m p institutions’and structural effects&of& youth...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Grant Agreement N° 649263 Mapping Mobility – Pathways,
Institutions and Structural Effects of Youth Mobility
Deliverable N° D3.5 – Patterns of youth mobility:
results from the qualitative case studies -‐ integrated public report
Contractual delivery date: 31.08.2017
Actual delivery date:
31.08.2017
Responsible partner: P2: UH
2
Deliverable number D3.5
Deliverable title
Deliverable N° D3.5 – Patterns of youth mobility: results
from the qualitative case studies -‐
integrated public report
Nature Report
Dissemination level Public
Work package number WP3
Work package leader P2
Editors Alice Altissimo, Agnetha Bartels, Andreas Herz,
Wolfgang Schröer
Authors
P2: Alice Altissimo, Agnetha Bartels, Andreas Herz,
Wolfgang Schröer
P1: Markus Däubler, Emilia Kmiotek-‐Meier, Birte
Nienaber, Sahizer Samuk, Volha Vysotskaya
P3: Karen Hemming, Tabea Schlimbach
P4: Ioana Manafi, Daniela Marinescu, Laura Muresan,
Monica Roman
P5: Zsuzsanna Dabasi-‐Halász, Petronella Doszpoly,
Klaudia Horváth, Katalin Lipták
P6: Tuba Ardic, Martina Christen, Roger Hestholm, Irina
Pavlova, Jan Skrobanek
P7: Elisabet Pallarés Cardona, Cristina Cuenca, Celia
Díaz-‐Catalán, Ricardo Zúñiga
Keywords
youth mobility, patterns of youth mobility, EU,
qualitative case studies, higher education, voluntary
work, employment, vocational training, pupils'
exchange, entrepreneurship, MOVE
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 649263. The author is solely responsible for its content, it does not represent the opinion of the European Commission and the Commission is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein.
3
1 Table of contents
1 Table of contents ................................................................................................................. 3
2 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 5
3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 5
4 “Youth mobility” in Europe – the approach of WP 3 ........................................................... 7 4.1 Youth as "enablement" ........................................................................................... 9 4.2 A relational perspective on patterns of youth mobility ........................................... 10
5 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 11 5.1 Research questions ................................................................................................ 11 5.2 Multiple case design ............................................................................................... 12
5.2.1 The qualitative research process in MOVE ....................................................... 13 5.2.2 Qualitative interviews and network maps ........................................................ 14 5.2.3 Interview guides (for interviews with youth and with experts) .......................... 14
5.3 Sampling criteria and sample ................................................................................. 15 5.4 Analysis ................................................................................................................. 16
5.4.1 Initial coding and coding tableau ..................................................................... 17 5.4.2 Focused coding: condensing the data .............................................................. 18 5.4.3 Synopsis: extracting patterns of mobility ......................................................... 19 5.4.4 Linking the patterns of mobility to the mobility fields ..................................... 19
6 Results from six mobility fields and countries ................................................................... 20 6.1 Higher Education .................................................................................................. 20 6.2 Voluntary Work .................................................................................................... 22 6.3 Employment .......................................................................................................... 23 6.4 Vocational educational training ............................................................................. 25 6.5 Pupils’ exchange .................................................................................................... 27 6.6 Entrepreneurship .................................................................................................. 29
7 Patterns of Mobility ........................................................................................................... 30 7.1 Peers as mobility incubators ................................................................................... 30
7.1.1 Peer-‐pressure, finding new peers and relevant familial peers ........................... 31 7.1.2 Peer bubbles, peer challenges and transnational relationships ......................... 34 7.1.3 My mobile alter ego and me ............................................................................. 35 7.1.4 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `peers as mobility incubator’ across mobility fields ............................................................................................................. 37
4
7.2 Learning something through mobility .................................................................... 38 7.2.1 New experiences as learning processes ............................................................ 38 7.2.2 Positioning in relationships as learning process ............................................... 39 7.2.3 Adapting to structures as learning process ...................................................... 40 7.2.4 Comparison of the pattern of mobility ‘learning something through mobility’ across mobility fields .................................................................................................. 41
7.3 Institutionalized work and education as national enabling patterns ....................... 42 7.3.1 The institutionality of education ...................................................................... 43 7.3.2 The institutionality of work ............................................................................. 44 7.3.3 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `institutionalized work and education as national enabling patterns’ across mobility fields ....................................................... 46
7.4 Organisational membership, the crux of mobility ................................................... 47 7.4.1 Membership in programmes and organisations ............................................... 47 7.4.2 The awarding of membership .......................................................................... 50 7.4.3 Paperwork and the wish to have an outcome ................................................... 51 7.4.4 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `organisational membership, the crux of mobility’ across mobility fields .................................................................................... 53
7.5 Youth with ambivalent youth practices .................................................................. 54 7.5.1 Doing youth by doing boundary work .............................................................. 54 7.5.2 Doing youth by doing individual vs. collective coping strategies ...................... 57 7.5.3 Working through bureaucratic challenges as collective youth practice ............. 58 7.5.4 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `youth with ambivalent youth practices’ across mobility fields ................................................................................................. 59
7.6 The dilemma of the revolving door ........................................................................ 60 7.6.1 Breaking away from the parental home, searching for free space .................... 61 7.6.2 Going out of Europe, organised breakout ....................................................... 62 7.6.3 Breaking out by going farther away ................................................................ 62 7.6.4 Media as an obstacle to (digitally) breaking out ............................................... 63 7.6.5 Focussing on the dilemma of the revolving door ............................................. 65 7.6.6 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `the dilemma of the revolving door’ across mobility fields ................................................................................................. 66
7.7 Concluding remarks on the patterns of youth mobility ........................................... 67
8 Discussion of hindering and fostering factors ................................................................... 67 8.1 European Level ..................................................................................................... 68 8.2 Socio-‐structural, institutional and organisational aspects ..................................... 69 8.3 Personal Level ........................................................................................................ 70 8.4 Specific instruments .............................................................................................. 70
9 References ......................................................................................................................... 75
5
Annex – Data Documentation ................................................................................................. 75 CaseIDs in WP3 ............................................................................................................... 78 Language and pseudonymisation in the interview .......................................................... 78 Rules for transcription .................................................................................................... 78 Referencing interview data in D3.5 ................................................................................. 79
2 Acknowledgements
This report D3.5 synthesises two years of intense exchange and joint work from Workpackage 3 (WP3) within the MOVE project as patterns of youth mobility in Europe. The report was authored by the team of the University of Hildesheim (Agnetha Bartels, Alice Altissimo, Andreas Herz, Wolfgang Schröer) and is based on the work of all the partners, which is recorded in the non-‐public report Deliverable 3.4. D3.4 forms the basis for the development of the patterns of mobility presented in this report. To clarify the work in WP3 as well as the work of all partners, this report also presents the results from previous stages in WP3 (D3.3 and, in particular, D3.4). As leaders of WP3, we are very grateful to all the partners involved in the process: Tuba Ardic, Zsuzsanna Dabasi-‐Halász, Celia Díaz-‐Catalán, Laura Díaz Chorne, Cristina García Cuenca, Karen Hemming, Roger Hestholm, Klaudia Horváth, Ute Karl, Emilia Kmiotek-‐Meier, Katalin Lipták, Ioana Manafi, Daniela Marinescu, Laura Muresan, Birte Nienaber, Elisabet Pallarés Cardona, Irina Pavlova, Birgit Reißig, Monica Roman, Sahizer Samuk, Tabea Schlimbach, Jan Skrobanek, and Volha Vysotskaya from the following institutions involved in MOVE: Université de Luxembourg, University of Hildesheim, Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V., Academia De Studii Economice Din Bucuresti, University of Miskolc, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences / Høgskulen på Vestlandet, and Ilustre Colegio Nacional de Doctores y Licenciados en Ciencias Politicas y Sociologia. We would also like to give special thanks to our so-‐called "critical friends" and to our internal reviewers: Celia Díaz-‐Catalán, Emilia Kmiotek-‐Meier, Sahizer Samuk, Birte Nienaber, Tabea Schlimbach and Volha Vysotskaya. They provided us with helpful remarks and fruitful suggestions throughout the process. We are also very grateful to our research students Alison Adams, Theresa Brust, Martina Christen, Sophie Geissler, Inka Janssen, Hanna Marxen, Paul Schlütter, Clemens Schmidt and Christin Warkentin for their support, as well as to Anne Ellen Koth and Anja Löbert and colleagues for their valuable proof-‐reading and translations.
3 Executive Summary
This report is the final condensation of the results collected in the MOVE project’s qualitative workpackage, in which interviews with young people and experts in youth mobility were conducted and analysed. The report presents patterns of youth mobility in Europe at a high degree of abstraction. By doing so, it provides innovative answers to the project’s and the work package’s research questions, provokes further discussion and calls for more research in the field of youth mobility in Europe.
6
First, the report presents the project’s research questions specific to the qualitative workpackage (WP 3). Next, it offers a framework along the lines of the current scientific discourses that guided the qualitative research process: Mobility is depicted as a mode of inclusion in Europe; youth is discussed as achievement/capability; youth and mobility are then integrated by adopting a relational agency perspective. Agency is discussed not as a subjective human characteristic, but within a temporal and relational context of action in this WP (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Stauber, 2014)
The chapter concerning the methods used in the qualitative workpackage in MOVE provides a brief insight into a highly complex process of inductive data analysis that took place during the past 27 months within the consortium. The process involved cross-‐country data analysis, joint coding and sharing, and the writing up of results. The core of this report consists of the patterns of mobility arising from the data analysis: Each pattern presents a specificity of youth mobility in Europe across different mobility fields. Since this report presents the results of a qualitative study, the patterns occur differently in each mobility field, as will be discussed after detailed presentation of the patterns. The following provides an overview:
1) The first pattern of mobility presents peers1 as mobility incubators, showing that peer relationships are, in fact, the main context within which youth mobility is bred, induced or hampered. Hence, the role of peer influence should not be underestimated when discussing youth mobility and the factors that foster or hinder it.
2) The second pattern introduces the idea of learning something through mobility. This learning process and the possibility of “doing something else” (e.g. instead of learning in formal contexts) are seen as legitimizing mobility. Mobility itself is not sufficient and needs to be enriched by additional processes and activities.
3) The third pattern of mobility, institutionalized work and education as national enabling patterns, shows that it is not only personal contexts – such as peers, family and other social networks – and social background that function as enabling contexts for youth mobility. Rather, peer and family relations are always interwoven with forms of institutionalisation, such as education and work. This is why youth mobility cannot take place apart from the prevailing socially distinct and unequal arrangements and regimes and manifestations of these forms of institutionalisation (e.g. school curricula, equipment at educational institutions, etc.). Therefore, a perspective that relates them to one another is useful for the discussion about youth mobility.
4) Organisational membership is the core and the crux of mobility and constitutes the fourth pattern of mobility in Europe. This notion derives from the recognition that mobility can only take place if youth become members of organisations. This is necessary in order to gain access to funding, information and guidance in the process of becoming mobile, which is more difficult to organise without such membership. This pattern of mobility is relevant, because it raises the issue of how youth are granted membership to which organisations.
1 In MOVE's workpackage 3, the peer concept includes status-‐equivalent others, not age-‐equivalent others.
7
5) Young mobile people connect their mobility to their wish to become independent and to “go out”2. These ambitions can be framed as a specific set of youth practices and the data show that these practices are contextualised by most of the young people as relevant to their age group, but that within the process of youth mobility, they receive a diverging connotation (e.g. learning, achieving something).
6) Youth associate their mobility and leaving home with the wish to “break out”3. Nevertheless, it is more a process of “moving in” than one of “moving out”: While becoming mobile, they experience practices that introduce them to bureaucratic structures and procedures, to new practices of everyday life, to norms and practices of working society, etc. Youth mobility cannot be seen as a way to break out, but should be seen rather as an initiation, an entrance to contexts of society (i.e. education, work and family). Thus, the sixth pattern is the dilemma of the revolving door.
Following the presentation of each pattern of mobility, the connection is made to the six different mobility fields studied in detail in MOVE (higher education, voluntary work, employment, vocational educational training, pupil’s exchange, and entrepreneurship). Each section depicts the manifestation of the patterns of mobility for each field of mobility, in order then to compare them across the fields. Finally, as a result of the qualitative analyses, including the patterns of mobility described above, the last chapter presents hindering and fostering factors to be found on various levels: European policy on youth mobility, the socio-‐structural institutional aspect, organisational aspects, specific instruments, and the personal level.
4 “Youth mobility” in Europe – the approach of WP 3
Youth mobility in European Union programmes is often negotiated / treated as increasing youth’s employability and strengthening citizenship (European Commission, 2009). To this end, positive connotations for both the individual and Europe are ascribed to youth mobility. This view leads to the expectation that young people should be willing to become mobile at all costs and that mobility should support them in their personal growth and learning processes. WP3 of the MOVE project poses the question of how youth mobility can be `good` for the individual young person and for European society at large, by placing the focus on exploring mobility as a social process of agency, rather than as an individual achievement. Therefore, this report discusses the social-‐structural qualities of patterns of mobility, seen as social constellations that are of significance for young people's agency as they go through transitions such as mobility. MOVE's central research question is “How can young people's mobility be ‘good’ both for socio-‐economic development and for their individual development and what are the factors that foster/hinder such beneficial mobility?” This question overlaps with the EU's Youth 2 In this document, the phrase “to go out” is used both in a metaphorical and a literal sense. It signifies both young people’s wish and their actual act of leaving their homes, moving, going abroad, immigrating or emigrating temporarily. 3 The phrase “to break out” is used similarly as “to go out”, while strengthening the aspect of the youth’s wish to become independent, to explore their own agency and to break free from formal structures.
8
Strategy (European Commission, 2009), which opens up additional opportunities for young people to participate across borders by means of active citizenship, while also being designed to improve their employability. The whole assumption is, in fact, that cross-‐border “mobility” in Europe can be a fundamental means of both extending European citizens' individual spheres of enablement and, in turn, improving the socio-‐economic conditions that open up those spheres. When the term “youth mobility” is used in this WP, the focus is on a kind of youth mobility that has mainly been introduced by European Union programmes. By focusing on EU programmes, mobility among young people in Europe can be analysed from a point of view that identifies mobility as a mode of inclusion in Europe (see Cairns, 2014). Admittedly, young people's mobility has always been a central symbol and fundamental component of European unification and the European Union. Even during the very first stages of its foundation, exchange programmes were organised for and by young people, to build bridges of understanding between the different countries. Youth mobility is thus deeply rooted in the history of the EU as a mode of inclusion in Europe.4 The fundamental idea of the youth exchange programmes was to send the world the message that the next generation would create a peaceful Europe together, jointly establishing civil society and economic structures. Young people were declared the quintessential actors behind Europe's civil society and economic area. Today, there is still a huge number and variety of youth programmes in the EU, due to the EU's interest in offering young people incentives to spend time in other countries (see Altissimo, Herz, & Schröer, 2017). Programmes fostering youth mobility in the EU are Erasmus+, an EC programme running from 2014 to 2020 that integrates previous EU programmes such as the student exchange programme Erasmus, Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs, Comenius for school education, and Leonardo da Vinci for vocational training. Erasmus, for example, was launched in 1987, to enable international student exchange at the level of higher education. Since then, approximately 3 million students have enjoyed mobility thanks to this programme (King, Lulle, Morosanu, & Williams, 2016). Another such initiative is the „Learning Network on Transnational Mobility Measures for Disadvantaged Youth and Young Adults“ (TLN Mobility), which aims at fighting youth unemployment and which 15 countries and regions are involved in. At the same time, youth mobility is being offset by the political regulation of migration in Europe. In the early years of the EU, youth mobility and migration still overlapped, since the discussion on migration was mainly restricted to the European area. In recent years, however, the political evaluation of them has begun to diverge. Youth mobility thus comes across as an achievement of the European Union and a driving force behind active citizenship. It is linked, in particular, to prospects for economic advancement or prosperity, as well as to cultural education and civil society development. Migration, by contrast, tends to be stigmatized and is often associated with social burdens and exclusion (see Schröer & Sting, 2003). Overall, there is a line of argument in which the dissolution of global economic boundaries has led to a shift in views on youth mobility and mobility in general. Youth mobility represents a mode of inclusion that can be used to provide young people in Europe transnational qualifications for the European economy and to strengthen their status as
4 During the past few years, a shift from cultural unification to inclusion could be noted within the EU programmes for youth. In December 2014, the EC published its “Inclusion and Diversity Strategy – in the field of youth”: https://www.salto-‐youth.net/downloads/4-‐17-‐3103/InclusionAndDiversityStrategy.pdf.
9
European citizens. Migration is becoming a symbol of policies that embrace boundary-‐setting and exclusion (see Hess, 2010). This divergence is relevant, because mobility during youth could be seen as a means for young people to detach from their milieu of origin and reposition themselves, gaining access to new relationships and spheres (see 7.5). Moreover, Europe is currently empirically characterised by a large number of forced or chosen mobilities of young people, who are on the move in Europe both with and without their families, both as citizens and as undocumented aliens.5
4.1 Youth as "enablement"
In discussion of youth mobility, the main focus is placed on mobility, rather than on the question of how to define youth. There is a general political assumption that young people are particularly open to cross-‐border mobility and that cross-‐border mobility has a significant effect on them during youth (see Cairns, 2014). Youth is ultimately seen here as a stage of life characterised by openness and flexibility. Behind this assumption, there also lies the classic generational notion that the future of our lives together in European society can be shaped, to some extent, by moulding youth politically (see Woodman & Wyn, 2015). Going beyond these general approaches, the debate in the European Union on youth mobility is characterised by an image of youth that stays within the limits of a person-‐in-‐environment approach: highlighting young people's individual achievements, as well as their social resources and conditions, and thus examining both individual abilities and social entitlements (see European Commission, 2009). It is in this context that the hindering and fostering factors in their individual and social conditions are discussed. Implicitly, in terms of its social aspirations, this perspective is found in an approach that sees youth as a structure of enablement. In youth studies, this can be summed up as a theory of justice falling under the capability approach. From this point of view, the social structure of youth mobility is assessed according to how it transforms youth into an opportunity for fulfilment (see Clark, 2015), both economically and within civil society, in the face of diverse personal life circumstances. In this respect, youth mobility is seen as an expectation and an opportunity for young people to develop their own individual abilities. A real expectation is being created that, on the one hand, young people will be prepared to be mobile in Europe and, on the other, that youth mobility is an opportunity for them to improve themselves. According to the logic of the European Commission's programmes, the social potential and socio-‐political opportunities of youth mobility lie within this sphere of enablement. Youth mobility is, accordingly, meant to provide a social opportunity for young people to step outside of their local circumstances and, through the programmes, to extend their scope for 5 Forced migration of undocumented, non-‐EU youth does not fall within the scope of the project. However, since third country citizens are highly relevant actors within mobility programmes, and since the idea behind EU programmes is also to bring non-‐EU experience and non-‐EU citizens to the EU, these topics are very relevant to the research field of youth mobility. They should be placed on future research agendas, with the aim, for example, of uncovering and improving policies that are not sufficiently inclusive vis-‐à-‐vis third country nationals and young refugees.
