fairly interested 35 46.7% 38 56.7% 25 50.0% Very interested 21 28.0% 17 25.4% 3 6.0% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Table 10: INFORMED ABOUT EUROPE (N =192) Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans Locals N % N % N % Not informed at all 0 0.0% 2 3.0% 3 6.0% Not informed too well 29 38.7% 22 32.8% 25 50.0% Well enough informed 38 50.7% 35 52.2% 22 44.0% Very well informed 8 10.7% 8 11.9% 0 0.0% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). If there are different interests and also different types of knowledge about European issues among these three student groups, the logical next step is to check how the respondents feel and act as citizens. First, we were interested in the students’ general perception of closeness with their poten­tial identities as citizens: students were asked how much they agree with statements describing them as Europeans and their views on Europe.6 As seen in Graph 1, there are no big differences among the three groups; the students hold quite similar attitudes to Europe. Statistically significant differ­ences in agreement are only noticed for three statements: “I have more in common with people from my country than with people from other nations in Europe.” (sig. = 0,017), “I feel myself as a global citizen.” (sig. = 0,024) and “I feel like a citizen of Europe”. Additional analysis shows that the “locals” are open to Europe, but when Europe is placed in relation to their home country, they favour the home­land. Students who had already studied abroad mainly disagree that they have more in common with people from their country than with people from other nations in Europe (54.8%), while students who had not and were not planning to study abroad generally agree with that statement (65.3%), while students who were planning to study abroad agreed more (54.5%) The scale was a four-point descriptive scale (strongly disagree, fairly disagree, fairly agree, and com­pletely agree). TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO with the statement than disagreed. In all three groups, the majority agree that they feel like a citizen of Europe, and the share is higher in groups of students who had not studied (or had no plans to) than among students who are more globally oriented. On the other hand, the share of students who felt like a global citizen is highest among the globally oriented (77%) and fairly small among the locally-oriented students (52%) and the students who were still planning to study abroad (66.7%). Graph 1: VIEWS ON CITIZENSHIP AND BELONGING AMONG THE THREE GROUPS Political engagement and practices of citizenship The students were also asked about their level of interest in politics (See Table 11). The results show that the cosmopolitan group more often dis­cusses politics with their families than the “local students”. The same group of students that is more interested in the politics also talks more often about it within the family. Among the cosmopolitans, 61.4% talk about politics at home often or very often, while among the students who are more locally oriented only 30% talk about politics at home often or very often and 32% talk about it rarely or never. The results for some other questions reveal that the cosmopolitans reveal a much more active role regarding political issues. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO Table 11: INTEREST AND INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICS (N =151) How often do you talk about politics at home or Cosmopolitans Potentially cosmopolitans Locals within your family? N % N % N % Never 1 1.3% 1 1.5% 1 2.0% Rarely 11 14.7% 9 13.4% 15 30.0% Occasionally 17 22.7% 27 40.3% 19 38.0% Often 23 30.7% 19 28.4% 11 22.0% Very often 23 30.7% 11 16.4% 4 8.0% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Namely, students who had studied or were planning to study abroad are more politically active online than the local students (see Table 12). The big­gest (statistically significant difference) between the local students and the students who had already studied abroad or were planning to study abroad is seen in following a political party (via social networks). Table 12: POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IN SOCIAL NETWORKS Are you active on social networks in any of the following ways? Cosmopolitan Potentially cosmopolitan Local n % n % n % Following a political party 23 59.00% 33 50.80% 11 23.40% Following a politician 24 61.50% 44 67.70% 18 39.10% Discussing political issues with others 27 69.20% 47 72.30% 32 69.60% Posting your views on political issues 8 20.50% 13 20.00% 5 11.10% Participating in a local campaign group 7 17.90% 10 15.40% 2 4.40% Participating in a European campaign group 4 10.30% 6 9.20% 2 4.40% Participating in a global campaign group 6 15.80% 9 14.10% 3 6.70% Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Among the “cosmopolitans”, 59% were following a political party and among the potentially cosmopolitans 51% were, while among the local stu­dents the figure is just 23% (c2 = 12,818, df = 2; sig = 0,00). There are 62% of students abroad and 39% of students at home who were following a politi­cian (c2 = 9,364, df = 2; sig = 0,01). The majority of students did not post their views on political issues, nevertheless 20% of the “cosmopolitans” and 11% of the “local students” did. Even more of them were following a politician: 61.5% of the cosmopolitans, 67.7% of the potentially cosmopolitans and 39.1% of the locals (c2 = 9,364, df = 2; sig = 0,01). All groups of students are TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO less active in participating in campaign groups (on the local, European or global level). In the majority of activities, the group of local students is the least active, but we can find a similarity with the other two groups in discuss­ing political issues with others, where all three groups are alike. Different aspirations and opportunities for the future This is also in accordance with their plans. Among the locals, we find 46% who agreed or completely agreed they would seek employment only in Slovenia, while among the cosmopolitans there are 13% of such students: 16.6% of the students who were planning to study abroad would only seek employment in Slovenia (c2= 45,714; df = 8; sig = 0,00). More globally-ori­ented students were planning to seek employment outside of their country. The cosmopolitans agreed the most with the statement “After completing my studies, I intend to seek employment in my own country and in another EU Member State” (83.1%). While among students who were planning to study abroad there are 69.5% and among locally oriented students only 34.6% of those who would seek employment in Slovenia and another EU member state (c2 = 45,281; df = 8; sig = 0,00). All groups of students are less interested in seeking employment in non-EU countries, but the cosmopoli­tans still have the greatest interest (51.4%). Graph 2: EMPLOYMENT ASPIRATIONS AMONG THE THREE GROUPS (N =141) 1247 Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO Discussion and conclusion There are different types of young people and inequalities exist among them in relation to educational mobility. Some are excluded for financial and social reasons, some feel less confident due to their limited language skills, while others are more attached to their local settings and connec­tions. The results here generally confirm the thesis that learning mobility is socially differentiated (see Berg and Milmeister, 2009). Nevertheless, the results do not convincingly show any kind of linear division between the “locals” and the “cosmopolitans”: the local youth is still very much attached to Europe, while the cosmopolitan group is also attached to its local settings. In a conceptual sense, such differences allow the modest conclusion that the local youth are more sceptical of Europe, the European Union and its politics than the students who possess learning mobility experiences. What remains unanswered is what accounts for such distinctions between them and how to explain these different attitudes to Europe. Some other paradoxes exist between the actual practices and percep­tions among the identified groups of students. There is no doubt that cos­mopolitans are well informed and very interested in European affairs; actu­ally, this is the group most involved in European issues and highly politically engaged. However, when asked how they feel as citizens, it was the locals, who mostly agreed with the statement “I feel like a citizen of Europe”. Europe as a collective imaginary is not something the locally-oriented students would disagree on, although they express a kind of reservation towards Europe as a political entity or union. Yet, there might be also some inconsist­ency at work here since, on the other hand, the locals mostly agree that they have much more in common with their nationality than with other nations in Europe – which can be understood also as an unreflected manifestation of nationalistic tendencies with which cosmopolitans strongly disagree. This study shows, among others, that the practices and experiences with learning mobility among the student population are far from homogeneous, even within such a uniform sample of students. Still, this does not mean that those from less well-off families cannot be mobile, only that it might be harder for them to recognise a need to move or indeed to work out how to incorpo­rate transnational movement into their educational and occupational trajecto­ries (Cairns, 2013: 94). In order to explain these kinds of distinctions in a more in-depth way, further more detailed and complex statistical analyses, includ­ing multivariate analysis, as well as a set of more in-depth qualitative studies, are needed. Since the discussion here is limited to a small scale and the locally-focused type of students, a more extensive comparison within the Slovenian context would also be relevant. Another more ambitious plan would be to provide cross-country comparative studies, if the empirical evidence allows it. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO BIBLIOGRAPHY Amin, Ash (2002): Ethnicity and the Multicultural City: Living with diversity, Environment and Planning 34 (6): 959–980. Berg, Charles, Marianne Milmeister and Christiane Weis (2013): Learning mobility in the youth field: starting to set a framework. In: Gunther J. Fiesenhahn, Hanjo Schild, Hans-Georg Wicke, Judit Balogh (eds.) Learning mobility and non-for­mal learning in European contexts: Policies, approaches and examples: 13–24. Council of Europe. Bourdieu, Pierre (1990): The Logic of Practice. Stanford California Press: Stanford. Cairns, David (2013): Preconditions for movement in Portugal and Ireland: social inequality, mobility field and habitus. In: Gunther J. Fiesenhahn, Hanjo Schild, Hans-Georg Wicke, Judit Balogh (Eds.) Learning mobility and non-formal learn­ing in European contexts: Policies, approaches and examples: 89–95. Council of Europe. Castles, Stephen, Hein De Haas and Mark Miller (2014): The Age of Migration. London: MacMillan. Cavalli, Andrea (1980): “La giovent: Condizione o processo?”, Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 4: 519–542. Collins, Jock, Reid Carol, Fabiansson Charlotte (2011): Identities, Aspirations and Belonging of Cosmopolitan Youth in Australia. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal 3 (3): 92–107. Collins, Jock (2011): Exploring cosmopolitism. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal 3 (3): i-vi. Duruz, Jean (2009): Eating at the borders: Culinary journeys. In Wise, Amanda and Velayutham, Selvaraj (eds.), Everyday Multiculturalism: 105–121. Palgrave Macmillan: London. Fiesenhahn, Ghunter, Hanjo Schild, Hans-Gerog Wicke, Judit Balogh (2013): Learning mobility and non-formal learning in European contexts: Policies, approaches and examples. Council of Europe. Accessible at https://pjp-eu.coe. int/documents/42128013/47261623/YKB17_Text.pdf/84ae531b-fbc8-440e­95bf-082d585420bf, 5. 11. 2020 Gow, Greg (2005): Rubbing shoulders in the global city: Refugees, citizenship and multicultural alliances in Fairfield, Sydney, Ethnicities 5 (3): 386–405. Hiebert, Daniel (2002): Cosmopolitanism at the local level: The development of transnational neighbourhoods. In Vertovec, Stephen and Cohen, Robin (eds.), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice: 209–223. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hoskins, Bryony and Crick Ruth Deakin (2010): Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin?, European Journal of Education 45 (1): 121–137. Lejeune, Pascal (2013): European Union support to learning mobility: rationale of a success, In: Gunther J. Fiesenhahn, Hanjo Schild, Hans-Gerog Wicke, Judit Balogh (Eds.) Learning mobility and non-formal learning in European contexts: Policies, approaches and examples: 25–31. Council of Europe. Noble, Greg (2009): Everyday cosmpolitanism and the labour of intercultural 1249 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO community. In Wise, Amanda and Velayutham, Selvaraj (eds.), Everyday Multi­culturalism: 46–65. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Onyx, Jenny, Christina Ho, Melissa Edwards, Nina Burridge, Hilary Yerbury (2011): Everyday Cosmopolitans, Complexity Theory & Social Capital. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal 3 (3): 47–67. Accessible at http://utsescholarship.lib.uts. edu.au/epress/journals/index.php/mcs, 5. 11. 2020. Semi, Giovanni, Enzo Colombo, Ilenya Camozzi, and Annalisa Frisina (2009): Practices of difference: Analysing multiculturalism in everyday life. In: Wise, Amanda and Velayutham, Selvaraj (eds.) Everyday Multiculturalism: 66–84. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Wise, Amanda (2009): Everyday multiculturalism: Transversal crossings and work­ing class cosmpolitanisms. In: Wise, Amanda and Velayutham, Selvaraj (eds.). Everyday Multiculturalism: 21–45. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Wise, Amanda and Selvaraj Velayutham (2009): Everyday Multiculturalism. Palgrave Macmillan, London. SOURCES European Commission (2009): Green Paper “Promoting the learning mobility of young people”, COM(2009) 329 final. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tanja Oblak Crnic, Meta Novak, Damjan Lajh, Elena Nacevska in Barbara Neža Brecko (2019): Youth, EU and Student Mobility – podatkovna datoteka. Ljubljana: CPR, FDV. Gril, Alenka, Igor Bijuklic, Sabina Autor (2018): EVROŠTUDENT VI 2016–2018: Socialni in ekonomski pogoji življenja študentov v Evropi. Nacionalno porocilo – Slovenija. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, Special issue/2020 Mitja HAFNER-FINK, Danica FINK-HAFNER* STUDENTS’ INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE AS A FACTOR OF A TRANSNATIONAL IDENTITY** Abstract. The social constructivist theory of European integration processes leads to expectations that tak­ing part in an Erasmus exchange adds to students’ European identity and positive attitudes regarding the EU. Testing this hypothesis on data gathered among Slovenian and visiting students at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana in 2018 and 2019 shows that students’ actual Erasmus experience tends to bring a mix of positive, yet more realistic views on the EU. Students’ general European identity does not correlate with their Erasmus experiences but does cor­relate with an EU identity. Keywords: identity, EU, Europe, Erasmus, social con-structivism Introduction Various studies have hitherto pointed to findings showing that European academic mobility is a factor in the making of European identity (Ifversen, 2000; Bagnoli, 2009; Powell and Finger, 2013; Genov, 2014; Golob, 2017; Lesjak and Anussornnitisarn, 2017). However, it remains unclear whether the research findings refer to a European identity generally or a European Union identity in particular. Further, international academic mobility per se has proven difficult to isolate as a factor of transnational identity-making. Researchers stress the importance of various factors that partly shape students’ decisions on inter­national academic mobility in the first place. The question is thus whether the expectations are correct that it is exactly the international academic mobility (Erasmus mobility) that is crucial for the formation of such stu­dents’ transnational identity. In this article, we investigate whether European academic mobility is a factor in the making of European identity in circumstances when other * Mitja Hafner-Fink, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Danica Fink-Hafner, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. ** The article is based on research work in the framework of the Political Science Research Programme (P5-0136) and the Slovenian Public Opinion Research Programme (P5-0151) both financed by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS). factors are also taken into account. Accordingly, our first hypothesis (H1) is that students who have experienced studying abroad are more likely to identify with the European Union. We also test whether EU identity and European identity actually amount to the same thing. To accomplish this, we not only take account of data regarding students’ directly expressed identities but also their views on scenarios of future EU dynamics. In line with the social constructivist theory of European integration pro­cesses, we expect that taking part in an Erasmus exchange contributes to students’ positive attitudes regarding Europe generally, in particular the EU. Our second hypothesis (H2) is thus that students with experience studying abroad are more likely to support more integration of all EU member states in all areas than are students who have no such experience. We test these hypotheses using data gathered at the Faculty of Social Sciences in 2018 and 2019 from: 1) Slovenian students without experience of studying abroad and no intention of studying abroad; 2) Slovenian stu­dents without experience but with plans to study abroad; and 3) Slovenian and foreign students with experience of studying abroad. Theoretical framework The literature on the factors impacting students’ engagement in inter­national academic mobility is fragmented. The fragmentation comes from particular academic disciplines being focused on their given fields (e.g. the development of personality, social mobility, social identity, employment, culture, public policies etc.). Still, the disciplinary focus is not the sole cause of this fragmentation. It also arises from simplified approaches to studying both the factors of students’ academic mobility and how academic mobility impacts students. Indeed, the literature offers many partial studies of international aca­demic mobility, primarily looking at either the development of students’ personalities or other aspects of students’ lives and social statuses both before and after students complete an academic stay abroad. As students are young people whose personality is still developing on the way from adolescence to adulthood, researchers of these processes list several factors that shape this development (Arnett, 2004; Thomson and Taylor, 2005; Barry, 2010; Golob, 2017). Costa (2018), for example, argues that personal developments have been the most notable achievements of students arising from going abroad, evidently experiencing autonomy in decision-making or even taking leadership positions. Further, students with international academic experience appear more willing to work in an inter­national environment and to work abroad than students without interna­tional academic experience. However, as a study of Turkish students shows, international experience may not only be positive (Erenler and Yazici, 2020). The mentioned study reveals the problematic experiences of Turkish Erasmus students’ as well as tough situations in cultural environments quite different from home. Still, it appears to be particularly challenging to clearly identify differences in the developing of personal, educational and cultural conceptions between Erasmus and non-Erasmus Turkish students. Moreover, some research questions the impact of studying abroad on the creation of a European identity as contact with host-country students may remain limited or have an adverse effect on it, although statistical analysis of data may show that increased socialising with Europeans has a positive, albeit modest, impact on European identity (Sigalas, 2010). However, the development of personality is not the sole factor (co) determining young people’s decisions on international academic mobility. Understandably, cultural factors such as language barriers and social seman­tic differences are believed to make a difference in students’ international mobility (Golob, 2017). Obvious factors include individual- and family-deter­mined socio-economic circumstances (Lehmann, 2004; Kogan and Unt, 2006; Kelly, McGuinness, O’Connell, 2012). Nevertheless, Ballatore and Ferede (2013) show that Erasmus students are not only engaged in more academic but also in leisurely travel and that they can afford to do so because they possess a higher socio-economic status. This led the authors to stress that an Erasmus year may actually be used to signal distinction and privilege. Given Ballatore and Ferede’s findings, it is no surprise that Erasmus participants are also more open to international opportunities, which increase their employ­ment chances and further reinforce their advantages. Indeed, inequalities in HE are produced and reproduced (Bilecen and Van Mol, 2017). Gender stands out as a factor on its own. It appears that gender as a socially-constructed phenomenon may be malleable under the influence of international academic mobility – notably in pushing the boundaries of female students’ personal freedom (Böttcher et al., 2016). Yet, the gender factor does not work in just one direction. De Benedictis and Leoni (2020) find gender bias in the Erasmus network of universities in favour of female students while gender asymmetry may also appear differently with regard to subject, consistent with the distribution of gender ratios among subject areas (Böttcher et al., 2016). Research shows the persistent importance of socio-economic barriers to the take-up of the Erasmus programme as access has only been seen to be moderately widening (Souto-Otero, 2008). This raises the question of whether and to what extent it is at all possible to determine the impor­tance of student-level barriers and motivations as explanations for participa­tion/non-participation in an Erasmus exchange. What does the finding by Beerkens et al. (2016) that home ties and lack of interest are the most robust 1253 predictors for non-participation actually mean? Is this finding from the sta­tistical analysis of survey data from seven countries at all able to explain the considerable differences found among countries? To some extent, research has considered broader external factors impact­ing international student mobility, such as better information and commu­nication and stressing the benefits of Erasmus mobility (Souto-Otero et al., 2013), but remains quite limited. More recently, research has looked into international academic exchange in relation to employment. Here research points out the domestic education opportunities (Van Bouwel and Veugelers, 2013) and domestic employ­ment opportunities (Bauer and Kreuz, 2015) as factors impacting students’ acceptance of academic international exchange opportunities. Still, studies of former Erasmus students underscore that these students (except for stu­dents from Central and Eastern European countries) do not believe that they excel in income and social status early on in their career and that the distinct professional value of temporary study in another country declines over time (Teichler and Janson, 2007). While the impact is declining, study abroad may remain an important experience for one’s professional career (Engel, 2010). Researchers have also looked at other expected outcomes of Erasmus mobility, such as Erasmus students’ perceptions, values, beliefs and attitudes, including their understanding of active citizenship. Surveys of Erasmus stu­dents reveal that Erasmus students’ understanding of ‘active citizenship’ echoes with the definition of the concept provided in the research litera­ture (Golubevaa et al., 2018), yet other potential factors impacting these stu­dents’ conceptions of active citizenship have been overlooked. The literature shows it remains unclear whether European identity or EU identity motivates students’ decisions to participate in international aca­demic mobility and/or whether European identity/EU identity is a result of students’ taking part in international academic mobility. Research into Erasmus students in comparison to non-Erasmus students has also neglected the heterogeneity of students as well as heterogeneity of Erasmus students. This must be appreciated more while studying students’ academic mobility, like in the case of the study of broader societies, with one example being the study The Future of Europe – Comparing Public and Elite Attitudes (Raines et al., 2017). Data and method The aim of the empirical study was to include as many Slovenian students and students as possible on an international academic exchange (Erasmus) at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana. Data were gathered by an on-line survey conducted in 2018 and 2019. The survey included Slovenian and foreign students of the undergradu­ate and graduate levels of study. The questionnaire was at least partly com­pleted by 208 Slovenian students (11% of all Slovenian students enrolled in the undergraduate and graduate studies) and 61 students from abroad (45% of all students on an exchange at the same faculty at the time). The questionnaire was available for students in both the Slovenian and English languages. While the questionnaire includes several sets of ques­tions, here we focus on those related to our research questions and demo­graphic questions – as presented in the section below. We tested two hypotheses: H1: Students with experience studying abroad are more likely to identify with the European Union. H2: Students with experience studying abroad are more likely to support more integration of all EU member states in all areas than students without experience are. The hypotheses make the assumption that by studying at universities in other European countries students gain a stronger sense of belonging to Europe generally and the European Union in particular. Therefore, we expect that the experience of studying abroad has not only a direct effect on supporting stronger integration among EU members, but this effect is also indirect through the two mentioned feelings of belonging. We created an analytical model (Figure 1) based on the literature review (presented above) and a preliminary bivariate data analysis. Thus, our key is independent variable in the model the experience of studying abroad, which hypothetically affects both identity variables (Europe identity and EU identity) (H1) and (non)support for stronger integration of the EU member states (H2). Due to methodological limitations (relatively small number of cases), only two control variables were included in the model: gender and subjective class as an indicator of socio-economic status. We especially high­light the hypothetical expectations regarding the impact of socio-economic status: we expect that among students from wealthier families are more of those who have already studied abroad or who are planning to do so. The analytical model includes the following hypothetical relations: Study abroad impacts the attachment to the EU and the attachment to Europe. Attachment to Europe and attachment to the EU affect support for more EU integration. Gender and subjective social class affect all four other variables. 1255 Figure 1: ANALYTICAL MODEL OF FACTORS EXPLAINING SUPPORT FOR FURTHER INTEGRATION INTO THE EU Source: Authors. We measured the dependent variable (“support for more integration”) with the following question: Which direction of the EU’s development do you support? 1. Remains unchanged 2. Integration based on the single market 3. More integration for those member states that so desire 4. Integration that would focus on a few policies/areas, but there more effectively 5. More integration of all members in all areas (Fink-Hafner et al., 2019: 32). For further analysis, we dichotomised this variable by combining the first four categories and keeping the fifth category as one to represent full sup­port for EU integration. We thereby obtained the following distribution of answers: 47.5% (of valid cases) support more integration of all members in all areas and 52.5% support other strategies. We measured the experience of studying abroad with the following question: Have you done part of your study abroad? Valid % 1. Yes 43.4 2. Not yet, but I am planning to 34.7 3. No, neither I have planned nor intend to 21.9 (Fink-Hafner et al., 2019: 34). We measured the feeling of attachment to the European Union and Europe (as indicators for EU and Europe identity) on a 4-point ordinal scale – from “not at all attached” (1) to “very attached” (4) (see Table 1). The cor­relation between the two attachments is quite strong (Spearman’s rho = 0.570), but still low enough to allow us to talk about two different variables. The question below was used to measure self-perceived social class: Do you see yourself and your household as belonging to…? 1. The working class of society 2. The lower-middle class of society 3. The middle class of society 4. The upper-middle class of society 5. The higher class of society (Fink-Hafner et al., 2019: 41). For the purposes of the analysis, we combined the first and last two cat­egories and thus obtained a classification entailing classes: lower, middle and upper. On the bivariate level, relationships between the variables were tested using contingency table analysis. On the multivariate level, we used a binary logistic regression where the outcome (dependent variable) was “support for greater integration of EU members in all areas”. All other variables were included in the model as factors (independent variables): study abroad, attachment to the EU, attachment to Europe, subjective class, and gender. Results1 We first briefly show what the data tell us about the relationship between European identity and EU identity. Then, on the level of bivariate analy­sis, we present the factors of EU identity (attachment to the EU) with an emphasis on the connection between the experience of studying abroad and attachment to the EU. The factors of support for more EU integration are then presented, where both bivariate and multivariate analysis are used. Since the analyses are based on survey data among all students of two generations of studies at the FSS, we will not rely on data on the significance of statistical parameters (we are not making a statistical inference from a probability sample to a population) while assessing the significance of the results. Above all, we will rely on the parameter values themselves. The results are valid only for the mentioned two gener­ations of students. However, they might represent a good hypothetical starting point for research on wider student populations. 1257 European and EU identity As shown in Table 1, those surveyed did not identify equally with Europe and with the EU. Based on the frequencies of their answers, one can say that more of those surveyed identified with Europe (65.8% feel fairly or very attached to Europe) than with the EU (51.1% feel fairly or very attached to the EU). Table 1: ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION Please tell how attached you feel to… Not at all attached Not very attached Fairly attached Very attached N a) Your city, town, village 3.4 23.0 39.6 34.0 356 b) Your country 6.7 20.2 52.0 21.1 356 c) The European Union 13.0 35.8 40.6 10.7 355 d) Europe 5.6 28.7 47.8 18.0 356 Source: own calculations based on data from the survey by Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). As identities are not necessarily exclusive and even tend to accumulate, the quite strong positive correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.570) between the EU and European identity is not surprising. However, further analy­sis revealed some exceptions from this positive correlation. In addition to the (expected) dominant group of respondents who express attachment (“fairly attached” + “very attached”) to both the EU and Europe (44.5%), we can also find those who feel attached only to the EU (6.8%) or only to Europe (21.1%) (Table 2). Especially interesting is the combination in which the feeling of attachment to the EU occurs simultaneously with non-attach­ment to Europe. Table 2: COMBINATION OF FEELING OF ATTACHMENT TO THE EU AND TO EUROPE* Freq. Percent – neither the EU, nor Europe 98 27.6 – the EU, not Europe 24 6.8 – Europe, not the EU 75 21.1 – the EU and Europe 158 44.5 Total 355 100.0 *Combination of feelings of attachment to the European Union and attachment to Europe (see lines c and d in Table 1) Source: own calculations based on data from the survey by Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). We established that these combinations of attachments (identities) dif­fer significantly among students who studied abroad, students who had not studied abroad but were planning to and students who had not studied abroad and had no intention to do so (Figure 2). Figure 2: COMBINATION OF ATTACHMENTS TO THE EU AND TO EUROPE – RELATING TO THE EXPERIENCE OF STUDYING ABROAD The results show we can talk about the connection between the expe­rience of studying abroad (Erasmus exchange) and European identity. Students with a study experience abroad express a European identity more than those without this experience do. However, a more detailed analysis reveals no statistically significant differences among students regarding their feeling of attachment to Europe in general. These differences are evi­dent when we look at feeling of attachment to the European Union. In the group of surveyed students who had studied abroad, over 60% feel attached to the EU, and among those who had not studied abroad (and did not plan to do so), less than 30% feel attached to the EU (Table 3). This result is in line with our first hypothesis. Table 3: THE FEELING OF ATTACHMENT TO THE EU IN RELATION TO THE EXPERIENCE OF STUDYING ABROAD (IN %) Attachment to the EU: Have you done part of your study abroad? Yes Not yet, but I’m planning to No, and I have no plans to – not attached at all 9.6 8.8 22.4 – not very attached 28.7 40.7 48.3 – fairly attached 50.4 48.4 22.4 – very attached 11.3 2.2 6.9 100% 100% 100% .2 = 24.516 sig. < 0.0005 Cramer’s V = 0.215 Source: own calculations based on data from the survey by Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Factors of support for more integration between all EU member states We now look at the factors that influence support for more EU integra­tion. We first examined the association of support for strong EU integra­tion with all other variables from the analytical model in Figure 1. We then conducted a multivariate analysis to test the direct effects of the independ­ent variables on supporting strong EU integration. Specifically, we used a binary logistic regression. Results of the bivariate analysis (Table 4) show a very weak association between attitude towards the future development of the EU and five inde­pendent variables from the model presented in Figure 1. The strongest effect on supporting more integration of all members is seen for the feel­ing of attachment to the EU (Cramer’s V = 0.195). We also observe that the association with the experience of studying abroad is even weaker (0.102). In general, we can say that a stronger feeling of attachment to the EU or to Europe in general leads to support for more integration into the EU. Yet, this association is not clearly linear: among those who do not feel any attach­ment, the share of support for more integration is indeed the lowest, yet it is not true that it is the highest among those who feel the most attached to the EU or Europe. In the case of attachment to the EU, this share is the highest for those who feel ‘only’ fairly attached. If we now consider the relationship in the focus of our interest, we can confirm our second hypothesis. In the group of students who had studied abroad, the share of those who support more integration of all EU members in all areas is the highest (52.6%), while among those who did not have this experience (and no plan to study abroad) this share is the lowest (39.7%) (Table 1). Yet, the differences are not large, as indicated by the already men­tioned low value of the coefficient of association. Table 4: FACTORS OF ATTITUDE TO THE EU’S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (“SUPPORT FOR MORE INTEGRATION OF ALL MEMBERS IN ALL AREAS”) – BIVARIATE ANALYSIS (CROSS-TABULATION) Support for more integration of all members in all areas (%) .2 (sig.) Coefficient of association (Cramer’s V) Attachment to the EU (N = 299) 11.413 (0.010) 0.195 – not attached at all 24.3 – not very attached 46.9 – fairly attached 55.6 – very attached 43.5 Attachment to Europe (N = 300) 3.534 (0.316) 0.109 – not attached at all 33.3 – not very attached 53.5 – fairly attached 48.3 – very attached 41.2 Study abroad (N = 264) 2.760 (0.252) 0.102 – no, and no intention to 39.7 – not yet, but planning to 45.7 – yes 52.6 Gender (N = 248) 3.107 (0.078) 0.112 – male 39.7 – female 52.0 Subjective class (N = 243) 1.903 (0.386) 0.088 – lower 42.5 – middle 46.2 – upper 54.7 1261 Source: own calculations based on data from the survey by Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). As part of the multivariate analysis, we examined the direct effects of the independent variables on supporting strong EU integration, meaning that the effect of each individual independent variable is controlled for the effects of all other independent variables in the model. Specifically, we pre­pared three binary logistic regression models: a) model with all five inde­pendent variables (both ‘attachment’ variables, studying abroad, gender, and subjective class) (Model 3); b) a model without subjective class (Model 2); and c) a model without any demographic (control) variables (Model 1). Overall, all three models hold weak explanatory power (pseudo R2 ranges between 0.074 and 0.091) (Table 5). Since the subjective class contributes very little to the model’s explanatory power (also in bivariate analyses we find the weakest correlation between the variables “support for integration” and “subjective class”), Model 2 seems to make the most sense. Other results at least partly support the findings from the bivariate analyses. First, in Model 2 (like in the other two models), attachment to the EU has the strongest (direct) effect. The odds for supporting further inte­gration of the EU among students fairly attached to the EU are more than four times higher than among not-at-all-attached students (Exp (B) = 4.332), while among those very attached to the EU the odds are slightly lower (Exp (B) = 3.600). Similar to the bivariate analysis, we also found a very weak direct effect of the experience of studying abroad. However, we noticed a slightly changed pattern of the association: a) the lowest odds for support­ing further integration are not among those without any experience and no Table 5: FACTORS OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE EU’S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (“SUPPORT FOR MORE INTEGRATION OF ALL MEMBERS IN ALL AREAS”). RESULTS OF BINARY LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSES Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Factors: B p Exp (B) B p Exp (B) B p Exp (B) Attachment to the EU 0.031 0.061 0.097 – not attached at all (ref.