10
action in their personal lives, both economically and within civil society. In terms of the theory of justice, the question to be asked of youth mobility in the different programmes is the extent to which it leads to an opportunity for social fulfilment (see Clark 2015) for all young citizens of Europe or, for example, whether that opportunity depends on gender or class stratification and disparities or on local and social backgrounds.
4.2 A relational perspective on patterns of youth mobility
In the following chapters, patterns of mobility are developed out of the empirical data in the qualitative investigation. Here, the subject is not initially examined from the point of view of the programme's political logic or a person-‐in-‐environment approach. Instead, the focus is shifted to the definition of agency on which the MOVE project is based, as a sensitising concept. This provides a broader perspective and helps identify patterns of mobility that, in the empirical data, have proven to foster or to hinder young people's agency in youth mobility programmes. One of the definitions of “agency” used by the MOVE project (see D3.1: "Mobility/Migration and Agency within the MOVE project -‐ Linking Theory and Methodology", 2015), sensitising the MOVE project’s qualitative WP3, does not focus on the young people's agency as individual characteristics or subjective personal attributes affecting mobility. Moreover, beyond this context, the aim is not to focus primarily on the socio-‐structural conditions – as in MOVE’s report discussing the results of the secondary data analysis D2.4 – that lead to more or less youth mobility between the various territories within the EU member states and thus to address the theme of the general push and pull factors surrounding mobility.6 The definition of agency used in the qualitative WP3 is an expanded version of the socio-‐ecological model (see Bronfenbrenner, 1983; Biesta & Tedder, 2006), which understands agency in youth as a structural quality of personal relationships and living circumstances during youth as they are experienced by young people on a daily basis. “The socio-‐ecological perspective allows us to draw attention to the achievement-‐of-‐agency-‐in context and the contexts themselves. Social networks, social relationships, institutions and organisations, material conditions, etc. can then be analysed as fostering and hindering factors for the achievement of agency and the change in agentic orientations” (see MOVE D3.1, pp. 13-‐14). Within this framework, patterns of mobility are seen as learning contexts that enable young people to go through transitions (see Biesta & Tedder, 2006). Thus, agency is viewed as an interactive and, ultimately, relational structural quality of the kind that characterises trajectories (see Emirbayer and Mische, 1998). Learning is not invoked as a process that individual agents go through, but as a social process, which always also reaches beyond a specific situation and thus also has a forward-‐ and backward-‐looking dimension (see Biesta & Tedder, 2006). Overall, in WP3 of the MOVE project, patterns of mobility are elaborated on the basis of qualitative data, wherein young people's agency can be understood relationally as a structural quality of social relationships and constellations. In following this approach, the MOVE project assumes that mobility can have a positive effect on young people's agency. It
6 MOVE links the concept of agency for WP3 with youth on page 102 of the annex to Deliverable 2.4, which was accepted by the European Commission.
11
looks into the social-‐structural quality of patterns of mobility, which are seen as social constellations that are of significance for young people's agency as they go through transitions – in our case, mobility.
5 Methods
This chapter provides detailed insight into the process of data collection and analysis that took place in the qualitative workpackage in MOVE. Information about data documentation can be found in the annex.
• Qualitative multiple case design including six mobility fields (higher education, voluntary work, employment, vocational training, pupil´s exchange, entrepreneurship) and six countries (Luxembourg, Germany, Romania, Hungary, Norway, Spain)
• Data: n=206 problem-‐centred in-‐depth interviews with young mobile people and n=36 with experts in youth mobility
• Analysis: country-‐internal, cross-‐country and mobility field analysis focused on six topics (six internal reports from the countries with the focus on two types of mobility D3.4); further theorisation as a synopsis constructing patterns of mobility (including link between patterns of mobility and six mobility fields)
5.1 Research questions
This report presents the project’s findings as collected by way of qualitative research. The research questions that were tackled in the qualitative WP3 were based upon the general research questions to which the MOVE project aims to provide answers: The main research question is: How can the mobility of young people be ‘good’ both for socio-‐economic development and for the individual development of young people and what are the factors that foster/hinder such beneficial mobility? Based on an interdisciplinary and multilevel research approach, the main objectives of MOVE are to:
[1] carry out a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of the mobility of young people in the EU;
[2] generate systematic data about young people’s mobility patterns in Europe based on case studies, a mobility survey and on secondary data analysis;
[3] provide a quantitative integrated database on European youth mobility; [4] offer a data-‐based theoretical framework in which mobility can be reflected, thus
contributing to the scientific and political debates on the subject; [5] explore factors that foster and factors that hinder good practice7, based on an
integrative approach involving both qualitative and quantitative evidence;
7 “Good practice” is pragmatically defined as practices that are satisfactory for the young people: supporting their self-‐esteem, agency and social participation. Moreover, “good practice” means practices that reduce negative impacts of mobility on the regional level and contribute to the overcoming of social inequalities: including those based on gender, socio-‐economic condition and disabilities.
12
[6] provide evidence-‐based knowledge and recommendations for policy makers through the development of good-‐practice models, in order to
a. make research-‐informed recommendations for interventions to facilitate and improve the institutional, legal and programmatic frames of mobility with regard to different forms and types of mobility, as well as to the conditions/constraints of mobility for young people in Europe;
b. provide advice and expertise to those countries facing significant challenges in relation to the geographical mobility of young workers.
Each of the three empirical workpackages in the MOVE project aims at answering the research questions from a specific perspective. For the qualitative research perspective in WP 3, the general research question was broken down into a collection of sub-‐questions. These questions provided a starting point for the qualitative analysis, which looks into both young people’s and experts’ understandings of youth mobility. In the qualitative research process, the questions were further developed, leading to the following questions, which are particularly relevant in WP3: • What kind of support and obstacles are identified by the young people? • How do young people form (transnational) relationships? • What role do social networks play for different forms of mobility? • How is the movement framed? • How is mobility possible as a process of learning by going abroad? • Which strategies do the young people describe as strategies for achieving agency and
what are the factors hindering or fostering the achievement of agency? • How does their mobility experience affect their identity-‐building process (as European
citizens)? • What is their perspective on future plans regarding their place of residence, plans for
studying and work, family plans? • What is the situation they face in their countries of origin and their host countries? • How are virtual mobility and transnational movements embedded in different forms of
mobility? The concrete process involved in the qualitative data collection and analysis will be described in the next chapter.
5.2 Multiple case design
Doing qualitative research in a multinational study is a complex endeavour and studies of a similar scale seldom present the full picture of the qualitative research process. In keeping with the core criterion of qualitative research – intersubjective confirmability (Steinke 2007, pp. 324ff.) – we agree that it is necessary to make the whole process visible, in order to understand what is of relevance for youth mobility in Europe. Given this, the following report aims at making the research process as comprehensible as possible. Parts of the work done in MOVE’s qualitative workpackage (WP3), which provides the basis for this report (Deliverable 3.5), were already elaborated in deliverable 3.3. D3.3 consisted of a compilation of all the research guidelines (“How-‐Tos”) developed by the WP3 Leader (UH, P2) at the University of Hildesheim (UH) to ensure the coherence of the research process within the workpackage. Furthermore, deliverable 3.4 also provided an important basis for this report: D3.4 was the internal report on six mobility types and countries, displaying the breadth of the data and qualitative data analysis involved in the project. The following
13
sections briefly present the research undertaken on an aggregate level from the perspective of the WP3 Leader (UH, P2). They do not describe the methods in as much detail as D3.3 and D3.4, because the focus of this more succinct report is on the presentation of results. However, in keeping with Steinke’s above-‐mentioned criterion of intersubjective confirmability (Steinke 2007, pp. 324ff), it is necessary to portray the work accomplished in a precise manner.
5.2.1 The qualitative research process in MOVE
MOVE employs a multiple case design (Yin, 2014) in studying the above-‐mentioned questions. This is not a matter of a simple combination of separate case studies, but rather includes also a comparative level of analysis. Thus, MOVE builds on different cases or levels of comparison (Ragin & Becker, 1992):
• Young mobile people, e.g. their experiences and networks
• Mobility fields (higher education, voluntary work, employment, vocational training, pupil´s exchange, entrepreneurship)
• The specificity of the respective contexts of the different countries (Luxembourg, Germany, Romania, Hungary, Norway, Spain)
The multiple case study in MOVE was designed so that each mobility field (also called “mobility type”) was studied in two countries (e.g. entrepreneurship mobility was looked at by the partners in Romania and in Spain). At the same time, two types of youth mobility were studied in each country (e.g. in Norway, pupil’s exchange and employment were investigated). By virtue of this design, comparisons could be made within mobility fields (across countries) and within countries (across mobility fields). While both levels of comparison were already addressed in D3.4, this public report (D3.5) presents the topical synopsis, linking topics back to the six mobility fields.
Figure 3.1.: Multiple case design in MOVE
14
5.2.2 Qualitative interviews and network maps
Workpackage 3 constitutes the main qualitative research approach within the MOVE project. Since the aims of the project are to gain insights into the experiences of youth while enjoying mobility abroad, to understand what leads to youth mobility, and to identify its negative and/or positive outcomes, WP3 focuses on understanding what promotes or prevents mobility from the perspective of the young mobile people themselves. In order to “gain insight into their understanding of support and their strategies in their everyday lives” (Altissimo 2016, paragraph 2.1), we chose a method that offers the possibility of disclosing both subjective meaning in an explorative manner and the agency of young mobile people from a relational perspective: a qualitative interview combined with so-‐called qualitative network maps (concentric circles). In general, interviews were used to be able to grasp the experiences from the perspective of young people by way of their own narratives. Interviews as a method are “a powerful way to gain insight into educational and other important social issues through understanding the experience of the individuals whose lives reflect those issues” (Seidman, 2006, p. 14). More specifically, in combination with network maps, qualitative, semi-‐structured and problem-‐centred interviews were conducted with (1) 18-‐29 years old mobile youth and (2) experts in the field of youth mobility. Problem-‐centred interviews, as a specific form of qualitative interviewing, follow a discursive approach and allow us to bridge the gap between deductive and inductive procedures. Narratives are encouraged and used for further exploration of the problem (in our context: mobility) in a dialogical way (see Witzel & Reiter, 2012, pp. 30-‐31). As already mentioned, the interviews were combined with qualitative network methods. Hollstein makes a case for qualitative network methods, stating that they “offer special tools for addressing challenges faced in network research, namely to explicate the problem of agency, linkages between network structure and network actors, as well as questions relating to the constitution and dynamics of social networks“ (Hollstein, 2011, p. 404). So-‐called network maps – also known as ego-‐centred network maps or concentric circles (see Herz, Peters, & Truschkat, 2015) – help visually to reveal the structure of the personal relationships from the perspective of ego (young mobile people or experts). While ego-‐centred networks are defined as "the ties between one focal actor (ego) and other actors (alteri) in his or her direct neighbourhood within the network, as well as the ties between those actors (alter-‐alter ties)" (Herz, 2012, p. 133), the maps help to reveal the exact relationships surrounding ego. Thanks to the perspective offered by these visually-‐mapped relationships, questions can be addressed from a relational perspective: such as “How is mobility relationally framed?” and “How do relations play a hindering and/or fostering role?”. Furthermore, the method also facilitates a focused analysis of structure-‐agency interlinkages within the mobility experiences of young people. The network maps are used here mainly to stimulate narration and will not be further presented in D3.5.
5.2.3 Interview guides (for interviews with youth and with experts)
The interview guides for the interviews encompass the following major topics connected to youth mobility (the interview guides are included in D3.3).
• Mobility experience (being abroad, circumstances before/during the stay abroad) • Relationships (supported by use of a network map)
15
• Support and obstacles/circumstances • Evaluation/situation after stay abroad
Network maps were specifically used to generate dense descriptions of the mobility experiences and to focus on their relational quality, i.e. support, conflicts, fostering and hindering aspects, and frames of mobility. They accomplished this, inasmuch as they allow relationships to be visually mapped and they encourage interviewees to talk about them.
Figure 3.2.: Network map used in WP3 (in A2 format)
5.3 Sampling criteria and sample
The main sampling criteria listed below were discussed by all partners and specified with respect to the mobility fields they were examining. Thus, these criteria represent points of reference, while each mobility type could also suggest additional criteria. The sampling criteria were:
• Age of participants: 18-‐29 years old (for interviews with youth). • Gender: MOVE aims to have a balanced sample in WP3. • Point in time of the interview: During or after moves or periods of mobility. Currently
mobile people or those who have recently moved, i.e. maximum one year after they “concluded” a period of mobility, were considered target respondents.
• Citizenship and residence status: This was discussed as a critical starting point, because there are many different kinds of statuses across Europe, each one with specific legal and social consequences. Each country in the EU regulates differently how citizenship is acquired, so citizenship may not have anything to do with mobility in a person’s biography in general or with the specific form of mobility we are examining.
• Temporary frame of mobility: This criterion is linked to the actual length of the person’s stay in a country: 3 months (minimum) to 1 year; between 1 year and 3 years; more than 3 years. (Exception: minimum 2 weeks for pupil’s exchange and vocational training mobility).
• Language: The interviews were conducted in the language preferred by the interviewees, provided that both researchers and respondents speak this language well enough to feel comfortable during the interview and can express themselves freely and easily.
16
• Direction: Directionality in mobility (“incoming“/“outgoing“). Partners focussed not only on one direction of movement, but to have at least two respondents from the other “direction” too.
Data collection began in September 2015 with interviewers using the first draft of the interview guides. Main data collection occurred between January 2016 and December 2016. The processing of the interview material (writing of summaries, (partial) transcriptions, coding, memoing8/taking notes) was completed in January 2017. For each type of mobility, a minimum of 30 interviews with young people and 2 interviews with experts were conducted (see D3.4 for details). MOVE collected n=242 interviews with young mobile people and experts. Table 3.1.: Overview of interviews conducted in MOVE
Field Country Youth Expert higher education Luxembourg 15 2 Hungary 25 3 voluntary work Germany 15 3 Romania 19 2 employment Luxembourg 15 3 Norway 15 2 vocational training Germany 16 4 Spain 17 5 pupil’s exchange Hungary 17 2 Norway 15 2 entrepreneurship Spain 19 5 Romania 18 3 total 206 36
5.4 Analysis
While earlier steps in the analytical process followed an approach designed to document and deal with the magnitude of the qualitative data and to develop a shared coding frame, later steps applied methods developed in Grounded Theory Methodology (initial, focused and theoretical coding). Grounded Theory Methodology is defined as a systematic comparative method in each stage of the analysis, which leads finally to a data-‐based theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992). The advantages of such a method of qualitative analysis for the MOVE project, and for the questions it poses about youth mobility and agency/structure, is that it provides openness during the whole process and allows for clarification or debunking of assumptions made by interviewees. The analysis of the qualitative data occurred in four major steps, as explained in detail below:
8 An important analytical step in Grounded Theory Methodology, as will be explained in the following section.
17
Table 3.4.: Overview of analysis and synopsis leading to D3.5
Steps of Analysis Description Initial coding
• Coding: Assigning parts of material to codes/ topics
• open/thematic coding/qualitative content analysis (coding frame)
• Writing memos in the software
• Finding topics that “show up” in the material (data-‐driven codes)
• Reducing amount of material
• Code tableau Focused coding
• Analysis meetings focused on single topics/sequences (in-‐depth analysis via “codes for coding” and “analytic tools”)
• Writing “write-‐ups”
• Writing up “meaning”, tracing relations between different topics
• Topic-‐related write-‐ups: based on sequence(s), memos, analysis meetings condensed in D 3.4
Theoretical coding (synopsis) • generalizing patterns of mobility
• “reflection” Linking fields of mobility to patterns of mobility • Communicative validation with partners
• Development of a field*pattern matrix
5.4.1 Initial coding and coding tableau
During the explorative phase, data documentation and the selection of sequences were based on interview summaries as a first step in the analysis (see details in D3.3). Most partners in MOVE then turned to the use of analysis software to store, code and memo interviews and network maps during the main phase of analysis. In the analysis process, we first employed open, thematic coding: also known as qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2014) or initial coding in Grounded Theory Methodology (Charmaz, 2006). This was done to reduce the amount of material – while still having a good overview. Parts of the material (sequences) were here assigned to categories/topics. The coding frame was developed by a mix of, for the most part, data-‐driven codes and, to a lesser extent, codes derived from research interest, theory and concepts. By way of the coding in the software, topics were generated (topic = code). Partners imported the data into their analysis software and coded it by assigning a code/topic to sentences, sequences or single words. A code can be seen as a title, since it gives an idea of the content involved in each passage of data. To jointly establish which topics from the interviews should be analysed in greater depth, UH merged all partners’ codes into one coding frame. The merging was performed in two stages. The first stage took place during the preparation of the workshop in Hildesheim (May 2016). This led to an update of the common coding frame for all partners. Short
18
descriptions (max. two sentences) were added to each code by all institutions, based on the narratives they found in their data related to the code. At the beginning of September 2016, UH asked for an updated list of codes and the partners’ descriptions, in order to compile the final code tableau. This final coding tree was distributed among all partners to be used for subsequent coding. Thus, during open coding, all partners thematically coded the interview transcripts and selected significant sequences for further analysis. Analysis and memo-‐writing (institution-‐internal coding and memoing) was undertaken both during the selection of sequences and after.
5.4.2 Focused coding: condensing the data
Partners wrote memos using their data analysis programmes and conducted analysis sessions within the project team, within the institution and across institutions for each type of mobility. This led to elaborate interpretations of the various sequences they had selected. The meetings resulted in memos on analysis meeting forms, i.e. data from the interviews and interpretative notes about them. The analysis meetings were then condensed in so-‐called “write-‐ups“, which provided a structure to summarise the analysis conducted on a specific topic/code. The “write-‐ups” are condensed memos and present empirically-‐grounded theorisations of results, based on the qualitative analysis from each of the two partners working on the same type of mobility (see D3.3 and D3.4). During this process, between June 2016 and January 2017, all the partners involved in mobility fields did write-‐ups on six codes. The topics or codes for detailed analysis and elaborate description were selected taking into account several aspects: (1) the relevance of the codes identified in the interview data, (2) the exchange of interim code trees between the partners and UH, and (3) the research questions and theoretical underpinning of the MOVE project. Since the beginning of the process of data analysis, partners were encouraged to look for and share the most salient issues regarding mobility in their data. The inductive procedure thus involved examining the data and then collecting codes on this basis, in order to induce the next steps in the analysis. One aspect that comes to the fore is the social construction of mobility as a practice experienced by young people – and hence young people’s agency. As discussed in the chapter framing this report (chapter 4), agency is understood not as an individualised characteristic, but as relational agency, which is produced within social ties (networks) and social processes and by social conditions. The analysis, therefore, focuses less on young people’s motivational circumstances and more on understanding mobility as a social process and on illustrating the roles it plays in the social construction of youth. Thus, the qualitative analysis mainly highlights the level of everyday experiences of mobility and the social relationship structures and contexts that are expressed in these experiences. The codes that became relevant during the focused coding phase, each of which was discussed and exemplified in one write-‐up, are as follows:
o Code n°1: “peers” o Code n°2: “process towards mobility” o Code n°3: “comparing, comparisons, and diversity” o Code n°4: “status inequality” o Code n°5: “funding, money, paperwork/bureaucracy” o Code n°6: “youth practices”
D3.4 contains the six write-‐ups about these codes, as well as country-‐specific and mobility-‐type-‐specific background information, and a detailed description of the methods used. The
19
write-‐ups are thus the basis for both the internal (D3.4) and public (D3.5) reports in MOVE. The condensed results from the 6 different mobility fields, each studied in two particular countries, will be reprised here in chapter 6, since the D3.4 is not a public report.
5.4.3 Synopsis: extracting patterns of mobility
During the step of theoretical coding – the result of which is called a synopsis in this report – analysis was performed on a cross-‐case basis. This means that interviews from different countries and fields were first compared within the six topics mentioned above. During the step of creating the synopsis, the comparison was then performed across topics, including the comprehension of fields of mobility and countries, to produce the patterns of mobility. To perform this step, we applied the so-‐called reflection introduced by Kelle and Kluge (2010). In practice, the researchers at UH worked on the write-‐ups from all six mobility fields, both code-‐specific and cross-‐code, across all mobility fields and countries. The team members were on the look-‐out for generalising moments in the memos of all write-‐ups. Independently of one another, they then formulated condensing hypotheses: linking them back to material and mini-‐theories that the partners had collected in their write-‐ups. The hypotheses were collectively discussed within the UH team and detailed minutes were taken. This material created the basis for the patterns of mobility presented in D3.5. This process allowed for the condensation of the results from the six topics developed in the write-‐ups (“peers”, “process towards mobility”, “comparing, comparisons, and diversity”, “status inequality”, “funding, money, paperwork/bureaucracy”, “youth practices”). The results of this condensation led to a new synopsis of the analysis, i.e. to the following overarching theoretical dimensions: “Peers as mobility incubators”, “Learning something through mobility”, “Institutionalized work and education as national enabling patterns”, “Organisational membership, the crux of mobility”, “Youth with ambivalent youth practices”, and “The dilemma of the revolving door”. The discussion enabled joint reflection on the disparate topics processed in the write-‐ups and led to a theoretical synopsis common to all mobility fields. The patterns of mobility presented in chapter 7 are thus based on the results of the work of focused coding and the data presented in D3.4. This means that both partners’ cross-‐country joint analyses and interview data, which were part of the focused coding, are taken into account in the patterns of mobility and generalized in the synopsis. Quotes from the original interviews are presented to provide empirical grounding for the patterns of mobility found in the data. The sampling of these interview sequences, which exemplify the general patterns, are taken from the write-‐ups. Because WP3 is the qualitative workpackage, a conceptual representation and saturation is the main aim of analysis, and interview sequences were chosen to best illustrate the pattern found.
5.4.4 Linking the patterns of mobility to the mobility fields
The final step in the analysis focuses on the qualitative representation of the patterns of mobility in each mobility field. This link between the patterns of mobility and the mobility fields describes the forms in which each pattern can or cannot be found in each mobility field. This step was performed in a twofold manner: Firstly, the developed synopsis (patterns of mobility) was referred back to all mobility fields, i.e. to all partners, to evaluate and illustrate how each of the patterns is or is not relevant for the particular field of mobility. Partners from all mobility fields had access to the interim step of the patterns of mobility and were asked to fill out a matrix with descriptions for each pattern of mobility. The question posed for the purpose of filling out the so-‐called
20
field*pattern matrix was: “In which forms are the patterns of mobility reflected in each mobility field?” The results of this step of communicative validation is presented here. Secondly, on the basis of the results presented in chapter 6 (results from six mobility fields, after focused coding prior to theoretical coding/synopsis) and the field*pattern-‐matrix, the patterns of mobility are described more precisely and the link between the patterns and the six different fields is presented.
6 Results from six mobility fields and countries
Before we introduce the patterns of mobility, we will present the summary of the results from the six mobility fields already developed for the previous non-‐public deliverable in WP3: D3.4. The reasons for this are as follows: The results provided in D3.4, together with data and interpretations, form a point of reference in the analysis and in the process towards the synopsis for this report, D3.5. On the basis of all results from D3.4, the cross-‐sectional patterns of mobility (see chapter 7) are referred back to the mobility fields, thus answering the question of how and in which contexts the patterns of mobility are present.
6.1 Higher Education
Authors: Emilia Kmiotek-‐Meier, Zsuzsanna Dabasi-‐Halász, Petronella Doszpoly, Klaudia Horváth, Katalin Lipták The first mobility field addresses student mobility in the context of higher education. This mobility type was studied in Hungary and Luxembourg. To analyse student mobility, both credit mobility (a short stay abroad, e.g. Erasmus) and degree mobility (a whole study programme abroad) were considered. By comparing these two mobility types in the context of higher education, major phenomena and meanings in the lives of international university students could be developed. Comparing interviews coming from two countries, both with (formerly) mobile students and experts, allowed the structural framework to be considered. Whereas in Luxembourg, degree study abroad is a tradition and a study period abroad is an obligation for all undergraduate students of the University of Luxembourg; in Hungary, student mobility is still a quite rare and represents a new, although increasingly popular, phenomenon. Differences were discovered between the two country-‐settings: namely, unequal financial preconditions and differing motivations for and strategies of going abroad. These are at least partly rooted in the countries’ differing histories of sending young people abroad for education. On the other hand, similarities among mobile students from Luxembourg and Hungary were identified: such as the changing of the self, the process of becoming an adult, and the willingness to gain new experiences. The formation of social networks and the role of significant others were also found to be similar.
The main framework-‐condition linked with the two different country-‐settings is the financial aspect of a study period abroad. The mobility of students from Luxembourg is financially fostered by the state. As consequence, they can easily afford the move to another country and additional expenditures, such as a flat or travel expenses. Credit students from Luxembourg, in particular, view their stay abroad as an exceptional time, during which they allow themselves also some extras – like, for example, eating out often.
21
Hungarian students must rely on parental financial support, but they still manage to have a good time abroad. Mobile credit students from Luxembourg and Hungary stated that the Erasmus scholarship was not enough to cover the expense of their stay abroad. Thus, the financial dimension still plays an important, if not a decisive, role in the process of going abroad as a student within the European Union (Van Mol, 2014). Differences between the students from the two countries regarding the process of going abroad and the distance of mobility were linked with the different traditions of study abroad. Students from Luxembourg prefer to go somewhere close to their home country and they tend to visit home during their period of mobility. They especially choose countries where one of Luxembourg’s official languages is spoken (German or French). Prior knowledge of the language smoothes the transition for them. Hungarian students, on the contrary, go much further away and they often spend the whole semester abroad without coming home. This allows them to integrate easily into the foreign surroundings, since they can concentrate fully on “the new” and build on weak foreign language skills. By virtue of their mobility experience, students from both countries realized the exceptional importance of linguistic skills. These findings are in line with previous student mobility research, showing that language is “a large barrier, which can prevent people taking part in ISM [international student mobility]” (Rodriguez Gonzalez, Bustillo Mesanza, & Mariel, 2011, p. 423). Shared or similar languages may thus have a positive impact on student flows between countries (Beine, Noël, & Ragot, 2014; Fulge & Vogtle, 2014). A desire to improve one’s linguistic abilities is one of the main reasons for studying abroad (Rodriguez Gonzalez et al., 2011; Van Mol & Timmerman, 2014), students may also opt for more challenging destinations where they meet greater linguistic obstacles. Regarding similarities, the fact that the period of mobility strengthens students’ desire to become independent from their parents should be highlighted. While abroad, young people learn to live on their own. This includes both the achievement of personal freedom and taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions. These two processes shape the autonomy of young people, especially in relation to parents. In the case of mobile degree students, this process takes place gradually over a longer period; credit mobility is a compressed version of the same process. As credit mobility tends to start at an older age than degree mobility, mobile credit students appear to be more eager to achieve this autonomy. It is also difficult for them to adapt to their old reality after eventually returning home. Another similarity found in our national case studies concerns the composition of peer networks abroad. In the case of mobile credit students, such networks consists mainly of compatriots and other international students, confirming previous findings (Taha & Cox, 2014; Van Mol, 2014). Quite often those in contact with students of the same nationality question the idea of student mobility, assuming the experience will lead to a widening of cultural horizons and mastering of foreign languages. Vivid exchanges with international students of different nationalities compensate for lack of contact with students from the host nation. Mobile degree students tend to have more contact with students from the host nation, since they have more time to establish their new network in the destination country.
22
6.2 Voluntary Work
Authors9: Alice Altissimo, Agnetha Bartels, Sophie Geissler, Andreas Herz, Inka Janssen, Ioana Manafi, Daniela Marinescu, Laura Muresan, Monica Roman, Wolfgang Schröer International youth mobility for the purpose of doing voluntary work was specifically explored in Germany and Romania. The analyses show that voluntary work has social relevance in creating social capital and promoting the values of active citizenship and social responsibility, while also stimulating personal and professional development. The mobility experience also increases the desire, in both German and Romanian youth, to become mobile once again, whether for professional reasons or leisure: e.g. due to diverse connections to international peers. In general, in both countries mobility is closely linked to manifold relationships to peers. According to the interviewees, their mobility for voluntary work results in altered perspectives not only on peer relationships, but also in the way they perceive and relate to their environment in general. It does so by offering the opportunity to experience oneself in new contexts and situations: e.g. familial, financial, professional, and living situations, as well as in the context of friendships and communicative contexts. For the majority of the German respondents, it was their first international experience of this type, inspired by the wish to take a break, go abroad and make new experiences in a new environment. The German volunteers mention manifold actors involved in their decision-‐taking. This shows that mobility is embedded in their everyday contexts, both being influenced by them and influencing them in turn. For the young German volunteers, the topic of “peers” is closely linked to the topic of “belonging”: e.g. their belonging to youth groups, peer groups, a circle of colleagues, or family – and also to a privileged social group, which can afford international mobility, as opposed to others who cannot become internationally mobile due to financial, bureaucratic or lifecourse-‐related constraints. The Romanian set of interviews signals the presence of two broad categories of respondents: those who look for new experiences in a foreign cultural and/or geographical environment, several of whom have a similar motivation to that of the German respondents, and more mature young people who have already started a professional career or have had experience volunteering for several years in their home country. For some of the respondents, it was their first experience of mobility of this type or the first time they were involved in e.g. an European Voluntary Service project, whereas others had already done voluntary work in many different settings all around the world. Regarding funding and logistic support for mobility, both the German and Romanian volunteers get support from various national and international associations, but in some cases, they had to rely on family support. The Romanian interviews revealed that it was not always clear from the beginning when or how they would get the grant and if they would have to advance the cost of international transport. German interviewees complained that they too had to advance the costs of transport, did not receive the grant on time or did not know whether their expenses would be refunded at all. The majority of the young volunteers interviewed – both outgoing German and Romanian volunteers, as well as the few incoming volunteers interviewed – mentioned the initial stages of trying to come to terms with an unfamiliar environment and living without their
9 The authors are listed in alphabetical order.
23
families in a new culture (or even being confronted by a variety of cultures, if they had to cooperate with volunteers from different countries). Despite these challenges, the experience itself is perceived as enriching. The main effects underlined by the great majority of Romanian respondents include its "eye-‐opening” effect and personal growth, as well as gaining maturity in the process. Volunteering has an impact at both a social level, through developing a good working relationship with international peers, and at personal level, by virtue of their getting to know themselves better. In most of the interviews with both German and Romanian volunteers, it becomes evident that the mobility experience contributes to self-‐reflection and to revisiting the way one perceives one’s environment: including relations with peers, encouraging the development of new peer-‐relations that increase in importance and serve as inspiration for further mobility experiences. Many of the young German volunteers describe the wish to become active themselves on their return to Germany and some take up activities related to their voluntary service. A general conclusion would reflect that international volunteering as youth mobility has social relevance by promoting the values of active citizenship and social responsibility, while also stimulating personal and professional development.
6.3 Employment
Authors10: Tuba Ardic, Martina Christen, Roger Hestholm, Irina Pavlova, Jan Skrobanek, Volha Vysotskaya The third mobility field is named employment. Employment mobility was specifically studied in Luxembourg and Norway. Focus is placed on aspects of employment mobility relevant to young people with various skills and professional backgrounds who migrate to Luxembourg and Norway. The analysis sheds light on aspects of what young people face in the course of employment mobility. The data analysis in Luxembourg and Norway indicates that young people’s mobility decisions are mainly related to improving their economic situation/economic status. However, this is not the only pattern revealed in the context of employment mobility. Our explorative data analysis shows that reasons for becoming mobile vary and that they are related to the personal characteristics and social capital of the young people in question. A range of cases illustrates that young people go through rational decision-‐making processes before embarking on their period of mobility. Young people compare the countries and the opportunities in the labour markets and they think about different scenarios, trying to find out the pros and cons of their choice of destination country before becoming mobile. However, the data also shows that some young people do not have such high expectations of their mobility. Instead, these young people have a more relaxed attitude toward their experience of mobility and see it as a journey that might enrich their lives. The data also points to the role of peers in spreading ideas and information regarding the scope of mobility. Many cases illustrate that peers introduce, spread and foster ideas of 10 The authors are listed in alphabetical order.
24
mobility among the members of their network. In addition, social relations with peers become a kind of safety net, as peers take on the role of solving challenges and problems before and during young people’s experience of mobility. Surprisingly, however, peers are only relevant to a limited extent in the context of employment mobility in both countries. Young mobile people are in a vulnerable position in the context of employment, since they often face various age-‐related penalties with regard to payment, access to positions, respect, acknowledgement, and protection. One common experience among the young people in our sample is that – despite having degrees in higher education and sound qualifications – they often have to enter the foreign labour market from the bottom, i.e. take precarious, unqualified and insecure jobs. Thus young mobile people experience kinds of “mobility penalties”, which take the form of economic disadvantages of young mobile persons as compared to the internal labour force of the destination country. In addition, young mobile people also face ethnic or origin-‐specific discrimination in the labour market of the destination countries (such as forms of discrimination based on stereotypes or prejudices): so-‐called ethnic penalties (Carmichael & Woods, 2000). However, the data indicates that young people find ways to cope with these challenges in the labour market and in the social life of the destination country. The issue of inequality and conflict is central to the narratives of young people and, to a large extent, it is connected to the professional sphere. In particular, it is connected to the process of recruitment and gaining employment. In this respect, two major aspects acquire prominence: hierarchy and unequal status. By and large, young people perceive themselves as being treated differently and unequally at work due to their age and (lack of) work experience. This is particularly challenging for young people during the period of their transition into the labour market. Many follow here a yo-‐yo trajectory11: taking several steps backward or returning to education, and thus moving further away from employment. These trajectories in the context of mobility are characterized by intense job search periods, unstable positions -‐ especially at the beginning of working episodes -‐ status insecurity, and uncertain perspectives. Some young people already have prior experience of mobility. This becomes particularly salient with regard to EU mobility. It is only after mobility to countries outside of the EU, such as to Canada or to Australia, that young people become aware of the benefits of freedom within the EU and the ease of transferring and exchanging various documents. The young people no longer take these aspects for granted. Others, however, who have no experience of mobility outside the EU, do not necessarily notice this. While places outside of Europe are appealing to young people, the latter see more obstacles to mobility outside of Europe than within it. Mobility outside of Europe involves higher risks and mobility planning has, in this case, to take them into account. In the employment mobility field, it was observed that young people demonstrate a higher degree of autonomy and independence with regard to their mobility process. As a result, they perceive certain obstacles to mobility -‐ such as hindrances connected with bureaucracy and paperwork -‐ as manageable. The young people do not see them as posing a major difficulty in their employment mobility. 11 The term yo-‐yo was introduced in the debate in the context of youth-‐to-‐adulthood-‐transitions (Walther, 2006, p. 121), to describe a “significantly long, period of time shift between youth and adulthood” (ibid.)
25
While there are instances of young people’s engagement in youth practices prior to employment mobility, some data suggests that mobility may prolong the youth phase and allows young people to discover new youth practices -‐ or even to revisit old ones (Amit, 2011). Other examples from the data suggest that in some cases, mobility itself could be considered a youth practice: such as when it allows young people to experiment, take risks, and be innovative and adventurous.
6.4 Vocational educational training
Authors12: Elisabet Pallarés Cardona, Cristina Cuenca, Karen Hemming, Tabea Schlimbach The mobility field of vocational educational training (VET) has been closely analysed in Germany and Spain by the partners DJI (P3) and ICN (P7).13 The analysis reveals major differences in how VET mobility is perceived by German and Spanish interviewees. These different perceptions largely derive from country-‐specific framework conditions and implementation strategies regarding mobility programmes. While for Spanish apprentices, VET mobility often merges with their first employment experience, Germans can refer to work practice gained within their dual training (or through practice units in school-‐based training schemes). In Germany, group mobilities dominate the field, being widely facilitated by a nationwide network of mobility advisors.14 Adapted to the particularities of the German VET system, these stays usually do not exceed four weeks. In contrast, Spanish mobile youth usually perform their obligatory “practice period” of three months at the end of their school-‐based training abroad. These stays are largely self-‐organised. They thus, on the one hand, place enormous requirements on the student´s own sense of responsibility and organisational skills, but, on the other hand, they allow for greater intensity in the work experiences and in the relationships to “natives” and other foreigners. There are also instances of individual mobility in Germany (represented in our sample by two cases); group mobility, however, dominate the field. A major structural influencing factor is the situation of vocational educational training and the labour market. The very high youth unemployment rate in Spain, at 44.5% in 201615, shifts the focus of Spanish youth to labour market integration. They perceive mobility as a potential professional investment and as a characteristic that distinguishes mobile youth from other peers, giving them enhanced labour market chances. However, mobility is also perceived as “taking a risk”: firstly, regarding the balance of (financial and time-‐related) investment and (uncertain) output, and secondly, inasmuch as it hinders one’s chances to be integrated in local labour markets16. The comparably secure employment status of
12 The authors are listed in alphabetical order. 13 This summary presents a condensation of the results of the joint analysis, which have been documented in detail in the internal report D3.4 (Chapter 8: Mobility field 4: Vocational Educational Training (Germany -‐ Spain); pp. 429-‐559). 14 The mobility advisors network aims at supporting VET students, professionals and enterprises in the realization of mobilities: http://www.berufsbildung-‐ohne-‐grenzen.de/ accessed on 24th of August 2017. 15 OECD labour force statistics 2016: https://data.oecd.org/unemp/youth-‐unemployment-‐rate.htm 16 According to the figures provided by the Ministry of Education about VET employability, around 30% of the VET their training/hosting company offers students in Spain a “practice contract” after the mandatory
26
German apprentices 17 is reflected in their rather open motives of taking the “opportunity” (e.g. vcDEy08; vcDEy12, vcDEy16) and “widening horizons” (vcDEy07). Two mobility types have been identified for the German sample regarding mobility: those using opportunities and those (older respondents) with a proactive, agentic approach to mobility. The implementation of Erasmus+ in VET in both countries is strongly linked to the work of mobility advisors (see internal report D3.4, chapter 8.10.2: Mobility Advisors: The “Hub” for Motivation, Preparation, and Organisation, pp.79-‐84). While German advisors are largely affiliated with public institutions (chambers, VET schools) as part of the national mobility advisors network, Spanish students refer mainly to private consultants. Mobility advisors can be seen as “pillars” in the construction of mobility projects. However, the instability of their professional status jeopardises the sustainability of the still young mobility traditions. Finally, VET mobility is a matter of financial resources and, by way of this, can develop an reinforcing or cushioning effect on social inequality. Here again, German apprentices are in a more advantageous situation, since, in contrast to their Spanish peers, they continue to receive training salaries and since their own financial contributions are significantly lower. For Spanish youth, financial difficulties are due to the need for significant monetary contributions to the overall mobility costs (which are higher due to the longer duration). The latter leads to a strong dependence on family support and makes going abroad a luxury to which less privileged youth have no access (see D3.4, chapter 8.11: Funding, Money, Paperwork and Bureaucracy, pp. 97-‐113). The bureaucratic effort required, the tight training syllabus in Germany, and insufficient language proficiency are perceived as further barriers (Brandsma and Bruin-‐Mosch, 2006, p. 53). Young people are accompanied by a large group of actors who, through their involvement in different stages of the mobility process, have multi-‐layered effects on mobility. Family members have been mentioned as emotional backup and as providing organisational and financial support. Strong emotional bonds to the family can, however, affect the readiness to leave home. Peers were reflected as reference groups (e.g. as role models for mobility or as a group to stand out from through mobility), as part of transnational networks, and, in cases of group mobility, as a safety net -‐ but also a hindrance to encounters with the people and culture of the destination country (see D3.4, chapter 8.7.4: Peers, pp. 34-‐46). These actors in private networks have been frequently cited in reference to self-‐organised, individual stays abroad, such as are very common in Spain, but rather the exception in Germany. Furthermore, a key function was attributed to mobility advisors and vocational teachers by all young people, but especially by those who took part in group forms of mobility. The German interviews documented comprehensive institutional support in all phases of the mobility process. Advisors took on an initiating and facilitating role, but, at the same time, they limited the young people´s scope of action and latitude for personal development and hindered proactive behaviour (referring to the “temporal-‐relational dimension” of young
apprenticeship period. This opportunity is remote if apprenticeship periods are being performed abroad (Ministerio de Educación 2015). 17 In 2016, the youth unemployment rate in Germany was at 7% (OECD labour force statistics 2016: https://data.oecd.org/unemp/youth-‐unemployment-‐rate.htm).