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 – not very attached 1.007 0.044 2.738 0.891 0.088 2.437 0.956 0.076 2.602 – fairly attached 1.546 0.004 4.692 1.466 0.009 4.332 1.416 0.014 4.248 – very attached 1.406 0.050 4.079 1.281 0.086 3.600 1.373 0.073 3.949 Attachment to Europe 0.326 0.258 0.240 – not attached at all (ref.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 – not very attached 0.065 0.916 1.068 0.185 0.767 1.203 0.359 0.581 1.433 – fairly attached -0.395 0.532 0.647 -0.355 0.582 0.702 -0.210 0.754 0.811 – very attached -0.702 0.319 0.496 -0.702 0.334 0.496 -0.558 0.463 0.573 Study abroad 0.484 0.461 0.543 – no (ref.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 – not yet, but planning to 0.008 0.981 1.008 -0.164 0.667 0.849 -0.186 0.632 0.830 – yes 0.321 0.357 1.379 0.216 0.550 1.241 0.160 0.667 1.173 Gender (female) (binary) 0.440 0.145 1.553 0.460 0.135 1.584 Subjective class 0.638 – lower (ref.) 0.000 – middle 0.161 0.617 1.175 – upper 0.374 0.343 1.453 Constant -1.128 0.063 0.324 -1.274 0.046 0.280 -1.626 0.021 0.197 Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) 0.074 0.087 0.091 Model fit (H & L test) Chi-square = 3.142 df =7 Sig. = 0.872 Chi-square = 8.657 df =8 Sig. = 0.372 Chi-square = 10.258 df =8 Sig. = 0.247 Cases in the analysis 263 246 240 B: Logistic regression coefficients. Exp (B): eB, odds ratio for the outcome 1 (“more integration of all members in all areas”) Source: own calculations based on data from the survey by Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). intention to study abroad, but among those without experience but plan­ning to study abroad (Exp (B) = 0.849); b) while the odds are the highest, as expected, among those having the experience of studying abroad (Exp (B) = 1.241). The direct effect of the variable “attachment to Europe” also shows a changed pattern compared to the findings of the bivariate analysis. In this case, a negative connection is indicated, as the odds for supporting further integration are less than half among students with a strong attachment to Europe (Exp (B) = 0.496) than among those who are not attached to Europe at all (Table 5). The results also confirm the direct effect of gender, as already indicated by the bivariate analysis – women are more likely to support the further integration of all EU members in all areas (Exp (B) = 1.553). The results show that among the factors included in the model, the strongest direct impact on supporting further comprehensive integration between EU members is held by a sense of attachment to the EU. The weak­est direct impact is shown by the factor of interest to us here: the experience of studying abroad. Therefore, we conclude that studying abroad does not necessarily mean a positive attitude with respect to further EU integration. However, given the positive association found between studying abroad and a feeling of attachment to the EU (see Table 3), we may expect an indi­rect (positive) impact of this experience through attachment to the EU. The analyses quite clearly demonstrate that studying abroad has a positive effect on the feeling of attachment to the EU. In the group of surveyed students who had studied abroad, over 60% felt attached to the EU, and among those who had not studied abroad (and had no plans to do so), less than 30% feel attached to the EU (Table 3). Still, we did not find a significant association between the experience of studying abroad and the feeling of attachment to Europe in general. Both the bivariate and multivariate analyses show that we can hardly speak about the direct impact of students’ socio-economic status (measured by “subjective class”) on their attitude towards future integration into the EU. Yet, we may conclude that this influence is ‘mostly’ indirect – by way of the experience of studying abroad and the feeling of attachment to the EU (Table 6). A significantly higher proportion of upper-class students (52.8%) had studied abroad than lower-class students (37.5%) (Table 6). There is an even bigger difference in terms of the feeling of attachment to the EU: in the upper class, 69.8% felt attached to the EU, but in the lower class only 36.1% (Table 6). 1263 Table 6: ASSOCIATION OF “SUBJECTIVE CLASS” WITH “THE EXPERIENCE OF STUDYING ABROAD” AND WITH “THE FEELING OF ATTACHMENT TO THE EU” (BIVARIATE ANALYSIS) Subjective class: Having an experience of studying abroad Feeling attached to the EU (fairly attached + very attached) lower 37.5% 36.1% middle 44.4% 53.0% upper 52.8% 69.8% Valid N 242 242 .2 (sig.) 5.559 (0.235) 19.485 (0.003) Cramer’s V 0.107 0.201 Source: own calculations based on data from the survey by Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Conclusion There are several main empirical findings. First, there is no correlation between a feeling of belonging to Europe and students’ actual studying abroad. Yet, the analyses show quite clearly that studying abroad brings a positive effect for the feeling of attachment to the EU. Second, a stronger feeling of attachment to the EU or to Europe in general leads to support for more integration into the EU. However, this association is not linear: among those who do not feel any attachment, the share of support for more inte­gration is indeed the lowest, but it is also not the highest among those who feel the most attached to the EU or Europe. In the case of attachment to the EU, the highest share of support for more integration is among those who feel ‘only’ fairly attached to the EU. Third, both the planned Erasmus and the actual Erasmus experience contribute to positive attitudes to the EU. Nevertheless, the actual Erasmus experience does not seem to support the most positive attitudes regarding the EU. Instead, the actual Erasmus experi­ence adds to positive but at the same time also realistic attitudes to the EU. Studying abroad also does not automatically mean a positive attitude to fur­ther EU integration, although we can expect an indirect (positive) impact of this experience through attachment to the EU. Third, we can hardly speak about students’ socio-economic status (as measured by “subjective class”) as having a direct impact on their attitude to future integration into the EU. This influence is instead ‘mostly’ indirect by way of the experience of study­ing abroad and the feeling of attachment to the EU. These findings must be understood in a broader context. First, they are findings concerning the population of Slovenian students at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana (both non-mobile and mobile in the Erasmus programme framework) and foreign Erasmus students at the same faculty in 2018 and 2019. In general, Slovenian citizens are pro-EU-oriented a little above the average compared to the EU-28 as expressed in having trust in the EU, in holding a positive image of the EU, and three-quarters of citizens feeling that they are citizens of the EU (Standard Eurobarometer 92, 2019; Europeans in 2019, 2019). Further, in 2017 young people in Slovenia agreed at a below-average level (64%) that European programmes and ini­tiatives such as Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps lead to feel­ing more European while 35% totally disagreed with this notion (European Youth, 2017). Taking all EU comparative survey data into account, which point to the finding that only a little over half of the EU member states have achieved a level of student mobility (students with some study-related experiences abroad) at close to the targeted 20% of the student population (Slovenia included) while in quite a few EU members (including Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Portugal, Albania) the shares of non-mobile students are above 85% (DZHW, ed., 2018: 222–223). Still, the share of Erasmus students speaks in favour of the elitist thesis about this segment of students but also conceals the internal heterogeneity of Erasmus students. Further, issues of European identity, EU identity – or the “level of Europeanness” as Rother and Nebe (2009) put it – may be very slippery. Questioning who ‘we’ are (Chopin, 2018) may add to challenges of the increasing identity politics within the EU and beyond rather than to peace and democratic processes. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnett, J. Jeffrey (2004): Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from Late Teens through the Twenties. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Bagnoli, Anna (2009): On ‘An Introspective Journey’: Identities and Travel in Young People’s Lives. European Societies 11 (1): 325–345. Ballatore, Magali and Martha K. Ferede (2013): The Erasmus Programme in France, Italy and the United Kingdom: student mobility as a signal of distinction and privilege. European Educational Research Journal 12 (4): 525–533. Barry, Monika (2010): Youth transitions: From offending to desistance. Journal of Youth Studies 1 (1): 121–136. Bauer, Thomas and Alexandra Kreuz (2015): Erasmus and Ehea student mobility in times of the European Economic crisis. The situation of international teacher Training students in Austria. Journal of International Mobility 1 (3): 99–114. Beerkens, Maarja, Manuel,Souto-Otero, Hans de Wit, Jeroen Huisman (2016): Similar students and different countries? An analysis of the barriers and drivers for Erasmus participation in seven countries. Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (2): 184–204. Böttcher, Lucas, Nuno A. M. Araújo, Jan Nagler, José F. F. Mendes, Dirk Helbing, Basak Bilecen, and Christof Van Mol (2017): Introduction: international aca­demic mobility and inequalities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43 (8): 1241–1255. 1265 Chopin, Thierry (2018): Europe and the identity challenge: who are “we”?, European Issue, no. 466, 19th March, Foundation Robert Schuman. Accessible at https:// www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/0466-europe-and-the-identity-challenge-who-are-we, 27. 11. 2020. Helbing, Hans J. Herrmann (2016): Gender Gap in the ERASMUS Mobility Program. PLoS ONE 11 (2): e0149514. Accessible at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0149514, 25. 11. 2020. Costa, Sérgio Augusto Quelho (2018): Socioeconomic comparison between Erasmus and non-Erasmus students: a study case of University of Porto stu­dents. Dissertation. Porto: University of Porto. De Benedictis, Luca, Silvia Leoni (2020): Gender bias in the Erasmus network of uni­versities. Applied Network Science 5 (64). Accessible at https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41109-020-00297-9, 1. 12. 2020. DZHW (ed.) (2018): Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe. Eurostudent VI 2016-2018. Synopsis of indicators. Bielefeld: W. Bartelsmann Verlag. Accessible at https://www.eurostudent.eu/download_files/documents/ EUROSTUDENT_VI_Synopsis_of_Indicators.pdf, 222–223, 25. 11. 2020. Engel, Constanze (2010): The impact of Erasmus mobility on the professional career: Empirical results of international studies on temporary student and teaching staff mobility. Belgian Journal of Geography 10 (4): 351–363. Erenler, Alev and Yeliz Yazici (2020): Self compassion levels of Erasmus and non-Erasmus students. European Journal of Education Studies 7 (5): 333–347. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tanja Oblak Crnic, Meta Novak, Damjan Lajh, Elena Nacevska, Barbara Brecko (2019): Odnos mladih do Evropske unije in študijska mobil­nost, Ljubljana: Center za politološke raziskave. Genov, Nikolai (2014): The Future of Individualization in Europe: Changing Configurations in Employment and Governance. European Journal of Futures Research 2 (46): 1–9. Golob, Tea (2017): Evropska študijska mobilnost kot sodobni obred prehoda. Glasnik Slovenskega etnološkega društva 57 (3/4): 75–84. Golubevaa, Irina, M. Elena Gómez Parra and Roberto Espejo Mohedano (2018): What does ‘active citizenship’ mean for Erasmus students?. Intercultural Education 29 (1): 40–58. Ifversen, Jan (2002): Europe and European Culture – a Conceptual Analysis. European Societies 4 (1): 1–26. Kogan, Irena in Marge Unt (2006): “Transition from school to work in transition economies.” European Societies 2 (1): 219–253. Lehmann, Wolfgang (2004): ‘For some reason, I get a little scared’: Structure, agency, and risk in school–work transitions. Journal of Youth Studies 4 (1): 379–396. Lesjak, Dušan and Pornthep Anussornnitisarn (2017): Internationalisation— Professors’ mobility and teaching in foreign languages in Slovenian higher edu­cation. International Journal of Innovating and Learning 22 (3): 340–352. Powell, Justin W. and Claudia Finger (2013): The Bologna process’s model of mobil­ity in Europe: The relationship of its spatial and social dimensions. European Educational Research Journal 12 (2): 270–285. Raines, Thomas, Matthew Goodwin and David Cutts (2017): The Future of Europe – Comparing Public and Elite Attitudes research report, Europe Programme, June 2017, Chatham House. The Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs. Accessible at https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/sites/default/files/publications/pdf_import/ The_Future_of_Europe_Study.pdf, 27. 11. 2020. Rother, Nina and Tina M. Nebe (2009): More Mobile, More European? Free Movement and EU Identity. 1–36. Favell, Adrian and Recchi, Ettore (eds.) Pioneers of European Integration. Citizenship and Mobility in the EU. UK and USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Accessible at https://doi.org/10.4337/97818498 02314.00011, 27. 11. 2020. Sigalas, Emmanuel (2010): Cross-border mobility and European identity: The effec­tiveness of intergroup contact during the ERASMUS year abroad. European Union Politics 11 (2): 241–265. Souto-Otero, Manuel (2008): The SocioEconomic Background of Erasmus Students: A Trend Towards Wider Inclusion? International Review of Education 54 (2): 135–154. Souto-Otero, Manuel, Jeroen Huisman, Maarja Beerkens, Hans De Wit and Suncica Vujic, (2013): Barriers to international student mobility: Evidence from the Erasmus program. Educational Researcher 42 (2): 70–77. Teichler, Ulrich and Kerstin Janson (2007): The Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country: Employment and Work of Former ERASMUS Students. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3–4): 486–495. Thomson, Rachel and Rebecca Taylor (2005): Between Cosmopolitanism and the Locals: Mobility as a Resource in the Transition to Adulthood. Young 13 (4): 327–342. Van Bouwel, Linda and Reinhilde Veugelers (2013): The determinants of stu­dent mobility in Europe: The quality dimension. European Journal of Higher Education 3 (2): 172–190. SOURCES European Youth (2017): Flash Eurobarometer 455, September 2017, European Commission. Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopin­ion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/FLASH/surveyKy/2163, 25. 11. 2020. Europeans in 2019 (2019): Special Eurobarometer 486, July 2019, European Commission. Accessible at https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/ S2225_91_2_486_ENG, 24. 11. 2020. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tanja Oblak Crnic, Meta Novak, Damjan Lajh, Elena Nacevska in Barbara Neža Brecko (2019): Youth, EU and Student Mobility – data basis. Ljubljana: CPR, FDV. Standard Eurobarometer 92 (2019): November 2019, European Commission, Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinionmobile/ index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/surveyKy/2255, 24. 11. 2020. 1267 Barbara N. BRECKO, Maša KOLENBRAND, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC* WHO ARE STUDENTS WITH INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE EXPERIENCES? THE CASE OF THE FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES** Abstract. The Erasmus programme advocates short-term student mobility in order to broaden educational experience. Longitudinal trends at the University of Ljubljana show how the Erasmus programme’s popular­ity is rising for incoming students, while for outgoing ones it remains the same or is decreasing. In both cases, Erasmus students seem to be a privileged minority. The article presents the results of a quantitative online sur­vey conducted at the Faculty of Social Sciences, analys­ing the students’ social background, parental educa­tion, and career ambitions. The article shows to what extent institutionalised student mobility is a leveller of the social inequalities found in other studies. Keywords: Institutional student mobility, social status, future careers, Erasmus students, non-Erasmus students Introduction The Erasmus programme advocates and promotes temporary student mobility in order to broaden students’ educational experience, improve their international understanding, expand and improve their foreign lan­guage skills, and prepare them for the world of work in which these skills are expected to play an increasing role (Teichler and Janson, 2007). According to several studies (e.g. Souto Otero and McCoshan, 2006; Ballatore and Ferede, 2013), Erasmus students tend to be privileged students who have better access to study abroad because of their stronger financial opportu­nities. On the other hand, students who decide to study abroad also have some other characteristics which distinguish them from non-Erasmus stu­dents: they tend to be more open to moving abroad for work and more open to learning new languages. In this sense, some findings support the * Barbara N. Brecko, PhD, Teaching Assistant, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Maša Kolenbrand, MSc, Office for International Cooperation, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Tanja Oblak Crnic, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. ** The authors received public financial support from research grants P5-0136 and P5- 0399 adminis­tered through the Slovenian Research Agency. Barbara N. BRECKO, Maša KOLENBRAND, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC idea that “the program participation is used to signal privilege and should be understood as a way to mark distinction” (Ballatore and Ferede, 2013: 525). The purpose of this article is namely to explore if the same also applies to students at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana (FSS-UL). Since we know little about the students who choose to study abroad, we conducted exploratory analyses in order to understand their main motivations for deciding to study abroad, what is important for their future, and what is their social, economic and cultural character. In this article, we first examine longitudinal trends of the popularity of the Erasmus programme at the University of Ljubljana, showing the trends of rises and falls in the number of students who decide to either move or study away from home, as well as in the number of students who decide to undertake a study exchange in Ljubljana. For this purpose, official data from the University of Ljubljana and the Faculty of Social Sciences are used. On a second level, the aim of this article is to identify the social and economic background of the Erasmus students at the FSS-UL and their career aspira­tions. In particular, we examine specific social, economic and cultural differ­ences between mobile and non-mobile students. A large-scale study of more than 21,000 Erasmus and non-Erasmus students (Ballatore and Ferede, 2013: 526) found financial constraints being cited as the most important reason for non-participation. Using parental occupation, education, and income to capture socio-economic status, Souto-Otero (2008) found that on average those who participated in Erasmus in 2004/2005 came from socially more privileged backgrounds. In our study, we also present the results of a quan­titative online survey on a sample of Erasmus and non-Erasmus students, analysing their social background, parental education, cultural competen­cies and future career ambitions. By comparing two groups of students – Erasmus and non-Erasmus – the article seeks to ascertain to what extent institutionalised student mobility can be perceived as a leveller of the social inequalities that have been found in other comparative studies. Theoretical framework: Push factors for institutionalised student mobility According to Ballatore and Ferede, student mobility, as promoted in the Erasmus programme, is “institutionalized student mobility, which is man­aged and facilitated by higher education institutions and operates between organisations that are in contractual relations and includes a certain level of reciprocity” (Ballatore and Ferede, 2013: 526). This type of student mobil­ity is primarily short term because it cannot exceed 12-month periods and, at the end of their stay, institutionally mobile students must go back home. Conceptually, such short-term student mobility can be approached by two 1269 perspectives – either from the push–pull model or from the choice model (see Beerkens et al., 2016: 186–187). In the former, the push–pull frame­work, the decision on international mobility can be explained by a complex set of educational, political, cultural/social and economic factors that ‘push’ the student away from their home country and ‘pull’ to a specific host coun­try (see de Wit, 2008). The second, the college choice framework, looks at educational choice in a broader sense: first, students develop an intention to study abroad, then they search for an appropriate location or programme for their period abroad, and finally they make their selection and depart (also see Salisbury et al., 2009). Empirical research based on the first framework shows how safety and living standards in the host country, future career perspectives, and avail­able information about the educational opportunities, and quality of educa­tion exert a positive effect on student choices to engage in student mobility. However, for short-term mobility, the “consumption benefits” (Souto-Otero, 2008) seem to have even stronger effects: for instance, a warm climate and an attractive city seem to be more important than the career perspectives or quality of the programme. On the other hand, studies following the second framework stress the importance of other, much more personal attitudes such as curiosity, serenity, and tolerance of ambiguity. Based on such differ­entiated findings, Beerkens et al. conclude that studying abroad is obviously “a result of multiple extrinsic and intrinsic factors” (Beerkens et al., 2016: 187). In addition, gaining international credentials serves as a way to differen­tiate oneself from the masses. Munk (2009) in this sense argues that study­ing abroad is perceived as a form of transnational investment in acquiring informational and academic capital at prestigious foreign educational insti­tutions (see Ballatore and Ferede, 2013: 527). Yet, educational systems can also be viewed as sites of social reproduction that maintain the status quo. Since studying abroad is strongly linked to the cost of living, which for some students may be just too high to afford, despite the scholarship that Erasmus students receive, the opportunities are different from the start. It is hence not surprising that, according to the findings of many studies (Souto Otero and McCoshan, 2006; Balatore and Ferede, 2013), students studying abroad come from a socially and economically better family environment, which shows that the choice of student mobility is in some ways not evenly spread among students. Costs are important factors when students are deciding whether to study abroad, and high study costs are one of the biggest obsta­cles (Vossensteyn, 2010). In 2018, the average Erasmus grant was EUR 336 per month (European Commission, 2020), which in most European cities is not even enough to cover accommodation costs. As the Eurostudent survey (Hauschildt et al., 2018) shows, 70% of respondents said that the Erasmus grant covered half or less of their total expenditure. Also for these reasons, the majority of stu­dents studying abroad come from privileged backgrounds, as confirmed by many studies (e.g. Balatore and Ferede, 2013; Beerkens et al., 2016). In addi­tion, the Survey of the Socio-Economic Background of Erasmus Students (Souto Otero and McCoshan, 2006) reports that two-thirds of the respond­ents had at least one parent who was a manager, professional or technician. This proportion is higher than in the population in general, where less than 40% of the working population aged 45 and over are engaged in such a pro­fession. Moreover, around 58% of the students in the survey had at least one parent with a higher education. A large majority of Erasmus students stated that their parents’ income status was at or above the average income in their country (Souto Otero and McCoshan, 2006). Consequently, students with study mobility experience might have better opportunities for their future careers. Findings from the Erasmus + Impact Study (European Commission, 2019) confirm that Erasmus students are indeed employed abroad more often than non-mobile graduates. As reported, 15% had moved abroad for their current job. The share of those who receive their first job after grad­uation abroad is substantially higher for Erasmus graduates than for non-mobile graduates (23% vs. 15%). In addition, almost half of Erasmus gradu­ates who obtained their first job abroad took up their first job in the country where they had stayed during their Erasmus mobility period (European Commission, 2019). As Beerkens (2016: 185) argue, those students later work in higher-status employment sectors, are more likely to have an inter­national job or work abroad, and are also less likely to remain unemployed after their studies (also see Bracht et al., 2006; Mohajeri Norris and Gillespie, 2009; Parey and Waldinger, 2011). Who are institutionally mobile students? Combining two empirical insights In order to at least partially reflect on to what extent the mentioned fac­tors are relevant in the Slovenian context, an exploratory analysis was con­ducted. Here, the main aim is namely to show, first, the context of student mobility at the University of Ljubljana and how students from different fac­ulties respond to the Erasmus programme. With such insight, the position of the Faculty of Social Sciences in comparison to other university members will be identified. Second, emphasis is given to the main characteristic of mobile students, namely their socio-economic background and their poten­tial future plans. Here, the analysis is focused on the survey conducted at the Faculty of Social Sciences. Accordingly, the main results are also presented on two levels. 1271 Methods used, the sample, and data analysis The data for describing trends in student mobility come from the official databases of the University of Ljubljana and the Faculty of Social Sciences. The data used at this level were selected according to three criteria. First, information about the share of incoming and outgoing students from 1999 on. Second, information about the numbers of both types of students within all faculty members of the University of Ljubljana. Third, information about the main countries to which students move from Slovenia or come from. The data collection considers a larger time-frame, that is, between 1999 and 2019, but the primary focus is on the data in 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 when the survey was conducted. The presentation of the results is combined with descriptions and visual graphs. In the academic years 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 a quantitative study was conducted among UL-FSS students. The study included Slovenian and for­eign students in the first and second cycles of Bologna study. The survey was carried out online, with the questionnaire for students available in both Slovenian and English. The study included all three types of students: those with an experience of studying abroad within the Erasmus programme, those who intended to study abroad and those who did not were not even going to participate in any international student mobility. For the purpose of this article, we concentrate on students with the mobility experience. However, to be able to present the specific distinctions between mobile and non-mobile students, those without a mobile experience are also included. Our sample therefore consists of 173 students: 115 students (66% of the sample) are Slovenian and foreign students who had studied abroad (Erasmus), while 58 students (34% of the sample) had not studied abroad and had no plans to do so (non-Erasmus). Among the Erasmus students, 47.2% are Slovenian students and 53.8% are foreign students. Among the non-Erasmus students, there are only Slovenian students. The data analyses of survey data are statistically driven. Here, chiefly bivariate analyses were used, comparing Erasmus and non-Erasmus stu­dents, and focusing on the two major sets of variables. The first set of social and cultural background variables included measures on parental educa­tion, perception of social class and attitudes to learning foreign languages. The second set of decision-making and motivations variables included measures on job preferences, attitudes to employment at home and abroad, and motivations for moving abroad. Elements of both sets of variables are partially comparable to the much more extensive research study conducted by Beerkens et al. (2016). Trends in student mobility at the University of Ljubljana and the Faculty of Social Sciences The University of Ljubljana has 23 faculties and 3 academies and is actively engaged in the Erasmus programme, showing highest mobility figures on the national level, i.e. 16,205, compared to the second-largest Slovenian higher education institution the University of Maribor with 3,973 mobilities (see CMEPIUS Statistics). However, in the last decade the University of Ljubljana has become a receiving rather than a sending institution. The figures for incoming and outgoing students from the start of the Erasmus programme in Slovenia (1999/2000) until the 2018/2019 academic year (see Graph 1) show a rising trend in incoming and outgoing students. Yet, since 2010/2011, the growth in the number of outgoing students has slowed down while the number of incoming students is still increasing strongly. The share of mobile students compared to all students enrolled at the university level is overall very small, representing less than 4%. Graph 1: NUMBER OF INCOMING AND OUTGOING STUDENTS AT THE UL FROM 1999/2000 TO 2018/2019 1273 Source: Own analysis on the basis of the University of Ljubljana data on student mobility. The lion’s share of student mobility traditionally occurs at business, social sciences, law and humanities faculties, which are also the faculties with the highest number of enrolled students. As shown by Graph 2, indicating the number of incoming and outgoing students by faculties in the 2018/2019 academic year, social sciences, humanities, law, administration and busi-ness/economics faculties accept or send abroad more than two-thirds of all University of Ljubljana exchange students. Also with these faculties, the trends are similar as on the university level, thereby increasing the number of incoming students and varying the number of outgoing students from year to year. Graph 2: ERASMUS+ INCOMING AND OUTGOING STUDENT MOBILITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA BY FACULTIES Source: Own analysis on the basis of the University of Ljubljana data on student mobility. Something similar holds true with regard to the data on the national level. Statistics (see CMEPIUS Statistics) reveal that business and administra­tion, social sciences, arts and humanities students make up the largest share (62%) of those on an Erasmus exchange. The same applies to the incoming students, accounting for 56% of all Erasmus students. In the student survey (European Commission, 2019), the Commission came to similar findings regarding participation in Erasmus mobility by subject. In both absolute and relative terms, the Faculty of Social Sciences takes, as a rule, third place among all 26 members of the University of Ljubljana. The share of outgoing exchange students accounts for about 8% of all enrolled students, yet the gap between incoming (178) and outgoing (96) students is big and widening year after year. Graph 3 depicts where the outgoing students undertook their studies abroad and where the incoming students who participated in the survey came from.1 Graph 3: TOP 10 HOST COUNTRIES OF OUTGOING STUDENTS AND HOME COUNTRIES OF INCOMING STUDENTS IN 2018/2019 AND 2019/2020 Source: Own analysis on the basis of the Faculty of Social Sciences data on student mobility. Spain and Portugal have always been the most popular destinations among outgoing students, not just among FSS-UL students, but also on the university as well as national levels. In fact, as shown in the Erasmus+ Annual Report 2018 (European Commission, 2018), Spain is overall the top receiving country. Those two countries, together with the Netherlands with its high costs of living, confirm the contention of consumption benefits. Still, the top host destination is the Czech Republic, with a favourable ratio between living costs and high education quality. The only country where the FSS-UL during the years in question sent more students than it received is Ireland. This decision by students arises from the possibility to learn the English language from mother-tongue speakers. The majority of incoming students come from Germany, Italy, Turkey, followed by the Czech Republic and Portugal. According to the data obtained from the FSS-UL International Office, the highest number of places is available at the German partner universi­ties (around 70 places upon 32 agreements), followed by Italy with 28 agreements, and Poland with 21. Interestingly, FSS-UL has only one partner university in Ireland with 7 study places available, but still more students While analysing the choice of the mobility university/country, the offer of available places has to be taken into account, which depends on the number of inter-institutional agreements signed between part­ner universities. 1275 decided to study at the Irish university than at German universities, although those universities are high in quality2 and located in cities with much lower costs of living. In sum: student mobility still reaches only a minority of students at the University of Ljubljana and the Faculty of Social Sciences. In the last 20 years, the Erasmus programme has not gained in popularity among domes­tic students, as might have been expected. This raises questions about the barriers that students face in relation to studying abroad. Applications for an Erasmus grant nevertheless show that many students are interested in and do apply for the exchange, but eventually do not participate. The rea­sons most often cited by students are family-based, personal relationships, lack of financial resources or more precisely the level of Erasmus funding, work responsibilities, and unmet home study obligations. Those reasons also correspond to the findings of the Erasmus Impact Study (European Commission, 2019). Student mobility as a signal of privilege? Results of a quantitative online survey In the part below, we try to answer three narrower research questions: 1) What are the main social and economic characteristics of mobile students at the Faculty of Social Sciences? 2) Are the students who decide to study abroad more open to learning foreign languages? 3) How open are the Erasmus students to moving abroad for work compared to non-Erasmus students? As discussed in the previous chapter, students who study abroad come from an environment with a better economic situation. Their parents are in the management, professional or technical professions, and the education of at least one parent is a higher education for the majority of students (Souto Otero and McCoshan, 2006; Balatore and Ferede, 2013). Is this also the case with FSS-UL students? 1. What are the main social and economic characteristics of mobile stu­dents at the Faculty of Social Sciences? The study among FSS-UL students shows similar results as found by the aforementioned authors: among Erasmus students, there are 69.5% of those whose mothers have at least a post-secondary education and 51.6% of those whose fathers have at least a post-secondary education. Among non-Erasmus students, there are 44.7% of those with mothers and 37.5% of those with fathers with at least a post­secondary education. The difference between Erasmus and non-Erasmus In accordance with the Academic Ranking of World Universities (2020), 15 out of 27 German part­ner universities were ranked in the top 1000 universities in the world, whereas the Irish partner university has not yet been ranked by the ARWU. parental education is significant (see Table 1 and Table 2) and consistent with the findings of other studies. Such findings suggest that the social envi­ronment differs between two groups of students. Table 1: EDUCATION MOTHER (N =142) Erasmus students non-Erasmus students n % n % No formal education or primary school 3 3.2% 1 2.1% Lower secondary 12 12.6% 15 31.9% Upper secondary 14 14.7% 10 21.3% Post-secondary, non-tertiary 13 13.7% 6 12.8% Lower level tertiary 29 30.5% 10 21.3% Upper level tertiary 24 25.3% 5 10.6% .2= 11.356; df = 5; sig = 0,04; V = 0.283 Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Table 2: EDUCATION FATHER (N =143) Erasmus students non-Erasmus students n % n % No formal education or primary school 4 4.2% 2 4.2% Lower secondary 14 14.7% 17 35.4% Upper secondary 28 29.5% 11 22.9% Post-secondary, non-tertiary 8 8.4% 7 14.6% Lower level tertiary 21 22.1% 6 12.5% Upper level tertiary 20 21.1% 5 10.4% .2 = 11.569; df = 5; sig = 0,04; V = 0.284 1277 Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Given the results on parental education, it is not surprising that Erasmus students feel better off compared to non-Erasmus students (see Table 3) when asked about their perception of the social background of their family. Among non-Erasmus students, 22.6% of students are from the working class compared to just 8.3% of Erasmus students. Among Erasmus students, about one-quarter can be classified as upper-middle class or higher, while among non-Erasmus students only 11.3% of students belong to the upper-middle class (.2= 10.393; df = 3; sig = 0.03). Socio-economic background is not only linked to the question of whether a student can afford to study abroad, but also to the opportunities and expe­riences that they may be exposed to as a child or adolescent. If a (young) person has an experience or several experiences with foreign countries – for instance, travelling with parents to foreign countries, taking holidays abroad, going on language courses at home or abroad etc., the decision to move and study abroad will come easier compared to those without such an experience. This thesis was confirmed by Ballatore and Ferede (2013) who conducted a study in three universities (one in the UK, one in Italy, and one in France), where they found that Erasmus participants had taken more foreign family trips than non-Erasmus students. Across all three universities, the frequency of foreign family trips was significantly related to participa­tion in Erasmus. They came to similar findings while exploring language-study abroad. They found significant relationships between participating in Erasmus and having previously undertaken a language study in a foreign country – there were more Erasmus students who had previously taken at least one language study abroad (Ballatore and Ferede, 2013). Table 3: PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL STATUS AMONG ERASMUS AND NON­ERASMUS STUDENTS (N=160) Erasmus students non-Erasmus students n % n % working class 9 8.3% 12 22.6% lower middle class 18 16.5% 7 13.2% middle class 52 47.7% 28 52.8% upper middle class 23 21.1% 6 11.3% higher class 5 4.6% 0 0.0% .2= 10.393; df = 3; sig = 0,03; V = 0.266 Source: Fink-Hafner et al. (2019). Apart from such a socio-economic background, mastery of a foreign language is a big barrier in the decision to study abroad (Beerkens et al., 2016; Costa, 2018). However, fluency in foreign languages is one of the key and basic requirements for participation in the EU. To be able to participate actively in European society, it is important to speak at least one foreign language in addition to one’s mother tongue. Language learning plays an important role in strengthening social cohesion, intercultural dialogue, and European integration, as stated in the Council Resolution of 14 February 2002 (Council of the European Union 2002): …the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning, which stresses that the knowledge of languages is one of the basic skills each citizen needs in order to take part effectively in the European knowledge society and therefore facilitates both integration into society and social cohesion. Students involved in our study were also asked what they think about learning European languages and, again, we can observe some differences between Erasmus and non-Erasmus students. While among Erasmus students there is very high agreement about the importance of learning European lan­guages, we observe that among non-Erasmus students agreement with some of the views on learning languages is somewhat lower (see Table 4). Table 4: IMPORTANCE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AMONG ERASMUS AND NON­ERASMUS STUDENTS (N=169) Learning European languages makes it easier to find employment Learning European languages is important for work and study in other EU member states Learning European languages helps understand the cultures of other EU member states All young Europeans should acquire knowledge of at least two European languages Schools should enable young people to learn other European languages n % n % n % n % n % Erasmus Strongly disagree or disagree 4 3.6% 8 7.1% 7 6.3% 11 9.7% 2 1.8% Agree or strongly agree 108 96.4% 105 92.9% 105 93.8% 102 90.3% 111 98.2% non-Erasmus Strongly disagree or disagree 4 7.2% 8 14.3% 10 17.8% 11 19.6% 5 9.0% Agree or strongly agree 52 92.9% 48 85.8% 46 82.2% 45 80.3% 51 91.0% 1279 Question: What do you think about learning other EU member states’ languages? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Source: Fink-Hafner et al., 2019. That is particularly true for the statement “Learning of European lan­guages helps understand the cultures of other EU members” (82.2% vs. 93.8%; c2= 10.536; df = 5; sig = 0,02). That “All young Europeans should acquire knowledge of at least two European languages” was agreed or strongly agreed to by 90.3% of Erasmus students, while among non-Erasmus students the figures is 80.3%. Among non-Erasmus students, we also find less agreement with the statement “Learning European languages is impor­tant for work and study in other EU member states” (85.8%). Motives for student mobility and visions of future career The literature agrees that students with a study abroad experience are also more employable. As the Valera study showed, international experi­ence plays an important role while entering the labour market. In the study, employed Erasmus graduates were surveyed and for 60% of them foreign language proficiency and for 53% their study period abroad was an impor­tant criterion in their recruitment process (Engel, 2010). This is supported by the feedback of employers who reported that foreign language profi­ciency was an important criterion for employment (70%). The study period abroad is stated by 30% of employers as being important for their recruit­ment decisions (Engel, 2010). Since studying abroad has a certain impact on employment, we also asked in our study some questions related to employ­ment in order to understand the preferences and expectations of students with an experience from abroad. When asked where would they like to be employed after completing the studies, the majority of students selected the non-governmental sector (80.7%) and education and training (60.6%). In third place are media and communications (see Table 5). All three major sectors represent the sam­ple, which reflects some of the study programmes at the Faculty of Social Sciences. The smallest share of students reported that they would like to be employed in the economy, finance (34.3%) which is unsurprising when we note that the surveyed students came from the FSS-UL, where the emphasis is on the social sciences. Table 5: FUTURE AREAS OF EMPLOYMENT AMONG ERASMUS STUDENTS AFTER COMPLETING THEIR STUDIES (N=107) Where would you like to be employed after completing your studies? n % Non-governmental sector 88 80.7% Education and training 66 60.6% Communications (journalism, publishing, multimedia services) 60 54.1% Government and public administration (on national or local level) 59 52.7% Marketing and PR 48 44.0% Economy, finance 37 34.3% Source: Fink-Hafner et al., 2019. Besides the potential vision of the sectors in which the students would like to work in the future, it is relevant to analyse how open (or non-open) Erasmus students are to moving abroad and living there also in the future. As studies show, Erasmus students more often become employed abroad or in internationally-oriented organisations with more of an international focus in their work (Engel, 2010). In our case, the openness of future employ­ment was measured with a set of items, which related to a set of items about where the students plan to seek employment after completing their studies (see Table 6). Students who had studied abroad (or were studying abroad) tend to be open towards working either at home or abroad. The share of students who would seek work only at home or only abroad is relatively low, especially when compared to the share of students who would seek employment in their home country and in EU member states – 74.6% (agree or strongly agree with the statement). The Erasmus students are open to Europe and the border seems no obstacle while seeking employment. Table 6: ERASMUS STUDENTS’ VISIONS OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THEIR NATIONAL COMMUNITY (N=110) After completing my studies… … I intend to seek employment only in my own country … I intend to seek employment only abroad … I intend to seek employment in my own country and in other EU member states … I intend to seek employment in my own country and in non-EU countries n % n % n % n % Strongly disagree 29 26.6% 15 13.6% 0 0.0% 16 14.5% Disagree 37 33.9% 42 38.2% 5 4.5% 14 12.7% Neither agree nor disagree 22 20.2% 34 30.9% 23 20.9% 32 29.1% Agree 17 15.6% 11 10.0% 61 55.5% 37 33.6% Strongly agree 4 3.7% 8 7.3% 21 19.1% 11 10.0% Source: Fink-Hafner et al., 2019. 1281 Graph 4: READINESS FOR SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN THE HOME COUNTRY AND THE EU AMONG ERASMUS AND NON-ERASMUS STUDENTS (N= 167) Question: I intend to seek employment only in my own country and in other EU member states Source: Fink-Hafner et al., 2019. When compared to non-Erasmus students, we see a substantial differ­ence – among non-Erasmus students there are only 29.8% who would seek a job in their home country as well as in other EU member states (see Graph 4). Non-Erasmus students tend to primarily seek employment at home (48.3%). The fact that Erasmus students are more open to moving and working abroad is confirmed and emphasised when students rated their level of agreement with the statement: “I would seek employment in other coun­tries only if I had been unemployed for a longer period of time in my own country”. The majority of Erasmus students do not agree with the state­ment (57.3%), while among non-Erasmus the majority does agree (53.5%) (c2= 37.418; df = 4; sig = 0.00; V = 0.473). They would go abroad, but only if they had to. Table 7: EMPLOYMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES (N =166) Erasmus students non-Erasmus students n % n % Strongly disagree 22 20.0% 7 12.5% Disagree 41 37.3% 10 17.9% Neither agree nor disagree 18 16.4% 9 16.1% Agree 25 22.7% 25 44.6% Strongly agree 4 3.6% 5 8.9% c2 = 13.584; df = 4; sig = 0,01; V = 0.286 Question: I would seek employment in other countries only if I had been unemployed for a longer period of time in my own country. Source: Fink-Hafner et al., 2019. Table 8: IMPORTANT FACTORS IN FUTURE EMPLOYMENT (N =172) Individual career development Deepening of knowledge and acquiring professional skills Financial satisfaction n % n % n % Erasmus Not important at all 2 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 0.9% Not important 2 1.8% 1 0.9% 0 0.0% Neither important, nor unimportant 6 5.3% 5 4.4% 14 12.4% Important 48 42.1% 35 30.7% 58 51.3% Very important 56 49.1% 71 62.3% 40 35.4% non-Erasmus Not important at all 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Not important 2 3.4% 3 5.2% 1 1.7% Neither important, nor unimportant 6 10.3% 2 3.4% 7 12.1% Important 23 39.7% 25 43.1% 27 46.6% Very important 27 46.6% 28 48.3% 23 39.7% Question: For your future employment, how important are the following: Source: Fink-Hafner et al., 2019. Despite some differences in employment preferences and differences in attitudes to learning languages, when asked how important they are for stu­dents in their future employment individual career development, deepen­ing knowledge and acquiring professional skills and financial satisfaction, we see that the differences between Erasmus and non-Erasmus students tend to become smaller. All – Erasmus and non-Erasmus – students find all three factors important. For both groups, the least important is the financial aspect: 86.7% of Erasmus vs. 86.3% of non-Erasmus students. Deepening of knowledge and acquiring professional skills seems to be a very important factor in both groups (93% Erasmus; 91% non-Erasmus). Individual career development is slightly less important for non-Erasmus students (86.3%) than for Erasmus students (91.2%). Conclusion According to Engel (2010), mobility is for students a worthwhile expe­rience regarding their international competencies, personal development and long-term career prospects. Mobility creates possibilities to enter the labour market since foreign experiences are highly valued. Studies also show that Erasmus students have an advantage in the employment market over non-Erasmus students. Nevertheless, not all students enjoy the same possibilities for studying abroad. As shown, when it comes to a decision on mobility the biggest obstacles are financial issues and language skills (Ballatore and Ferede, 2013; Beerkens et al., 2016; Costa, 2018). For that rea­son, the majority of Erasmus students come from privileged environments and the unequal uptake of student mobility has also been recognised by the European Commission (2017). Similar was shown in our study of FSS-UL Erasmus students. First, we can see that the number of outgoing students is not changing significantly (com­pared to incoming students); on the contrary, the number has more or less been the same for the last 10 years. Yet, the number of incoming students is rising. Without additional data, it is difficult to say whether this shows a lack of interest among Slovenian students or whether some other pull factors are more relevant. Urry (2002) argues that studying abroad fits with the notion of a “do­it-yourself” biography where mobility is one of its defining characteristics. Despite the relatively small sample of students studying abroad surveyed, we can clearly identify some common characteristics: Erasmus students tend to have parents with a higher education and perceive themselves as better situ­ated than non-Erasmus students. These findings are in line with Ballatore and Ferede (2013), Hauschildt et al. (2015) and Souto-Otero (2008). These students also see learning European languages as much more important 1283 compared to non-Erasmus students. The analyses also showed that Erasmus students are more open to moving and working abroad than non-Erasmus students, thereby accruing more possibilities to become employed else­where. Such more open attitudes are not surprising – by having experiences abroad, such students are better prepared and more experienced and less scared of moving away from their home country. However, at least at the Faculty of Social Sciences, there is no continuous research on students with international exchange experience, as is common in certain other institutions and countries. In addition, the questionnaire we used only asks partial and generalised questions, which should be accom­panied with more in-depth research into the Erasmus and non-Erasmus groups of students. While self-reported surveys are an important source of information for understanding mobility, as Beerkens argued (2016: 201), it seems necessary to couple these results more effectively with another type of research. Especially longitudinal studies could reduce certain biases and we could also learn more from systematic studies on students’ perceptions, practices, and future plans. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ballatorte, Magali and Martha K. Ferede (2013): The Erasmus Program in France, Italy and the United Kingdom: Student Mobility as a Signal of Distinction and Privilege. European Educational Research Journal 12 (4): 525–533. Beerkens, Marja, Manuel Souto-Otero, Hans de Wit, Jeoren Huisman (2016): Similar Students and Different Countries? An Analysis of the Barriers and Drivers for Erasmus Participation in Seven Countries. Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (2): 184–204. Böttcher, Lucas, Nuno A. M. Araújo, Jan Nagler, José F. F. Mendes, Dirk Helbing, Hans J. Herrmann (2016): Gender Gap in the ERASMUS Mobility Program. PLoS one11(2). Accessible at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149514, 10. 12. 2020. Bracht, Oliver, Constanze Engel, Kerstin Janson, Albert Over, Harald Schomburg, Ulrich Teichler (2006): The Professional Value of Erasmus Mobility. Kassel, German: International Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel. De Wit, Hans (2006): Changing Dynamic in International Student Circulation: Meanings, Push and Pull Factors, Trends and Data. In Agarwal Pawan, Mohsen Elmahdy Said, Molatlhegi T. Sehoole, Muhammad Sirozi, Hans de Wit (eds), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 14–48. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Engel, Constanze (2010): The Impact of Erasmus Mobility on the Professional Career: Empirical Results of International Studies on Temporary Student and Teaching Staff Mobility. Belgeo 4 (4). Accessible at https://doi.org/10.4000/bel­geo.6399, 10. 12. 2020. Munk, Martin D. (2009): Transnational Investments in Informational Capital: a Comparative Study of Denmark, France, and Sweden. Acta Sociologia 52 (1): 5–23. Mohajeri Norris, Emily and Joan Gillespie (2009): How Study Abroad Shapes Global Careers: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education 13: 382–397. Parey, Matthias and Fabian Waldinger (2011): Studying Abroad and the Effects on International Labour Engagement: the Long-term Impact of Mobility Experiences. Intercultural Education, S20: 29-S44. Souto-Otero, Manuel (2008): The Socio-economic Background of Erasmus Students: a Trend Towards Wider Inclusion? International Review of Education, 54: 135–154. Teichler Ulrich and Kerstin Janson (2007): The Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country: Employment and Work of Former ERASMUS Students. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3–4), Accessible at https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303230, 10. 12. 2020. Urry John (2002): Mobility and Proximity. Journal of the British Sociological Associations 36 (2): 255–273. SOURCES Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and Training Programmes (CMEPIUS). Accessible at http://statistike.cmepius.si/, 10. 12. 2020. Council of the European Union (2002): Council Resolution of 14 February 2002 on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001. European Commission (2016): The Erasmus Impact Study Regional Analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessible at https:// op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/46bd1ebb-b2db-11e6-9e3c­01aa75ed71a1, 10. 12. 2020. European Commission (2017): Commission Implementing Decision of 17. 8. 2017 on the Adoption of the 2018 Annual Work Programme for the Implementation of “Erasmus+: The Union Programme for Education (C(2017) 5652), Training, Youth and Sport. Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/ files/c-2017-5652_en.pdf, 10. 12. 2020. European Commission (2019): Erasmus+ Higher Education Impact Study Final Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessible at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/94d97f5c-7ae2-11e9­9f05-01aa75ed71a1, 10. 12. 2020. European Commission (2020): Erasmus+ Programme – Annual Report 2018, Info-graphic package. Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus /about/statistics_en, 10. 12. 2020. Faculty of Social Sciences (2020): Data on Erasmus Student Mobility, own data col­lected between 2018 and 2020, archived at the Faculty of Social sciences. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tanja Oblak Crnic, Meta Novak, Damjan Lajh, Elena Nacevska, Neža Barbara Brecko (2019): Youth, EU and Student Mobility – podatkovna datoteka. Ljubljana: CPR, FDV. 1285 Hauschildt, Kristina, Eva Marie Vögtle, Christoph Gwosc (2018): Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe, EUROSTUDENT VI 2016–2018 I Synopsis of Indicators. Accessible at https://www.eurostudent.eu/download_ files/documents/EUROSTUDENT_VI_Synopsis_of_Indicators.pdf, 10. 12. 2020. Souto Otero, Manuel and Andrew McCoshan (2006): Survey of the Socio-Economic Background of ERASMUS Students. DG EAC. University of Ljubljana (2019): Data on Erasmus Student Mobility, own data col­lected between 1999 and 2019, archived at the University of Ljubljana. Vossensteyn, Johan J. and Maarja Beerkens, Leon Cremonini et al. (2010): Improving Participation in the Erasmus Programme. Report for Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Brussels: European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education. Accessible at http://publications.europa.eu/resource/ cellar/f6b3644b-2b19-497c-819e-542163b5c047.0003.02/DOC_1, 10. 12. 2020. Tamara DAGEN* UNIVERSITIES’ STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIONA­LISATION: CONTEXTUAL DETERMINANTS** Abstract. Over the last few decades, the Erasmus pro-gramme has served as an impetus for internation­alisation in higher education on the institutional and national levels. The aim of the article is to present the results of qualitative comparative analysis of three cases in order to explore three different universities’ strategies for internationalisation (Vienna, Granada, Lausanne) in three different national contexts (Austria, Spain, Switzerland), and their various approaches to the Erasmus programme, and mobility in particu­lar. Although sharing common goals, instruments and activities created at the EU level, different approaches to internationalisation, the Erasmus programme and the mobility concept are evidenced, which have conse­quently brought various effects and outcomes. Keywords: internationalisation, Erasmus programme, mobility, university strategy, policy outcomes Introduction During their long history, universities have seen tremendous changes that have impacted all aspects of their functioning. Considered an impor­tant part of higher education (HE), internationalisation has broadly been encouraged in many academic milieus ever since the Middle Ages, mostly through the mobility of students and scientists among European universi­ties (Knight and De Wit, 1995). Over time, university policies on internation­alisation were further broadened with various tools and activities. The globalisation effects on HE, visible in the development of new tech­nologies, introduction of new forms of teaching and learning, and scientific * Tamara Dagen, PhD, University of Zagreb, Croatia. ** The article is based on a draft paper prepared in the framework of work in the scholarship for the 2017–2018 academic year as part of the project “The University of Ljubljana – Centre of Excellence DebatEU” financed by the Jean Monnet Programme. The analysis is based on empirical research conducted for the doctoral thesis of Tamara Dagen The impact of globalisation on the internationalisation of European public universities (defended in 2018 at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Zagreb) and additional research for the book Impact of Globalisation on Internationalisation of Universities by Tamara Dagen and Danica Fink-Hafner (2019), Ljubljana, Založba FDV. 1287 work that have fostered cooperation and increased competition, put even greater emphasis on the development of new university internationalisation strategies in which the mobility concept plays an important role. Indeed, the need to follow the accelerated global trends of interconnectedness in HE and the need to adapt to the new circumstances in their surroundings have forced universities and higher education institutions (HEIs) to set new agendas so as to find answers to the present global changes. In this sense, many HEIs recognise internationalisation as a crucial strategic tool for development. Various universities have developed different strategic niches and goals within the framework of their internationalisation policies (e.g. Soliman et al., 2019.). The aim of this article is to present insights into different university strategies of internationalisation, with a particular focus on the Erasmus pro­gramme’s role in straightening out and broadening the concept of mobil­ity at the institutional level of European public universities. While data on Erasmus mobility presented in the empirical part of the article refer to Erasmus+ programme outcomes gathered from official documents, the analysis also considers the Erasmus programme as a broad framework and examines its influence on national and university strategies for internation­alisation. The analysis is focused on three research questions: 1) which factors mainly influenced the selection of different approaches to institutional and national policies in the field of internationalisation, especially to the Erasmus programme; 2) what kind of outcomes are observed in three cases; and 3) how are the approaches connected to the concepts of internationali­sation at home and internationalisation abroad. The concept of internationalisation in HE is understood differently in dif­ferent contexts and also by various actors, stakeholders and scholars. The literature shows a variety of approaches to its conceptualisation and defini­tion (e.g. Knight, 1994, 2003; Teichler, 2004; Marginson and Van der Wende, 2007; de Wit and Hunter, 2015). Following the definition that internation­alisation in HE is a steerable process of greater cooperation and cross-border formal relations between states, institutions and organisations in HE, which includes an international and/or global dimension in the teaching, research, service functions, purpose and delivery of HE (Dagen et al., 2019), in this analysis it is viewed as a process that affects all parts of HE and filters policies created at the global and supranational levels, which are then implemented on both the institutional and national levels. Mobility is seen as an instru­ment and a tool for fulfilling one of the main goals of the Bologna Process and as an impetus for the internationalisation of HEIs and HE systems. Since globalisation in HE is defined as a worldwide social (societal, eco­nomic, cultural and political) connecting in the area of HE (ibid.), in this article it is regarded as a broader process that impacts HE on all levels (supranational, national, institutional), increases and accelerates the com­munication and exchange of knowledge, experiences and ideas among stu­dents, academics and administrative staff, and fosters competition on the individual, institutional and regional (European Union, EU) levels. Europeanisation in a broader sense forms part of globalisation in HE and, in a narrow sense, it consolidates processes of internationalisa­tion in the HE field based on policy-making and implementation within the EU framework (ibid.). Accordingly, as a supranational project created by the European Commission (EC) and financed by the European Union, the Erasmus programme is analysed here as both a tool for fostering the mobility of students, academics and administrative staff and building up a European cultural identity, and as a framework that enables the higher global competitiveness of Europe as a world region and of its inhabitants on the European Continent (Erasmus+ Programme Guide, 2020). In the first section of the article, the methodological framework is pre­sented. The next section brings insights and data obtained in empirical research on the national and institutional (university) levels, especially from interviews. In the last section, insights and comments on different approaches to activities in the framework of the Erasmus programme, and mobility in particular, on the level of three countries and three public insti­tutions are presented, followed by concluding thoughts. Considering the Covid-2019 pandemic and related financial and economic crisis, the final part of the article offers comments on the possible effects on mobility as a concept in general and the Erasmus mobility schemes in future years. Methodological framework The article is based on empirical research conducted during 2017 and 2018 in three European countries (Austria, Spain, Switzerland) at three European public universities (Vienna, Granada, Lausanne) which have cre­ated and implemented different strategies and approaches with respect to the concept of mobility. The comparative case study includes a literature analysis, analysis of offi­cial documents and available data, and 26 semi-structured interviews in three countries. For two cases, eight interviews in each country were conducted (Austria and Switzerland), while considering the existence of two University of Granada campuses in North Africa (located in two autonomous Spanish cities Ceuta and Melilla), the analysis of the Spanish case included 10 inter­views. Selection of interviewees included both university level representa­tives and national level officials. Additionally, due to the specific territorial organisation of the country, in Swiss and Spanish cases interviews with 1289 representatives of the regional government and regional university associa­tions were included into the analysis. All the interviews were conducted in person, from February to July 2017, in official headquarters of the institu­tions. The analysis considered both the Erasmus programme’s general role in developing specific internationalisation policies and strategies at the national and institutional levels from its establishment until 2018, and offi­cial data on mobility in the framework of the Erasmus+ programme (2014– 2020). As presented in the introduction, insights into the concept of mobility in the framework of the Erasmus programme in three different national and institutional contexts rely on different strategies and approaches to interna­tionalisation in HE. The comparison of three typical cases – three countries (Austria, Spain and Switzerland) and three highly internationalised European public uni­versities (Vienna, Granada and Lausanne) which shared a set of characteris­tics in the internationalisation field can help with general understanding of the analysed phenomenon, and serve to confirm a set hypothesis (Gerring, 2007: 92–92). In comparison, a Method of Difference was used (Ragin, 1987; Rohlfing, 2012). The unit of analysis was a public university in one European country, with the selected universities having the following common characteristics (necessary conditions): (1) a public university; (2) an old university with a long tradition; (3) a university that is highly ranked; (4) a university strongly focused on the developing internationalisation initiatives and activities; and (5) a university firmly focused on implementation of the Bologna Process. The article focuses on a comparison conducted at the national and institu­tional (university) levels and takes into consideration data on mobility in the framework of the Erasmus+ programme and the impact of the Erasmus programme on general through to specific policies and strategies on the national and university levels. As presented in Figure 1, in the analysis the Bologna Process and Erasmus are considered to be connected parts of HE policies created on the supra­national (EU) level in the last few decades. Still, while the Bologna Process relies on intergovernmentalism, ‘soft law’ and can be implemented on the national levels in peculiar variants and models, the Erasmus programme is based on a large scheme made up of specially designed rules, procedures, guidelines and instructions created by the EC. Taking the financial aspect of Erasmus into account, non-compliance with scheme activities and proce­dures leads to financial penalties and obligatory refunds for countries and universities as well, while the Erasmus control mechanisms conducted on the EU level (first reviewed at the national level, typically by the national agency), might be considered to form part of the ‘hard law’ mechanisms Figure 1: RESEARCH MODEL Source: Based on Dagen and Fink-Hafner (2019). of EU policies (Fink-Hafner and Dagen, 2017). Still, with a budget of EUR 14.7 billion1, of which 2/3 is targeted to learning opportunities abroad for individuals and 1/3 to partnerships and reforms of the education and youth sectors, the Erasmus+ programme (2014–2020) is the main income source for many activities implemented by European public universities (Erasmus+ factsheet, 2020). The Erasmus programme is broadly perceived on the national and insti­tutional levels to be a part of the Bologna Process since one of its goals is to encourage the mobility of students, academics and non-academic staff.2 Although originally created in 1987, more than a decade before the Bologna Declaration was signed (1999), and while the programme has been devel­oped considering the number of member states, rules, budgeting, and new activities, the programme is still viewed as part of the large Bologna reform by students, scholars and staff. The research showed that the factors, characteristics and indicators highlighted in Figure 2 largely influenced the selection of the different approaches taken in institutional- and national-level policies and strategies in the field of internationalisation, and mobility in particular, as one of the most important Erasmus activities. In order to answer the three main research questions raised in this article, analysis on the national level therefore included differences among three countries regarding membership in the EU and the Erasmus programme, association with the Bologna Process by signing the Bologna Declaration, analysis of strategies in the field of internationalisation the three countries have developed, and the language policy. The comparison of the three public universities on the institutional level included analysis of institutional strategies for internationalisation, particu­larly language policy, data on students, academic and non-academic staff mobility (exchange) in the framework of the Erasmus+ programme, the attitude to the concept internationalisation abroad vs. internationalisation at home, internationalisation policy related to partnerships among institu­tions, and the effects of different study cycles. 