27
people´s agency, see Emirbayer and Mische, 1998, p. 1006). In the Spanish data, institutional support has been largely described as insufficient and fragmented. On one hand, administrative requirements were cited as a major hurdle to becoming mobile (see internal report D3.4, p. 104). On the other hand, successfully coping with these challenges was connected to a strong sense of agency, a raising of self-‐esteem and positive self-‐image. Mobility advisors often functioned as gatekeepers for mobility programmes in both countries (Behrens and Rabe-‐Kleberg, 2000), since they usually select participants. Selection criteria are mainly performance-‐related, which raises questions of equal opportunity. Another powerful group of institutional actors with respect to mobility are employers, who likewise adopt gatekeeping functions: In the German case, the young people mainly spoke about the training company at home whose permission is required for going abroad. Spanish youth referred rather to employers in the host country, who decisively shaped their work experiences. The Erasmus+ programme is valued by students from both countries as providing a unique opportunity for apprentices to gain work experience abroad. However, the structural differences in the organisation of VET mobility between Germany and Spain become apparent yet again when looking at the implementation level of mobility programmes. Moreover, the respective narratives show that there is little awareness of the programme in particular. VET mobility is still largely a novelty in comparison to other mobility fields.
6.5 Pupils’ exchange
Authors18: Tuba Ardic, Zsuzsanna Dabasi-‐Halász, Petronella Doszpoly, Roger Hestholm, Klaudia Horváth, Katalin Lipták, Irina Pavlova, Jan Skrobanek The fifth mobility field is pupils’ exchange. Pupils’ exchange mobility was specifically studied in Norway and Hungary. Studying abroad during high school is not a widespread practice in Hungary and Norway. The mobility of young Hungarians is strongly affected by the social and economic position of the country and, of course, by the social background of the family. Furthermore, the selection of destination country is not always a conscious choice. Instead, parental influence, social class or available opportunities are the determining factors. In the Norwegian context, internationalisation in education is a goal set by the government. Report No. 14 (2008–2009) to the Storting, “Internationalisation of Education”, presents internationalisation across all levels of the Norwegian education system: primary and secondary education and training, as well as higher education (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2009). The report is the first of its kind in the Norwegian context and indicates that the internationalisation of education is a high political priority in the country. The main rule is that the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund offers scholarships to all pupils that hold
18 The authors are listed in alphabetical order.
28
Norwegian citizenship19. Additionally, in order to get financial support from the Loan Fund, the exchange has to be organised through an approved cooperation programme between a Norwegian and foreign school (Lovdata, 2017, § 33-‐8) or as a part of an approved exchange organisation (Lovdata, 2017, § 33-‐9) However, despite strong political will and generous funding systems, the popularity of pupil’s exchanges among young Norwegians varies across the Norwegian municipalities (Tungesvik, 2016, p. 13). The main motivation often comes from pupils themselves.20 Furthermore, Norway has become increasingly popular as a destination among international students/ pupils (Statistics Norway, 2016: 19). The term “pupil mobility” refers to the education of young people aged 16–20 in foreign high schools. On the one hand the motivations, processes and distances of mobility are different between students in Norway and Hungary. On the other hand, there are also similarities: such as changes in personality, the processes of becoming an adult, and the role of adventurousness in the context of pupil mobility. Differences between Norway and Hungary are manifest primarily in the motivation behind the decision to go abroad. The processes leading towards mobility vary from students’ own motivation – typical for Norway – to motivation from parents or the education institution in Hungary. The choice of the destination country also varies between the pupils of the two countries. The Norwegian sample group contains both incoming and outgoing pupils. Most of the outgoing pupils intend to go to school in Anglo-‐Saxon countries (our sample also includes Germany, France and Italy as destination countries). Generally, Norwegian pupils have mostly sound English skills. In addition, the comparably great economic wealth of Norway certainly helps to absorb both educational and living expenses. By contrast, the linguistic skills of Hungarian young people are weak; they can hardly manage to go to school in Anglo-‐Saxon countries or in German-‐speaking areas. Thus, Hungarian young people tend to seek opportunities in other countries. Pupil mobility is expensive for many Hungarian parents. In the Norwegian education system, pupils study in relatively small classes and they are not assured to still have their places upon return from a mobility stay abroad. Hungarian pupils study in classes with a high number of pupils and their places are secure. In Norway, pupils take the historical relationships of their country and their own personal interests (e.g. sport, languages) into consideration when selecting their destination country. This is less typical among Hungarian pupils. In many instances, pupils choose less popular East Central European countries, because they are economically affordable for them and not so far away geographically. Although administrative burdens are typical in both countries, institutions play a significant role in the management of paperwork. In both countries, reintegration is a serious issue, and thus improving this aspect would be an important step. Pupil mobility is not a widespread phenomenon in either Hungary or in Norway.
19 This is stated as the main rule in § 2-‐1 “Regulations on granting education support for the academic year 2017-‐2018” (Lovdata, 2017). Children of EU and EEA nationals with work or family connections in Norway may also be entitled to scholarship. For additional regulations, see § 2-‐2 -‐§ 2-‐7. 20 Here especially, school motivation is of central importance for becoming mobile in the context of pupils exchange (Tungesvik, 2016: 6)
29
6.6 Entrepreneurship
Authors21: Celia Díaz-‐Catalán, Ioana Manafi, Daniela Marinescu, Laura Muresan, Monica Roman, Ricardo Zúñiga The sixth mobility field is named entrepreneurship. This mobility type has been specifically addressed in Spain and Romania. Entrepreneurship is recently becoming more and more important in the political discourses and the political agenda related to growth and development. In the Europe 2020 strategy of the European Commission, entrepreneurship is designated as a major instrument for economic development and growth. Romania has high outgoing youth mobility, but not relevant entrepreneurial mobility, while Spain is becoming more and more of a destination country for the young mobile people and also has stronger entrepreneurial mobility. In the Spanish case, the analysis confirms the clear distinction the literature makes between opportunity-‐driven and necessity-‐driven entrepreneurs. For opportunity-‐driven entrepreneurs, mobility mainly constitutes an experience that allows them to acquire know-‐how in managerial practices, but also regarding markets. In the case of necessity-‐driven entrepreneurs, it is notable that for some of them, mobility has presupposed a sort of opportunity to develop a project in a more dynamic place, which can look like the last argument. Mobility for entrepreneurship purposes has often been triggered by young people’s interest in professional development and in exploring new business opportunities and, to a lesser extent, by necessity. In some of the cases, the entrepreneurship idea of the Romanian respondents was inspired by a concatenation of other mobility types or by peers or mentors. Romanian respondents highlight the importance of particular personal qualities: such as courage, perseverance, ambition, willingness to takes risks, and resilience. One of the specific outcomes of personal development is the capacity to take initiative at the community or societal level. The relational dimension is mostly connected with business activities and, to a much lesser extent, with socializing. There are many similarities between the Spanish and Romanian cases. Some of these are related to Spanish and Romanian respondents considering mobility as a good milestone in their lives, because of the intangible resources they thereby obtain -‐ such as self-‐confidence, open-‐mindedness and maturity -‐ as well as other tangible capacities, such as linguistic abilities or other professional skills. Another question observed in both cases is connected to the change in the relations among entrepreneurs. All the entrepreneurs, even if they are in an initial phase of their projects, tend to change their social networks, in a shift towards focusing on business creation itself. A significant finding is that the majority of entrepreneurs combine different mobility experiences: such as study grants (like Erasmus) and working periods. There are some cases of entrepreneurs who have planned their mobility project to acquire know-‐how and
21 The authors are in alphabetical order.
30
professional development under their own business projects. Building on the expertise acquired, some set up their business abroad, whereas others prefer to set it up or consolidate it in their home country. A major difference between the Spanish and Romanian cases is to be found in the preferences regarding the entrepreneurial environment: in terms of the choice between returning to the home country or staying abroad. Romanians are more likely to take advantage of the know-‐how acquired during their international experiences to create or develop a business in their home country. One of their reasons for preferring the home environment appears to be their greater familiarity with the bureaucratic system, which is in their own language, and other available resources. Most of the Spaniards interviewed had not considered entrepreneurship before their mobility experience. The Spanish entrepreneurs do not usually consider returning to create or continue their business in the home environment. The main reason for this is that the Spanish entrepreneurs are convinced that Spain is not a good place for entrepreneurs and that difficulties are greater than in (almost) any other place in Europe.
7 Patterns of Mobility
This chapter comprises the final results of the qualitative analysis in the MOVE project’s workpackage 3. As mentioned above in the chapter describing the methods adopted in WP3 (chapter 5), the synopsis culminated in a collection of patterns of mobility. They represent patterns that arose by analysing data from the six different mobility types considered in MOVE: specificities of youth mobility emerging from the collected empirical data and the analyses conducted jointly by the partners. The quotes included in this chapter are taken from the qualitative interviews with youth and experts. They elucidate the patterns of mobility and were chosen to best exemplify the analyses presented. They are, therefore, representative of the finding in general and not only for the finding in the context of one type of mobility. The source of each quote is indicated in brackets after each quote (see the annex for explanations of the abbreviations). At the end of each subchapter, the respective pattern of mobility is linked back to each mobility field, describing how the patterns are represented in each of the fields of mobility studied in MOVE.
7.1 Peers22 as mobility incubators
In youth research, peer relationships are seen as being of central importance. They are frequently considered the central space in which young people can try out their social positioning, disengage themselves from family ties, and seek out new forms of social belonging. Such spaces and constellations are therefore particularly important for processes of identity-‐building and of boundary-‐making. “The peer group as a kind of informal socializing instance (see Otto und Rauschenbach 2008) forms a social context for action and experience” (Ecarius & Eulenbach, 2012, p. 38). Peer relationships are rarely seen as contributing to young people making other plans for the future or engaging in an educational or occupational career. In the context of mobility among young people in Europe, however, things appear to be different. The pattern “Peers
22 In MOVE's workpackage 3, the peer concept involves status-‐equivalent others, not age-‐equivalent others.
31
as mobility incubators” shows that peer relationships can be considered a mobility breeding ground or mobility incubator, where plans for temporary mobility can mature and develop. At the same time, these plans are closely interlinked with the young people’s prospects in education and on the labour market. In the empirical data, peers are also presented as a central resource in the actual process of mobility. They allow young people not only to tackle mobility, but also to maintain existing forms of social belonging and to create new ones: to enter into dialogue with other peers.
7.1.1 Peer-‐pressure, finding new peers and relevant familial peers
If peers are seen as mobility incubators, it is often not about a group of young people meeting up somewhere in Europe and together making plans to spend time in another country. This image is a romanticised one. As the interviews show, they are not adventurously escaping a local context that they have outgrown. Young people – especially academically-‐educated young people – definitely experience pressure within their peer relationships to become mobile. They find themselves in the situation of being the “only one” from their circle to be left behind after finishing upper secondary education: i.e. mobility comes up as an option, the alternative being to be left behind on one’s own, as the following quotes from the empirical data underline. “I: [...] Are there any other supporting, yes, conditions, circumstances that play a role? Y: Hmm, yes. Perhaps, that (..) quite a few of my friends were away anyway. (I:. Uh-‐huh) And I thought like, so, like, you know: "Then I’ll leave too," (Laughs) like that. (. Yes) So I did not actually have an incentive to stay at home at all then, (I: Hmm.) And, yes, I would definitely say that, (..) so, too. I: What did they do? Y: Um many were Au Pair, (I:. Mhm) some went like backpacking in Australia so, (I:. Mhm) (..) yes. (..) No one else did voluntary service, I think.” (vwDEy01 ) 23
This quote exemplifies the concern about being left behind and a strong orientation towards one’s peers, who can become role models. It is not about simply copying others, though; instead, young people use peers’ experiences to test the possible paths towards mobility they could take themselves. Moreover, they seek out peer arrangements which would allow them to come to grips with mobility alongside others, learning along with them, as demonstrated by the following quote:
“I consulted with friends where I planned to go. […] I had a friend of [town D, in Hungary], a geographer, who was also there where I planned to go.” (heHUy01) 24
23“I: […] gibt’s noch irgendwelche anderen unterstützenden, ja, Bedingungen, Umstände, die eine Rolle spielen? Y: Mmh, ja. Vielleicht, dass (..) sowieso ziemlich viele von meinen Freunden weg waren. (I: Mhm.) Und ich mir so gedacht hab, so, ne? "Dann geh ich auch weg", (Lacht) so. (Ja.) Also ich hatte eigentlich auch nicht so den Anreiz überhaupt noch äh so zu Hause zu bleiben dann, (I: Mhm.) und, ja, das würd ich auf jeden Fall auch noch, (..) ja, sagen. I: Was haben die gemacht? Y: Äh viele haben Au-‐Pair gemacht, (I: Mhm.) einige halt Backpacking in Australien so, (I: Mhm.) (..) ja. (..) Freiwilligendienst hat, glaube ich, keiner sonst gemacht.“ (vwDEy01) 24“Konzultáltam barátokkal, hogy hova menjek. Más város geográfus hallgatóival is tartom a kapcsolatot. Évente tartunk geográfus találkozót. Volt egy [város Magyarországon]-‐i földrajzos ismerősöm aki szintén ott volt ahova terveztem menni.“ (heHUy01)
32
“Cause let’s say I have some friends, that live in the borders of Germany in Trier and in (..) They know very well Luxembourg, how it looks like and what is expectations for someone who moves into Luxembourg (..) and (..) I got some ideas from them. (…) I know them from Greece actually. They were more or less in the same. They were friends from the bachelor studies. And they took the decision before me to travel abroad.” (heLUy02)
“Yes and there was also a friend, who had already studied [xxx1] also [xxx2]. She was already there and I lived with her, she was also Luxemburgish. By the way, I wouldn’t FOR SURE go alone to [town A, Belgium].” (heLUy05) 25 As seen in these quotes, on the one hand, familiar peers take on a central role in the context of mobility, but, on the other hand, it is important to shed light on another key aspect: the hope of coming into contact with new peers. In this process, forms of mobility by students and schoolchildren within the protected sphere of institutions also play a major role. This offers a safeguard: One can try out something new in the context of a familiar institution. Their own role, and the roles of their peers, are predefined and familiar, making it easier for them to become part of a team in a new environment. “It’s like you go abroad for doing studies and there is a ((emphasis)) whole student community with professors and high skilled people ((emphasis)) that will accept you, they will hug you, you will be a part of them.” (heLUy02) “So I believe that coming as a student is really easy to be a part of a team. And how the mentality of the university works, is to make people came close, students to co-‐operate through different projects in the very first semester. And that makes us make more personalized relationships.” (heLUy02) As described in the two quotations, young people in this situation frequently seem to be looking for contexts that reassure them that they can make their mobility a positive experience. Peer relations are of central importance not only in generating mobility plans, but also in providing an accompanying community and in creating a new form of belonging. “Y: And (I: Mmh) I mean apart from that, you still had, despite sometimes maybe here and there bickering with each other with your class, still, better that way, still having people around, so that you’re not completely alone, so that you don’t feel like being thrown out there. I mean it wasn’t bad like, that they were still all there. That you really know, good, I’m not alone with this whole task, or with this excitement, and, so. I: So you thought it was good, that you were there with a group and not on your own. Y: Exactly. I mean alone, I would not have done it at all. That would have been too unsure for me. Because like this you can still support each other, or at least encourage each other, when you’re feeling insecure somehow. And you have attachment figures, you at least know someone.” (vcDEy02) 26
25“Ja und da war auch ne Freundin, die hat auch da schon [Fach 2] studiert, also [Fach 3]. Die war auch schon dort und da hab ich auch mit der zusammen gelebt, auch ne Luxemburgerin. (I: mhm) (.) Ansonsten mhm alleine wäre ich SICHERLICH nicht nach (I: Laugh) [Stadt A, Belgien] ((laugh)) gegangen.“(heLUy05) 26 “Y: Und (I: Mhm) also abgesehen davon, man hat ja dann trotz/auch wenn man mal vielleicht hier und da mal sich, bisschen aneinandergeraten ist mit seiner Klasse, trotzdem, man, lieber, lieber so, wenn man halt immer noch welche um sich rum hat, dass man da nicht so ganz alleine, alleine ist, dass man sich nicht so dahingeworfen fühlt. Also es war schon nicht schlecht halt, dass die trotz alledem da waren. Dass man halt
33
Peers are thus seen as incubators that, from the young people’s point of view, offer a protected framework for mobility, while at the same time also forcing mobility upon them. But this framework is not necessarily opposed to their family ties, as the following quotations show.