1 More information is available from the official website of the European Commission: https:// ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/node_en, 21. 8. 2018. 2 “Promotion of mobility by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of free movement with particular attention to: for students, access to study and training opportunities and to related services; for teachers, researchers and administrative staff, recognition and valorisation of periods spent in a European context researching, teaching and training, without prejudicing their statutory rights”, Bologna Declaration, accessible at https://www.eurashe.eu/library/modernising-phe/Bologna_1999_Bologna­Declaration.pdf, 1. 6. 2018. Figure 2: MODEL FOR THE MOBILITY ANALYSIS Source: Based on Dagen and Fink-Hafner (2019). National-level findings Analysis showed that the Erasmus programme and implementation of the Bologna Process moved the previous mobility activities from the indi­vidual to the institutional level, thereby enabling a top-down policy imple­mentation approach. Further, having been earlier mostly limited to scholars and researchers, mobility became accessible to the broad student popula­tion under the Erasmus mobility schemes. In Spain, in the region of Andalucía, and the University of Granada (UGR), mobility schemes as part of the Erasmus+ programme are seen as tools for straightening collaboration and a potential instrument for fur­ther interconnecting among scholars, especially due to the establishing of consortium-project proposals for competitive EU research funding. On the contrary, trends in students’ mobility numbers show the considerable interest of incoming and outgoing young people, especially from and into neighbouring countries and Spanish-speaking regions. UGR leads among universities in the autonomous community of Andalucía in Erasmus mobil­ity trends, ranking highly on the national level in mobility schemes in the framework of the Erasmus+ programme. Two other cases further confirm the importance of the Erasmus pro-gramme, but still with certain variations. While implementing the Bologna Process, the Austrian HE system has experienced big changes including leg­islative adaptations and the introduction of 3-year performance agreements negotiated between the federal Ministry and the rector of each public univer­sity. Based on the development plan of a university, internationalisation might be selected as a key strategic area. Implementation of all activities defined in the development plan, which also includes the area of internationalisation, is under the rector’s competence and relies on a top-down approach. In Switzerland, at the University of Lausanne (UniL) in the Vaud canton in which this public HE institution operates, most of the Erasmus advan­tages are not seen in its mobility schemes as much as in activities related to the development of cooperation projects among HEIs, the exchange of good practices through various partnerships, establishment of new joint study programmes, introduction of new teaching and learning practices etc. Although Switzerland joined the Erasmus programme in 1992, it was ousted by the European Commission from all HE and research programmes in 2014 because of a referendum decision on the introduction of quotas for foreigners. Switzerland re-joined the European Research Council (ERC) programme in 2017, but replaced the Erasmus+ mobility scheme with the national Swiss-European Mobility Programme (SEMP) and, despite resent­ment of the academic community, has not returned to Erasmus+. The man­agement of UniL did not see exclusion from the mobility scheme as such a big loss, but emphasised the lack of activities covered by KA1 and KA2 actions3 as problematic. In addition, analysis showed that mobility in gen­eral in Switzerland and at UniL is not seen as an end in itself. According to interview insights, the primary strategic UniL interest is to attract the best individuals, not only students, but also researchers. UniL students are encouraged to attend foreign HE and research institutions to gain new knowledge and experiences, but with the parallel expectation that the best of them will return to Switzerland. Following this logic, UniL has developed a special policy oriented to young researchers. As presented in Figure 2, the analysis showed that all three countries joined the Bologna Process at the time this large reform was starting on the European level (1999), which significantly influenced the further develop­ment of their internationalisation activities, especially in the segment of students, administrative and non-academic staff mobility and exchange. Still, among the three analysed countries, only Spain joined the Erasmus programme at the time it was initiated in 1987. As a result, the country that had already been an EU member (since 1986), and its public universities, had an opportunity to develop and establish processes and procedures in the framework of Erasmus mobility schemes in an early stage of the pro­gramme’s early implementation. On the contrary, Switzerland has not been a member of the Erasmus+ programme since 2014. While all three countries have developed strategic documents on the national level in the field of internationalisation, only Spain has a special strategy focused on universities. While Switzerland’s internationalisation strategy brings together the areas of education, research and innovation, Austria has left internationalisation in HE and associated strategic decisions to universities (Austria’s national strategic document combines science, technology and innovation policy fields). A country’s territorial structure exerts an important influence on the national internationalisation policies in HE. The Austrian case showed that the nation state through its federal Ministry has a role in the performance agreement negotiations, while the selection of internationalisation goals and activities is left to university-level decision-making. Due to their territo­rial organisation (autonomous regions and cantons), Spain and Switzerland have shared responsibilities for policies in HE (including mobility) on the federal and regional levels. Further, the interviews show that both countries and their regional governments mostly engage in decision-making on inter-nationalisation issues through to university managements and institutional strategies. Key Action 1: Learning Mobility of Individuals; Key Action 2: Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices. 1295 Data from the Erasmus+ country report for Spain in 20184 show that the top three sending Spanish HEIs are the University of Granada, Complutense University of Madrid, and the University of Valencia. The majority of incom­ing students come from Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany. While the total number of outgoing students and trainees in the 2017/2018 academic year was a little lower (40,226 outgoing students) than in the year before (40,079 in 2016/2017), the population of incoming students and trainees has increased (from 48,595 in 2016/2017 to 51,321 in 2017/2018). The total financial amount invested in 2018 in mobility as part of the Erasmus+ pro-gramme in Spain was EUR 9,789,203. International Student Statistics in Spain 20205 data show there are 1,548,369 students in Spain, of whom 185,145 are international students (around 12%), where 57,548 (around 3.7%) were international students in mobility programmes (2017/2018). According to the Erasmus+ country report for Austria in 20186, the top three sending Austrian HEIs are the University of Vienna (Univie), Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the University of Graz. The majority of incoming students come from Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. While the total number of outgoing students and trainees in the 2017/2018 academic year in Austrian HEIs shows a small decrease (7,427 outgoing students) compared to the year before (7,270 in 2016/2017), the same as in the Spanish case, the population of incoming students and trainees has increased (from 7,934 in 2016/2017 to 8,369 in 2017/2018). The total financial amount invested in 2018 in mobility in the framework of the Erasmus+ programme in Austria was EUR 20,179,445. According to Österreichs Agentur für Bildung und Internationalisierung (OEAD)7 official data, more than 102,000 of the 370,600 students in Austria in the 2016/2017 winter semester came from abroad (around 27%). The language issue was shown to be a very important characteristic of national HE systems and a possible obstacle to meeting some goals in the field of internationalisation policy. Although the three countries are not English-speaking areas, the use of English as a modern lingua franca in edu­cation and science has tremendously influenced how the internationalisa­tion strategies are implemented. 4 Erasmus+ 2018 in numbers report for Spain, accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/eras-mus-plus/resources/documents/spain-erasmus-2018-numbers_en, 10. 8. 2020. 5 Accessible at https://www.studying-in-spain.com/spain-international-student-statistics/, 26. 10. 2020. 6 Erasmus+ 2018 in number report for Austria, accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/eras-mus-plus/resources/documents/austria-erasmus-2018-numbers_en, 10. 8. 2020. 7 More information available at: https://studyinaustria.at/en/news/article/2017/11/share-of-interna­tional-students-remains-steady-at-approximately-27-percent/, 26. 10. 2020. Although national legislation leaves the universities with the decision on the teaching language, given the broadly accepted opinion that Spanish is the second-most spoken language globally, some Spanish universities find it hard to create and implement study courses and programmes in English and other foreign languages. In addition, the interview respondents see two other reasons for challenging the use of English in HE – the legacy of Franco’s regime during which English was not taught in primary education for political reasons that then negatively impacted older generations, and the potentially insufficient competence of teachers teaching English on lower levels of the education process, namely, in primary and secondary schools. With regard to mobility in general, and especially the Erasmus+ schemes for students, language has proven to be the most important issue in students’ selection of Spanish universities for an exchange period. Especially in some autonomous regions, the lack of knowledge of the Spanish language at least on a basic level, or of some other Romanic group languages (espe­cially Italian and Portuguese), could be an obstacle. Still, the high numbers of Erasmus+ students across Spain show that, notwithstanding the language issue, Spain and Spanish universities are very popular among the Erasmus+ student population. Switzerland with four official languages (German, French, Italian, Romansh) is multilingual. Due to internationalisation policies being found in all areas of life, and noting that Swiss cities are the headquarters of many international organisations and companies (thus meaning that a large popu­lation of foreigners lives in Switzerland), English is a broadly spoken lan­guage across the country, including HE and science. According to Federal Statistical Office data8, around 25.3% of foreign students were enrolled in Swiss HEIs in 2019. Among the analysed cases, Austria is the only state to legally establish German as an obligatory language on the undergraduate study level. Still, like in the case of Switzerland, the language issue has not proven to be an obstacle to the mobility and exchange of students. English is the main lan­guage of research and science in all three countries under analysis. National context and related differences were shown to be crucial for internationalisation policies on both the level of the state and the institu­tional. Differences related to the tradition of HE, the historical paths taken by the countries and their universities, and the societal context influence internationalisation policies and the concept of mobility. Overall peculiari­ties of each society emerged as the main reason for Erasmus+ students’ deci­sions on the state involved and for HEIs to host. Education Statistics 2019. Accessible at https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/education­science/pupils-students.assetdetail.12607178.html, 26. 10. 2020. 1297 Finally, although ranking positions cannot indicate the actual quality of an institution and national HE system, over the last 10 years good ranking results have been considered to be an important promotion tool, which also influences national and institutional popularity among Erasmus+ students. That is not the case for the mobility of academic and non-academic staff. According to the interviews, on the doctoral level, the research quality and results of a single department, as well as international achievements and the reputation of individual scholars and research groups are perceived to stimulate mobility. University-level findings All three analysed universities have developed strategies in the field of internationalisation. Although their strategic documents follow the main goals of many high-level internationalised HEIs, especially European ones, which to a certain extent share supranational policies and programmes cre­ated at the EU level, specific goals are identified among the three cases, in particular as regards the mobility concept. While the Univie internationalisation strategy (2009) is a general strategic document with a smaller scope, based on three pillars of internationalisation (research, teaching, service support areas) and representing a base for the development of specific activities that rely on a top-down approach, UGR is continuously working on annual plans for the implementation of activities in this field. In this sense, the UGR strategy (2017) is an extensive document with detailed activities in four fields (institutional collaboration, internationalisa­tion of research, internationalisation of curricula, internationalisation outside UGR’s seven campuses) that are implemented by both a top-down and bot­tom-up approach. The international strategy of UniL (2009) is a document with a medium scope that relies on continual implementation. It is based on four groups of elements (general activities in human resources, financing, partner­ships, marketing and promotion; internationalisation of teaching; internation­alisation of research; other general activities). Further, the three documents take different approaches to partnerships with foreign HEIs. While Univie is oriented to establishing strategic partnerships (71), UGR is strongly focused on a huge number of Erasmus+ agreements (more than 1,000) and bilateral collaborations with many universities (over 800). On the contrary, UniL is ori­ented to the concept of privileged partnerships (3 universities). Based on the analysis, on the national level language policy has turned out to be a very important factor for the implementation of internationalisa­tion activities at all three universities, including mobility. While the strate­gies of Univie and UniL are publicly available in both the official language and English (Univie – German; UniL – French), the UGR strategy is only available in Spanish. In addition, analysis showed that Univie is oriented to a multilingual language policy. Although as a cantonal university in the French region UniL is focused on the French language, English is broadly used due to the country’s international context, especially on the master and doctoral level and in the research area. Unlike the other two cases, UGR has proven to be specific example regarding the language policy. A broad understanding detected on the national level that Spanish is the second-most spoken language in the world proved to be broadly present at the regional (autonomous community of Andalucía) and institutional (UGR) levels as well. Although insights from the interviews show a strong univer­sity management focus on developing study programmes and courses in English, the Spanish language still holds the position of almost the sole lan­guage at UGR. Accordingly, among Erasmus+ students UGR has proven to be a very popular and desirable Erasmus+ mobility destination, at least for those young people who have at least basic Spanish language knowledge, or wish to start learning it during the Erasmus+ semester. Official reports and data show that Univie had 949 outgoing and 1,051 incoming Erasmus students in the 2017/2018 globally. While these numbers show that the majority of incoming Erasmus students come to Univie from Germany due to the language issue, there was still a large number of Italian, French and British students who picked the University of Vienna for their Erasmus-period destination.9 With around 30% of foreign students in its total student population,10 Univie has developed an approach to internationalisa­tion whereby domestic students are encouraged to go to foreign partner institu­tions and gain new knowledge, learn other languages and become acquainted with the cultural heritage of other countries/societies in order to improve their competencies for the labour market. Parallel to this, incoming Erasmus+ students are seen as a potential tool for attracting the best young talents who might enrol in the master- and doctoral-level study programmes at Univie, espe­cially based on their good experiences during the Erasmus+ semester. In the 2017/2018 academic year, UGR had more than twice the number of Erasmus students than Univie – 2,606 outgoing and 2,905 incoming Erasmus students. Official UGR data11 show there are 8.7% international students at the undergraduate level in the total student population, 16% in master- and 30% in doctoral-level programmes. Although Switzerland is no longer a member of the Erasmus+ programme (since 2014), in the framework of the Swiss-European Mobility Programme (SEMP) UniL has stable annual mobil­ity numbers – around 500 outgoing and 500 incoming students, based on More detailed data are accessible at the official website of the University of Vienna: https://interna­tional.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/d_ie/International_Report/IR_2018_complete.pdf, 20. 12. 2018. 10 Univie official website: https://www.univie.ac.at/en/about-us/at-a-glance/facts-folders/, 26. 10. 2020. 11 UGR official website: https://www.ugr.es/en/about/facts-figures, 26. 10. 2020. 1299 the reciprocity principle with foreign HEIs (3.2%). In its total student popu­lation, UniL has more than 4,000 regular foreign students (around 26%)12. The management at UniL is not so concerned with suspension from the Erasmus+ mobility schemes as much as the lost participation in international training courses and also in collaboration frameworks with organisations from different countries that enable the transfer of the best practices and innovative approaches in the fields of education, training and youth. The numbers of academic staff mobility in the framework of the Erasmus+ programme show that UGR had 283 outgoing and 313 incoming academics in the 2017/2018 academic year. In the same year, Univie had 120 outgoing academic staff. Since Switzerland is no longer an Erasmus+ pro-gramme member, incoming and outgoing academic staff mobility at UniL is generally organised through various research schemes (mostly the Swiss National Science Foundation (FNS) or partnerships’ privileged activities). Besides mobility, one of the six initial main goals of the Bologna Process based on the Bologna Declaration is the adoption of a system that relies on two main cycles: undergraduate and graduate. As already noted, the Bologna Process left to national-level decision-making the selection of the national HE study model. While some countries decided to adopt the 3+2 model, others selected a 4+1 model, with differences in some specific study areas such as regulated professions and educational studies. Insights from the analysis, especially the interviews, show that Spanish universities and UGR see the 4+1 study model as one of the biggest obstacles to having even more incoming and outgoing Erasmus+ students, and to the mobility con­cept in general. As one of the most popular Erasmus+ university destina­tions among Spanish HEIs, UGR does not feel negative effects of the 4+1 model on mobility outcomes, even though the majority of other European countries and universities work under the 3+2 model. In contrast, some other Spanish public universities see it as the main reason for their lower numbers in the mobility field (mostly Erasmus+). Based on interviews in Austria and at Univie, the 2007 and 2008 global financial and economic crisis influenced students’ decisions to participate in Erasmus programme mobility. Many students see Erasmus mobility schol­arships as insufficient for spending one semester abroad at a foreign uni­versity and thus had to depend on their parents’ additional financial help to join the Erasmus mobility schemes. Many of them have thus withdrawn from mobility programme opportunities in the last few years. While the global financial and economic crisis did not influence European countries’ HE systems and universities in the same way, and 12 UniL official website: https://www.unil.ch/international/en/home/menuinst/etudiants-internation­aux.html, 26.10. 2020. despite the existence of Erasmus+ programme funding schemes (which are filtered by the states), the economic standard of the inhabitants and the level of living expenses in each country also influence Erasmus+ mobility numbers. Moreover, insights from the analysis show a need to interweave the national- and university-level policies in further decision-making on the financial aspects of the mobility concept. Especially in countries with high living expenses (e.g. Switzerland), financial intervention from the national and institutional levels is needed. The overall attractiveness of a certain Erasmus+ destination depends on a variety of factors, e.g. the cost and quality of living in a specific country and city, security, the geographical and historical connections of certain regions, countries and HEIs, the quality of the university and its departments and the internationalisation activities (Dagen and Fink-Hafner, 2019). Finally, although in their internationalisation strategies all three univer­sities have committed to both – internationalisation at home and inter-nationalisation abroad – the interviews indicated that the former is more important. Since only a minority of students experience an Erasmus+ mobil­ity semester, the introduction of new activities in the framework of interna­tionalisation at home is perceived as a strategic priority. Conclusions The insights into national policies for internationalisation in the three countries and on mobility as part of the Erasmus+ programme show that the three universities follow the strategic framework of their countries while also autonomously creating their institutional strategies for internationali­sation. The specific niches of internationalisation are strongly influenced by the broad social, traditional and historical context of each state and the particular characteristics of the national HE system. While sharing common goals, instruments and activities created on the supranational (EU) level, different strategies and approaches to internationalisation have been devel­oped and implemented in the three cases on the national and institutional levels. Answers to the three research questions presented in the introduc­tion can be summarised as follows. Firstly, the most important factors for the national-level analysis are: the national context (including various social characteristics, the tradition and historical developmental path of national HE systems), language policy, length of membership in the Erasmus programme (especially in the Spanish case) and in the EU (notably Switzerland as a non-EU country and due to its exclusion from all European research and HE programmes), commitment to implementation of the Bologna Process, and the national strategy in the area of internationalisation. 1301 Factors that emerged as being the most important for the university level are: institutional (university) strategies in the field of internationalisation, language policy, a strategic orientation to partnerships (strategic partner­ships; privileged partnerships; a ‘widespread’ approach characterised by a huge number of agreements), the HE study model, and the implementation of the combined concepts internationalisation abroad and internationali­sation at home. Secondly, the analysis of outcomes that are observed in three cases showed that all three countries and their HE systems have felt some bene­fits of implementation of the Bologna Process and from membership in the Erasmus programme (and Erasmus+). Further, as part of their internation­alisation strategy, Erasmus+ programme activities have proven to be a very important impetus for internationalisation policies on the institutional level in two cases (Spain and UGR; Austria and Univie). Broad analysis showed that different national contexts, the historical development of HE systems and public universities, as well as various developmental paths and tradi­tions have influenced mobility policies on both the institutional and national levels in all three cases, especially in relation to outcomes of the Erasmus+ mobility schemes. Yet, since Erasmus+ mobility plays a very important role in acquiring new cultural, linguistic and social experiences for students as well, further analysis is required to examine whether and how a semester spent in a foreign HE and in a new social context influences young people, and whether it has added to the building of a common European identity, a positive attitude to the EU, the development of cosmopolitism and a better understanding of differences among people in the European and global con­texts. While students who had an opportunity to spend a semester or longer at a foreign European institution tend to become more competitive in the labour market (on the national, European and global level), this phenome­non needs to be further analysed. Moreover, since the analysis indicated a possible connection between the selection of an Erasmus destination with the economic standard of the inhabitants in a certain country and the level of living expenses there, this causal relationship calls for in-depth research. Thirdly, following the third research question oriented towards the anal­ysis of approaches connected to the concepts of internationalisation at home and internationalisation abroad in three cases, comparison showed that all three universities tend to attract the best students, particularly from abroad. Still, the Univie and UniL strategies focused more on recognising the best individuals among incoming students as potential candidates for master, and even more often, doctoral study programmes. All three uni­versities are strongly committed to developing both – internationalisa­tion abroad and internationalisation at home. Still, internationalisation at home is perceived to be a strategic priority since only a minority of students have the possibility of experiencing an Erasmus+ mobility semester. Research has shown that internationalisation is a very important strate­gic area for particularly those universities that see it as an opportunity for their further development. Still, national- and university-level strategic docu­ments rely on various approaches to internationalisation which depend on the different national HE contexts, specific characteristics of HEIs and par­ticular academic milieus that are shaped by a range of norms, values and institutional logic. Those varieties are also seen in national and institutional approaches to the Erasmus programme and the mobility concept. The promotion of European citizens’ mobility, which relies on the idea of the free flow of people and services among EU member states, is one of the most important tasks of the European higher education area (EHEA), as highlighted in both the Sorbonne and Bologna declarations. When looking at European HE landscapes, Erasmus mobility schemes have proven to be a broad framework that has critically influenced the development of univer­sity internationalisation strategies and also universities as institutions during the last three decades. However, as the year 2020 brought the global Covid­2019 pandemic and the growth of a new worldwide financial and economic crisis, the mobility of students, academics and administrative staff is cur­rently in some kind of stand-by position. Although universities face many challenges at the present time due to the new global reality, and most of them are functioning in a virtual mode, internationalisation activities should continue. Yet, in order to comply with the temporary social (physical) dis­tance rules, many HEIs have decided to move their Erasmus students’ and academic staff activities to virtual surroundings and introduced a distance learning model, which has thus reduced physical Erasmus mobility in many countries. In this sense, the question which arises is whether distance learn­ing, and mobility without a physical experience of the foreign academic milieu and national context as well, especially in terms of learning about other cultures and societal peculiarities, can replace the original mobility idea (and also the Erasmus mobility schemes) and permanently change the mobility concept in the upcoming years? And will the process of developing a common European cultural identity, as one of the goals of Erasmus, stop in future years? In the EU’s next long-term budget plan for the period 2021–2027, around EUR 24.6 billion is projected to be invested in Erasmus+ programme activi­ties13. A key objective of the new programme is to reach more young peo­ple from diverse backgrounds and increase the participation of underrep­resented groups in Erasmus+. This might change the present trends which 13 More information accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/about_the_european_com­mission/eu_budget/1_en_act_part1_v9.pdf , 14. 12. 2020. 1303 reveal that in the last few years only a minority of the student population has had the experience of spending a mobility semester in a foreign coun­try. While this has to be analysed in more detail, one reason for such trends might be found in insufficient Erasmus+ funding, especially for an exchange in a country with high living expenses. As this article’s analysis indicates, it seems that students who come from wealthier families find it easier to join the Erasmus+ mobility schemes due to the additional parental support and their better socio-economic status. The question that arises here is whether all of these preconditions make Erasmus students more competitive and cosmopolitan than their colleagues who only studied in their home country at national HEIs. Still, in order to obtain more detailed data on mobility effects, further analysis is required that seeks to better explain whether a mobility experi­ence influences students’ additional tendency for further willingness to be mobile in their professional careers and education as well, and what really motivates them in the selection of a specific country and university for their Erasmus semester mobility. In addition, the fact that various universities, government authorities and statistical offices use different methodologies and indicators while processing data on international students makes it very challenging to compare different HEIs and national-level data. This means that it is extremely important to develop clear instruments and indicators for measuring internationalisation in HE. Finally, although physical mobility should remain a priority of Erasmus, the question is will the present situation with the Covid-19 pandemic impact the fulfilment of the planned activities. In this sense, the new reality calls for new policies on all levels. New policy solutions should ensure an ongo­ing process of sharing knowledge and experience in the everyday contacts of students and academics from different countries and milieus in order to develop new skills and strengthen their intercultural awareness to become engaged citizens. However, this task is not easy and will depend on poli­cymakers and university managements’ individual positive orientation to the further development of ‘new internationalisation activities’ as well. Moreover, the need to invest more effort in the development of new tools and activities that will bring the internationalisation context in domestic uni­versity milieus within the internationalisation at home concept, from which the majority of students would benefit, will probably become even more important for university managements in the years to come. BIBLIOGRAPHY Dagen, Tamara, May Doušak, Danica Fink-Hafner, Mitja Hafner-Fink, Meta Novak (2019): Defining Internationalisation, Globalisation and Europeanisation in Higher Education. Teorija in Praksa 56 (2): 643–659. Dagen, Tamara, Danica Fink-Hafner (2019): Impact of Globalisation on Inter-nationalisation of Universities. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Založba FDV. Dagen, Tamara (2018): Utjecaj globalizacije na internacionalizaciju javnih europ­skih sveucilišta. Doctoral dissertation. University of Zagreb. The Faculty of Political Science. Accessible at http://fpzg.hr/_download/repository/Doktorski_ rad_Tamara_Dagen.pdf, 20. 9. 2018. De Wit, Hans, Fiona Hunter (2015): The future of internationalization of higher education in Europe. International higher education (83): 2–3. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tamara Dagen (2017): Globalisation in Higher Education Policies: Multidisciplinary Insights. Teorija in praksa 54 (3–4): 572–591. Gerring, John (2007): Case Study Research, Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press. Knight, Jane (1994): Internationalization: elements and checkpoints. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education. Accessible at https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED549823.pdf, 10. 5. 2016. Knight, Jane, Hans De Wit (1995): Strategies for internationalisation of higher edu­cation: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In Hans de Wit (ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America, 5–32. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Knight, Jane (2003): Updated definition of internationalization. International higher education (33): 2–3. Ragin, Charles C. (1987): The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Rohlfing, Ingo (2012): Case Studies and Causal Inference: an integrative frame­work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Soliman, Samar, John Anchor, David Taylor (2019): The international strategies of universities: deliberate or emergent?. Studies in Higher Education 44 (8): 1413– 1424. Teichler, Ulrich (2004): The changing debate on internationalisation of higher edu­cation. Higher Education (48): 5–26. SOURCES ERA Portal Austria (2013): Beyond Europe. Die Internationalisierung Österreichs in Forschung, Technologie und Innovation über Europa hinaus. Accessible at https://era.gv.at/directory/160, 21. 2. 2016. European Commission (2020): Austria – Erasmus+ 2018 in numbers. European Commission – Erasmus+. Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/eras-mus-plus/resources/documents/austria-erasmus-2018-numbers_en, 10. 8. 2020. European Commission (2020). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The EU budget powering the recovery plan for Europe. Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/ 1305 files/about_the_european_commission/eu_budget/1_en_act_part1_v9.pdf, 14. 12. 2020. European Commission (2020): Erasmus+ factsheet. European Commission – Erasmus+. Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/about /factsheets_en, 26. 10. 2020. European Commission (2020): Erasmus+ Programme Guide. European Commission – Erasmus+. Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/ resources/documents/erasmus-programme-guide-2020_en, 26. 10. 2020. European Commission (2020): Spain – Erasmus+ 2018 in numbers. European Commission – Erasmus+. Accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/eras-mus-plus/resources/documents/spain-erasmus-2018-numbers_en, 10. 8. 2020. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (1999): Bologna Declaration. Joint dec­laration of the European Ministers of Education. Accessible at http://www. ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/Ministerial_conferences/02/8/1999_Bologna_ Declaration_English_553028.pdf, 21. 4. 2015. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (1999): Sorbonne Joint Declaration – Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system. Accessible at http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/ 1998_Sorbonne/61/2/1998_Sorbonne_Declaration_English_552612.pdf, 24. 7. 2020. Marginson, Simon, Marijk Van der Wende (2007): Globalisation and Higher Education. OECD Education Working Papers 8. OECD Publishing. Accessible at http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/bitstream/handle/123456789/2548/ Globalisation%20and%20Higher%20Education.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, 14. 4. 2015. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (MECD) (2015): Strategy for the Internationalisation of Spanish Universities 2015–2020. Accessible at http:// www.mecd.gob.es/educacion-mecd/dms/mecd/educacion-mecd/areas-edu­cacion/universidades/politica-internacional/estrategia-internacionalizacion/ EstrategiaInternacionalizaci-n-ENGLISH.pdf, 21. 2. 2016. OeAD, Agency for Education and Internationalisation (2017): Share of international students remains steady at approximately 27 percent. Accessible at https://stud-yinaustria.at/en/news/article/2017/11/share-of-international-students-remains­steady-at-approximately-27-percent/, 26. 10. 2020. Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation (SBFI) (2010): Switzer­land’s International Strategy for education, research and innovation. Accessible at https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/internationale_strategie­derschweizimbereichbildungforschungundin.pdf.download.pdf/switzerland_s_ internationalstrategyforeducationresearchandinnova.pdf, 21. 2. 2016. Study in Spain (2020): International Student Statistics in Spain 2020. Accessible at https://www.studying-in-spain.com/spain-international-student-statistics/, 26. 10. 2020. Swiss Confederation, Federal Statistical Office (2020): Education Statistics 2019. Accessible at https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/education-sci­ence/pupils-students.assetdetail.12607178.html, 26. 10. 2020. University of Granada (2017): Estrategia de Internacionalización de la Universidad de Granada. Accessible at http://secretariageneral.ugr.es/bougr/pages/bougr 115/_doc/acg1153/%21, 4. 4. 2017. University of Lausanne (2009): International Strategy of the University of Lausanne. Accessible at https://www.unil.ch/international/files/live/sites/international/ files/-New_Website/more_info/international_at_unil/UNIL_International_ Strategy_2009-.pdf, 20. 4. 2020. University of Vienna (2018): International Report 2018. Accessible at https:// international.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/d_ie/International_Report/ IR_2018_complete.pdf, 20. 12. 2018. University of Vienna (2009): University of Vienna Internationalisation Strategy. Accessible at https://international.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/interna­tional/International_Report/Internationalisation_Strategy_web.pdf, 21. 2. 2016. 1307 Meta NOVAK, Damjan LAJH, Urška ŠTREMFEL* ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND YOUTH MOBILITY IN SLOVENIAN SCHOOLS** Abstract. Although education policy is not one of the European Union’s (EU) competencies, the EU still rec-ognises it as an important policy area for the integra­tion’s future development. A key initiative in this respect is youth mobility. The most important environment in which young people learn about mobility is the school. In this article, we are interested in how Slovenian teach­ers view mobility. We anticipate that teachers who teach EU contents, teachers with greater confidence in teach­ing EU topics, and teachers working on the general upper secondary education level are more aware of the opportunities for mobility available at their schools. Analysis confirmed our assumption. Keywords: European Union, mobility, teachers, Erasmus, Slovenia Introduction There is no single European educational policy or system in the EU. The EU’s treaty framework places education policy under the competence of the member states, only leaving the EU with the possibility of softly influencing the member states’ education system via the open method of coordination, like recommendations and established goals that member states want to reach. Apart from the open method of coordination, the EU has some “encour­agement and evaluation mechanisms” available, which it relies on. One of these important mechanisms is the mobility of students and teaching staff (European Union, 1992: 47–48). While the work programme Education and Training 2010 (Council of the EU, 2002: 38) recognised “Increasing mobility and exchange” as one of five sub-goals of the fourth strategic goal “Opening up education and training systems to the wider world” (Council of the EU, 2002: 5), the work programme Education and Training 2020 acknowledges * Meta Novak, PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Damjan Lajh, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Urška Štremfel, PhD, Scientific Associate, Educational Research Institute, Slovenia. ** The authors received public financial support from research grants P5-0136 administered through the Slovenian Research Agency and 599828-EPP-1-2018-1-SI-EPPJMO-PROJECT administered through Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union. “Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality” as one of four strategic goals (Council of the EU, 2009: 2). A crucial measure in pursuing these mobility-oriented goals in the EU is the Erasmus+ programme. This includes the learn­ing mobility of individuals and participation in strategic partnerships in the field of school education, learning mobility projects for individuals in voca­tional education and training, virtual mobility and international cooperation in virtual projects in the framework of the e-Twinning action, and mobility of young people for non-formal learning as part of the Youth in Action pro-gramme. Besides the Erasmus+ programme, students have opportunities for mobility through national programmes (Eurydice, 2018). While the positive outcomes for higher education students and staff mobility are well recognised, the mobility of elementary and secondary school students continues to be under-researched. In this article, we are interested in the less researched aspect of mobility in European education. Namely, we focus on the attitudes to mobility held by teachers from ele­mentary and secondary level education. Mobility programmes have chiefly targeted university students, with scholars thus directing less attention to the mobility of students on lower education levels. However, several dif­ferent factors make the opportunities for student mobility on lower levels of education highly significant. First, elementary and secondary educa­tion is vital for the development of adolescents’ identity (Greischel et al., 2018), which may also be said for identifying as European. Moreover, analy­sis of Slovenian school curricula through which students should come to know about and experience the EU demonstrated that EU topics are rarely included (Štremfel et al., 2013), further adding to the importance of mobil­ity projects. Second, while university students are already quite independ­ent in searching for educational opportunities abroad, the opportunities for elementary and secondary level education students depend on the choices made available in their schools and local environment. Third, students’ mixed social and economic backgrounds give them different possibilities for mobility within the EU outside of the school environment and hence opportunities for mobility within school environment should be the same for all students. Last but not least, students are more likely to participate in a future mobility programme at university if they had previously learned about mobility options. For all of the above reasons, elementary and sec­ondary education level teachers must be aware of their students mobility opportunities if the intention is to include them in mobility activities and encourage them in terms of mobility in the future. Our main research question in this article is: How does elementary and secondary level teachers’ awareness of the opportunities for student mobil­ity vary depending on: 1) the level of education on which teachers work; 2) whether teachers include EU topics in their courses; and 3) their level of 1309 confidence in teaching EU content? We anticipate that teachers who teach EU contents, teachers with greater confidence in teaching EU topics, and teachers working on the general upper secondary education level are more aware of the mobility opportunities available at their schools. Our analysis is limited to the case of Slovenian teachers. We approach the research question through the following methodologi­cal framework: a) a review of theoretical and empirical research, revealing the effects of student mobility; b) secondary data analysis of student mobility data (mainly retrieved from the CMEPIUS and ICCS databases); and c) a sur­vey conducted among Slovenian elementary and secondary education level teachers. After presenting the issue and research question in the introduc­tion, the article continues by overviewing the aims and benefits of mobility programmes along with the methodological framework, and presents data showing the inclusion of Slovenian schools in mobility programmes on all educational levels. The research results of our own empirical analysis are then presented and the research question is given an answer. In the conclu­sion, we sum up the main findings. EU mobility programmes The initiative for the Erasmus mobility programme already emerged in 1987. The ERASMUS programme is named after the Dutch humanist and philosopher Erasmus Desiderius and also acts as an acronym for “European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students”, which thereby also reveals its principal target group (Feyen and Krzaklewska, 2013: 10). The programme permits students to complete part of their courses in another programme in another country without needing to pay additional fees while the home university also recognises the completed obligations (Delmartino and Beernaert, 1998). Erasmus mobility thereby simultaneously enables students to take advantage of the benefits of studying in their home country as well as gaining experiences of studying abroad (Teichler, 2004). The programmes quickly became popular and today mobility programmes known under the name Erasmus programme are some of the best recog­nised European Union (EU) initiatives among European citizens, leading to the iconic status of the “Erasmus generations” (Wilson, 2011). Following the free movement of people, goods and services and peace among EU member states, student exchange programmes like Erasmus are the third-most recog­nised with respect to the EU alongside the euro (Eurobarometer, 2019). While the Erasmus programme is best known for the mobility pro-gramme for university students, already in 1987 Erasmus broadened its sub­ject area to teacher education – elementary, secondary, technical/vocational and adult education; still, little funding was initially located to non-university students (Delmartino and Beernaert, 1998). Besides student mobility, the programme includes university staff exchanges, internships and teaching opportunities for business staff at universities (Feyen and Krzaklewska, 2013). Certain target groups, such as students on a non-university level of education and trainees, were included in associated programmes of the Lifelong Learning programme, like Leonardo da Vinci and Comenius. The Leonardo da Vinci programme supported vocational education and train­ing (EACEA, 2013a). In contrast, the Comenius programme funded coop­eration between preschools, elementary schools and secondary education so as to increase mobility, develop cooperation between schools, encour­age language learning, upgrade pedagogical and didactical approaches and intensify teacher training (EACEA, 2013b). In 2014, the Erasmus for All programme was established (Feyen and Krzaklewska, 2013). The Erasmus+ Programme brings together the mobility of teachers, university staff, pre­school children, elementary school pupils, high school students and adults within a single programme. The chief aim of creating the Erasmus programme in the 1980s was ambitious in that mobile students would become more pro-European, more strongly attached to the EU and, more importantly, more supportive of European integration (Wilson, 2011). The more citizens participated in the mobility programme, the more the EU would benefit from a strength­ened European identity, shared European cultural values and a feeling of European citizenship as well as multiculturalism (Rodríguez González et al., 2011). At the same time, young Europeans participating in mobility would regard themselves as European citizens by developing a European identity. This is important because the EU is struggling with a democratic deficit, the lack of a European demos and a common European identity that would ensure the greater political participation of European citizens and reinforce the core of the European Community. Although the impact of a mobility experience on long-term attitudes to the EU is hard to measure, empirical analysis shows that students who participate in mobility feel more European than their colleagues who remain at the home university (Oborune, 2015), are more pro-European even before they take part in mobility, and remain pro-European during their time abroad (Wilson, 2011: 1135) or they lived abroad before their studies and already value a higher international orienta­tion (Teichler, 2004: 399). Mazzoni and colleagues (2018) found positive associations even between short-term movement across European nations and identifying as a mem­ber of the EU. Specifically, mobility was related to the likelihood that young people would identify as European, with the historical, economic and politi­cal visions of the EU as a community, coupled with their intentions to vote at the next EU elections. The authors issue one caveat regarding the results. 1311 Šerek and Jugert (2018) and Mazzoni et al. (2018) found that social class was a distinguishing factor, with those young people who had travelled more likely to come from higher-income families (Flanagan, 2018: 358). While not surprising, this does raise an important question about social class gaps in opportunities to take advantage of the EU’s affordances, as well as the issues of whether such affordances are related to a broadening of political perspectives and with stronger identification with and support for the EU, or whether social class differences within generations portend future prob­lems for a sustainable EU. On top of a political and socialising role, mobility programmes should hold educational and economic potential (Wilson, 2011). Students thus expect “academic, cultural, linguistic and professional benefits” from study­ing abroad (Teichler, 2004: 397). The EU thus also anticipates several more practical positive aspects for the individuals who participate in mobility programmes like independence, intercultural sensitivity, learning a foreign language, accessing specialist knowledge not available in the local envi­ronment, becoming a more competitive worker and thereby improving chances of finding and maintaining a job not just in the home country but especially abroad (Jacobone and Moro, 2015). This is also reflected in the following statement by the European Ministers of higher education (Leuven Communiqué, 2009: 4): Mobility is important for personal development and employability, it fos­ters respect for diversity and a capacity to deal with other cultures. It encourages linguistic pluralism, thus underpinning the multilingual tra­dition of the European Higher Education Area and it increases coopera­tion and competition between higher education institutions. Therefore, mobility shall be the hallmark of the European Higher Education Area. In line with the EU’s strategy to become a knowledge-based econ­omy, mobility programmes contribute to the development of a common European labour market. By making young Europeans more mobile, mobil­ity programmes encourage the spread of business ideas as well as the mobil­ity of competitive workers, skills, techniques and technology across borders within Europe. After all, studying abroad contributes to career enhance­ment, helps cope with the ever greater international dimensions at work, improves the international competencies of workers and, finally, increases the chances of young Europeans to work abroad later in life (Rodríguez González et al., 2011). Another highly anticipated benefit of student mobility is improved lan­guage skills or even the learning of a new foreign language. Multilingualism is strongly supported by the EU as a symbol of European diversity but also as one of the main competencies for equip citizens for the labour market. Students indeed tend to take advantage of mobility to learn or improve one of the EU’s major spoken foreign languages and are not discouraged by their lack of language knowledge (Rodríguez González et al., 2011). Besides personal mobility, leisure, cultural appeal and new experiences are the most important reasons for mobility, followed by academic and professional motives, improving career opportunities, adding to academic achievements and learning foreign languages (Jacobone and Moro, 2015). The aims and benefits of mobility programmes and the involvement of elementary and secondary level teachers and students in mobility activities underscores the great relevance of this article. Further, elementary and sec­ondary education level teachers not only impact their students’ inclusion in mobility activities while still at school, but even later on the higher educa­tion level. Although the mobility programme facilitates the experience of studying abroad, a student might still find it not a particularly easy decision to take. When students become aware of the exchange possibilities sooner, this may add to their participation in mobility. In the empirical part of the article, we focus on teachers’ attitudes to mobility. More specifically, we concentrate on how different teachers are aware of the opportunities for mobility at their schools and in their local environment. After presenting the methodology, we continue by setting out the empirical results. Methodological framework In this article, we first conduct secondary data analysis of the partici­pation of Slovenian schools in mobility programmes. The Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and Training Programmes (CMEPIUS) overviews the inclusion of Slovenian schools in mobility activities and regularly evaluates the benefits of mobility for teach­ers and students from Slovenia on all levels of education. We focus on the participation of Slovenian educational institutions on all education levels in the Erasmus programme, in particular in: 1) mobility projects under Key Action 1 that support mobility projects in the field of education, training and youth which target students, trainees, apprentices, staff, youth work­ers and professionals involved in education, training and youth (EACEA, 2020a); and 2) cooperation projects under Key Action 2 for cooperation on the innovation and exchange of good practices which enable participating countries to work together while developing, sharing and transferring best practices and innovative approaches in the field of education, training and youth (EACEA, 2020b). The analysis of teachers’ awareness of the European mobility opportu­nities at their schools is based on the survey Teaching European Contents 1313 in Slovenian Schools (Lajh et al., 2020) conducted among Slovenian teach­ers at the elementary and secondary educational level between December 2017 and April 2018. The web survey included open and closed questions on a variety of aspects of teaching European contents, such as inclusion in European projects, use of teaching materials, participation at seminars on teaching European contents, and the cross-curricular integration of European contents in school curricula. We define European contents as topics connected with the EU and the member states. In addition, teachers shared their views on the need to teach European contents, trust in political institutions, multiculturalism, multilingualism, migrations and European citi­zenship. The respondents were teachers who had included European con­tents in their courses as well as those who had not included EU-related top­ics in teaching lessons. The survey included 72 questions and 428 different variables and was completed by 349 teachers. Although the sample of teach­ers is not representative for the whole population of Slovenian teachers, the results still provide important insights into our research question. The majority of respondents were female, with only 15% being male, which cor­responds to the share of male teachers found in Slovenian schools. On aver­age, the respondents have 21.5 years of teaching experience and come from schools of different sizes. The majority of respondents teach in elementary education (63%), 21% of respondents teach in general upper secondary education, 15% in vocational education and 23% in professional education. Most teachers (75%) incorporate European contents in their lessons (Novak et al., 2020). Teachers participating in our survey chiefly come from schools with a considerable involvement in a variety of European projects and pro-grammes. Namely, 61.4% were included in the Erasmus+ programme, 55.2% had been included in the previous Comenius programme which enabled the international activity and mobility of school-level students and teachers, and 32.4% participate in E-twinning projects which facilitate the collabora­tion of European schools through technology use. Schools are also included in other types of European projects that encourage students’ positive atti­tudes to the EU but do not include mobility activities. Our dependent variable in the analysis was teachers’ awareness of mobil­ity. More specifically, we understand teachers’ awareness of mobility oppor­tunities as the actual opportunities and identification of opportunities for their students to become included in mobility activities. We observed sev­eral dimensions of student mobility: 1) how likely it is for students to visit other EU member states in framework of their school activities; 2) how likely it is to meet peers from other EU member states as part of school activ­ities; 3) how likely it is to obtain information about studying and working in other EU member states; 4) how likely it is to meet other European citizens during activities in the local environment; and 5) how likely it is for them to participate in mobility projects such as Erasmus+ projects at their schools. Teachers evaluated the possibilities for participation in mobility activities on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 means very high possibility, 2 they have some possibilities, 3 they have few possibilities, and 4 they have no possi­bilities. In addition, we formed an index of mobility where we added up the values of the five mentioned variables and divided that by 5 (the number of included variables). The new variable thus includes values from 1 – very high possibility of participation in mobility activities to 4 – students have no opportunities to participate in mobility activities. We observed the teachers’ awareness of the student mobility opportuni­ties and compared them with three independent variables: 1) type of school at which teachers are employed: elementary school, general upper second­ary education, vocational and professional education; 2) whether teachers include EU topics in their classes (yes or no), and 3) how confident teach­ers feel about teaching European contents on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 means very confident, 2 quite confident, 3 not too confident, and 4 not at all confident. In the analysis, we compare the share of teachers who are aware of a very high number of possibilities for student mobility with independ­ent variables and perform an additional correlation analysis between the index of mobility and the independent variables. Slovenian schools in mobility programmes To better understand Slovenian teachers’ awareness of their students’ mobility opportunities, we first need to present the level of participation of Slovenian schools and individuals in mobility programmes. The higher education level is well familiar with international coopera­tion activities. Between 2007 and 2016, up to 79% of higher education insti­tutions in Slovenia participated in EU projects and programmes (Cmepius, 2020a: 4). Over this 10-year period, the number of students and teachers participating in mobility activities steadily rose. In contrast, the number of teachers and students in cooperation activities remained generally stable in that period (Cmepius, 2020b). Although mobility activities initially targeted higher education institu­tions, the international cooperation between EU projects also started to include lower levels of education. Between 2007 and 2017, in Slovenia 35 preschool education institutions applied for 90 EU mobility projects while 26 institutions received 50 mobility projects; 137 preschool teachers partici­pated in mobility activities; 39 preschool education institutions applied for 83 cooperation projects, with 29 institutions being successful and receiving 44 cooperation projects. Cooperation activities saw the involvement of 35 children and 613 teachers (Cmepius, 2020b). 1315 Participation in EU projects and programmes is becoming more impor­tant for elementary and secondary education level schools. In the decade between 2007 and 2016, 76% of all elementary schools from all Slovenian regions participated in EU projects (Cmepius, 2020a: 2). In the 10-year period (2007–2017), 309 elementary schools applied for 744 cooperation projects, where 295 schools were successful and received 348 cooperation projects in which 4,085 students and 3,579 teachers participated. While mobility projects for elementary schools are only intended for teachers and not students, a large number of elementary schools also applies for mobility projects; namely, 316 elementary schools applied for 1,042 mobility projects, with 232 elementary schools being successful and receiving 511 projects, and 786 teachers having participated in mobility activities. The number of teachers engaged in mobility activities was gradually rising over the 10-year period (see Figure 1). The number of teachers and students participating in cooperation activities grew between 2007 and 2013. The data for period between 2014 and 2017 stand out, but we believe the data are incomplete (Cmepius, 2020b). According to participants, international cooperation at elementary schools contributed to the use of different teaching methods and the introduction of changes and new methods, the recognition and understanding of other school systems, the professional development of teachers, the exchange of knowledge among co-workers and development of skills for management and leadership (Cmepius, 2020a: 2). The participation of secondary-level education in European projects is even more outstanding: 97% of all Slovenian secondary education institu­tions from all Slovenian regions have participated in EU projects (Cmepius, 2020a: 3). This means that secondary-level education institutions account for the biggest share of being included in EU projects. Between 2007 and 2017, 112 secondary education institutions applied for 614 cooperation projects, 95 secondary-level education organisations were successful and were given 263 cooperation projects in which 3,931 students and 1,639 teachers par­ticipated. Further, 138 secondary education institutions applied for up to 1,136 mobility projects. As many as 124 secondary-level education institu­tions were successful and received 765 mobility projects. Over the 10-year period, 8,436 students and 2,611 teachers participated in mobility activities. In the last years, the number of students and teachers participating in mobil­ity activities increased noticeably (see Figure 2). While students from gen­eral upper secondary education and vocational and professional education participate in fairly equal numbers in cooperation projects, mobility pro­jects are intended more for students from vocational and professional edu­cation (Cmepius, 2020b). In opinion of the participants, the international cooperation of secondary education institutions contributed to the coop­eration between teachers, knowledge about modern styles of teaching and learning, the development of quality, vocational training, the development of organisational and management skills and recognition of the educational institution in the local environment and by employers (Cmepius, 2020a: 3). Figure 1: NUMBER OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS PARTICIPATING IN COOPERATION AND MOBILITY ACTIVITIES ON THE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION LEVEL BETWEEN 2007 AND 20171 1317 Source: Cmepius, 2020b. 1 Tender years 2 Tender years Table 1: OVERVIEW OF SLOVENIAN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS’ INCLUSION IN MOBILITY ACTIVITIES BETWEEN 2007 AND 2017 Participation in EU cooperation and mobility activities Participation in mobility and cooperation activities in the frame of EU projects and programmes Number of all teaching staff (2019/2020) and population of students (2018/2019) Preschools 41 preschool education institutions received a project from the 52 that applied for an EU project 750 teachers 35 children 11,668 teachers 87,159 children Elementary education 76% of all elementary-level educational institutions 4,365 teachers 4,085 students 19,268 teachers 186,330 students Secondary education 97% of all secondary-level educational institutions 4,250 teachers 12,367 students 6,292 teachers 73,100 students Higher education 79% of all higher education institutions 7,397 teachers 20,693 students 5,763 teachers 75,991 students Adult education 80% of all institutions for adult education (known as Ljudska univerza) 626 teachers 178 students 19,700 students Sources: Cmepius, 2020a; Cmepius 2020b; SURS, 2019; SURS, 2020. Table 2: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ AWARENESS OF STUDENT MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES AND STUDENTS’ ACTUAL EXPERIENCES Share of teachers who think students have possibilities to participate in the following activities Share of students from EU member states aged 14 who already participated in the following activities (ICCS, 2009) visits to other EU member states 65.5% 58% meet peers from other EU member states 63.7% 53% get information on studying and working possibilities in other EU member states 72.8% 51% meet other European citizens in the local environment 66.9% 34% participating in mobility projects (Erasmus +) with other EU member states 64.3% 25% Source: Kerr et al., 2010; Lajh et al., 2020. As we have shown with the secondary data analysis of the results gath­ered by Cmepius (2020b), Erasmus programmes and mobility activities are no longer limited to higher education institutions. Especially elementary and secondary education institutions are included in EU projects and pro-grammes to a distinct extent (see Table 1). The number of students partici­pating in mobility activities remains highest at the university level, although the extent of secondary-level students’ participation in mobility is not neg­ligible. Further, the participation of teachers in mobility activities is high across the different education levels in absolute numbers. If we compare shares, the inclusion of teachers from higher education in mobility activities is much higher, especially with regard to elementary schools since the num­ber of teaching staff is highest on the elementary level and every year teach­ers can participate in mobility activity. However, the difference is smaller in the share of teachers participating in mobility activities between the second­ary educational level and the higher education level. Slovenian elementary and secondary school teachers’ awareness of mobility opportunities Students are offered good possibilities to acquire particular experiences in frame of their schools participation in European projects. Frequency results of our index of mobility reveal that 37% of elementary and second­ary school teachers believe the possibilities of their students to participate in all different dimensions of mobility are very high, almost 49% believe their students have at least some possibilities to participate in all different dimensions of mobility, only 13% think their