“They moved because we moved here, they followed us. We have always been neighbours so our children grown up together and they know each other. When they came it helped my children. One day we had skyped and we were telling them how happy we are and told them that was much better than we thought. We never talked about them moving here, and one day we got a message and they wrote that they wanted to meet on skype because they decided to come to Norway. […]” (emNOy01) From these quotations, it can be seen that peer relationships do not replace family support structures: They complement them. For the young people, mobility is very much also a family project. Two quotations confirm this:
“My parents supported me the most in this respect. I simply told them, look, there is a project here and here, and they stood behind me with everything they could.” (vwROy01)27
“Well, my friends, they knew it, they were also very supportive. And ... among my family, my friends, my colleagues, too, so that, they always said it was a great opportunity and then they always supported me, that is sooo ... I had support from all sides, no one told me: No, stay, you're having hard times. I was told, well, maybe you have a couple of bad days but you can deal with it.” (vcESy02) 28
Thus, the young people see their peers, alongside their family, as a resource providing social support and protection: “Yeah well, actually I have, in both places I had local friends but the majority was international friends because (.) it was easy, it was just easy to talk with each other, because you have gone through the same things and you were in the same situation, you had the same problems and you were irritated by the same things.” (heLUy01) 29
wirklich weiß, gut, ich bin nicht ganz alleine so mit dieser ganzen Aufgabe beziehungsweise mit dieser Aufregung, und (.) von daher. I: Also das fandst du gut, dass du da in der Gruppe gefahren bist und nicht alleine. Y: Genau. Also alleine (.) hätte ich es (.) gar nicht gemacht. Also das wär mir dann (.) zu unsicher gewesen. Weil so kann man sich gegenseitig noch unterstützen beziehungsweise bisschen Mut machen, wenn man jetzt irgendwo unsicher ist. Und (.) man hat auch so Bezugspersonen, man kennt dann ja wenigstens jemanden.“ (vcDEy02) 27 “Părinţții m-‐au susţținut cel mai mult în chestia asta. Pur şi simplu le-‐am spus, uitaţți, e un proiect aici, aici, aici şi cu toate puterile lor m-‐au susţținut.“ (vwROy01) 28 “Y bueno, mis amigos, si que lo sabían, también me apoyaron mucho. Y…entre mi familia, mis amigos, mis compañeros también, pues eso, siempre decían que era una gran oportunidad y entonces siempre me apoyaron, o sea queee… Tuve apoyo por todos los lados, nadie me dijo: –no, quédate que lo vas a pasar mal. Me dijeron, bueno, a lo mejor lo pasas mal un par de día pero puedes con ello.“ (vcESy02) 29“Ja, ja also ich hab dann eigentlich immer, also in beiden Orten .. hab, ich hatte lokale Freuende aber die meisten Freunde waren internationale Freunde weil (.) es war einfach.. es war einfach auch, miteinander zu reden, weil man das Gleiche durchgemacht hat und man war in der gleichen Situation, hatte die gleichen Schwierigkeiten und halt so waren genervt von den gleichen Dingen.“ (heLUy01)
34
7.1.2 Peer bubbles, peer challenges and transnational relationships
Peer relationships are also a challenge for young people. Overall, there seems to be a strong expectation that social belonging will be achieved by means of peer relationships. If this becomes difficult, forms of delimitation into their own or other "national" groups can be observed.
“I spend time with mhm the international students and also with Luxembourgish people (I: mhm), not the students because most of them are from the [sport 1] team (I: mhm) and in class: yes I have, I am (.) I with some mhm Luxembourgish but mhm (.) not so much, not so (I: mhm) much. I only (.) know a few of them.” (heLUy06) At the same time, the mobility group – e.g. in the context of student mobility – sometimes seems to be a world of its own. A bubble is created in which young people may or may not belong. The mobile world at institutions of higher education then appears to be separated from its environment.
“And this means, it was actually again, yes actually again such a bubble, like with the international students abroad. When you come back und you have somehow, although you have different studies, or you live in another place, you have the same experience or like…yes.” (heLUy01) 30 In the end, this does not mean that mobility among young people in Europe takes place entirely in the context of peer relationships and that young people never leave the bubble of their peers and the institution. It is a central situation, but one which is highly permeable. When young people are mobile, this also transnationalises their relationships. “I made friends with an American… This guy was a guy of around 36 […] and he set up couch-‐surfing. He rented a house on the/with beach for 2 years (…) and then, he came to Spain […] we rented a car and we travelled a lot, we went for 2 months, we went to Paris, Portugal, it was great, absolutely great, very nice.” (vwROy07) 31 Though this transnationalisation can be planned, it is also something that occurs as part of a process. Processes of mobility can indeed be observed that are constantly multiplying in a spontaneous fashion. It should be noted that in this process of mobility there are not just two single steps: being abroad and coming back. Instead there are a series of interlinked events (i.e. a person here leads to another person there), as can also be seen from the relationships perspective. Young people’s mobilities are interrelated and induce one another.
30“Und das heißt, das war eigentlich wieder, ja eigentlich wieder so eine Blase, wie mit internationalen Studenten im Ausland. Wenn man dann hierhin kommt und man hat trotzdem irgendwie, obwohl man ein anderes Studium hat, oder an einem andern Ort lebt, hat man so die gleichen Erfahrungen oder so...ja.“ (heLUy01) 31 “M-‐am împrietenit și cu un american ... Tipul ăsta era un tip de vreo 36 de ani, care se despărţțise de prietena lui, era din California, San Diego, și își făcuse ... își închiriase o casă cu plajă pe doi ani de zile (...) și după aia, a venit în Spania; a stat câteva zile și la mine; (...) m-‐am împrietenit cu americanul ăsta, cu care am călătorit foarte mult, am închiriat o maşină şi am călătorit foarte mult, am mers două luni de zile, am mers până în Paris, Portugalia, a fost super, super, foarte mișto.“ (vwROy07)
35
“I consulted with friends where I planned to go. With other urban geographer students I still keep in touch. Every year we hold a geographer meeting. I had a friend of [town D, in Hungary], a geographer, who was also there where I planned to go.” (heHUy01) 32
“And on the new map [the network map] I would place my friends from England, who are in a circle around me, and the friends from Romania, who are another circle around me. Romania continues to be important, because I try to write about it, and it is linked to my new friends, that is the new friends I’ve made here are linked to Romania, they go to Romania.” (vwROy09)33
The relations are not formed only among European citizens, but also with non-‐Europeans. These new international linkages and relationships lead the young people to more mobility, as the new peers become a part of their transnationalised lives. The practice of friendship continues via becoming more mobile, visiting friends met during the mobility schemes or travelling with them:
“[…] Something else which pushed me was that I don’t have friends any more, because they study in other cities or have gone abroad, I have friends all over the world (laughs). Of course, there are some left in the city, but the most important ones are scattered all over Italy and Europe. There were no other important people left there, except from my family. This is what pushed me, so that I could have my own hands-‐on experience.” (vwROy14) 34
In summary, peers can act as a factor linking young mobile people to their environment and pushing them towards new contexts and places, but can also inhibit them from connecting to their surroundings.
7.1.3 My mobile alter ego and me
When talking about themselves during their mobility experience, the interviewees sort their relationships into clusters, depending on various commonalities: e.g. job, accommodations, leisure time activities. For young people, several of these clusters are highly important. An even more powerful aim found in the data, however, is to define an alter ego or a counterpart: a person who is particularly important for one’s mobility. This may be someone with whom one shares the mobility experience, or relevant parts of it, and is someone who strongly influences the young mobile person’s own experience. Often, the alter ego’s role is a positive one, since these are people who have strongly influenced the interviewee’s decision to become mobile, as in this quote:
32“Konzultáltam barátokkal, hogy hova menjek. Más város geográfus hallgatóival is tartom a kapcsolatot. Évente tartunk geográfus találkozót. Volt egy [város Magyarországon]-‐i földrajzos ismerősöm aki szintén ott volt ahova terveztem menni.“ (heHUy01) 33 “Iar pe harta nouă, ar fi prietenii din Anglia, care sunt un cerc în jurul meu, prietenii din România care sunt un alt cerc în jurul meu. România este în continuare importantă pentru că încerc să scriu despre ea, şi care se leagă cu noii mei prieteni, adică noii prieteni pe care i-‐am făcut aici se leagă de România, se duc în România.“ (vwROy09) 34 “[…]Ce m-‐a mai împins a fost că în oraş nu mai am prieteni pentru că studiază în alte oraşe sau sunt plecaţți în alte ţțări, am prieteni în toată lumea (râde). Desigur că mai am unii în oraş, dar cei mai importanţți sunt răspândiţți prin toată Italia şi prin Europa. Nu mai aveam acolo alte persoane importante pentru mine, cu excepţția familiei mele. Şi asta m-‐a împins, să am şi eu experienţța mea în mod direc.“ (vwROy14).
36
“So, [Justus], (.) uhm, (..) he’s here, very very close. (I: Mhm.) He was also with me in kindergarden, (I: Mhm.) and, uh, well we like, as I said, also met him at this seminar and like he is also / he is the reason why it all actually worked out.” (vwDEy03) 35 Such alter egos represent someone on whom the interviewee can rely, with whom he or she has overcome difficult situations and, to some extent, can identify. Nevertheless, these persons need not necessarily be supportive alters (others). They are also mentioned as someone who has influenced the mobility in a sustainable, but negative manner: e.g. because they caused problems or difficulties (as in the following quote). “Okay. So I’ll start with (.) [Lukas], who was the/like my co-‐volunteer, and that really was (.) not very easy, and/like we lived together and worked together and always had like differences of opinions from time to time and that was quite central in my voluntary service.” (vwDEy01) 36 The interviewees discuss such alter egos or counterparts as emotionally close to themselves and characterise their relationship by explaining what they have in common: e.g. a shared flat, plans for travelling during the period of mobility, conflicts at work. An alter ego is therefore not necessarily a friend or a buddy. It can also be someone to whom the young mobile persons have to relate during their period of mobility: either because they might otherwise become outsiders (e.g. there are no other people with whom they can travel) or because they have to work with them on a daily basis. The common ground for the young people is less one of shared interests and more one related to a geographical or contextual reference or to a common opponent. It becomes relevant to point out such shared features or experiences, which constitute the basis and essence of the relationship. This particular one can then stand out from the mass of other relationships, friendships, groups, communities, etc. that are also relevant for the mobility experience. There is “the one” and then there are “the others”. At the same time, these alter egos can only be such during the mobility period, because the common ground is connected to the latter. As soon as the mobility period is over, the context changes, the clusters in the young person’s surroundings and networks change, and the self-‐positioning has to be readjusted. These relationships are therefore not static, but dynamic and dependent on the young person’s current lifeworlds. This dynamism in the relationships is translated into the young person’s lifeworlds as well, which can thus be described as transitory. This in turn entails the need for strategies for transition: Something is needed to reproduce former contexts in the current lifeworlds. Apart from the importance of the one alter-‐ego-‐peer with whom one can share the mobility experience and who is somewhat similar to them, the young people also mention various
35 “So, [Justus], (.) ähm, (..) kommt hier ganz, ganz eng hin. (I: Mhm.) Der war auch mit mir gemeinsam in dem Kindergarten, (I:Mhm.) und, äh, den haben wir halt, wie gesagt, auch auf diesem Seminar kennengelernt und sozusagen, er ist jetzt auch/ er ist der Grund, warum es überhaupt geklappt hat alles.“ (vwDEy03) 36 “Okay. Dann fang ich mal an mit (.) [Lukas], das ist nämlich der/also mein Mitfreiwilliger sozusagen gewesen, und das war wirklich (.) nicht ganz einfach, und/also wir haben zusammen gewohnt und zusammen gearbeitet und hatten immer so Differenzen zwischendurch und das dann so ziemlich im Mittelpunkt meines/eigentlich meines Freiwilligendienstes.“ (vwDEy01)
37
other peers. These are peers that are depicted as resources from which they can draw. There is little reflection upon the relationship structures in this male talk, to speak in gender terms. The relationship to one’s peers becomes a quarry, which one can mine if needed. Even relationships established before the mobility period are connoted in a new manner and have become a resource for the mobile person. For example, peers left behind are mentioned as being important, because they represent a possibility to keep in touch with one’s home country, not because one is fond of them. Mobility, therefore, personalizes and individualizes the young people, as reflected in the way they see and describe their peer relationships.
7.1.4 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `peers as mobility incubator’ across mobility fields
With regard to the six mobility fields studied in MOVE, the step that needs to be taken now is to make a link between each field and the pattern of mobility ‘peers as mobility incubator’ presented above. Beginning with the first mobility field, namely “pupils’ exchange”, it can be shown that peers here play a role in decisions concerning mobility, but families have an even more significant, multifaceted role. Peers who have previously been mobile act as examples and have an important role in the mobility decision. Peers also trigger preferences and push decisions to move. On the one hand, they help to deal with negative outcomes of mobility: such as homesickness or feelings of alienation. On the other hand, peer relations of the same nationality can hinder the progress of intercultural learning and understanding. In the context of the next mobility field, “higher education”, peers provide a determinant example: They have a significant role in mobility decisions among university students. In this context, peers (also virtual peers) act as a relevant source of information and provide important social support. Furthermore, contact with similar peers is often addressed as ‘living in a bubble’. Peers function here as a substitute for the family. In such ‘bubbles’, young mobile people have only limited contact with the nationals of the host country. In the mobility fields “voluntary work” and “entrepreneurship”, peers act as mutual providers of support, counsellors and critics, especially if they have been mobile themselves in the past. In this case, they also participate in giving seminars and engaging in work with organisations and networks that support aspiring volunteers and young entrepreneurs, increasing their own and enhancing their peers’ agency by doing so. In the data from the mobility field “employment”, there is an understanding of mobility as an experience (whether a realised or merely planned project) that, due to the fact that peers have similar biographies, can actually also become limiting and exclude other peer groups. In general, in the context of employment, mobility can trigger positive experiences by being passed on to other young people. Regarding the mobility field “vocational education and training” (VET), peers are part of a large group of key actors who accompany forms of VET mobility. They adopt different functions depending on the nature of the mobility experience and the respective country of origin. They are central reference points for societal self-‐positioning, as is illustrated by the comparisons young people draw to other mobile and non-‐mobile peers and their
38
experiences. Peers foster mobility by reducing insecurity and anxiety, especially in the context of group forms of mobility, such as are typical for German VET mobility, but also by way of long-‐distance emotional support that is provided by peers from home through social media. Moreover, young people profit considerably by learning from mobility-‐experienced peers. In some cases, mobility-‐experienced peers induced mobility projects. However, for the VET context, their respective role is subordinate to the role of institutional actors such as teachers and mobility advisors. At the same time, especially group forms of mobility can limit the individual scope of action, encounters with local people and learning opportunities. On the other hand, the absence of peers (e.g. in the individual forms of mobility that are mostly typical for Spain) is connected with maturing, as well as with an increase in self-‐confidence and of agentic behaviour, by virtue of having to cope on one’s own.
7.2 Learning something through mobility
In general, mobility – especially for young people – is understood as a process that helps to open up new perspectives and create forms of social belonging, self-‐positioning and independence-‐seeking that fall outside the realm of the familiar and are connoted as possibilities for learning.
7.2.1 New experiences as learning processes
In the empirical data, young people mainly deal with mobility as a process that is part of their learning history. The preparatory stage in itself is already interpreted as a learning process. Mobility is seen, among other things, as a “huge opportunity” to improve their education. Though it is also about “having a new experience”, it is, first and foremost, about “learning” more: Mobility enables them “to learn something”. The following quotation describes this new experience as a learning process away from their school and hometown. Here the experience of being mobile is described as one of learning:
“[…] In terms of school, I felt that I had really learned in Romania and this gave me trust in myself and trust in Romania, but on the other hand I realized that what you learn in another country is not only in school, but also the cultural side, which is much more important… and you see so many different points of view and that is why I said I want to spend some more time here, at least to learn more, to get to know these different cultures, to see what this is all about.” (enROy03) 37 Often, the possibility to learn another language plays a key role for young mobile people. The following quotations from different mobility types clearly show this. In all the cases, both the desire and the opportunity to learn a new language are very important.
“And well the primary purpose was language learning.” (peHUy03) 38
“[…] and it seemed to me a good opportunity, first of all regarding the language, German, and then also an opportunity for myself, to improve my language skills, and especially for my personality. […]” (vwROy12) 39 37 “[…]Pentru că am început să realizez aşa cumva că nu-‐i numai ce înveţți la şcoală cel mai important...(-‐-‐-‐-‐)...Pe partea asta de şcoală am simţțit că chiar îmi am învăţțat în România şi asta mi-‐a dat încredere în mine şi în România şi pe de altă parte am realizat că ce înveţți într-‐o altă ţțară nu e doar la şcoală ci e şi partea culturală, care e mult mai importantă............. Şi vezi aşa mai multe perspective şi de asta am şi zis că aş vrea să stau aici mai mult, măcar să mai învăţț, să mai cunosc culturile astea diferite, să văd despre ce este vorba.“ (enROy03) 38 “És hát elsődleges cél a nyelvtanulás volt.“ (peHUy03)
39
“And if you have the opportunity and the ability to learn another language, that is definitely a plus.” (emNOy06)
7.2.2 Positioning in relationships as learning process
However, the focus is not only on this targeted learning process. The young people repeatedly also emphasise the opportunities the mobility experience gives them to find new ways of positioning themselves in social relationships, as exemplified in the following:
“[…] It has changed me because I feel I have learned more about myself, what my limits are, as the nature of the project involved a lot of us working together, people from different cultures, different backgrounds, sometimes 3-‐4 of us were sharing the same room, and this meant a certain way of... living, because everyone has different standards […] And now I feel that these things have helped me at a social level, I’m on better terms with myself.” (enROy13)) 40 With regard to the development of agency, the fluidity of the young people’s responses to changing events shows the influence of mobility on their self-‐perception: In relation to others and to new situations, the young person discovers that she or he is in better terms with her or himself.
Among the social relationships mentioned by the young people, parents and other family members are attributed particular relevance. In this connection, mobility is also seen as a process of becoming independent: as a chance to learn to get by and make their own way, outside the framework of the family. Characteristically, this aspect is also placed in the context of their learning history as young people:
“We have grown (laugh) … yeah we became a lot better friends and we (she and her boyfriend) we just had each other so we had to be sort of .. yeah moving in the same direction with everything … and … we learned a lot, I learned that I don’t have to have my family around me .. every second of the day (laugh) … and now I have started to like being alone and .. things I didn’t like before, I think I was so scared of .. the world and now it’s … so much easier than I thought.” (emNOy01) These two quotations show that the learning effect is particularly obvious to the young people themselves with respect to their own achievements and realizations. Having to rely on themselves and facing difficulties in a different environment, away from their parents and families, leads in general to a transformation in the evaluation of the self and to the development of a sense of agency.
The following three quotations reinforce the observation that young people learn a lot about themselves and how to assert themselves by way of mobility-‐related experiences:
39 “[…] şi mi s-‐a părut o bună oportunitate, în primul rând şi datorită limbii, era limba germană şi atunci era o oportunitate şi pentru mine de a-‐mi îmbunătăţți competenţțele lingvistice, dar mai ales din punctul de vedere al personalităţții. […]“ (vwROy12) 40 “M-‐a schimbat pentru că mi se pare că am învăţțat mai mult despre mine, care sunt limitele mele, pentru că natura proiectului era că lucram foarte mulţți oameni împreună de culturi diferite, background-‐uri diferite, locuiam de multe ori în camere de câtre trei-‐patru oameni, ceea ce presupunea un anume... de a locui, pentru că fiecare are standarde diferite […] Dacă înainte şi pe mine m-‐ar fi durut dacă cineva face o chestie care nu e OK, acum nu mă mai uit aşa la ea, adică am învăţțat să accept, cred, mai bine oamenii din jurul meu şi acum mi se pare că am învăţțat una de la alta.“ (vwROy13)
40
“Nowadays you have so many choices, when you are getting older. It is not like before when you went with your parents and you did what they wanted you to do. And now it is relevant, but not as relevant what your parents did before. You kind of want to explore and learn about yourself.” (peNOy14)
“I would say it has changed me in a very positive way…because you are confronted with new situations, new people, new circumstances. You don’t have your family next to you to tell you what’s good, what’s bad, so you are practically pushed forward into an environment and you must react like an adult, you are responsible for your actions, for the words you say and then you start to understand what it’s like to be on your own, but not isolated and to adapt no matter how difficult the situations may be.” (enROy14) 41
“[...] ...it has changed my personality, I mean it has changed me enormously. […]” (enROy08) 42 Mobility is perceived as creating an environment for change and for facing challenges by oneself: hence for becoming aware of oneself, learning more about oneself, and acting more by way of one’s own agency and one’s own judgement of what is good or bad. It permits the creation or development of personal value systems amongst the young people.
7.2.3 Adapting to structures as learning process
When it comes to educational organisations (e.g. institutions of higher education), the young people notice that here too they have to learn – in this case, to adapt to the existing situation. There is no expectation that they themselves can shape the structures in other countries. Above all, young people who are mobile in Europe learn, therefore, to find their way in different educational systems. They have a nuanced appreciation of the differences in the socio-‐economic conditions of the institutions of higher education, as the following quotation shows:
“The classrooms aren’t developed, I can’t imagine how the seminars are… There was a very theoretical curriculum. The situation in Germany is the opposite. There are more exercises than theoretical knowledge. I learnt things that weren't down-‐to-‐earth, I won’t use them in real life. There were no projectors, technical equipment was not supplied in every classroom. They were not so well equipped. Where I was, there were multifunctional projectors, air-‐conditioning, shades – everything was there, you just had to grab your USB [flash drive], we also had access to the Internet, which was essential.” (heHUy19) 43
41 “Aş spune că m-‐a schimbat într-‐un mod foarte pozitiv... pentru că întâlneşti situaţții noi, oameni noi, circumstanţțe noi. Nu mai ai familia în spate care să-‐ţți spună ce e bine, ce e rău, deci eşti efectiv propulsat într-‐un mediu şi trebuie să răspunzi ca adult, nu mai eşti legat de „glie“, eşti responsabil de acţțiunile tale, de vorbele pe care le rosteşti şi atunci începi să înţțelegi ce înseamnă să fii pe cont propriu, dar nu izolat şi să te adaptezi oricât de dificile ar fi situaţțiile.“ (enRoy14) 42 “[...] ...Şi partea de negociere şi vânzare, ce făceam acolo practic în fiecare zi.“ (enROy08) 43“A tantermek minőségileg nem fejlettek, nem tudom a gyakorlatok hogy vannak… Sok volt az elmélet. Németországban fordítva van. Több a gyakorlat, mint az elmélet. Olyan dolgokat tanultam, amik nem kézzelfoghatóak, nem hasznosíthatjuk az életben. Nem volt projektor, nem minden terem van felszerelve oktatástechnikai eszközökkel. Nem annyira felszereltek. Amelyik iskolába már jártam, ott multifunkcionális kivetítők voltak, légkondik voltak, sötétítők felszerelve – tehát minden adott volt, te csak vitted az usb-‐t, és internetet is tudtál használni, ami nagyon fontos volt.“ (heHUy19) (This quote is used twice on purpose to explain two different cases, as a socio-‐economic difference and as an enabling practice.)
41
This is a kind of learning that involves adaptation to international organisations, but does not involve participation in the organisations’ structures. The students cannot promote institutional change. But they do become aware of the disadvantaged conditions of some higher educational institutions and of the divergences between different institutions.
As young people take part in European programmes for youth mobility, they often gradually become guides to such programmes and give one another advice on how to gain funding, what each programme does and does not offer, and for whom it is or is not suitable. They choose to adapt to and make use of existing contexts, rather than to fight on their own, in order to bring about change. Young adults choose the strategy of adaptation to organisations’ structures and see themselves as coping with these structures. They therefore develop expectations based on that perspective, as illustrated in the following:
“I had to come home because of one subject. I had already expected that I would have to come home, but I hoped it would be more flexible. Students from other countries didn’t have these problems.” (heHUy4) 44
Some institutions in European higher educational systems oblige their students to take their exams at their home institution, while other institutions allow them to do so abroad. Apart from exemplifying the way in which students have to learn to adapt to the institutional structure in which they find themselves, this quote also shows how mobility can hinder one from achieving strategies of agency, if the institutions in question do not show flexibility or do not enable the students to use their agency to stay longer in the host country. These sorts of inflexible institutional regulations, to which students have to learn to adapt, may therefore hinder or hamper mobility.
To sum up, mobility is presented as a context in which various kinds of learning take place in various ways and can lead to, inter alia, language learning, new self-‐positionings, independence, and adaptation to organisations. Not learning anything is not an option here. The young people do as is implicitly expected of them as youth: They learn something. In contrast to the agency-‐enhancing outcome of the exchange amongst peers as presented in the first pattern, this pattern depicts the opposite situation. In order to remain capable of acting, the young people have here to adapt to persons and institutional regulations; and they have to position themselves within relationships, in order to achieve agency or to remain agentic.
7.2.4 Comparison of the pattern of mobility ‘learning something through mobility’ across mobility fields
This subchapter again links the pattern presented above (‘learning something through mobility’) with each mobility field studied in MOVE. Beginning with the mobility field “pupils’ exchange”, it can be shown that the acquiring of general knowledge abroad is less common in this context. Nevertheless, school education is always present during mobility. Learning languages and gaining cultural knowledge is more relevant than gaining general knowledge, which is cited as characteristic only to a limited
44 “egy tárgyból volt az, hogy haza kell jönnöm, számítottam arra hogy haza kell jönni meg szerettem volna haza jönni viszont lehetett volna ez az egy tárgy rugalmas, más nem tudja megoldani. Más nemzetiségű diákoknál nem kellett.“ (heHUy4)
42
extent or not at all (mathematics, physics, chemistry). Furthermore, school education is the main reason for pupils’ exchange, and learning languages and gaining cultural knowledge are also highlighted as important factors. Due to their young age, for many young people, pupils’ exchange is their first experience of mobility without their parents: Handling everyday situations on their own becomes an important practice that pupils need to master. With regard to the mobility field “higher education”, career advancement and improving linguistic skills are both relevant for the mobility. The challenge for the young people in this field is to gain knowledge from other settings and other perspectives, but, at the same time, to remain “compatible” with the system at home. In voluntary work, learning is both a reason for and a result of mobility. Young volunteers frame their experience as an opportunity to learn about oneself, about new contexts, and about specific fields of work. Here, learning is a linear adaptation to the context: The young people have to adapt to the structures that are new to them, in order to make the mobility (work) experience. In the mobility field “entrepreneurship”, learning has a very significant scope. Young entrepreneurs mention having to explore new contexts and to gain understanding of various bureaucratic and market mechanisms in different countries. Learning is not only a desired outcome, but also an imperative necessity for young mobile entrepreneurs. In the mobility field “employment”, learning characterises certain practices that can be attributed to their life stage. Thus, learning becomes a process of (self-‐)discovery, change and experimental action in a new stage and a new environment. In addition, to learn about themselves through mobility, living in a new cultural environment, practising a new language, and realising a new working life fosters (inter-‐)cultural understanding and intercultural learning. As the mobility field VET represents a highly formalised learning setting, related mobilities are naturally connected to learning, both regarding its purpose (as defined by the institutions and the mobile persons themselves) and its embedding in the host country: e.g. by taking place in schools and companies, by participation in courses and the recognition of mobility as part of the VET training. However, while for the Spanish youth, the educational and professional output of mobility is a central motive and consequently, learning is seen as central task, German youth adopt an open attitude towards mobility outcomes, formulating rather a general interest in new experiences. The intrinsic value of a mobility experience is tightly interwoven with purposeful (and partly formal) learning in the case of this mobility field and the two aspects cannot be seen as per se competing with or excluding one other.
7.3 Institutionalized work and education as national enabling patterns
The first two mobility patterns have shown how everyday social relationship structures and organizations can be enabling structures for youth mobility. The first pattern described how peers are virtually a “movens”, i.e. a driving force; the second pattern, how “learning” has become a general and sufficient justificatory and experiential context for mobility in the period of youth.
43
7.3.1 The institutionality of education
The data also shows that young people experience these patterns as being created by school and family and/or in their peer group. Here, they experience, for example, school and family not as social institutions with their legal arrangements and regulatory functions, but rather as an enabling and support context via which mobility is transformed into the feasible goals and expectations of young people's life plans. The following citation makes this clear: “Yes, of course it influences. When I was a kid I was very afraid to leave Spain and going out by myself and my mother convinced me a lot for going to Ireland and then when I went to Liverpool it didn't cost me anything to leave and then, in London, I saw thaaat, although it was not the same it was very similar, yes it helped me, it helped me a lot to not be so afraid and to simply have respect, nothing more. And .. and to leave calmly. Of course, yes, yes it helped me a lot.” (vcESy02) 45
At the same time, however, by way of this significance of peer relations and family, it also becomes clear to what extent youth mobility is dependent on personal communities of relationship. It also shows how youth mobility depends on how these communities are or are not integrated into their mobility as a form of social background security and social, cultural and economic capital. These patterns are necessary as personal enabling contexts.
Personal communities are closely interwoven with institutionalized forms of education and work, which in turn themselves represent a pattern of mobility. The peer group, family relations and school serve to process an institutionality of work and education that helps to shape social contexts in the European Union. Youth mobility does not take place in isolation from the prevailing socially distinct and unequal arrangements and forms of appearance of these forms of institutionalization, but rather is always brought into relation with the latter. Precisely national differences are moored to these institutionalized forms of appearance: for example, to school. This ranges from curricularized requirements in education to the digital equipment of educational institutions, which are not presented as differences related to organization, but rather as national phenomena. Thus, in this context, one of the quotes states:
“The classrooms aren’t developed, I can’t imagine how the seminars are… There was a very theoretical curriculum. The situation in Germany is the opposite. There are more exercises than theoretical knowledge. I learnt things that weren't down-‐to-‐earth, I won’t use them in real life. There were no projectors, technical equipment was not supplied in every classroom. They were not so well equipped. Where I was, there were multifunctional projectors, air-‐conditioning, shades – everything was there, you just had to grab your USB [stick], we also had access to the Internet, which was essential.” (heHUy19) 46
45 “Si, claro que influye. A mi de pequeño me daba muchísimo miedo salir de España y salir yo solo y mi madre me convenció mucho para irme a Irlanda y luego a Liverpool no me costó nada irme y luego, ya en Londres ya, viendo queee, aunque no era lo mismo era muy parecido, si que me ayudó, me ayudó muchísimo a no tener tanto miedo y, a, a simplemente, tenerle respeto, nada más . Y.., y irme tranquilo. Desde luego que si, si me ayudó muchísimo.“ (vcESy02) 46“A tantermek minőségileg nem fejlettek, nem tudom a gyakorlatok hogy vannak… Sok volt az elmélet. Németországban fordítva van. Több a gyakorlat, mint az elmélet. Olyan dolgokat tanultam, amik nem
44
7.3.2 The institutionality of work
The institutionality of work can be regarded rather as a national fact, which co-‐produces youth mobility, but has to be individually mastered, whereas in relation to the institutionalization of education, youth mobility is seen as a part of scholastic, training and study structures, and a certain social openness is also expected (for example, making new friends). Thus, the following quote is intended to draw attention to the fact that education is indeed seen as a social space of enabling, which is not only directed toward immediate learning. This structure of expectation is rarely found in relation to the world of work.
“Let's see, the issue is that I think a difference has to be established between people who are go to study and people who are going to do work practices. Because it has nothing to do with it. At the end of the day, if you go, when you are studying it is much easier, uh, you can go to a frat house, uh, within classes, within the university, whatever, you can find more foreign people, it's there. I think you can make a circle of contacts faster, you can find more people who are in your same situation. And ... no, I do know way but for me it's like, I see it easier. Mmm, it was, a little, the experience I had. Also I was told experiences of people who have gone out. Mostly to study. Uh, labor practices I see it different, you go a bit on your own, to a company where you don't know if there is going to be mmm, that is, you do not know what you'll find. It is a workplace, people go there to work, not to ... to, say, to make friends, to make friends from other countries. It's a ... it's something different. I think in that sense, there should be a little, a different support network to help both.” (vcESy01) 47 The following quote ought to make clear how closely the national institutionality of work is interwoven with the personal community as a pattern of mobility:
“My mother still works and lives in Germany. The opportunities for work was better than at home, salaries and standards of living are higher. So the idea came from there.” (heHUy02) 48 Nevertheless, these sorts of differences do not only relate to unequal labour markets, disparate educational opportunities and unequal living standards, but are likewise differentiated with respect to languages and the question of how international a field of
kézzelfoghatóak, nem hasznosíthatjuk az életben. Nem volt projektor, nem minden terem van felszerelve oktatástechnikai eszközökkel. Nem annyira felszereltek. Amelyik iskolába már jártam, ott multifunkcionális kivetítők voltak, légkondik voltak, sötétítők felszerelve – tehát minden adott volt, te csak vitted az usb-‐t, és internetet is tudtál használni, ami nagyon fontos volt.“ (heHUy19) 47 “A ver, el tema es que yo creo que se tiene que establecer diferencia entre la gente que va a estudiar y la gente que va a hacer unas prácticas laborales. Porque no tiene nada que ver. Al fin y al cabo, si vas, cuando vas a estudiar es mucho más fácil, eeeh, que puedas ir a una residencia de estudiantes, eeeh, dentro de las clases, dentro de la universidad, lo que sea, puedes encontrar a más gente extranjera, que está ahí. Yo creo que puedes hacerte un círculo de contactos más rápidamente, puedes encontrar a más gente que esté en tu misma situación. Y…, no, no se porque, como si lo viera más fácil yo. Mmm, era, un poco, la experiencia que tenía. También experiencias que me ha contado gente que se ha ido fuera. La mayoría a estudiar. Eeeh, lo de las prácticas laborales lo veo distinto, vas un poco más tu sólo, a una empresa donde no sabes si va a haber mmm, o sea, no sabes lo que te vas a encontrar. Es un sitio de trabajo, la gente va a trabajar, no va a… a, digamos a hacer amigos, hacer amistades, de otros países. Es un…, es algo diferente. Yo creo que, en ese sentido, debería haber, un poco, una red de apoyo distinta para ayudar a unos y para otros.“ (vcESy01) 48“Anyukám Németországban dolgozott és dolgozik most is. És így a munkalehetőség Németországban sokkal jobb volt, mint itthon, magasabbak a bérek, jobb az életszínvonal. És innen jött az ötlet.“ (heHUy02)
45
work is. In this connection, there are only rare mentions of international contexts, as in the following quote.
“[…] so.., I studied [law], then I did an extra master in [international law]. And I was contacted by a couple of firms in Luxembourg that were interested in my profile, so … I got a couple of interviews, found out that Luxembourg was.. doing a lot of law, structuring from multi nationals, aaand, I accepted one of the offers they were proposing me. Mmm, mostly I was attracted by this job because it was in English, that was different from home, where I would be working in French or in Dutch, so that what attracted me and also, maybe international environment of Luxembourg, when I visited a couple of times, it was pretty international. And there is also a litttttle biiit (pause 3s) higher salary of what I would get in Belgium.” (emLUy01)
The reference at the end of the citation to divergences in salaries is also made in other contexts, as this quote also shows:
“I: From the administrative point of view, could you feel any incentive? Y: In Austria? Yes, I could. Because they give more money to NGOs and to businesses. […]” (enROy06) 49
There are, however, no documented responses that, going beyond national differences in earning opportunities, present these as unfair and demand that European social policy bring about a transnational harmonization, e.g. of salaries. Here, the institutionality of work, along with all its social consequences, is manifested as a national phenomenon.
To the degree that socio-‐political differences are thematised in the research findings, they are to be observed in specific fields of work: for example, in the vocational training mobility field or in the context of the volunteer work mobility field. Within these fields it is, however, above all the national differences that are highlighted. Thus, the different conditions in elder care are clearly elaborated in the following citation, using an example from the mobility field of vocational training:
“Uhm I was, for the first two days, I was in the retirement home, it’s a huge difference to Germany; because there you, well in that case it was that you had 14 patients, and for those 14 patients there were four to five nurses who were responsible, which is significantly better and more than here in Germany. And that you can care for these people with calm and love, dress them, take care of them. Whereas here in Germany you sadly have to say that these masses or mass processing of people from room to room, blahblahblah and so on and so forth, as everyone knows. There’s a huge difference. Generally it’s also the case that the Finnish mentality is really so calm, like: “We’re going to do this first...” The everyday stress, when for examples you walk through [city A], uh, you don’t have that there (I: Mhm). So that it’s really quiet/ Sure, the weather wasn’t great (laughs), that, that’s something I would say isn’t for me, so grey, sometimes rainy, but otherwise (.) super. Same in the hospital, they have an hour (laughs) of time for each patient, and here in Germany, if you’re good, you have half an hour! (I:
49 “I: Din punct de vedere administrativ ai simţțit un incentive? Y: În Austria? Da. Pentru că ei dau mult mai mulţți bani pentru organizaţții non-‐profit şi pentru business. [...]“ (enROy06)
46
Mhm) So over there, the social system is really really well developed, I have to say. (I: Mhm) So (.) I can’t really complain right now.” (vcDEy02) 50 Summarizing, it can be said here that a European working world and social policy, in contrast to a European institutionalization of education, is not thematized in the data material. Likewise, no expectations were formulated concerning this issue. It is indeed expected from educational and training organizations that they will be organized in such a way that what is at stake is not just an adaptation to national differences, but rather that European spaces of experience are opened up.