students have few possibili­ties to participate in all dimensions of students’ mobility, while 1.5% believe their students have no possibilities at all to participate in any of the five dimensions of student mobility. We continue the analysis by describing elementary and secondary school teachers’ awareness of students’ opportunities to participate in each separate student-mobility dimension and compare it with the share of European students aged 14 who have already participated in mobility activi­ties (International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) research 2009). In general, a large share of elementary and secondary school teach­ers is aware of the different mobility opportunities for their students (see Table 2). The share of students who already had an opportunity to partici­pate in these activities is smaller, although this is expected given that the stu­dents were only aged 14. The gap between the mobility opportunities the elementary and secondary school teachers are aware of and the students’ actual experiences is smallest when it comes to visiting other EU member states. The highest share of elementary and secondary school teachers, on the other hand, is aware of the opportunity for students to receive infor­mation about studying and working in other EU member states. The infor­mation students obtain about the study and work possibilities in other EU member states is especially important for students even if they only wish to participate in mobility activities when they attend university. Elementary and secondary school teachers’ attitudes to mobility activities can thereby 1319 effect students not only on the current but also on the higher education level. When comparing elementary and secondary school teachers’ awareness of students’ mobility possibilities, we notice that more possibilities for the mobility of students are available on the general upper secondary educa­tion level (see Figure 3). Although vocational and professional education schools participate in a variety of projects that enable students to conduct at least some of their practical classes and training in other EU member states, a smaller share of teachers from the vocational and professional education level believes their students’ possibilities to participate in mobility activi­ties are high. However, teachers of vocational and professional education stand out when it comes to opportunities to participate in mobility projects. Namely, teachers in vocational and professional education account for the highest share of those believing their students have very high possibilities of participating in Erasmus+ mobility projects. This is expected since voca­tional and professional education is more strongly included in direct mobil­ity projects than general upper secondary education, as we demonstrated in the previous section (Cmepius, 2020b). As anticipated, elementary school teachers evaluate the possibilities of their students participating in mobility activities the lowest. Besides the age of students on different education lev­els, the type of school explains students’ possibilities to become involved in mobility activities. The smallest differences in the perception of students’ mobility among teachers from different education levels are seen with the possibility to meet European citizens in the framework of activities organised in the local environment. Here teachers of elementary schools and vocational and pro­fessional education give equal scores for the possibilities to meet European citizens in the local environment. Only teachers on the general upper sec­ondary education level assess the possibilities of students to meet European citizens as higher. The index of mobility is statistically significantly correlated with the type of school at which teachers work. The higher the education level on which teachers are employed, the more likely they will be aware of more student mobility possibilities (Pearson’s correlation coefficient is –0.332, p > 0.001). This result is expected since mobility programmes mostly target univer­sity students since, despite the programmes broadening their activities to also cover the secondary and elementary levels, older students are better prepared for mobility activities by for example possessing knowledge of a foreign language. Moreover, the secondary data analysis in the previous section of the article demonstrated that more students and teachers are par­ticipating in mobility activities on the secondary educational level than on the elementary educational level (Cmepius, 2020b). The difference in the awareness of mobility between teachers teaching at different levels of edu­cation is connected with real difference in mobility possibilities. Figure 3: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ AWARENESS OF STUDENTS’ VERY HIGH POSSIBILITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN MOBILITY ACTIVITIES BY TYPE OF SCHOOL Only minor differences are noticed between the elementary and sec­ondary school teachers who included EU topics in their classes and those who did not in their level of awareness of the student mobility possibili­ties. However, elementary and secondary school teachers who included EU topics in their classes are more aware of students’ possibilities for visiting EU countries, meeting European peers and learning about studying and working possibilities in the EU, in comparison to elementary and second­ary school teachers who did not include EU topics in their classes. Since the schools of teachers who do not teach EU topics are included in the same share of EU projects and programmes as the schools of teachers who teach EU topics, this difference cannot be explained simply by participation in EU projects. Interestingly, when it comes to meeting European citizens in activities in the local environment and being included in mobility projects, elementary and secondary school teachers who included EU topics and those who did not believe in equal shares that their students have high pos­sibilities for these opportunities. Yet, the correlation between the index of mobility and whether elementary and secondary school teachers included EU topics in their classes is not statistically significant. Figure 4: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ AWARENESS OF STUDENTS’ VERY HIGH POSSIBILITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN MOBILITY ACTIVITIES DEPENDENT ON TEACHERS INCLUDING EU TOPICS Similarly, elementary and secondary school teachers’ awareness of stu­dents’ mobility opportunities also depends on the confidence in teaching Europe-related topics. We found it particularly interesting that confidence in teaching European topics is not connected in the same direction with awareness of students’ mobility opportunities. Elementary and secondary school teachers who are confident and those who are not, are equally aware of students’ possibilities to visit other EU member states. While a bigger share of elementary and secondary school teachers who are confident in teaching EU topics think their students have a high possibility of meeting peers from other EU member states, meet other European citizens in the local environment and participate in mobility projects. A higher share of ele­mentary and secondary school teachers who are not confident in teaching EU topics believes their students have high possibilities of obtaining infor­mation about studying and working in other EU member states. It is pos­sible that elementary and secondary school teachers with little confidence in teaching EU topics believe that information on studying and working in other EU member states is easy to acquire and underestimate the complex­ity of mobility. Nevertheless, we anticipate that elementary and secondary school teachers who are more confident in teaching EU topics are also more likely to be aware of students’ possibility to obtain information on mobility. The correlation between the index of mobility and the elementary and secondary school teachers’ confidence in teaching EU topics is statistically significant and positively correlated. The more confident teachers are in teaching EU topics, the more likely they are aware of higher possibilities of students’ mobility. However, the correlation is very weak and almost negli­gible (Pearson’s correlation coefficient is 0.080, p<0.05). Figure 5: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ AWARENESS OF STUDENTS’ VERY HIGH POSSIBILITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN MOBILITY ACTIVITIES DEPENDENT ON TEACHERS’ CONFIDENCE IN TEACHING EU TOPICS Source: Lajh et al., 2020. In general, elementary and secondary school teachers are aware of many positive aspects of their school’s participation in project activities, ranging from: 1) learning about multiculturalism through an exchange of cultures and intercultural dialogue; 2) political socialisation with social learning, active citizenship education; 3) gaining new skills and experiences; 4) learn­ing and practising foreign languages; 5) learning about the EU and its mem­ber states, through to more personal benefits like 6) socialising with peers and establishing close ties with colleagues from other EU member states. Conclusion Although the EU’s mobility programmes (including Erasmus) initially tar­geted university students so as to increase support for the European integra­tion and develop a common European labour market in which ideas, skills and competencies would freely travel across borders, the Erasmus pro­gramme’s activities have been extended to lower education levels. Mobility activities are now also more greatly available to general upper secondary education, professional and vocational education students, and teachers on all levels of education. However, in the area of cooperation activity, students on the lower education level can also obtain the opportunity to travel to other EU member states and meet other European peers and citi­zens. While university students are able to obtain mobility information on their own, for students on the elementary and secondary levels of educa­tion it remains vital that their teachers are aware of the availability of these opportunities at their schools. In this article, we were thus interested in the under-researched area of how elementary and secondary school teachers view mobility. In particular, we focused on how the type of education level on which teachers work, whether they include European contents in their courses, and how confident they feel while teaching European topics cor­relate with their awareness of the mobility opportunities at their schools. We argue this research question is relevant for two main reasons: 1) if stu­dents of elementary and secondary educational level wish to participate in mobility activities their teachers must be aware of the mobility opportuni­ties available at their schools; and 2) since the decision to participate in a mobility programme on the university level is an important decision in their first years of studying, students should be informed about this opportunity as early as possible. Our empirical research demonstrates that mobility on the elementary and secondary levels of education is not negligible and increasing in the last few years. Further, a large share of elementary and secondary school teachers is aware of the different student mobility opportunities at their schools. Elementary and secondary school teachers’ awareness of the mobility opportunities at their schools correlates with the level of educa­tion on which they are teaching. Teachers from the general upper second­ary education level show a statistically significant higher level of awareness than teachers from elementary schools. However, it is also very likely that students on the secondary level have more real opportunities for mobil­ity than students on the elementary level. After all, students of elementary schools mostly participate in cooperation projects which only to a limited extent include mobility. In addition, whether elementary and secondary school teachers include EU topics in their courses is uncorrelated with their awareness of mobility opportunities. This result allows us to be reasonably optimistic since it means that students actually have considerable mobil­ity opportunities during their education. Still, elementary and secondary school teachers who are more confident in teaching European topics are more aware of better mobility opportunities for students at their schools, although the correlation is very weak. Despite being very popular, mobility programmes are currently chal­lenged by the global health crisis brought by the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. In future years, one may expect less student mobility on all educa­tional levels, especially on lower levels where schools will probably avoid putting their students at risk. At the university level, students are more inde­pendent in their decisions, and some of their activities will probably move online. This will open a new possible research focus. BIBLIOGRAPHY Delmartino, Marc and Yves Beernaert (1998): Teacher Education and the ERASMUS Program. European Education 30 (3): 56–85. Feyen, Benjamin and Ewa Krzaklewska (2013): The ERASMUS Programme and the ‘Generation ERASMUS’ – A Short Overview. In Benjamin Feyen and Ewa Krzaklewska (eds.), The ERASMUS Phenomenon – Symbol of a New European Generation?, 9–17. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang Edition. Flanagan, Constance (2018): Who among European youth are active citizens at the EU level and why?, European Journal of Developmental Psychology 15 (3): 355–359. Greischel, Henriette, Peter Noack and Franz J. Neyer (2018): Oh, the places you’ll go! How international mobility challenges identity development in adoles­cence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 54 (11): 2152–2165. Jacobone, Vittoria and Giuseppe Moro (2015): Evaluating the impact of the Erasmus programme: skills and European identity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40 (2): 309–328. Mazzoni, Davide, Cinzia Albanesi, Pedro D. Ferreira, Signe Opermann, Vassilis Pavlopoulos and Elvira Cicognani (2018): Cross-border mobility, European identity and participation among European adolescents and young adults. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 15 (3): 324–339. Novak, Meta, Urška Štremfel and Damjan Lajh (2020): Poucevanje evropskih vsebin v slovenskih šolah. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Oborune, Karina (2015): Becoming more European or European after Erasmus? Politeja 37 (5): 75–94. Rodríguez González, Carlos, Ricardo Bustillo Mesanza and Petr Mariel (2011): The determinant of international student mobility flows: an empirical study on the Erasmus programme. Higher Education 62: 413–430. Šerek, Jan and Philipp Jugert (2018): Young European Citizens: An individual by context perspective on adolescent European citizenship. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 15 (3): 302–323. Štremfel, Urška, Damjan Lajh and Eva Klemencic (2013): Ucenje evropskih vsebin v podeželskem lokalnem okolju. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Teichler, Ulrich (2004): Temporary Study Abroad: The Life of ERASMUS Students. European Journal of Education 39 (4): 395–408. Wilson, Iain (2011): What Should We Expect of ‘Erasmus Generations’? Journal of Common Market Studies 49 (5): 1113–1140. 1325 SOURCES Council of the EU (2002): Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of Education and training systems in Europe. Accessible at https:// op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2d17e529-6c81-4b85-8d19­e9dbe65a93c0, 10. 10. 2020. Council of the EU (2009): Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’). Accessible at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX :52009XG0528(01)&from=EN, 21. 9. 2020. Cmepius (2020a): Pozitivni ucinki mednarodnega sodelovanja: Vsa podrocja. Accessible at https://www.cmepius.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Pozitivni-u%C4%8Dinki-mednarodnega-sodelovanja-VSA-podro%C4%8Dja.pdf, 10. 9. 2020. Cmepius (2020b): Mednarodno sodelovanje v številkah (2007–2019). Accessible at http://statistike.cmepius.si/stat/index.php, 10. 9. 2020. EACEA (2013a): Leonardo da Vinci Programme. Accessible at https://eacea.ec. europa.eu/sites/2007-2013/llp/leonardo-da-vinci-programme_en, 13. 9. 2020. EACEA (2013b): Comenius Programme – Action for school. Accessible at https:// eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/2007-2013/llp/comenius-programme_en, 13. 9. 2020. EACEA (2020a): Key Action 1: Learning Mobility of Individuals. Accessible at https:// ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/programme-guide/part-b/three-key­actions/key-action-1_en, 10. 9. 2020. EACEA (2020b): Key Action 2: Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices. Accessible at https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/actions/ key-action-2-cooperation-for-innovation-and-exchange-good-practices_en, 10. 9. 2020. Eurobarometer (2019): Eurobarometer Interactive. Accessible at https://ec.europa. eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinionmobile/index.cfm/Chart/index, 10. 9. 2020. European Union (1992): Treaty on European Union: Consolidated Version, Treaty of Maastricht. Official Journal of the European Communities C 325/5. Accessible at https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/treaty_ on_european_union_en.pdf, 10. 10. 2020. Eurydice (2018): Slovenia. Mobility in Early Childhood and School Education. Accessible at https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/ mobility-early-childhood-and-school-education-68_en, 26. 9. 2020. Kerr, David, Linda Sturman, Wolfram Schulz and Bethan Burge (2010): ICCS 2009 European Report: Civic knowledge, attitudes and engagement among lower-secondary students in 24 European countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Lajh, Damjan, Meta Novak and Urška Štremfel (2020): Ucenje evropskih vsebin v slovenskih šolah, 2018. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Arhiv družboslov­nih podatkov, 2020. Accessible at https://www.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/opisi/eusola18/, 30. 10. 2020. Leuven Communiqué (2009): Bologna Process: The Bologna Process 2020 – The European Higher Education Area in the new decade. Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, April 28–29, 2009. Accessible at http://www.ehea.info/ Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/Leuven_Louvain_la_Neuve_ Communique_April_2009_595061.pdf, 10. 10. 2020. SURS (2019): Tudi v šolskem letu 2018/2019 osnovnošolcev vec, srednješolcev pa nekaj manj kot v preteklih letih. Accessible at https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/ News/Index/8144, 10. 9. 2020. SURS (2020): V osnovnih in srednjih šolah nekaj vec uciteljic in uciteljev. Accessible at https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/news/Index/8907, 19. 6. 2020. 1327 Danica FINK-HAFNER* RESEARCH ON SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION THROUGH INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC MOBILITY** Abstract. The research presented in this special issue points out both the complexity and fluidity of the actors, processes, contexts and outcomes of international aca­demic mobility. Based on multiple methodologies and levels of inquiry, the findings not only highlight some na-ve expectations concerning international aca­demic mobility (particularly students in HE) in exist­ing research, but also call for new venues and differ­ent research approaches in the area of HE. The aim of this article is therefore not only to summarise the main findings, but to engage in a constructive inter-dialogue among the various contributions. Keywords: academic mobility, higher education, social constructivism, research methods Introduction This special issue had two main goals. First, to help answer four general questions relating to international academic mobility: Who are the agents? What is socially constructed? What are the inputs to the international aca­demic mobility phenomena? What are the outcomes of international aca­demic mobility phenomena? Second, to provide answers to several research sub-questions based on focused empirical data analysis: How do material structures (socio-economic statuses) impact on the international academic mobility of students? What is the role of teachers in promoting the inter­national academic mobility of students? Does socialisation through school (already starting in primary school) impact the international academic mobility of students? How do universities create their strategies to promote the international academic mobility of students? Does students’ interna­tional academic mobility socially re-construct their identities, involvement in public spheres, and political participation? Does students’ international academic mobility re-shape their attitudes to Europe/EU? Does it alter their attitudes to globalisation? How do academics and practitioners with rich * Danica Fink-Hafner, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. ** The article is based on research work in the framework of the Political Science Research Programme (P5-0136) financed by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS). personal international experience in the higher education (HE) area reflect on international academic mobility in a broader historical and global con­text? To achieve the first end, the special issue includes research findings based on the results of focus groups involving academics and practitioners in the HE area. The findings reveal the very big variety of actors and net­works: students, teachers, academics and practitioners, universities, states as well as social levels and streams of these actors’ activities. It is stressed that the plethora of phenomena in the HE area is socially constructed – including learning, teachers’ attitudes, students’ skills, attitudes, citizenship, academics and practitioners’ attitudes as well as universities’ strategies for academic mobility. To accomplish the second end, several contributions focused on certain research sub-questions, as we discuss below. The analytical dimen­sion of the special issue is the social construction of academic mobility from its pre-existing social conditions through the activities of actors and the (re) creation of actors’ identities and outcomes of academic mobility. Although this special issue is not based on one single research study with a common theoretical and methodological research design, it may serve as an explorative endeavour by revealing several weaknesses and dilemmas as well as ideas for future research improvements. Indeed, the concluding article brings a synthetic view on the articles presented in this issue and dis­cusses the importance of including the social constructivist approach in the current context of socio-political-economic changes generally and while studying international academic mobility in particular. We close with ideas and venues for further research related to international academic mobility from a broader, contextual perspective. Comparative perspective on the empirical findings The comparative perspective combines the findings concerned with both the general research questions and the set of sub-questions in the research as presented in the introduction. Starting with the general research questions, we may summarise that numerous and very different agents of international academic mobility are indicated in empirical research. While international academic mobility has indeed been linked to the state’s policies (public policies), it is far from the reality to assume that state (public) agents are the only agents operating in the HE area. Indeed, it has been pointed out that many private agents, including families, may directly matter considerably to (potential students) and indirectly to many other collective and institutional actors. Further, the agents are not strongly rooted to just one level of social organisation or management. Instead, they take actions cross-cutting territorial-political 1329 borders, with cases in point being e.g. the European Commission communi­cating directly to universities and (global) universities directly acting across national and supranational (EU) territorial/political borders. Various research studies considering different agents and processes show the social construction of many aspects of international academic mobility: students’ ambitions regarding HE; students’ identities, values and political participation; student families’ ambitions related to HE; attitudes of elementary and secondary school teachers to mobility; particular coun­tries’ needs and demands for internationalised HE; universities’ strategies for internationalisation; academics’ and practitioners’ perceptions of inter­national academic mobility. To what extent and how international academic mobility actually impacts on social constructions on the level of the indi­vidual, family, organisation, (sub)governments etc. is an entirely different question. Although a variety of research is presented in this special issue, it all tends to stress the importance of a range of contextual factors including structures, identities and values. On the micro level of an individual (a stu­dent), there is their socio-economic status and also gender. On the level of schools (educational institutions), there are types of schools, the inclusion of EU topics in school lessons, school participation in EU projects and simi­larly on the level of HE institutions there are academic disciplines. At the same time, schools are also environments for teachers, who may impact their students by teaching and giving information. The political meso level – the level of public policies – is in fact multi­ple phenomena embedded in several different territorial-political units and even cuts across these borders through intergovernmental organisations. As shown in the article on universities’ internationalisation strategies, public policies determined on the subnational, national and supranational levels co-create a marble-cake-like network of various governmental interferences in the HE area. On the macro level one finds not only the state and its sub­national levels, but also world regions and global context and intergovern­mental organisations; cross-country professional social networks involving either individual academics and/or practitioners, along with HE institutions and/or other organisations active in the HE area. On all levels, the cultural factors of HE internationalisation appear to be directly or indirectly impor­tant. Finally, what are the outcomes of international academic mobility phe­nomena? There is a broad range of clear hypotheses in empirical research on this question. However, testing these hypotheses has proven to be very difficult. In addition, where such testing appeared possible, no simple and strong correlations were found between identified inputs into international academic mobility phenomena (structures, identities, values) and their outcomes. The epistemic problem is not critical simply because the inputs are multiple and it is difficult to grasp them entirely, but also because of the fact that identifying the outcomes of international academic mobility via clear indicators and valid measurements is underdeveloped in the area of education generally. All of the above-mentioned issues are particularly visible while studying the correlation between students’ international academic mobility and their European and EU identity. Further, such focused empirical research has also shown the need for greater precision in both theoretical and empirical research. A good case in point is the finding that European identity and EU identity may be two very different things. While a broad European identity may go hand in hand with domesticity, traditional values and even xeno­phobia, the EU identity speaks more to cosmopolitanism. Still, it remains methodologically challenging to measure changes in students’ skills and identities in a direct relationship with international academic mobility. More research is also needed e.g. in testing whether and how: a) international aca­demic mobility actually provides particular universities with a significant recruitment of the best individuals among incoming students for these uni­versities’ master and doctoral study programmes; b) the mindsets of interna­tionalising departments are changing; c) elementary and secondary schools’ milieus impact teachers’ and student’s international academic mobility; d) elementary and secondary teachers’ awareness of students’ opportunities for inclusion in international exchange are evolving and these teachers’ self-confidence in teaching EU themes actually impact students’ international academic mobility; and so on. The summary of the findings now continues with the research sub-ques­tions, as follows: How do the material structures (socio-economic statuses) impact the international academic mobility of students? Based on processing the data of a survey among students (including Erasmus ones) at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Tanja Oblak Crnic and Barbara Brecko highlight the finding that the practices and experiences of learning mobil­ity among the student population are far from homogeneous, even within such a uniform sample of students and where their material structures (socio-economic statuses) matter. However, how the international mobility of students depends on the wealth of their families, whether/how students recognise a need to move or indeed work out how to incorporate transna­tional movement into their educational and occupational trajectories is a more complex research issue. They thus find international academic mobil­ity to be a socially differentiated phenomenon that excludes certain stu­dents due to financial and social obstacles; other factors may include lower confidence due to limited language skills as well as students’ attachment 1331 to the local settings and connections. Accordingly, the researchers call for more sophisticated statistical analyses of the existing data, to refine these methods by conducting more in-depth qualitative studies and cross-country comparative studies. What is the role of teachers in promoting the international academic mobility of students? The research among teachers at elementary schools and teachers at secondary schools in Slovenia (the article by Novak et al. in this special issue) shows that teachers on the general upper secondary edu­cation level have statistically significantly higher awareness of opportuni­ties for student mobility than teachers from elementary schools. Still, at the same time the researchers warn against drawing any broader conclusions from their findings as there may be other factors impacting the difference between the two groups of teachers. These factors might also include:) the difference between the real-life opportunities for mobility of students on the elementary level and students on the high school level; and b) the fact that the cooperation projects of elementary schools mostly include student mobility to a limited extent only. Moreover, whether elementary and sec­ondary school teachers include EU topics in their courses is not correlated with their awareness of mobility opportunities. However, elementary and secondary school teachers who are more confident in teaching European topics are more aware of better mobility opportunities for the students at their schools (albeit this correlation is very weak). The research by Novak et al. also cannot answer the question of whether socialisation through school (already starting in primary school) impacts the international academic mobility of students, although the researchers note the need for more research in this area. The question of how universities create their strategies to promote the international academic mobility of students was answered by comparative research into three very well-internationalised public universities in three countries. Tamara Dagen shows in her article that in constructing university strategies for internationalisation the three universities under study do fol­low the strategic framework of their countries but are also autonomously creating their institutional strategies for internationalisation. Nevertheless, they do this under quite a strong influence of the broad traditions, social and historical context of each state and the specific characteristics of the national HE system. Further, particular factors may be more important for certain universities than for other universities, with such factors including language policy (especially important in the Spanish case) or an interest in attracting wealthy students from all over the world (especially in Switzerland). Even in the circumstances of sharing goals, instruments and activities created on the supranational (EU) level, there are big differences (e.g. when comparing Spain and Austria). While Dagen’s research offers a very good basis for broader testing of the theory by building on the comparative case study, it does not offer insights into the role of the international academic mobility in students gain­ing new cultural, lingual and social experiences or whether/how a semester spent at a foreign HE institution in a new social context has contributed to the common European identity-building, a positive attitude to the EU, the development of cosmopolitism and a better understanding of differences among people in the European and global contexts. Similarly, the hypothe­sis concerning the correlation between the selection of an Erasmus destina­tion and the economic standard of inhabitants in a specific country and the level of living expenses there also calls for additional research. Last but not least, further research is needed to look in depth at the real-life achievement of universities’ ambitions to longitudinally absorb the best incoming under­graduate students also into these universities’ master and doctoral studies. Does students’ international academic mobility socially re-construct their identities, involvement in public spheres, and political participa­tion? Oblak Crnic and Brecko state that students who have already spent some time studying abroad are well informed and also highly interested in European affairs. In fact, this group was found to be involved in European issues and very politically engaged. Nevertheless, the authors could not find a basis for convincingly showing any kind of linear division between stu­dents who had not studied abroad and had no plans to do so (‘locals’) and students who had already spent some time studying abroad (‘cosmopoli­tans’). While they found the locals to be very attached to Europe and the cos­mopolitan group also attached to its local settings, the local youth was found to be more sceptical of Europe, the European Union and its politics than the group of students who had already spent some time studying abroad. This puzzle was somewhat resolved in the contribution by Fink-Hafner and Hafner-Fink – as presented below). Does the international academic mobility of students re-shape their atti­tudes to Europe/EU? While Oblak Crnic and Brecko revealed that students who have not studied abroad and do not plan to do so mostly agree with the statement “I feel like being a citizen of Europe”, they also noted that there are locals who mostly agree that they hold much more in common with their nationality than with other nations in Europe. Oblak Crnic and Brecko hypothetically state this may also be understood as an unreflected manifes­tation of nationalistic tendencies, with which cosmopolitans strongly disa­gree. Still, the question remains: what comes first – identity or international academic mobility? The data analysis presented in the article by Fink-Hafner and Hafner-Fink in this special issue shows that students who have stud­ied abroad and those who plan to study abroad identify more with both the EU and Europe, unlike students who have not studied abroad and have 1333 no plans to do so and who stand out by identifying with Europe, but not the