7.3.3 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `institutionalized work and education as national enabling patterns’ across mobility fields
Regarding the six mobility fields, the next step to be taken is to link each field of mobility and the pattern of mobility “institutionalized work and education as national enabling patterns”. In the mobility field “pupils’ exchange”, an institutional expectation for mobility is less typical. However, advanced language requirements foster mobility. Bilingual education also promotes the demand for mobility. The Norwegian government promotes internationalisation on all educational levels, whereas in Hungary, an institutional expectation for mobility is less common. Advanced language requirements foster mobility and bilingual education also promotes the demand for mobility. In this context, the mobility field “higher education” shows that the institutions themselves promote mobility. Moreover, it is even expected in some higher educational programmes. In the specific case of Luxembourg, studying abroad is a social norm, linked both to the country’s history and the regulation of higher education in it. In the mobility field “entrepreneurship”, mobility is a way to gain access to high-‐skilled jobs in other countries. At the same time, better entrepreneurship regulations foster the projects. In the mobility field “employment”, there is no explicit link between mobility and specific institutions enabling it. Even though there are some institutions that do support employment mobility, distribute relevant information, and try to encourage young people to move abroad, the data shows that information is often not known to the institutions or to the youth.
50 “Ähm ich war, die ersten zwei Tage war ich im Altenpflegeheim gewesen, das ist ein Riesenunterschied zu Deutschland; weil man hat nur, also in dem Fall war’s so, man hatte 14 Patienten, und für diese 14 Patienten waren vier bis fünf Schwestern zuständig, was schon mal wesentlich besser und mehr ist als hier in Deutschland. Und man hatte auch mehr so diesen familiären Umgang zu diesen Menschen gehabt. Sprich dass man sich in Ruhe und in Liebe um, um diese Menschen gekümmert hat, sie angezogen hat, hat sich um sie gekümmert. Wo hier in Deutschland leider manchmal man wirklich sagen muss, dass diese Massen oder Massenabfertigung ist halt, von Zimmer zu Zimmer machen, blablablabla und so weiter und so weiter, wie man das halt kennt. Da ein Riesenunterschied. Ist allgemein so, das ist auch, diese finnische Mentalität ist halt wirklich so ruhig, so: „Wir machen das jetzt erst einmal…“ Dieser Alltagsstress, wenn man jetzt durch [Stadt A] zum Beispiel geht, äh hat man da gar nicht. (I: Mhm) Also dass es schon sehr ruhig dann/ Gut, das Wetter war jetzt nicht so (lacht) das, wo ich sagen muss, das ist jetzt meins, so grau, regnerisch manchmal, aber ansonsten (.) super. Im Krankenhaus genauso, die haben für einen Patienten (lacht) eine Stunde Zeit, und hier in Deutschland ist es, wenn man gut ist, eine halbe Stunde! (I: Mhm) Also ist da schon, das Sozialsystem ist da schon sehr, sehr gut entwickelt, muss ich sagen. (I: Mhm) Also (.) kann ich mich da jetzt eigentlich nicht beschweren.“ (vcDEy02)
47
In voluntary work mobility, the interwovenness between institutional contexts and young volunteers’ mobility leads to a perpetuation of social stratification. The interviewees criticise the fact that it is, for the most part, pupils and students from higher educational contexts and from wealthier families only who have access to mobility programmes. In the case of VET-‐related mobilities, national VET settings and formalities provide the decisive framework context. They define (and restrict) the duration, timing and setting of mobilities. In Germany, these cornerstones of mobility are set mainly by institutional actors: such as mobility advisors and teachers. The latter, on one hand, leave little space of choice for VET students and, on the other, they eliminate bureaucratic barriers and enable even youth who were not initially self-‐motivated to go abroad. But even the self-‐organised forms of mobility that dominate in Spain are strongly facilitated by institutional actors. Overall, these actors are regarded as an important (if not the most important) influencing factor in the initiation and arrangement of VET mobilities.
7.4 Organisational membership, the crux of mobility
This chapter discusses how closely mobility is linked to organisations and to the act of organising. In the process of preparing and undertaking mobility, organisational membership – the fact of belonging to an organisation – becomes a necessity. Nevertheless, membership itself needs to be earned by exhibiting specific behaviour, adopting views, and acting accordingly.
7.4.1 Membership in programmes and organisations
Mobility itself is not the main challenge to the young mobile people. The actual challenge is how to organise their mobility. The hypothesis is that people are more easily mobile when they are members of a certain organisation and that it is not movement that is at the heart of mobility, but membership in an organisation. This means that to become mobile, the young people have, for the most part, to become a member of the organisation: not necessarily in the literal sense, but in the sense that they have to be assigned a certain membership role, they have to be more or less formally accepted, to prove themselves.
“Then I even had to fly for one/ (..) for a, for a trial day to/ to (laughs) [city in Spain] (I: Mhm.). So, like to prove: Yes, okay, I can do this and like. Yes […] the voluntary work […] at the institution” (vwDEy03) 51 The most basic level of membership is reached by obtaining membership in the category that the mobility programme addresses. In the case of mobility among schoolchildren, their role would be to be mobile as schoolchildren; in the case of mobility among workers, their role is to be mobile workers; and so on. Each programme is arranged in this way. The young people thus become mobile as members of the organisation, not as single individuals. Once the youth’s fit with an organisation is achieved, if they have obtained a certain
51 “Dann musste ich sogar für ein/ (..) für ein, äh/ für einen Probetag nach/nach (lacht) [Stadt in Spanien] (I: Mhm.) fliegen. Also, um sozusagen zu beweisen: Ja, okay, ich kann das Ganze machen und so. Ja. […] den Freiwilligendienst […] bei der Einrichtung.“ (vwDEy03)
48
organisational membership/role that entitles them to do so, they can then become mobile. Here, the challenge is to obtain and occupy that role and to assert themselves in it. One example from the interviews with volunteers can be used to draw a clearer picture of this process going from rejection to adaptation to organisational membership:
“And now really enjoy the time at home. (I: Mhm.) And, umm, (.) then there was that seminar of [organization that organizes volunteering work] (.) and I REALLY didn’t want to go. Not at ALL. I really was like: (.) ‘Ey/that/ I have SO little time left, I want to spend that with my FRIENDS and not with some STRANGERS that I don’t know‘, (I: Hmm.) that I / yeah. And, (.) umm/ And then I also thought, they are all kind of tree huggers or something. That’s no/ no/ nothing bad or something, but I just thought: ‘Okay, real nonconformists’. And then I arrived at the train station and they rea / really were like real Scouts, more or less. And I just said: ‘Oh dear’, (laughing), ‘what is this going to be like?” (vwDEy03) 52 Not only does the volunteer have to adapt to an imagined role. The preparatory seminar he is here talking about has to be attended as a precondition for his stay abroad in the framework of the programme – whether he feels like going or not. He has the feeling that he will come across people there who are not quite like him. In the end, when this feeling turns out to be justified, he views the situation with a sense of humour (laughing). But it becomes clear that this is another role that he has to accept (or at least that he has to be somewhat open-‐minded towards this group of people), if he wants to go abroad. The above-‐mentioned fit between the organisation and the person is somewhat lacking in the next quotations. The consequences are conflict, exclusion and giving-‐up on the planned mobility.
“Hmm. In what way does that come up in your preparation seminar? Y: Well in general it was (.) quite obvious that Jonas didn’t easily (.) in (.) groups (.), yes, that, that he simply does not show consideration and (..) that he just, well also had trouble finding some connections in that group and everyone somehow thought that he’ll go by himself in the project and then it always was like (.), I think it wouldn’t have mattered who came with him in a project, well it already was obvious, that, that somehow (.) that didn’t (..) yes, that a lot of conflicts might come up. Well, because he just, just had his own.. yes, how shall I say (5), so, often the sensitivity was missing and he didn’t show any consideration for others and stuff.. yes (laughing).” (vwDEy01)53
52 “Und jetzt noch ordentlich die Zeit zu Hause genießen. (I: Mhm.) Und, ähm, (.) dann war halt dieses Seminar von der Organisation, die Freiwilligendienste organisiert (.) und ich hatte GAR keine Lust, hinzugehen. ÜBERHAUPT nicht. Also ich war wirklich so komplett: (.) "Ei/ das/ Ich hab jetzt noch SO wenig Zeit, die will ich mit meinen FREUNDEN verbringen und nicht mit irgendwelchen FREMDEN, die ich nicht kenne, (I: Hm.) die ich/ so. Und, (.) ähm/ Und dann hab ich auch schon so gedacht: 'Oh je.' Weil relativ viele sind aus Hamburg gekommen, (I: Mhm.) und dann hab ich gedacht, das sind bestimmt alles solche Ökos und so. Ist ja ni/ ni/ nichts Schlimmes oder so, aber ich hab jetzt gedacht, so: 'Okay, so/ so richtig (.) Alternative.' Und dann komm ich da zum Bahnhof und es waren halt wi/ also wir/ also richtige (.) Pfadfinder , mehr oder weniger. Und ich hab so gesagt: "Oh je", (lacht), "wie wird das jetzt alles?“ (vwDEy03) 53 “Hmm. Inwiefern kommt sowas auf beim Vorbereitungsseminar? Y: Also es war halt generell (.) sehr eindeutig, dass Jonas nicht so einfach (.) in (.) Gruppen (.), ja, dass, dass er einfach nicht so, so viel Rücksicht nimmt und (..), dass er einfach, also in dieser Gruppe auch so schwierig Anschluss gefunden hat und alle auch
49
Showing consideration, finding connections in the group and being sensitive towards others are mentioned as preconditions for actually becoming part of the organisation one is currently in -‐ or supposed to be in. By diverging too much from such behaviour one might exclude oneself from the organisation, either in a metaphorical or in an actual sense, thus endangering one’s mobility or negatively influencing others’ contemporaneous mobility. Another example shows that membership can also be consciously rejected:
“So there was like a workshop weekend and it was really terrible. So all of those white students, that talked about some aid programmes and/ (.) such a dramatic manner, that there/ so they have/ there are a lot of good points, this […] programme, but it simply wasn’t possible for me at that point to do this/ this workshop, and then I just didn’t do it, because there really/ (.) so this connection really, that was horrible. (laughing) (I: Mhm.) So that is/ it should be done way more/ (.) like an anti-‐racist consensus and such are needed, that / (I: Mhm.) that would have made the whole thing a little more bearable, but like this it was just a bunch of 80 students in an old castle, that talked about, what will happen to them in Africa. And there you can/ right, and that was reall/ really terrible (I: Mhm.) and then I didn’t do it, right.” (vwDEy02)54
This quotation clearly shows that the adaptation is actively rejected. The impossibility of accepting membership by sharing in the group’s activities and mindset leads to purposely chosen self-‐exclusion. This choice of non-‐adaptation, which derives from the young person’s agency in the face of their current experiences, need not necessarily be seen as a negative effect of mobility in itself. It merely shows that young people can become aware of their principles during this decision-‐making process. In such a case, however, mobility itself cannot and does not take place55. Mobility is also endangered in cases in which organisational membership had originally been accepted, but then becomes unbearable due to divergences between how the young person understands this membership and how it is understood in the context. The following example makes this explicit:
irgendwie schon dachten, dass er alleine in die Einsatzstelle kommt und dann war das irgendwie immer schon so (.), es wäre glaube ich auch egal gewesen wer mit ihm in einer Einsatzstellen gekommen wäre, also es war halt auch schon klar, dass, dass irgendwie (.) das nicht so (..) ja, das schon viele Konflikte aufkommen können. So, weil er einfach so, seine eigenen… ja, wie soll ich das sagen (5), also, es hat einfach ziemlich oft so das Feingefühl gefehlt und er hat nicht so viel Rücksicht auf andere genommen und so, ja (lacht).“ (vwDEy01) 54 “Also es gab halt ein so Seminarwochenende und das war wirklich schrecklich. Also so die ganzen weißen Studis, die dann sich über irgendwelche Hilfsprogramme und/(.) so ein Gestus, der da/ Also sie haben/ Das hat auch sehr viel gute Seiten, dieses ASA-‐Programm, aber es war für mich einfach zu dem Zeitpunkt einfach nicht möglich, diese/ diese Seminare da irgendwie mit zu machen, und dann hab ich‘s auch sein lassen, weil dich da echt/ (.) Also diese Anbindung wirklich, das war schrecklich. (Lacht) (I: Mhm.) Also das ist/ da hätte man noch sehr viel mehr so/(.) so einen antirassistischen Konsens und sowas gebraucht, der da/ (I: Ja.) Der das Ganze irgendwie hätte erträglich machen können, aber so waren‘s halt ein Haufen von 80 Studis in einer alten Burg, die sich darüber unterhalten haben, was ihnen wohl in Afrika alles so zustoßen wird. Und da kann man/ Genau, und das war wirklich/ wirklich schrecklich (I: Mhm.) und dann hab ich‘s sein lassen, genau.“ (vwDEy02) 55 The interview was conducted after the mobility but the interviewee is talking about their reflection process before the mobility.
50
“So [Justus] quit after six months, he then left. Uhm, he stayed in [city in Spain], but (laughing) uhm quit, because he couldn’t handle it anymore. […]” (vwDEy03) 56
7.4.2 The awarding of membership
Young people can only become a member, if they are made one -‐ for example, of a seminar -‐ and if they accept the role, the rules and the expectations (e.g. financial ones), as exemplified by the following case:
“And then I looked into the organisation that did that, (.) but that then was a money question, because they wanted, uhm/ that was a British organisation, and they then wanted, you to come to some/ some kind of island close to Great Britain for the getting-‐to-‐know-‐you weekend, and paying everything on our own and stuff, and I/ and then I just said, well, I/ also without a guarantee that they will choose you of course, (.) and for me that was a little like/ (.) Yes, I can’t afford that.” (vwDEy04) 57
The following example illustrates the difficulties found in working around financial constraints, in order to enable people from lower socio-‐economic backgrounds to become mobile. The statement that institutions are not willing to recruit people who need to be supported economically, because they are perceived less as a help than as an additional burden, is quite sobering:
“So we always have ONE position. (laughing) Right? It’s tough, ONE position, (I: Mhm.) which is sponsored for people, uhm, who need a little help and stuff. Uhm, but that one [position] is actually almost never occupied and, uhm, that’s not that easy, firstly/ you have got to find a project that wants someone, who is (..) needs support, right? Meaning like, he not only is of help, but is also an extra burden.” (vwDEy03) 58
If difficulties with the membership arise -‐ e.g. when time, staff or money are needed to make the candidate fit -‐ the latter are characterized as a burden more than as a help. Even in cases like this, where there actually is one position precisely for people in need of (financial) support, their integration into the organization seldom happens. Young people, who need special support are seen as unattractive for the programme and are not granted membership: They are not chosen. If the factors within a programme that hinder or foster membership are so effective at creating members that they actually pre-‐select certain people or groups of people, then this means that certain other people or groups of people are excluded in advance and cannot become mobile.
56 […] Also [Justus] hat auch nach sechs Monaten aufgehört, der ist dann gegangen. Ähm, ist noch in [Stadt in Spanien] geblieben, aber, (lacht) äh, hat aufgehört, weil er das nicht mehr ausgehalten hat. [...]“ (vwDEy03) 57 “Und dann hab ich mir halt aber die Organisation angeguckt, die das gemacht hat, (.) und das war dann aber auch so eine Geldfrage, weil die wollten dann, ähm/ das war ja eine englische Organisation, und die wollten dann, dass man da auf eine/irgendeine Insel bei Großbritannien hinkommt für ein Kennenlern-‐Wochenende, und alles selber bezahlt und so, und ich k/ und dann hab ich halt gesagt, ja, ich/ und auch ohne Garantie, dass man genommen wird natürlich, (.) und das war dann für mich ein bisschen so/ (.) Ja, das kann ich mir nicht leisten.“ (vwDEy04) 58“Also wir haben immer EINEN Platz. (lacht) Ne? Ist auch krass, EIN Platz, (I: Mhm.) der dann halt sozusagen gefördert wird für Leute, äh, die halt so ein bisschen auch Hilfe brauchen und so. Ähm, aber der wird fast nie genutzt und, äh, das ist auch nicht ganz so leicht, erstmal/ Da muss man halt auch erstmal Einsatzstellen finden, die dann auch jemanden wollen, der halt (..) n/ auch Unterstützung braucht, ne? Also im Sinne von, der ist dann nicht nur Hilfe, sondern auch noch extra Belastung. (I: Hm.) Schon Hilfe, aber auch Belastung.“(vwDEy03)
51
To sum up, organisational membership is usually necessary to become mobile: one has to comply with organisational norms (e.g. of the sending/receiving organisations) and prove one’s fit, in order to obtain the authorisation to become a mobile youth. At the same time, becoming mobile without membership in an organisation becomes nearly impossible or, at least, much more complicated: “I: And you had said that he actually wanted to go out without an organisation but then he had to [find one]. How come? Y: I don‘t know the details. But like it‘s about insurance and finances and such things. But they were organisational things, which would have become much much more complicated if you had done it without a supporting organisation.” (vwDEy03) 59 As mentioned above, mobility is made possible by means of an organisation – by being a member in an organisation. Yet becoming and staying a member of an organisation requires a great deal of time, work and resources, and this can become a long and challenging process. It is, therefore, not the mobility itself that is a challenge. Rather, it is the organisation of mobility during the process of becoming an adult that is challenging. These observations are meant to refute assumptions or research that see life in a new, unfamiliar environment as the main challenge: involving young people dealing with other, new or unknown people and things, and having to find their place in that environment (having to speak other languages, etc.). The real challenge in fact starts earlier, in their country of origin, where the young people face a whole world of organisation that they have to tackle. They have to fight their way through this unknown jungle of organisation. Once this form of organisation has been dealt with successfully, the step of going to another country is no longer that great of a challenge. In other words, it is not the mobility itself that has a socialising effect, but rather the act of organising the mobility. In conclusion, it is possible to say that the strong link to Europe and equality is revealed when manifestations of organisation produce inequality.
7.4.3 Paperwork and the wish to have an outcome
As the following quotes exemplify, mobility requires organisational practices and skills. Paperwork plays a large role in organising, both during and after youth mobility. Documents are needed throughout the experience and this always goes hand in hand with certain practices of recognition: e.g. by organising or host institutions.