EU. Interestingly, stronger feelings of attachment to Europe or to the EU generally lead to support for more integration with the EU. Of students who had studied abroad, the share of those who support more integration of all EU members in all areas is the highest (52.6%). Still, the analysis fur­ther showed that the experience of studying abroad has a very weak direct effect. At the same time, among factors included in the analysis the strongest direct impact on supporting further comprehensive integration among EU member states is a sense of attachment to the EU. The direct effect of gender was also revealed (women are more likely to support the further integra­tion of all EU members in all areas). On the contrary, analysis of data gath­ered from domestic and Erasmus students at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana did not show any notable explanatory power of sub­jective class. Does the international academic mobility of students re-shape their atti­tudes to globalisation? The research presented in the article by Oblak Crnic and Brecko indeed shows that three groups of students vary in their feelings on being a global citizen. There are those who have already studied abroad who feel like a global citizen the most, followed by students who have not studied abroad but plan to. The lowest expression of feelings of being a global citizen was found among students who had not studied abroad and held no plans to do so. Fink-Hafner and Hafner-Fink in this special issue also point to the potential of cosmopolitanism that moves beyond identify­ing with the EU and Europe. However, limitations of the available data do not allow this phenomenon to be examined in detail. Yet, the presented research calls for shedding light on the potential of cosmopolitanism, but also EU-ism and Europeanism as ideologies. These may have a role to play in what Zeitlin et al. (2019) label “politicization in an age of shifting cleav­ages”. How do academics and practitioners with rich personal international experience in the higher education (HE) area reflect on international aca­demic mobility in a broader historical and global context? As presented in the article by Zgaga and Fink-Hafner in this issue, academics and prac­titioners with rich personal international experience in the higher educa­tion (HE) area tend to look at developments in the HE area within broader frameworks. They not only include a multi-level view, but also use historical, spatial and other contextual lenses. They appreciate both the diversity of phenomena as well as similarities that appear beyond existing territorial/ political borders. As they all possess professional and life experiences from different countries and also different continents, they tend to stress the big­ger picture of social, economic and political changes globally and from par­ticular points of view. Multiple actors, processes and factors co-impacting the changing world are seen as fluid, yet at the same time FG participants keep stressing the pro-active role of actors, including social scientists and researchers in the HE area. FG participants’ declining of Western-centric debates goes hand in hand with the rejection of simplistic views on the causes and impacts (outcomes) of public policies. They not only stress that global mobility cannot be simply equated with cosmopolitanism, but that cosmopolitanism does not occur automatically and that market forces play a significant role in HE. Beside the numerous levels and varieties of actors involved in HE (states, international organisations, HE systems, universi­ties, academics, students, students’ families), FG participants also noted the considerable differences among continents as well as countries. Steering of real-life phenomena entails the policy coordination of multiple actors within and beyond borders and regional spaces, which are (re)forming, as are various scapes. In these circumstances, it appears questionable to the FG participants whether changing minds and culture is at all possible by way of internationalisation. All in all, they do not follow “the ideology of globalism” (Beck, 2002: 40), but point to the current mix of the processes of de-territori­alisation, re-emergence of territorial borders and re-traditionalisation of the collective national imagination. This resonates with Beck’s thinking (ibid.: 27). Indeed, the participants also point to what Fisher (2009: 168) describes as “public policy as a social construct” in the HE area. The findings of the articles in this special issue can be presented in a synthetic way by taking account of the: 1) broad research questions; and 2) units of analysis (Table 1). Like with research in the HE area, also in the articles of this special issue one finds difficulties in determining the real-life outcomes of international academic mobility. However, this special issue does bring the following nar­rative on the inputs, agents, processes and outcomes. While material structures (socio-economic statuses and gender in par­ticular) have an impact on the international academic mobility of students, socialisation through school – especially teachers in elementary and second­ary schools – encourages the international academic mobility of students by promoting such opportunities. Indeed, Erasmus programme activities have become available to general upper secondary education, professional and vocational education students, and teachers on all levels of education. Yet, (as Novak et al. state in their article): 1) “if students of elementary and sec­ondary educational level wish to participate in mobility activities their teach­ers must be aware of the mobility opportunities available at their schools” and 2) “since the decision to participate in a mobility programme on the university level is an important decision in their first years of studying, stu­dents should be informed about this opportunity as early as possible”. Still, even these teachers are supported and socialised in their milieus. 1335 Table 1: INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC MOBILITY FROM VARIOUS EMPIRICAL RESEARCH POINTS OF VIEW (BASED ON THE RESEARCH PRESENTED IN THIS SPECIAL ISSUE) RESEARCH ASPECTS Agents of social construction in the frame of international academic mobility phenomena What is socially constructed? Inputs into inter­national academic mobility phenomena (structures, identi­ties, values) Outcomes of international academic mobility phenomena UNITS OF ANALYSIS Students Students themselves; their Identities (European, EU) Socio-economic status; EU, European identity (HE) families; students’ roles within their families gender formation through international academic mobility either inconclusive or to a limited extent Universities Universities, national and subnational governments; rectors; European Commission; international university organisations (e.g. EUA) Universities’ strategies for internationalisation; national policies related to internationalisation in HE; Universities’ international “selling points” National context (various social characteristics, tradition and historical developmental path of national HE systems), language; length of membership in Erasmus programme, commit­ment to implementation of the Bologna Process; individual international experience of university leaders; specific aca­demic norms and values; (sub)discipline institu­tional norms and rules Recruitment of the best individuals among incoming students to further enrol them in master and doctoral study programmes; strengthening of internationalisation in the home-university (HE) context; institutional reputation improvement; more competitive surroundings (not investigated) Academics Students, families, universities Families’ ambitions Academic discipline; Plurality of very different and prac- (university departments, related to HE; students’ world region; state; outcomes (hypotheses for titioners academic disciplines), ambitions related to involvement in further research) in the HE national governments, HE; particular countries’ professional social area intergovernmental organisations; global universities; universities from developed countries with programmes in other countries needs and demands for internationalised HE; Universities’ strategies; Social science and practice in the HE area networks Elementary Elementary and secondary Attitudes of elementary Level of education on Teachers’ awareness of and school teachers; schools’ and secondary school which teachers teach; students’ opportunities for secondary involvement in mobility teachers to international inclusion of EU topics in inclusion in international school programmes; various actors academic mobility school lessons, school exchange; teachers organising seminars on EU themes for teachers: domestic universities/faculties; Cmepius; EU institutions’ representations in a member state; European Parliament (events in Brussels) participation in EU projects Teachers’ self-confidence in teaching EU themes; Confirmed to a limited extent Source: Author – based on the research presented in this special issue of Teorija in praksa. While university students are able to obtain mobility information on their own, universities also develop their own strategies for interna­tional academic mobility as they respond to external and internal factors. International academic mobility is both co-determined by a broader histori­cal and global context while it also impacts a broader historical and global context. In this framework, students’ international academic mobility has an influence on the social re-construction of their identities, involvement in public spheres, political participation, attitudes to Europe/EU and to glo­balisation. Still, such a hypothetical vision should be seen for what it really is – a set of hypotheses in need of testing. This makes it very important to critically evaluate politically inspired expectations. Further, social scientists are also responsible for adopting a critical stand against simplistic guessing of what might be the difference between European and EU identity (Van Mol, 2013). The above presented hypothetical narrative, which has no clear scientific support, calls for a different kind of research in the HE area to evaluate such hypotheses. There is also the persisting critical issue of thinking about the transnational mobility of young people based on a combination of method­ological nationalism (Wimmer and Glick Schiller, 2002), which needs to be taken more seriously. Further thoughts on methodology for future research are presented in the concluding section. Theoretical aspects of the empirical findings We argue that the core issues of the EU as a cross-national social entity (values, norms, identity, social equality) that have thus far been less in focus are in fact critical for understanding the current trends in Europe’s mix of integration and disintegration processes. Not only does social constructiv-ism hold a particular value in its explanatory potential, but it may contrib­ute to the understanding of European integration processes (Wiener and Diez, 2019: 241). We argue that social constructivism has indeed become indispensable in research in the circumstances of the rise of identity politics within the EU (Kuhn, 2019) and beyond. From this perspective, we are criti­cal of the recent trend of leaving out social constructivism and in particular stressing the importance of the three grand theories of European integra­tion and other theoretical and conceptual approaches: neofunctionalism, intergovernmentalism, postfunctionalism (Niemann and Speyer, 2018; Hooghe and Marks, 2019; Biermann, et al., 2019; Hodson and Puetter, 2019), the hegemonic-stability-theoretical approach (Weber, 2019), external gover­nance (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009), and cleavage theory (Hooghe and Marks, 2018). While constructivism, like other theories, also has its limitations (Saurugger, 2016), there are calls for an over-arching theoreti­cal framework to help explain how integration and disintegration interact on different levels of aggregation (Jones, 2018). Particularly in times of the growing politicisation of the domestic and EU levels in the situation since 2008, an understanding of contemporary EU (dis)integration through law in politicised times (Saurugger, 2016) may be unable to grasp the full range of societal changes. 1337 In this context, social “constructionism offers an orientation toward creating new futures, an impetus to societal transformation” and the “con­structionist thought now contributes to dialogues on a new agenda for the human sciences, innovations in research methodology, the technology and society interface, the reconceptualization of power, the rekindling of spir­ituality, and the potentials of relativism” (Gergen, 2017). Indeed, construc­tionist thought stresses the need for interdisciplinary, complex theoretical and multi-method research approaches as well as the re-construction of the cultural characteristics of academic disciplines, which have been too burdened by knowledge based primarily on research conducted in North America and Western Europe, neglecting the majority of the world (Nastasi et al., 2017). In fact, today we are not only dealing with social, economic and political (re)construction, but with the cultural (re)construction of global development as well. Articles in this special issue tackle the dynamic complexity of the EU’s as well as the global social (re)construction, including social inequalities, political changes, geopolitical re-structuring and technological develop­ments. Yet, it should also not be forgotten that many social aspects, includ­ing education and HE, are also socially (re)constructed. Hence, not only is gender socially constructed (Lorber, 1994), but identity (Creed et al., 2002) as well as citizens (Olson, 2008) are also socially constructed. New phenom­ena such as global corporate citizenship (Shinkle and Spencer, 2012) and corporations as actors directly interfering in education and bringing about new forms of privatisation (Bryant, 2020) are re-constructing societies as we know them. The concept of mobility needs to be refined and adapted to the changing world and to the fluid particular contexts, in the sense that in international academic mobility new formative (as opposed to touristic forms) have yet to be innovated to strengthen “an imagination of alternative ways of life and rationalities, which include the otherness of the other” (Beck, 2002: 18). Global risks have been accumulating over a long period, but in 2020, for example, for the first time the Global Risks Report is dominated by the envi­ronment while geo-economic and political pressures are viewed as the top short-term concerns (United Nations Office Disaster Risk Reduction, 2020). It is high time to re-think what it means to be educated in this world and to explore ways to provide a coherent and meaningful educational experience in the face of the turbulence, uncertainty and fragmentation that character-ise much of HE today – as Ramaley (2014: 8) stressed in the context of the building up of various crises. Various literatures – philosophy, education, sociology, anthropology, media studies – also stress the need to reimagine citizenship and identity in ways befitting a global age (Hull et al., 2010). As accounts of cosmopolitanism are, as a rule, theoretical, an examination of what might be considered as sites for cosmopolitan practice practical issues are becoming pressing. This includes the creation of online international social networking and offline local programmes designed to engage youth in representing themselves and interacting with a broader range of actors across national borders and the borders of world regions. Venues for further research in a changing context The real world has been changing dynamically. Political, policy and private reactions are bringing about social adaptations and innovations. Political instability and threats are already impacting at least some interna­tional academic mobility flows. A case in point is definitely Donald Trump’s hostility towards immigrants and the conflictual relationship with China (University World News, 2020a). It is no surprise that in thinking about a future destination some are already thinking of switching to a different country compared to their first choice (University World News, 2020b). Models of education are changing in the new contextual dynamics – such as turning to partnerships with industry (University World News, 2020c). Non-linear, sudden radical social changes have become the ‘new normal’. The two decades since transition to the 3rd millennium have seen the accu­mulation of many crises: social, economic, political, immigration, cultural, healthcare. These multiple crises have revealed the idealism and blindness of certain aspects of social science, including the barriers, controversies and conflicts working against the development of intercultural awareness and international understanding. The host country may offer hostility, as Osler (1998) pointed out. In a drastically changing world, many social aspects of life are transform­ing, such as identities. Moreover, it is not only a political, policy or identity crisis of the EU (Börzel and Risse, 2018a), but a more complex identity trans­formation, re-construction and new construction are taking place together with the need for critical re-thinking in both theory and empirical research. Engaging with social reality means taking the social fluidity and social com­plexity into account. For example, the social construction of youth has become increasingly diversified in this setting of rapid and radical social change. The blurring of the boundaries between youth and adulthood and de-standardisation of the life course are challenging the traditional consid­erations of young people’s development, which has become complex, non­linear, sophisticated and dynamic (Lesko and Talburt (eds.), 2012). Looking at only certain selected perspectives – like for example in the case of analys­ing international student mobility (King and Raghuram, 2013) – has reached its limits. To avoid oversimplification of the social reality, the micro, meso, macro ‘marble cake’ of the social reality must be taken into consideration 1339 (see e.g. El Masri and Sabzalieva, 2020). A complex web of actors (including the importance of family and friends) should be acknowledged when learn­ing about decision-making on whether to stay or to be mobile (Thomassen, 2020) or to postpone international migration in HE and change the prior­ity of countries for students’ academic internationalisation (South China Morning Post, 2020). Articles in this special issue tackled the health crisis caused by Covid-19 and its impact on (higher and other levels of) education generally and inter­national academic mobility in particular. They specifically pointed to the fol­lowing questions and hypothetical developments: • one may expect less physical academic mobility on all levels of educa­ tion; • a decline in physical international mobility is anticipated, especially on lower levels where schools will probably avoid putting their students at risk; • will the restrictions on physical mobility which were initially considered to be temporary have a longer-term impact on limiting international aca­demic contacts? • the quite swift decision of HE institutions to move Erasmus students’ and academic staff activities into virtual surroundings has inspired questions of whether/how a distance learning model and mobility without actual physical mobility can be replaced and/or permanently in the following years; • are the current circumstances a fruitful basis for excelling in the hitherto far less developed internationalisation at home? • how will all of these changes impact HE institutions’ leadership? Will university managements gain (even) greater importance in the years to come? • what are the potential consequences of all these changes for the devel­opment of cultural identities? • are students really more independent in their decisions than HE institu­tions? This question arises while taking account of the processes of the social construction of youth and the many agents impacting young peo­ple’s socialisation and decision-making; and • what is/will be the role of technologies (particularly technical means like the Internet) amid all these changes? Should they be used to maintain and develop communication or to support the real added value – the ‘soft’ dimension of the content of communication? All of these questions not only suggest new possible research focuses, but also challenge the prevailing paradigm of the social sciences in general and social science research in the HE in particular. Research in the HE area has not only encountered theoretical challenges, but also methodological challenges of empirical research. We have identified the following chal­lenges: • the dynamically changing reality; • the social fluidity; • the social complexity; • the dynamics and parallelism of time and space; • the non-linear, sudden radical social changes; • the (trans)forming identities; • the limited conceptual lenses; and • the need for a research paradigm shift. Indeed, a research paradigm shift was put on the agenda already some time ago. Similarly to how Beck called for a cosmopolitan sociology “in order to take globality and (human) social life on planet Earth seriously” as well as to understand the “situations, impacts, divisions, contradictions, and desires” of the “multiplicity of global generations” (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2009), the contributions in this special issue call for cosmo­politan social sciences and humanities. This is because the cosmopolitan perspective has become necessary in recognising the simultaneity and mutual interaction of national and international, local and global determina­tions, influences and developments. Part of this also entails the call to reach beyond the methodological nationalism. Whatever does not have its causes in the internal space of the nation state and is not limited to it can also not be described and explained solely by looking at that nation state, as Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2009: 34) put it. Moreover, it also cannot be properly done while being locked into EU-centrism which is reminiscent of meth­odological nationalism – but now within the EU as a regional system. In terms of the research methods, these challenges call for methodo­logical inclusiveness and academic creativity in approaching the re-con­struction and transformation of social phenomena as we know them, also bringing about completely new phenomena. We need research methods and techniques that can be validly used across cultures (see e.g. Cranston, 2020). In order to fully grasp the changing reality, we need more qualitative, bottom-up research, interdisciplinary research endeavours and research sensitivity to time and space. It is also time to overcome methodological nationalism and make better use of already known research methods (e.g. panel research over longer time periods to capture the changes over time and space). Overall, social sciences are highly challenged to adapt and respond to the changing reality both as individual sciences as well as actors in interdis­ciplinary research. 1341 BIBLIOGRAPHY Beck, Ulrich (2008): World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, Ulrich and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim (2009): Global Generations and the Trap of Methodological Nationalism. For a Cosmopolitan Turn in the Sociology of Youth and Generation. European Sociological Review 251 (11): 25–36. Biermann, Felix, Nina Guérin, Stefan Jagdhuber, Berthold Rittberger and Moritz Weiss (2019): Political (non)reform in the Euro crisis and the refugee crisis: a liberal intergovernmentalist explanation. Journal of European Public Policy 26 (2): 246–266. Börzel, Tanja A. and Thomas Risse (2018): A Litmus Test for European Integration Theories: Explaining Crises and Comparing Regionalisms. (KFG Working Paper Series, 85). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, FB Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften, Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft Kolleg-Forschergruppe “The Tran-sformative Power of Europe”. Accessible at https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bit­stream/handle/document/57753/ssoar-2018-borzel_et_al-A_Litmus_Test_for_ European.pdf;jsessionid=B637533433F2F4A717E68EC01976A182?sequence=1, 5. 11. 2020. Börzel, Tanja A. and Thomas Risse (2018a): From the euro to the Schengen crises: European integration theories, politicization, and identity politics. Journal of European Public Policy 25 (1): 83–108. Cranston, Sophie (2020): Figures of the global: Mobility journeys of interna­tional school pupils. Population, Space and Place. Accessible at https://doi. org/10.1002/psp.2305, 3. 11. 2020. Creed, W.E. Douglas, Maureen A. Scully, John Austin (2002): Clothes make the per­son? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and the social construction of iden­tity. Organization Science 13 (5): 475- 496. El Masri, Amira and Emma Sabzalieva (2020): Dealing with disruption, rethink­ing recovery: Policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in higher education. Policy Design and Practice 3 (3): 312–333. Gergen, Kenneth J. (1999): Social Construction and the Transformation of Identity Politics Draft copy for F. Newman and L. Holzman (eds.), End of knowing: A new developmental way of learning. New York: Routledge. Hodson, Dermot and Uwe Puetter (2019): The European Union in disequilibrium. New intergovernmentalism, postfunctionalism and integration theory in the post-Maastricht period. Journal of European Public Policy 26 (8): 1153–71. Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks (2018): Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy 25 (1): 109–135. Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks (2019): Grand theories of European integration in the twenty-first century. Journal of European Public Policy 26 (8): 1113–1133. Hull, Glynda, Amy Stornaiuolo and Urvashi Sahni (2010): Cultural Citizenship and Cosmopolitan Practice: Global Youth Communicate Online. English Education 42 (4): 331–367. Jones, Eric (2018): Towards a theory of disintegration. Journal of European Public Policy 25 (3): 440–451. King, Russell and Parvati Raghuram (2013): International student migration: Mapping the field and new research agendas. Population, Space and Place 19 (1): 127–137. Kuhn, Theresa (2019): Grand theories of European integration revisited: does identity politics shape the course of European integration? Journal of European Public Policy 26 (8): 1213–1230. Lavenex, Sandra and Frank Schimmelfennig (2009): EU rules beyond EU borders: theorizing external governance in European politics. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (6): 791–812. Lesko, Nancy and Susan Talburt (2012): A History of the Present Youth Studies, 11–23. In Nancy Lesko & Susan Talburt (Eds.), Key Words in Youth Studies. New York, USA, Abington, UK: Routledge. Lorber, Judith (1994): Paradoxes of Gender, Yale University Press. Nastasi, Bonnie K., Prerna G Arora & Kris Varjas (2017): The meaning and impor­tance of cultural construction for global development. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology 5 (3): 137–140. Niemann, Arne and Johanna Speyer (2018): A neofunctionalist perspective on the European refugee crisis: the case of the European border and coast guard. Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (1): 23–24. Olson, Kevin (2008): Constructing Citizens. The Journal of Politics 70 (1): 40–53. Osler, Audrey (1998): European Citizenship and Study Abroad: student teachers’ experiences and identities. Cambridge Journal of Education 28 (1): 77–96. Ramaley, Judith A. (2014): The Changing Role of Higher Education: Learning to Deal with Wicked Problems. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 18 (3): 7–21. Saurugger, Sabine (2016): Politicisation and integration through law: whither inte­gration theory? West European Politics 39 (5): 933–52. Schimmelfennig, Frank (2018): European integration (theory) in times of crisis. A comparison of the euro and Schengen crises’. Journal of European Public Policy 25 (7): 969–989. Shinkle, George A. and William Spencer (2012): The social construction of global corporate citizenship: Sustainability reports of automotive corporations. Journal of World Business 47 (1): 123–133. Thomassen, Jonne A.K. (2020): The roles of family and friends in the immobil­ity decisions of university graduates staying in a peripheral urban area in the Netherlands. Population, Space and place. Accessible at https://doi.org/10.1002/ psp.2392, 5. 12. 2020. Van Mol, Christof (2013): Intra-European Student Mobility and European Identity: A Successful Marriage? Population, Space Place 19 (1): 209–222. Webber, Douglas (2019): Trends in European political (dis)integration. An analysis of postfunctionalist and other explanations. Journal of European Public Policy 26 (8): 1134–1152. Wimmer, Anrea, & Nina Glick Schiller (2002): Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks 2 (4): 301–334. 1343 Zeitlin, Jonathan, Francesco Nicoli & Brigid Laffan (2019): Introduction: The European Union beyond the polycrisis? Integration and politicization in an age of shifting cleavages. Journal of European Public Policy 26 (7): 963–976. SOURCES Bryant, Jeff (2020): Our Schools: How Corporations Are Forcing Their Way Into America’s Public Schools, National Education Policy Ceneter, 19 Feburary 2020. Accessible at https://nepc.info/blog/how-corporations, 28. 11. 2020. Intead (2020): Peer-to-Peer Student Conversations: How influential are they and what’s their value for your recruitment strategy? Accessible at https://info.intead. com/hubfs/Intead-Unibuddy_Peer-to-Peer%20Student%20Conversations%20 Jan%202020.pdf, 2. 11. 2020. South China Morning Post (2020): Chinese families shun Western universities as cor­onavirus, strained ties are ‘scaring middle-class families’, 3 Oct. 2020. Accessible at https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3103722/chinese-shun-western-universities-coronavirus-strained-ties, 2. 11. 2020. United Nations Office Disaster Risk Reduction (2020): The global risks report 2020, 15th Edition. Accessible at https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/ view/69980, 16. 11. 2020. University World News (2020a): What to do about falling international student enrolment? 21 October 2020. Accessible at https://www.universityworldnews. com/post.php?story=20201021152045352, 2. 11. 2020. University World News (2020b): 53% of international students pondering delay or switch. 24 October 2020. Accessible at https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20201024060349906, 2. 11. 2020. University World News (2020c): New teaching model grooms students for the data age. 24 October 2020. Accessible at https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20201023111447621, 2. 11. 2020. AVTORSKIPOVZETKI UDK 316.444:378 Danica FINK-HAFNER, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC: MEDNARODNA AKADEMSKA MOBILNOST KOT SOCIALNA KONSTRUKCIJA: TEORETSKO-METODOLOŠKI OKVIR Teorija in praksa, Ljubljana 2020, Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1203–1215 Ta posebna številka prinaša dve novosti. Prvic, osredotoca se na boljše razumevanje vpliva mednarodne akademske mobilnosti (MAM) študentov na stališca študentov glede prihodnosti EU, medtem ko hkrati upošteva veliko sliko relevantnih igralcev in dejavnikov, ki (so)oblikujejo izide MAM. Drugic, uporablja združljivost socialnega konstruktivizma kot ne-popolne teorije in gradi na raziskovalni strategiji kombiniranja idej socialnega kon­struktivizma ter razlicnih drugih teoretskih okvirjev pri analizi raznolikih empiricnih podatkov, povezanih z akademsko mobilnostjo. Kljucni pojmi: akademska mobilnost, visoko šolstvo, socialni konstrukti­vizem, raziskovalne metode. UDK 316.444:378:316.75 1345 Pavel ZGAGA, Danica FINK-HAFNER: AKADEMSKA MOBILNOST, GLOBALIZACIJA IN KOZMOPOLITIZEM: POGLEDI ZNANSTVENIKOV IN PRAKTIKOV NA PODROCJU VISOKEGA ŠOLSTVA Teorija in praksa, Ljubljana 2020, Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1216–1231 Avtorja v clanku preverjata, ali je temeljni smisel promoviranja akadem­ske mobilnosti oblikovanje modernega »kozmopolita« ali širjenje »industri­je« visokega šolstva (VŠ) nasploh. Še posebej se ukvarjata z razlikovanjem med VŠ v kontekstu globalizacije kot zgodovinskega procesa in globalizma kot ideologije. Na podlagi teoretskega raziskovanja in empiricnih podatkov, zbranih z metodo fokusnih skupin med znanstveniki in praktiki, ki delujejo na podrocju VŠ, razpravljata o zgodovinskih izkušnjah in aktualnih kontro­verzah glede prihodnosti VŠ, vkljucno s spremembami, ki nastajajo z renaci­onalizacijo, in ukrepi proti pandemiji. Kljucni pojmi: akademska mobilnost, evropeizacija, globalizacija, koz­mopolitizem, globalizem. UDK 316.444:378.014.242 Tanja OBLAK CRNIC, Barbara N. BRECKO: ŠTUDIJSKA MOBILNOST: KONTAKTNA CONA SVETOVLJANSTVA ALI REPRODUKCIJA LOKALNOSTI? Teorija in praksa, Ljubljana 2020, Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1232–1250 Ideja študijske mobilnosti, izražena v vzponu evropskih programov za izmenjavo in internacionalizacije, je predvidevala, da bo mlade Evropejce spodbudila k vecji geografski mobilnosti, medkulturni fluidnosti, kulturni strpnosti in uveljavljanju ideje o evropski integraciji (Ackers, 2005). Z aktu­alizacijo izobraževanja v tujini kot primera vsakdanjega kozmopolitizma in razumevanjem izobraževalnih prostorov kot novih »kontaktnih con« clanek raziskuje, kdo je mladina, ki se odloca za študij v tujini. Vzorec 208 študentov obravnavamo kot tri distinktivne kategorije mladih – svetovljansko, poten­cialno svetovljansko in lokalno mladino – in analiziramo dvoje: prvic, kako clanstvo v posamezni skupini doloca njihova povezanost z evropskim pro-storom in vizijami o Evropi, zanimanja in poznavanje evropskih zadev ter prevladujoce prakse državljanstva; in drugic, kako so kategorije študentov specificne glede na njihove socio-demografske znacilnosti, osebne karierne nacrte in prihodnje ambicije. Študija med drugim pokaže, da so prakse in izkušnje s študijsko mobilnostjo med še tako homogenim vzorcem študen­tov v marsicem raznolike in dalec od tega, da bi bile enovite. Kljucni pojmi: študijska mobilnost, vsakdanji kozmopolitizem, državljan­stvo, Evropa, mladina, kvantitativna raziskava. UDK 378.014.242(497.4Ljubljana):323.1:061.1EU Mitja HAFNER-FINK, Danica FINK-HAFNER: ŠTUDENTSKA MEDNARODNA IZMENJAVA KOT DEJAVNIK CEZNACIONALNE IDENTITETE Teorija in praksa, Ljubljana 2020, Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1251–1267 Po socialno-konstruktivisticni teoriji evropskih povezovalnih procesov bi pricakovali, da sodelovanje študentov v izmenjavah v okviru programa Erasmus prispeva k evropski identiteti in pozitivnim stališcem študentov glede EU. Testiranje te hipoteze na podatkih, zbranih med slovenskimi in gostujocimi študenti na Fakulteti za družbene vede Univerze v Ljubljani v 2018 in 2019, je pokazalo, da izkušnja iz programa Erasmus prispeva h kom­binaciji pozitivnih, vendar bolj realisticnih stališc do EU. Splošna evropska identiteta ne korelira z izkušnjami študentov iz programa Erasmus, identite­ta EU pa s temi izkušnjami korelira. Kljucni pojmi: identiteta, EU, Evropa, Erasmus, socialni konstruktivizem. UDK 378.014.242:378.6:3(497.451.1)FDV Barbara N. BRECKO, Maša KOLENBRAND, Tanja OBLAK CRNIC: KDO SO ŠTUDENTJE Z IZKUŠNJO MEDNARODNE ŠTUDENTSKE IZMENJAVE? PRIMER FAKULTETE ZA DRUŽBENE VEDE Teorija in praksa, Ljubljana 2020, Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1268–1286 Program Erasmus spodbuja kratkotrajno mobilnost študentov z name-nom razširitve njihovih izobraževalnih izkušenj. Longitudinalni trendi štu­dentske mobilnosti na Univerzi v Ljubljani kažejo, da priljubljenost progra-ma Erasmus med prihajajocimi študenti raste, medtem ko pri odhajajocih študentih ostaja nespremenjena ali se celo zmanjšuje. V obeh primerih se zdi, da so študentje, vkljuceni v mobilnost programa Erasmus, privilegirana manjšina. Clanek predstavlja rezultate spletne ankete, izvedene med študen-ti Fakultete za družbene vede, in preucuje njihovo socialno ozadje, izobraz­bo staršev ter njihove poklicne ambicije. Odgovoriti skuša na vprašanje, v kolikšni meri institucionalizirana študentska mobilnost izenacuje socialne neenakosti, ugotovljene v drugih študijah. Kljucni pojmi: institucionalna mobilnost študentov, družbeni položaj, poklicne izbire, program Erasmus, družbena neenakost. UDK 316.444:378.014.24 Tamara DAGEN: UNIVERZITETNE STRATEGIJE INTERNACIONALIZACIJE: KONTEKSTUALNE DOLOCNICE Teorija in praksa, Ljubljana 2020, Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1287–1307 V zadnjih nekaj desetletjih je program Erasmus podpiral internaciona­lizacijo v visokem šolstvu na institucionalni in nacionalni ravni. Cilj clan-ka je predstaviti ugotovitve primerjalne kvalitativne raziskave strategij internacionalizacije treh razlicnih univerz (Dunaj, Lozana, Granada) v treh razlicnih nacionalnih kontekstih (Avstrija, Švica, Španija) in njihove tri 1347 razlicne pristope k programu Erasmus, še posebej k mobilnosti. Kljub skup­nim ciljem, instrumentom in aktivnostim, oblikovanim na ravni EU, clanek razkriva tako razlicne pristope k internacionalizaciji, programu Erasmus in konceptu mobilnosti kot tudi razlicne ucinke in izide internacionalizacije. Kljucni pojmi: internacionalizacija, program Erasmus, mobilnost, univer­zitetna strategija, javnopoliticni izidi. UDK 37.014.242(497.4):061.1EU Meta NOVAK, Damjan LAJH, Urška ŠTREMFEL: UCITELJICE IN UCITELJI OSNOVNIH IN SREDNJIH ŠOL TER MOBILNOST MLADIH V SLOVENSKIH ŠOLAH Teorija in praksa, Ljubljana 2020, Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1308–1327 Ceprav izobraževalne politike niso v pristojnosti Evropske unije (EU), EU priznava pomembnost tega javnopoliticnega podrocja za prihodnji razvoj integracije. Kljucna pobuda na tem podrocju je mobilnost mladih. Najpomembnejše okolje, v katerem se mladi seznanijo z možnostjo mobil­nosti, je šola. V clanku se osredinjamo na poglede slovenskih uciteljic in uci­teljev na mobilnost mladih. Ob tem predvidevamo, da se uciteljice in ucitelji, ki poucujejo vsebine o EU, uciteljice in ucitelji, ki so bolj gotovi pri pouceva­nju vsebin o EU, ter uciteljice in ucitelji, ki poucujejo v gimnazijah, bolj zave­dajo priložnosti za mobilnost, ki so mladim na voljo na njihovi šoli. Analiza je potrdila naše predvidevanje. Kljucni pojmi: Evropska unija, mobilnost, uciteljice in ucitelji, Erasmus, Slovenija. UDK 316.444:378 Danica FINK-HAFNER: RAZISKOVANJE SOCIALNE KONSTRUKCIJE PREK MEDNARODNE AKADEMSKE MOBILNOSTI Teorija in praksa, Ljubljana 2020, Let. LVII, posebna številka, str. 1328–1344 Raziskovanje, predstavljeno v tej tematski številki, kaže tako na kom­pleksnost kot tudi na fluidnost igralcev, procesov, kontekstov in izidov med-narodne akademske mobilnosti. Ugotovitve na podlagi raznolikih metodo­logij in ravni raziskovanja ne le razkrivajo naivnost nekaterih pricakovanj glede mednarodne akademske mobilnosti (še posebej študentov v visokem šolstvu) v obstojeci literaturi, temvec tudi terjajo nove smeri in razlicne razi­skovalne pristope na podrocju visokega šolstva. Zato v clanku povzemamo kljucne ugotovitve in obenem tudi prispevamo h konstruktivnemu dialogu med razlicnimi prispevki. Kljucni pojmi: akademska mobilnost, visoko šolstvo, socialni konstrukti­vizem, raziskovalne metode. 1349 KAZALOLVII.LETNIKATEORIJEINPRAKSE B Balažic Bulc, Tatjana, Vesna Požgaj Hadži Novi statusi jezikov v spremenjenih družbeno-politicnih okolišcinah: primer srbohrvašcine in njenih naslednic v Sloveniji Behlic, Edo, Maja Garb Organizacijsko ucenje v policiji: analiza prenosa znanja z mednarodnih civilnih misij Brecko, Barbara N., Maša Kolenbrant, Tanja Oblak Crnic Who are students with international exchange experiences? The case of the faculty of social sciences Burger, Anže What can be learnt from the effectiveness of Slovenia’s anti-crisis state aid measures during the great recession: application to the Covid-19 downturn Burger, Anže Evaluating the effectiveness of anti-crisis state aid measures C Crncec, Danijel Covid-19 crisis: more EU integration and a step forward for EU energy policy and climate action? D Dagen, Tamara Universities’ strategies for internationalisation: Contextual determinants Dolenc, Sašo Slovenšcina kot jezik znanosti: od prvih prevodov strokovnih knjig do skrbi za terminologijo (Esej) F Felc, Zlata, Brina Felc, Mojca Oset, Urška Antolin, Marijana Kolenko Poznavanje demence med mladostniki v starajoci se družbi: pilotna študija Fink-Hafner, Danica Research on social construction through international academic mobility Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tanja Oblak Crnic International academic mobility as a social construction: Theoretical-methodological framework (Editorial) Št. revije Št. strani Pos. št. 10–20 3 751–769 Pos. št. 1268–1286 4 990–1017 4 1167–1177 4 1105–1123 Pos. št. 1287–1307 Pos. št. 52–160 1 326–346 Pos. št. 1328–1344 Pos. št. 1203–1215 G Gorjanc, Vojko, Nataša Logar Vprašanje slovenskega jezika je tudi politicno in družbeno vprašanje (Uvodnik) Grgic, Matejka Kdo se boji slovenšcine? Ideološko nacrtovanje in (ne)implementacija jezikovnih strategij med Slovenci v Italiji Grizold, Anton, Andreja Jaklic Changing international relations after the Covid-19 pandemic: managing the growing gap between national and multilateral responses Grizold, Anton, Nataša Logar Mednarodno razvejani, a trdnih jezikovnih korenin (Intervju) H Hacin, Rok, Gorazd Meško Slovenski zaporski sistem – razvoj in stanje po 25 letih Hafner-Fink, Mitja, Danica Fink-Hafner Students’ international exchange as a factor of the transnational identity I Ivaškovic, Igor Ucinki javnega financiranja na neprofitna športna društva J Jagiello-Szostak, Anna, Joanna Kulska The role of religious institutions in the process of reconciliation and peacebuilding – a case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Ahmici, Trusina, Bradina) Jaklic, Andreja, Anže Burger Complex internationalisation strategies during crises: the case of Slovenian exporters during the great recession and Covid-19 pandemic Jaklic, Andreja, Metka Stare, Klemen Knez Changes in global value chains and the Covid-19 pandemic Jalušic, Vlasta, Milica Antic Gaber Equality for whom? Obstacles to women’s access to local government in Slovenia Juric Pahor, Marija Nacionalna identiteta v luci globalizacije, glokalizacije in transkulturacije K Kanjuo Mrcela, Aleksandra, Klavdija Crtalic Dostojno delo v platformni ekonomiji: oksimoron našega casa Št. revije Pos. št. Pos. št. 4 Pos. št. 3 Pos. št. 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 Št. strani 5–9 109–126 979–989 135–145 770–785 1251–1267 664–680 489–508 1018–1041 1042–1064 437–454 561–580 527–560 1351 Kolenc, Nina, Frane Erculj, Samo Pavlin Izzivi razvoja kompetenc glede na razlike v delovnem okolju: primer košarkarskega trenerja Komel, Mirt Nemirna substanca: vprašanje skupnosti v heglovi estetiki Kopac, Barbara, Boštjan Udovic Jezikovnostilne razlike in sorodnosti v govoru ruskega in slovenskega politika Kovac, Polonca Kodifikacija upravnega postopka v Sloveniji in EU: vceraj, danes, jutri Kuhar, Metka, Gaja Zager Kocjan Konglomerat travme: obremenjujoce izkušnje v otroštvu in njihovo socialno-demografsko ozadje Kumer, Peter Samoupravljanje in socialna vkljucenost v postsocialisticnem mestu: nasprotja med nacrtovanimi in samoniklimi kulturnimi soseskami L Leban, Vasja, Andrej A. Lukšic Deskriptivna rekonstrukcija pogajanj za pravno zavezujoci sporazum o gozdovih v Evropi Lengar Verovnik, Tina, Monika Kalin Golob Vpliv družbeno-politicnih sprememb na medijske jezikovne prakse: štiri desetletja po akciji slovenšcina v javnosti Logar, Nataša, Nina Perger, Vojko Gorjanc, Monika Kalin Golob, Neža Kogovšek Šalamon, Iztok Kosem Raba slovarjev v slovenski sodni praksi Lovec, Marko Pandemic as a litmus test for the grand theories of European integration M Malešic, Marjan Porocanje medija Sputnik News in odziv nanj v kontekstu strateškega komuniciranja med Rusko Federacijo in Evropsko Unijo Medvešek, Mojca Ali dvojezicna šola v prekmurju res razdvaja? Stališca staršev dijakov in ucencev o dvojezicnem izobraževanju Mikolic, Vesna Komuniciranje v turizmu kot samospoznavanje in povezovanje Milijic, Petar Income inequality in Slovenia from 1963 onwards Št. revije Št. strani 2 646–663 3 809–827 1 286–307 3 848–866 2 509–526 1 389–406 3 828–847 Pos. št. 40–54 Pos. št. 89–108 4 1086–1104 1 189–209 2 581–599 Pos. št. 71–88 3 887–908 N Novak, Meta, Damjan Lajh, Urška Štremfel Elementary and secondary school teachers and youth mobility in Slovenian schools Novak Lukanovic, Sonja Vrednost znanja jezika v gospodarstvu: izbrani raziskovalni rezultati O Oblak Crnic, Tanja, Barbara N. Brecko Learning mobility: A contact zone for cosmopolitanism or the reproduction of localism? P Pajtinka, Erik The beginnings of the european diplomatic service from the 1950s to the 1980s Pirih Svetina, Nataša Slovenšcina, ki je ni bilo v javnosti Polajnar, Neven, Igor Lukšic Avtoritarizem v kontekstu neoliberalne globalizacije vzpon avtoritarnega populizma Požgan, Jure, Ana Bojinovic Fenko, Fars Kocan “Never let a good crisis go to waste”: strengthening eu actorness amid increased competition of external actors in the Western Balkans Pribicevic, Ognjen Trump, brexit and the crisis of the liberal world order Prunc, Erich Veliki cudež malega jezika R Rahbarqazi, Mahmoudreza, Seyed Morteza Noei Baghban The link between social capital and political participation and its impact on iranian youth S Sekloca, Peter Ohranjanje zaupanja v mrežni javni sferi: problem javnih forumov in personalizacija novic Smrke, Marjan Družbene dileme v Iliadi Smrke, Marjan Sovpadanje družbenih dilem in mimikrije v Odiseji Št. revije Pos. št. Pos. št. Pos. št. 2 Pos. št. 1 4 2 Pos. št. 3 1 1 3 Št. strani 1308–1327 55–70 1232–1250 455–470 21–39 210–231 1124–1146 471–488 127–134 909–927 308–325 267–285 786–808 1353 Spruk, Jure Politološka interpretacija Magne Carte: K razumevanju politicne razsežnosti dokumenta Svetlicic, Marjan Od rdece do rumene nevarnosti: resnicnost in strahovi kitajskega vzpona v zgodovinskem okviru Svetlicic, Marjan The lessons of developed countries for Covid-19 exit strategies Š Šobot, Aleksandar, Andrej Lukšic Zavarovanje trajnostnega razvoja Nature 2000: izzivi in rešitve Šorli, Mojca Mesto znanstvene nevtralnosti v razpravi o spolskih kategorijah jezika U Udovic, Boštjan Consular protection in Slovenia during the first wave of Covid-19 V Vajda - Nagy, Nikoletta Slovenšcina v porabju: izgubljajoca se identitetna prvina manjšine, a neprecenljiv del osebnih zgodb (Esej) Vehovar, Vasja, Blaž Povž, Darja Fišer, Nikola Ljubešic, Ajda Šulc in Dejan Jontes Družbeno nesprejemljivi diskurz na facebookovih straneh novicarskih portalov Vuga Beršnak, Janja, Alenka Švab, Živa Humer, Ljubica Jelušic, Jelena Juvan, Klemen Kocjancic, Andreja Živoder, Bojana Lobe Odziv na epidemijo v vojaških družinah: pomen podpore na razlicnih socio-ekoloških ravneh Vuk, Pavel, Ela Tonin Mali Pripadnice slovenske vojske na poveljniških dolžnostih na mednarodnih operacijah in misijah Y Yereskova, Tetyana V. , Oleg V. Mazuryk, Olena S. Aleksandrova, Halyna V. Tymofieieva, Vitaliy N. Zavadskyi Uncertainty as a regular feature of modern ukrainian society Št. revije Št. strani 1 250–266 1 347–367 4 1065–1085 1 368–388 2 600–621 4 1147–1166 Pos. št. 46–151 2 622–645 3 711–730 3 731–750 3 928–946 Št. revije Št. strani Z Zajc, Drago Racionalnost oblikovanja manjšinskih vlad … Zeqiri, Mensur Why ‘positivity’ matters for government– community relationships Zgaga, Pavel, Danica Fink-Hafner Why ‘positivity’ matters for government– community relationships 1 3 Pos. št. 232–249 867–886 1216–1231 1355 NAVODILAAVTORICAMINAVTORJEM Teorija in praksa sprejema v presojo za objavo izvirna znanstvena bese­dila, ki še niso bila objavljena drugje ali niso v recenzentskem postopku pri kateri drugi znanstveni reviji oziroma monografiji. Objava clanka ali knjižne recenzije v Teoriji in praksi je brezplacna. Besedilo pošljite na elektronski naslov teorija.praksa@fdv.uni-lj.si. Besedilo naj bo v formatu A4 z 1,5-vrsticnim razmikom, tip crk Times New Roman, velikost 12, obojestransko poravnano, z robovi 2,5 cm. Vse strani besedila morajo biti zaporedno oštevilcene. Ime in priimek avtorice/avtorja naj bo izpisano na posebni naslovni strani pod naslovom prispevka, skupaj s strokovnim nazivom in trenutno zaposlitvijo, s polnim naslovom, telefonsko številko in naslovom elektronske pošte. Priimek avtorice oziroma avtorja naj bo izpisan z velikimi tiskanimi crkami. Prva oziroma zacetna stran besedila naj vsebuje le naslov besedila in povzetek besedila. Besedilo mora spremljati izjava avtorice oziroma avtorja, da besedilo še ni bilo objavljeno oziroma ni v pripravi za tisk pri kateri drugi znanstveni reviji ali monografiji. Avtorica/ avtor naj v izjavi navede svoj predlog uvrstitve besedila v skladu s tipologijo dokumentov/del (izvirni, pregledni clanek ali knjižna recenzija) za vodenje bibliografij v sistemu COBISS. O koncni uvrstitvi odloca uredništvo revije. CLANKI Znanstveni clanki v slovenskem ali angleškem jeziku naj ne presegajo 6.500 besed. V kolikor želi avtorica oziroma avtor objaviti daljše besedilo, naj se o tem predhodno posvetuje z glavnim urednikom. Clanek naj bo opremljen s povzetkom v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku v obsegu do 100 besed. Pov­zetek naj vsebuje natancno opredelitev teme besedila, metodo argumenta­cije in zakljucke. Avtorica/avtor naj navede tudi do sedem kljucnih pojmov, tako v slovenskem kakor tudi v angleškem jeziku. Naslovi morajo biti jasni in povedni. Glavni naslov, izpisan s krepkimi velikimi tiskanimi crkami, ne sme presegati dolžine 100 znakov. Besedila, daljša od 1.500 besed, morajo vsebovati podnaslove, ki so lahko najvec dvonivojski. Podnaslovi druge ravni naj bodo tiskani poševno. Tabele, grafi in slike morajo biti izdelani kot priloge (in ne vkljuceni v besedilo) z jasnimi naslovi, pri cemer naj avtorica/avtor uporabi velike tiskane crke v poševnem tisku; biti morajo zaporedno oštevilceni (Slika 1: NASLOV SLIKE, Graf 2: NASLOV GRAFA, Tabela 3: NASLOV TABELE). Vsaka tabela in slika mora biti izpisana na posebnem listu papirja. V besedilu naj bo okvirno oznaceno mesto, kamor sodi. Avtorica/avtor naj pri vsaki tabeli, grafu in sliki opredeli, koliko prostora zavzema v besedilu. Tabele, grafe in slike naj avtorica/avtor šteje v obseg besedila bodisi kot 250 besed (pol strani) ali 500 besed (celotna stran). Pod tabelami in grafi je potrebno nave-sti vir. Navedba vira naj se zakljuci s piko. Uporabljajte orodje za oblikova­nje tabel v programu Word. Tabela 1: UCINEK ODBOROV Regulativni ucinek Mešani ucinek Distribucijski ucinek BUDG, TRAN, IMCO, ECON, ENVI, ITRE, LIBE EMPL, AGRI, PECH, REGI JURI, AFET, DEVE, INTA JURI, AFET, DEVE, INTA JURI, AFET, DEVE, INTA Vir: Yordanova, 2009: 256. Opombe morajo biti v besedilu jasno oznacene z zaporednimi števil­kami od zacetka do konca, napisane na ustreznem mestu v besedilu in po enakem vrstnem redu razvršcene pod besedilom. Število in dolžina opomb naj bo omejena. Opomba o avtorici/avtorju in morebitna zahvala naj vklju-cujeta informacije o organizacijski pripadnosti avtorice/avtorja, ki so rele­vantne za obravnavano problematiko v besedilu, ter o financnih in drugih pomoceh pri pripravi besedila. Dobesedni navedki, ki so dolgi tri ali vec vrstic, naj bodo postavljeni v poseben odstavek, robovi odstavka naj bodo obojestransko zamaknjeni, besedilo naj bo v poševnem tisku in brez narekovajev. Ce so gibanja za pravice vložila svoja telesa v aktivizem in mobilizira­nje novih oblik diskurza, da bi tako omajala njihovo marginalizacijo in zatiranje, so filozofske in teoretske kritike kartezijanstva na novo pre­tehtale subjekt in ga opredelile kot hkrati razsredišcenega (ki v sebi ni v celoti koherenten) In utelešenega (ne cisti “kogito”). (Jones, 2002: 239) RECENZIJE KNJIG TIP sprejema v objavo recenzije domacih in tujih znanstvenih del, ki niso starejša od dveh let. Recenzija naj ne bo daljša od 1.500 besed. V recenziji naj se avtorica/avtor dosledno izogiba navajanju literature in virov. Recen­zija naj ne vsebuje naslova ali podnaslovov. Na zacetku recenzije naj navede podatke o sebi in recenzirani knjigi v spodaj navedeni obliki: Ime PRIIMEK Institucionalna pripadnost Ime in priimek avtorja knjige Naslov knjige: podnaslov Založnik, Kraj letnica objave, število strani, cena (ISBN številka) Janez NOVAK Fakulteta za družbene vede, UL Eviatar Zerubavel Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past The University of Chicago Press, Chicago in London 2003, 184 str., 25.00 $ (ISBN 0-226-98152-5) 1357 NAVAJANJE Osnovna oblika reference v besedilu je (Novak, 1994). Za navajanje strani naj avtorica oziroma avtor uporablja naslednjo obliko navajanja: (Novak, 1994: 27–29). Ce sta avtorja reference dva, naj avtorica oziroma avtor navede oba: (Novak in Kosec, 2007). Ce je avtorjev reference vec, naj se v tekstu uporablja naslednja oblika navajanja: (Novak et al., 1994: 27), v seznamu LITERATURE pa naj se navedejo vsi avtorji. Ce avtorica oziroma avtor besedila ne uporablja prve izdaje knjige, naj pri navajanju zabeleži tudi letnico prve izdaje: (Novak, 1953/1994: 7). Vec referenc hkrati naj avtorica oziroma avtor loci s podpi-cjem: (Novak, 1994: 7; Kosec, 1998: 3–4; 2005: 58). Pri navajanju vecjega šte­vila referenc enega avtorja, objavljenih v istem letu, naj avtorica oziroma avtor reference med seboj loci s crkami a, b, c itd.: (Novak, 1994a: 27–29; Novak, 1994b: 1), in sicer v zaporedju, v kakršnem se prvic pojavijo v besedilu. Seznam referenc sodi na konec besedila in naj ima podnaslov LITERATURA. V seznam referenc naj avtorica oziroma avtor vkljuci vso uporabljeno literaturo. Morebitne vire naj navede za seznamom referenc, in sicer s podnaslovom VIRI. Seznam referenc mora biti urejen po abecednem redu priimkov avtorjev referenc ter v primeru istega avtorja po casovnem zaporedju izdaj. Knjige Priimek, ime (letnica izdaje knjige): Naslov knjige: Podnaslov. Kraj: Založba. Geertz, Clifford (1980): Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Zborniki Priimek, Ime (ur.) (letnica izdaje knjige): Naslov knjige: Podnaslov. Kraj: Založba. Featherstone, Mike (ur.) in Mike Hepworth (ur.) (1991): The Body: Social Process and Cultural Theory. London: SAGE Publications. Samostojni sestavek ali poglavje v monografiji Priimek, Ime (letnica izdaje monografije): Naslov prispevka v zborniku. V: Ime Priimek urednika (ur.), Naslov zbornika, strani prispevka. Kraj: Založba. Palan, Ronen (1999): Global Governance and Social Closure or Who is to Governed in an Era of Global Governance? V: Martin Hewson (ur.) in Thimothy J. Sinclar (ur.), Approaches to Global Governance Theory, 55–72. Albany: State University New York Press. Clanki Priimek, Ime (letnica izida clanka): Naslov clanka. Ime revije letnik (šte­vilka): strani. Bachrach, Peter in Morton S. Baratz (1963): Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework. American Political Science Review 57 (3): 632–42. Svetovni splet (WWW) Priimek, Ime (letnica): Naslov. Dostopno prek Internetni naslov, datum dostopa. Deluze, Gilles (1978): Spinoza. Dostopno prek http://www.imaginet.fr/ deluze/TXT/420178.html, 10. 1. 2001. Viri Avtorica/avtor je sam odgovoren za spoštovanje materialnih in moralnih avtorskih pravic, povezanih z uporabo podatkov, datotek, reprodukcij in del (v nadaljevanju vir) drugih fizicnih in pravnih oseb v njegovem clanku. Avtorstvo vira, ki ga avtorica oziroma avtor uporablja v clanku in ki ni plod njegovega raziskovalnega dela, mora biti jasno razvidno v obliki ustreznega navajanja vira v seznamu VIROV in v navajanju vira v besedilu clanka. Avtorica oziroma avtor naj smiselno navede cim vec podatkov o viru, kot so na primer avtor vira, mesto oziroma institucija, v kateri se vir nahaja, naslov, ime ali opis vira, evidencna številka vira, naslov spletne strani, kraj in leto nastanka vira in podobno. Pri tem je smiselnost navajanja opredeljena kot zmožnost sledenja viru oziroma zmožnost intersubjektivne preverljivo­sti uporabljenega vira. Avtorica oziroma avtor naj navede tudi datum, ko je bil vir pridobljen, ce gre za elektronski vir. Priimek, Ime (letnica nastanka vira): Naslov/nosilec vira. Mesto hranjenja vira. Dostopno prek Internetni naslov, datum dostopa. Koprivec, Daša (2005–2008): Avdio kasete. Kustodiat za slovenske izse­ljence in zamejce SEM. Dostopno prek http://www.imaginet.fr/deluze/ TXT/420178.html, 10. 1. 2010. ali Luthar, Breda, Samo Kropivnik, Tanja Oblak, Blanka Tivadar, Mirjana Ule, Slavko Kurdija in Samo Uhan (2006): Življenjski stili v medijski družbi 2001. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Arhiv družboslovnih podatkov. Ce gre za vir iz zasebnega arhiva avtorja clanka, kakega drugega razi­skovalca ali posameznika, naj bo to jasno navedeno. Navajanje identitete lastnika vira iz zasebnega arhiva je zaželeno, vendar ne nujno, kadar gre za zašcito njegovih materialnih pravic ali varovanje njegove osebne identitete. Priimek, Ime morebitnega avtorja (morebitna letnica nastanka vira): Ime ali opis vira/arhivska številka. Mesto hranjenja vira. Zasebni arhiv. Zbirka navijaških šalov. Avtoštoparski muzej, Kanal ob Soci. Zasebni arhiv Mirana Ipavca. ali Zbirka pisem Janeza Novaka. 1953–1989. Privatni arhiv. Avtorica oziroma avtor naj v primeru znanega avtorja in leta nastanka vira 1359 uporabi enako dolocilo o navajanju v besedilu clanka, kot je to v primeru navajanja clanka, prispevka v monografiji ali monografije. Kadar avtor in leto nastanka vira nista znana, naj avtorica oziroma avtor v besedilu clanka smiselno uporabi naslov, ime ali opis vira. V primeru, da so naslov, ime ali opis vira daljši od petih besed, naj avtorica oziroma avtor pri navajanju vira smiselno uporabi zacetne besede iz naslova, imena ali opisa vira tako, da bo nedvoumno razpoznavno, kateri v seznamu literature navedeni vir navaja. (Porocilo o delu državnega zbora, 2000) ali (Zbirka navijaških šalov) Glede ostalih dodatnih oblik navajanja uporabljene literature ali virov naj se avtorica oziroma avtor obrne na uredništvo TIP. RECENZENTSKI POSTOPEK Uredništvo TIP uporablja za vse vrste clankov in za knjižne eseje obojestran­sko anonimni recenzentski postopek. Clanke in knjižne eseje recenzirata vsaj dva recenzenta. Postopek recenziranja, od oddaje besedila do seznanitve avto­rice/avtorja z recenzentskimi mnenji, traja dva meseca. Uredništvo TIP lahko brez zunanjega recenziranja zavrne objavo besedila, ce ugotovi, da avtorica oziroma avtor besedila ni pripravil v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi navodili, ali pa ce oceni, da besedilo ne sodi na znanstveno podrocje, ki ga revija pokriva. Uredništvo ima pravico, da prispevkov, ki ne ustrezajo merilom knjižne slo­venšcine (ali anglešcine, ce je clanek oddan v anglešcini; upošteva se British English) ne sprejme v recenzentski postopek. Stroški obveznega lektoriranja angleških besedil se avtorjem zaracunavajo po predhodnem dogovoru. Avtorica/avtor ima od trenutka, ko je seznanjen z recenzentskimi mnenji, tri tedne casa, da v besedilo vnese popravke in popravljeno besedilo vrne v uredništvo TIP. V primeru, ko recenzenti zahtevajo temeljitejše popravke, se popravljeno besedilo ponovno vrne recenzentu v presojo. Avtorica/avtor naj popravljenemu besedilu priloži poseben obrazec “avtorjevo porocilo”, ki ga dobi skupaj z recenzijama besedila, v katerem naj obrazloži, katere dele besedila je popravil in kako. Ce avtorica/avtor oziroma avtor meni, da so pripombe recenzenta neutemeljene, pomanjkljive ali kakorkoli nera­zumljive, naj neupoštevanje recenzentskih pripomb pojasni in utemelji v posebnem porocilu glavnemu uredniku. Avtorica/avtor in soavtorji ob objavi dobijo po en brezplacen izvod šte­vilke revije, v kateri je bil objavljen njihov prispevek. Vsak dodaten izvod stane 10 evrov (plus poštnina). Na zahtevo lahko avtorici/avtorju pošljemo brezplacen izvod njegove objave v formatu pdf. Avtorica/avtor prenese materiale avtorske pravice za objavljeni prispe­vek na izdajatelja revije. INSTRUCTIONSFORAUTHORS Submitted texts should not be previously published or the subject of a peer-review procedure for another journal or book/monograph. The publishing of an article or a book review in Teorija in praksa is free of charge. Texts should be sent to the e-mail address: teorija.praksa@fdv.uni-lj.si. A text should be in A4 format with 1.5 spacing, Times New Roman of 12-point font size, and the centre aligned with 2.5 cm margins. All pages of the text should be numbered consecutively. The first and last name of the author/s should be placed on a separate cover sheet showing the title of the article, along with their academic title and current employment, full postal address, telephone number and e-mail address. The last name of the author/s should be printed in uppercase. The initial page of the text should only include the title of the text, and the abstract. The text should be accompanied by the author/s’ statement that the text has not previously been published or is not in press with any other journal or monograph. In the statement, the author/s should also make a proposal for the article’s classification in compliance with the typology of documents/works (an original article, a review article, or a book review). The Editorial Board shall decide on the final classification of a submitted text. ARTICLES 1361 Original or review articles written in the English language (British English) should not exceed 6,500 words. If the author wishes to publish a longer text, they should first consult the Editor. An article should be accompanied by an abstract of up to 100 words, written in both Slovenian and English, contain­ing a definition of the subject under scrutiny, methods of argumentation, and conclusions. The author should also provide up to seven key words. The titles should be clear and indicative. The main title, printed in bold uppercase letters, should not exceed 100 characters. Texts longer than 1,500 words should contain subtitles of no more than two levels. The subtitles of the second level should be italicised. Tables, graphs and figures should be designed as attachments (and not included in the text), with informative titles, in uppercase letters and ital­ics; they should be numbered consecutively (Figure 1: TITLE OF FIGURE, Graph 2: TITLE OF GRAPH, Table 3: TITLE OF TABLE). Each table and fig­ure should be on a separate sheet. Their approximate positions in the text should be marked in the text. The author should determine how much space each table, graph or figure will occupy in the text. The space required for tables, graphs and pictures should be included in the total text length, as either 250 words (1/2 page) or 500 words (1 page). The sources of tables and graphs should be written below the table and graph and should end with full-stop. Use the table feature in Word to create tables. Table 1: COMMITTEE EFFECT Relugative effect Mixet effect Distributional effect BUDG, TRAN, IMCO, ECON, ENVI, ITRE, LIBE EMPL, AGRI, PECH, REGI JURI, AFET, DEVE, INTA JURI, AFET, DEVE, INTA JURI, AFET, DEVE, INTA Source: Yordanova, 2009: 256. Footnotes should be clearly marked in the text with consecutive num­bers from beginning to end; written in appropriate places in the text; and arranged in the same order under the text. Footnotes must be limited in both number and length. Notes about the author/s, as well as any acknowl­edgements, should include information on the organisation to which the author/s belongs when relevant to the subject addressed in the text, and should also include information regarding any financial or other assistance given for preparing the text. Quotations of three or more lines in length should be placed in a sepa­rate centre-aligned paragraph, with the text appearing in italics and without inverted commas. The fact that most of the posts have been liked is an evidence that citizens find the posts made by the local government interesting and useful, but they do not show any further interest by sharing the information with friends or by engaging in dialog commenting on them. (Bonsón et al., 2013: 12) BOOK REVIEWS Book reviews not older than 2 years are accepted for publication in Teorija in praksa and should contain up to 1,500 words. In a book review, the author should strictly avoid making any references to any sources and literature. The book review should not include title or subtitles. Information about the author and the reviewed book should be given at the review’s start in the form shown below: First Name LAST NAME Institutional affiliation Author’s First and Last Name Title: Subtitle Publisher, City Year of publication, number of pages, price (ISBN number) John SMITH Oxford University Eviatar Zerubavel Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 2003, 184 pages, USD 25.00 (ISBN 0-226-98152-5) REFERENCES The basic form of an in-text reference is (Smith, 1994). To indicate the page, use the following form: (Smith, 1994: 27–28). If two authors are referred to, they should both be stated: (Smith and Doe, 2007). When there are three or more authors, the following form should be used: (Smith et al., 1994: 27), while all authors should be mentioned in the reference list. If the author does not use the first edition of the book, the year the first edition was pub­lished should also be given: (Smith, 1953/1994: 7). Several simultaneous ref­erences should be separated by a semicolon: (Smith, 1994: 7; Doe, 1998: 3–4; 2005: 58). When citing several references by the same author published in the same year, references should be separated by letters a, b, c etc.: (Smith, 1994a; 27–29; Smith 1994b: 1) in the order they first appear in the text. The list of references should be placed at the end of the text, under the heading BIBLIOGRAPHY. It should only include units of literature used in the text. Sources should be listed after the list of references under the head­ing SOURCES. The bibliography should be arranged in alphabetical order of the last names of the authors and, in the case of multiple works by the same author, by the consecutive order of editions. Books Last Name, First Name (year of publication): Title of the Book: Subtitle. City: Publisher. Geertz, Clifford (1980): Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Edited Books Last Name, First Name (ed.) (year of publication): Title of the Book: Subtitle. City: Publisher. Featherstone, Mike and Mike Hepworth, Bryan S. Turner (eds.) (1991): The Body: Social Process and Cultural Theory. London: SAGE Publications. Chapters or Essays in Monographs Last Name, First Name (year of publication): Title of the Chapter/essay in the Edited Book. In First Name Last Name of the editor (ed.), Title of the Edited Book, pages of the chapter/essay. City: Publisher. Palan, Ronen (1999): Global Governance and Social Closure or Who is to Be Governed in an Era of Global Governance? In Martin Hewson and Timothy J. Sinclair (eds.), Approaches to Global Governance Theory, 55–72. Albany: State University New York Press. 1363 Articles Last Name, First Name (year of publication): Title of the Article: Subtitle. Name of Journal Volume (Number): pages. Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz (1963): Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework. American Political Science Review 57 (3): 632– 642. Internet (WWW) Last Name, First Name (year of publication): Title. Accessible at Internet address, date of access. Deluze, Gilles (1978): Spinoza. Accessible at http://www.imaginet.fr/deluze/ TXT/420178.html, 10. 1. 2001. Sources It is the author’s sole responsibility to respect the material and moral copy­rights related to the use of data, files, reproductions and works (hereinaf­ter: the source) of other natural and legal persons in his or her article. The authorship of a source an author uses which is not the outcome of their own research must be clearly identifiable by properly including the source in the list of SOURCES and by citing the source in the text. The author should give as much data as reasonably necessary about the source such as its author, city or institution, address, name or description, evidence number, webpage address, place and year of its creation, and simi­lar. Such details should allow the traceability or intersubjective verifiability of the source. With electronic sources, the author should also include the date the material was accessed. Last name, First name (year of creation of the source): Address/holder of the source. Place of keeping the source. Accessible at Internet address, date of access. Featherstone, Mike (2005–2008): Audio cassettes. National Museum of New Zealand. Available at http://www.imaginet.nz/deluxe/TXT/420178.html, 10. 1. 2010. or Activity Report of the National Assembly of Republic of Slovenia, 1996– 2000. Ljubljana: National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, 2000. If a source is the author’s private archives or those of another person, this should be clearly stated. An indication of the identity of private archives’ owner is recommended, but not necessary if this may affect the protection of their material rights or personal integrity. Last name, First Name of any author (potential year of creation of the source): Source name or description. The place where the source is kept. Private archives. Collection of supporters’ scarves. Hitcheiker Museum, Richmond upon Thames. Private archives of James Longfield. or Collection of letters by Janez Novak. 1953–1989. Private archives. When a source’s author and year of creation are known, the same way of citing it in the article text applies as for the citation of articles, chapters in a book or books. When the source’s author and year of creation are unknown, the source’s title, name or description should be used sensibly in the arti­cle text. If the title, name or description of the source consist of more than five words, the initial wording of the source’s address, name or description should be used when citing the source in the main text so that it will be clearly identifiable in the Bibliography. (Activity Report of the National Assembly, 2000) or (Collection of supporters’ scarves) Concerning other ways of citing the literature or sources used in articles, please contact the Editorial Board of Teorija in praksa. PEER-REVIEW PROCEDURE All types of articles undergo a mutually anonymous peer-review procedure organised by the Editorial Board of the journal. Articles and book essays are to be reviewed by no fewer than two reviewers. As a rule, the review procedure takes 2 months from submission of a text to notification of the reviewers’ opinions. The publication of a text can be rejected by the Edito­rial Board without any external review if the text does not follow the instruc­tions given above, or falls outside of the scientific fields covered by Teorija in praksa. The author shall improve the text and re-submit the improved text to the Editorial Board within 3 weeks of being notified of the reviews. When extensive improvements are required by the reviewers, the author should resubmit the improved text for the reviewers’ reassessment. A special sheet, “Author’s Report”, sent to the author along with the reviews of the text, must be sent as an attachment to the improved text by the author, explaining which parts of the text have been improved, and how. If the author finds a reviewer’s comment to be unfounded, deficient or unclear in any way, they should justify their potential disregard of the reviewer’s comment in a special report to the Editor in Chief. The Editorial Board reserves the right 1365 not to commence the review procedure of papers which failed to meet the standards of formal written language. Every author is entitled to one free copy of the issue in which their article appeared. Each additional copy may be purchased for EUR 10, plus postage. Upon request, the author(s) may be provided with a pdf file of their article free of charge. The cost of mandatory language editing of English texts will be charged to authors on prior agreement. Published papers become the material copyright of the Journal’s publisher.