“I had this picture in my head that this was going to be so much work. We were unable to do it, where to go, so many places, offices… but we just sat down and we wrote everything that we had to have, every single paper and where we could get it. We have a Facebook group that is called ‘people from Iceland in Norway’ and you can send in a lot of questions there. Where you
59 “I: Und du hattest erzählt, dass er eigentlich ohne Organisation weg wollte, (Y: Genau.) und dann aber musste/ (Y: Ja.) mir einer musste. Und warum? (Y: Ja.) Wie kam das? Y: Das ist, äh/ ich/ ich war/ Also die/ die Details weiß ich nicht genau. Aber halt/ Es geht halt darum, um/ um die Versicherung und um Gelder und solche Sachen. Also es waren (..) Sachen, die einfach organisatorisch dann viel/ viel komplizierter geworden wären, (I: Mhm.) wenn man das, äh/ da nicht über eine Orga/ über einen Tr/ ohne einen Träger gemacht hätte.“ (vwDEy03)
52
can find work, how you can find an apartment. So we just sat there for hours and it helped us (laugh). We wrote up everything to the group and prepared everything and then my friend (in Norway) took one day off, and drove and got these papers and sent to us to Iceland. We had everything done before we moved … we had planned everything and that is what I think made it so easy … because I have seen many people who are here and they need a paper like for their job or education and they do not have it and then they get many problems. Because they have to get it signed in Iceland and so on … for example child allowance … we knew that we had to bring that with us … we had it with us when we got to the country (Norway).” (emNOy01) Language, for example, can become a problem, if the young people do not have the right certificate. These circumstances give rise to the thought experiment that conceives mobility as a form of schooling involving certain certificates, selection processes and allocation procedures. Just as a school can no longer be imagined without qualifications, youth mobility can no longer be conceived without forms of organisation and without qualification certificates. The following quotation provides another example:
“Because the [official information centre for students in Luxembourg] nobody could tell me if this one from Germany would be recognised or not and I did not want to have this problem after finishing my studies.” (heLUy08) 60
This quote links the above discussion about how organisations as entities are necessary for mobility to the act of organising (as a necessity for becoming mobile) and to the need for certificates (both to grant and to validate mobility). It shows that mobility may become impossible, if young people cannot find institutions that fit their needs and expectations or if institutions cannot provide clear information regarding their offerings and the requirements to participate in their activities. One consequence might then be that young aspiring or previously mobile persons decide not to become mobile, in order to avoid problems in the future: For they cannot be sure that the knowledge, skills and formal diploma obtained abroad would then be sufficient to resume their careers in their countries of origin. The idea behind this is that young people’s stays abroad or youth mobility in general should have a concrete reason and outcome in order to be justified: an outcome that can be quantified or certified. The following quotation underlines this idea of having an outcome: “Maybe you can have a look at her CV and see what she can change etc. And she looked at the CV and said: ‘Okay, but she has no experience’. I said ‘No, she has experience, look, she-‐she already has two years, okay? She has two-‐two years of experience in Poland, and she said: ‘We don't consider that experience here in Luxembourg' and I said, ‘why?’ Because ... they don't consider Poland as a country the same, like Belgium, France or Germany, because she had the same .. um situation as another person there who already had some experience in-‐ I don't remember, was it Belgium or France, with two years and she considered it experience so this is something different, also. and for other people, when you come from Poland it's obvious that you are coming here for money if you're coming for, for, if you're, if you're from Belgium or France it's not always that you're coming for money, but they ARE actually coming (I: of 60“Weil das [official information center for students in Luxembourg] das konnte mir niemand sagen, ob das in Deutschland anerkannt wird oder nicht und das Problem wollte ich einfach nicht eingehen nach meinem Studium.“ (heLUy08)
53
course, yeah) yeah for money, because a lot of Belgian, a lot of French, people they're coming here to work only because of money.” (emLUy05) The interviews show that there is no mobility without a concrete reason, achievement or goal. A mobility that cannot be imagined at this point on a European level is “simply going abroad”. Going somewhere without finding a job or finding the right organisation or finding the right higher educational institution seems to be irrelevant. From this point of view, mobility is not the act of “simply going somewhere else”: It always has to “achieve” something (a certificate, a financial outcome etc.). Mobility is being “certified” and quantified. When organising themselves to go abroad, the young people have to organise vaccinations, travel insurance, etc. The more such barriers they have to overcome (on an organisational and geographical level), the greater the learning effect is considered to be. This means that they have, so to speak, passed a better “module” in their own developmental process than if they had stayed in their own country. In contrast to gathering experience in their country of origin, this means that the young people have gained “better” experience than if they had stayed in their home country. Going abroad thus acquires the connotation that it can teach more or help gain better skills in comparison with remaining in one’s home country, even if the youth might have carried out a similar activity at home (vocational training, volunteering etc.). With regard to youth's agency in relation to this pattern, it can be noted that once young people have successfully passed through the process of becoming a member of an organisation, once they have obtained a role in it, they are then in the position to act – within the organisational frame. Organisations both enable and hinder young people’s strategies of agency and the young people react to this via rejection, adaptation or quitting.
7.4.4 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `organisational membership, the crux of mobility’ across mobility fields
As has been done with the other patterns of mobility, the final step in the discussion of the pattern “organisational membership, the crux of mobility” consists in linking it to the six mobility fields in MOVE. In the mobility field “pupils exchange”, leaving organisations at home (e.g. leaving a class) emerges as an obstacle of mobility. On the other hand, the membership of organisations fosters mobility due to establishing new connections and bridging networks. Exchange organisations promote and distribute the information flow about pupils’ exchange mobility to young people and make sure pupils are being taken care of during periods of mobility. Those who choose to go abroad without an organisational membership may encounter difficulties upon their arrival, during their stay, and after the period of mobility (e.g. receiving credit for courses taken abroad, getting access to necessary/valuable information, meeting people and getting connected). The mobility field “higher education” mentions that in credit-‐based educational systems, problems regarding recognition of credits gained abroad appear as a disadvantage. However, organising institutions promote mobility with scholarships and information. Student mobility, in this specific context, is per definition mobility linked with an organisation.
54
In the mobility field “voluntary work”, both organisations and self-‐organisation are necessary for voluntary work mobility. Organisations are usually the starting point for mobility and they can become a bottleneck when it comes to permitting access to mobility. The mobility field of “entrepreneurship” sheds light on the fact that informal organisations focused on entrepreneurship are important for sharing knowledge about regulations and ways of expansion. The link between this pattern and the mobility field “employment” is limited or absent, due to the fact that mobility is not linked to organisations preparing or realising it. This applies especially for young people with higher educational or vocational degrees suited to the demands of the labour market. The majority of the interviewed VET students do not travel as individuals, but define themselves (and/or are defined) as apprentices, as representatives of their countries, of their vocational school and/or of their company. This can be seen as a consequence of their being part of a formal mobility programme with respect to which they function, for example, as promoters or as proof of success. The reflections of VET students suggest that assuming these functions is somehow perceived as repayment for receiving funding and support within the programmes. While organisational membership can be identified for both countries involved in the VET sample, it is more prominent in the German interviews, due to the more institutionalised structure of the implementation of mobility programmes.
7.5 Youth with ambivalent youth practices
Practices that are specifically related to young people are hardly to be found in the material. What is to be found are practices that are not exclusively youth practices, but rather can be related to all age groups. What are youth practices? Youth is a period that is characterized by a tension between orientations towards the present and towards the future (see Havighurst, 1951; Böhnisch, 2012). Young people have to define and frame their present practices as ones that are advantageous for their future and their life plans. Young people seek spaces in the social realm that they can occupy with their own meanings, thus also negotiating boundaries: e.g. by following specific practices that are especially attributable to their age group (Leaman & Wörsching, 2010; Leccardi & Ruspini, 2006).
7.5.1 Doing youth by doing boundary work
The practices found in the data, nevertheless, cannot be linked back to a certain phase of life or a specific age. Instead, the young people describe practices as if they were youth practices, although they are not necessarily such. The only connection they have to youth is that the people concerned are in a specific life phase. Another question that needs to be posed here is whether these practices can actually be considered to be practices at all or whether they are rather coincidences. Take the example of randomly getting to know someone and spontaneously going to a demonstration with them: Although it is connoted as such, this cannot be categorized as a youth practice, because anyone else, including a middle-‐aged person, could also have had the same experience.
Even if youth-‐specific practices cannot be found in the data, other categories are made relevant that relate to the negotiation of boundaries, the claiming of spaces, and the positioning of the self. Age, for example, becomes a criterion that is used to include oneself and others in specific groups or to exclude oneself and others from them. The young people
55
relate themselves to others in specific ways: e.g. connote themselves as young (or younger than others) and inexperienced, as young and nevertheless experienced, etc. For example, in the following quote, “a girl” is mentioned and is assigned the status of an expert from whom one could seek advice, because “she is already learning in MA”. What is interesting here, particularly with regard to the group of young people, is the wording “a girl”. This person is in the speaker’s peer group, has the same status (even a slightly superior one as an MA student), and is in the same learning context (the university) as the speaker:
“In connection with the travel they didn’t provide any information for us, I was abroad with a girl who is already learning in MA, and she has already been abroad and she was quite experienced.” (heHUy13) 61
In contrast, people who are not in the speaker’s age group are introduced differently, e.g. as “woman”:
“Actually, I had/ like already skyped for half an hour with the uhm woman who is virtually in charge of the NGO through which the money flowed. And we actually thought about quite a lot of things I could do, when I was there, and they were things like this GPS thing, (I: Mhm.) uhm then I could have/ like continued doing the fundraising, (I: Mhm.) then uhm something like networking with other house projects, throughout European and stuff, too.” (vwDEy02) 62
These two examples show how the young people negotiate boundaries: in this case, between age groups. A further example exemplifies a third option. While in the latter quote the woman is mentioned in an unspecific manner, thus creating a distance between the young speaker and her, in the following quote a more personal relationship is established to the “coordinator Maria” by adding the adjectives “nice” and “awesome”. Nevertheless, she remains a “woman” and it is clear that she cannot be framed as a peer due to her age and status:
“[...] [Maria] was to us, for us I mean, just our mentor, adviser extraordinaire. Because we saw her every single day, she showed us everything, explained things, helped when we were stuck somewhere. So [Maria], she was a super nice woman, person, just really awesome.” (vcDEy02)63
While the relationship to elders as advisers is clearly positive and possible, the relationship to elders as friends is ambivalent. Some young people do in fact describe experiences of sharing flats and making friends with people (much) older than them, while others mention age to explain the impossibility of a friendship:
“There were also more unpleasant situations when, because I had just arrived in [city X in GB] and I didn’t have many friends, I had to adapt. At the dance school, there aren’t many 61“Kiutazzal kapcsolatban, kiutazassal kapcsolatban semmi informaciot nem adtak, hat ugyjutottam hogy kell volt ez a masiklany aki o mar nem tudom mesterkepzeses de o mar ekkor mar utazott mindehova es eleg rutinos volT.“ (heHUy13) 62 “Also ich hatte tatsächlich/ also vorher irgendwie mal eine halbe Stunde mit der äh Frau geskypet, die die NGO quasi federleitend da geführt hat, über die die Gelder geflossen sind. Und da haben wir uns auch echt relativ viel überlegt, was ich machen könnte, wenn ich halt da bin, und das waren Sachen eben wie dieses GPS, (I: Mhm.) ähm dann hätte ich noch/ also das Fundraising nochmal weitermachen können, (I: Mhm.) dann äh sowas wie eben Vernetzung mit anderen Hausprojekten, auch so europaweit und so.“ (vwDEy02) 63 “[…] die [Maria] war halt uns, für uns halt die, die Mentorin halt, Betreuerin schlechthin. Weil wir hatten mit ihr tagtäglich zu tun gehabt, sie hat uns alles gezeigt, Sachen erklärt, geholfen, wenn wir irgendwo nicht weiterwussten. Also die Maria, die war eine supernette Frau, Person, also echt klasse.“ (vcDEy02)
56
colleagues my age, so we couldn’t talk, go out, hang out. [...] The manager is 40 and so is another woman coach, so I didn’t have many options and at some point, it all became very gloomy, because I was feeling lonely, although I had friends back home, I was feeling quite lonely. But I have learned to get over this, because I want to accomplish my dreams.” (enRoy04) 64
Getting to know people in one’s age group makes it easier “to talk, go out and hang out”. If there are no people of the same age, one might experience loneliness. Nevertheless, by more or less consciously “learning to get over this”, by acknowledging and altering their mindset, young people seem to be able to befriend older people too. Age is therefore not necessarily a factor that inhibits friendships during a period of mobility. Rather, the matter is framed as a question of attitude. Such forms of ambivalence in doing boundary work among mobile youth (in this case, regarding age) will be further exemplified below. Another practice that might be commonly understood as a youth practice (in contrast to other age groups) is partying a lot. Mention of this is widespread in the data. The following quote is one example among many:
“At night, there was a lot of party, every night, it was really incredible. We had dinner every night in the shared apartments. Before almost every night we went to the gym. Hmm, we had classes but that was for real only the 5% of... of our lives... Hmm... it was, it was like this, wake up, go to class, come back, go to the gym, dinner, party and so [laugh].” (enESy17) 65
But the young people’s relationship to this collective practice is again ambivalent. While presenting themselves as prone to socializing and partying, they simultaneously strive to demonstrate that they are aware of their role as trustable, agentic young adults: some of whom are currently in work contexts or in other contexts that involve obligations and responsibility. The following quote expresses this characteristic ambivalence:
“I: What would you say, what is the biggest challenge while going to study? Y: The biggest challenge (I: mhm) (6s) I have mentioned it already few times. ((laugh)) It is not that, not living at home any more (I: mhm), it is not to do everything on your own, so ... to study, (…) the biggest challenge is rather to get somehow the control (I: mhm) and not just in terms of study life ..party like or so (I: yes) I think you have to find an equilibrium, because you do not have anybody to stop you (I: mhm).” (heLUy09)66
64 “Au fost şi situaţții mai neplăcute atunci când fiind nouă în Londra, neavând o grămadă de prieteni a trebuit să mă adaptez. La şcoala de dans nu sunt foarte mulţți colegi de vârsta mea, aşa că nu am avut cum să vorbim, să ieşim, să stăm împreună. [...] Managerul are 40 şi, o altă antrenoare la fel, aşadar nu aveam prea multe variante şi a devenit totul foarte sumbru la un moment dat pentru că mă simţțeam singură, deşi aveam prietenii acasă, mă simţțeam destul de singură. Dar am învăţțat să trec peste lucrul ăsta, pentru că vreau să-‐mi îndeplinesc visele.“ (enRoy04) 65 “Por la noche hacía muchísima fiesta, cada noche, realmente era increíble. Hacíamos cenas cada noche en los pisos compartidos. Antes cada noche casi íbamos al gimnasio. Eh, teníamos clase, pero realmente era el 5% de… de nuestra vida… Eh… era, era así, era levantarse, ir a clase, volver, gimnasio, cena, fiesta y eso [risas].“ (enESy17) 66 “I: Was würdest du sagen, was ist denn, die größte Herausforderung im Ausland zu studieren? Y: Die größte Herausforderung (I: mhm) (6s) Ja ich hab schon mehrmals erwähnt. ((lacht)) ich glaub es ist halt nicht mal das, das zu Hause wohnen (I: mhm), das alles alleine machen müssen, also ... studieren, (…) Die Herausforderung ist eher zu bestehen, das irgendwie unter Kontrolle zu bekommen (I: mhm) und s nicht dann nur auf das
57
7.5.2 Doing youth by doing individual vs. collective coping strategies
Another characteristic to be noted when discussing youth and mobility is that although youth practices are generally collective practices, the coping strategies mentioned by the young people with regard to their mobility are mostly individual ones. In critical situations – like the following ones, for example – the young people do not mention turning to their peers: “How was it, your ...living on your own, for the first time .. ((laughs)) Y: for fir-‐, for first month, I overspent, (I: ((laughs) like completely overspent, and ehm ... had to deal with a lot of bureaucracy (I: mhm) ... I wouldn't expect that. That eh, it was okay. (I: mhm) .. so, …especially dealing with house stuff, (I: ((laughs))) I locked myself out and I have eh two sets of key, but eh, I had eh given it to a friend who lives in [city A in Germany] and eh, was off somewhere, so it was impossible to get my second key, so, ... I had to find someone to … to open the house for me …. and eh, so I called and he came after 30 minutes and eh, I paid 150, and then I felt like an adult. ((laughs)).” (emLUy12) The young people are proud of mastering such situations on their own, which makes them feel “like an adult”. The mentioning of such processes of growing up by confronting and braving challenging situations is characteristic of youth who are distinguishing themselves as independent and responsible enough to manage on their own. They position themselves as grown-‐ups, as opposed to children in need of supervision and care: “I actually did not expect to survive that long alone, but so far, I am doing well, I am alive, I did not lose weight so it is nice (laughter) yes so far I think I will stay (l. 165-‐166). I moved. I emancipated 3000 kilometre from my parents place. It is quite a big job. It makes me proud of myself; I actually could achieved that on my own. Therefore, for me it was a big experiment, I wanted to do that, I could do it, I did, and I have succeeded at some point.” (emNOy14) Nevertheless, here too, collective coping strategies do play a role in specific situations and reinforce the importance of peers in the context of mobility. (See also chapter 7.1: “Peers as mobility incubators”.) Unfamiliar or difficult situations may be coped with more easily, if one’s peer group can act as a supportive element, as in the following example:
“For the first time, it was shocking. As I know, I was in [name of the College]. The rooms were absolutely okay, there were 3 beds in each, it’s absolutely okay, but the toilet – and the shower and the kitchen were hell for me. It was very bad. Women share toilets with men, and there were only 4 of them, that’s why it was shocking for me at the beginning, because I didn’t know about it and there were no separated toilets. In the kitchen there was a cooker with an oven, a microwave oven and a metal table, nothing else. But it was okay as well, I got over it. The shower, there were 3 showers for the girls, and there were times when it got clogged and then we stood in the water, sometimes the curtain or the shower broke off and we had to bring water in plastic bottles. I didn’t expect that. I got used to the situation, I said it’s okay, I can’t change this. I could have moved out, and find a flat, but I didn’t want to give up on this due to
Studentenleben ..also, im Sinn von Party und (I: ja) ich glaub man muss da n Ausgleich finden, weil man halt keinen hat, der, der einen irgendwie bremst (I: mhm).“ (heLUy09)
58
social reasons as we have already got to know each other, the Erasmus students at the time and I had really-‐really great roommates.” (heHUy22) 67
Accepting differences and bearing alienation from the new environment, e.g. with respect to the living conditions, is only justified and made possible by the wish not to separate from one’s peer group: “[…] I didn’t want to give up on this due to social reasons […]” (heHUy22) 68
Such manners of reasoning are not youth practices, however. They again simply show the importance of peers during youth mobility as a situation in which young people handle various challenges in different ways.
7.5.3 Working through bureaucratic challenges as collective youth practice
One of the aims of the young people is to be financially independent and to work their way through bureaucratic processes. They want to understand them and to be able to handle them. This could be understood as a collective practice, because all the young people who have to go through this process can mutually help each other. They share common experiences, know about possible challenges, and can offer solutions and support. The data provides evidence that the young people’s struggle with bureaucratic hurdles is a collective practice in which youngsters help each other out. Nevertheless, the struggle is then framed by the young people as an individual achievement. They perceive themselves as manoeuvring from dependence to independence, while experiencing a process that can be time-‐consuming and tiring: especially when foreign languages and unfamiliar practices are involved.
“I hadn’t known about these, just after I (.) inquired. But it was a two-‐week long process to inquire and to find out by myself what I had to do. The enrolment of the subjects is (.) also a very different system. So there’s no [online university platform] where you can enrol in the subjects by yourself, rather you have to hand in a paper and the subjects will be enrolled by them. Then it turned out that those subjects are not good for me, because they are on too high a level, (.) then I had to hand in another paper. So this administration at the beginning (…) went quite (.) haltingly. But then (.) there was no negative thing.” (heHUy15) 69
67“Da war ich erst mal sehr geschockt. Ich weiß nicht ob ihr beide schon mal in dem Studentenwohnheim E/6 wart… Die Zimmer an sich waren völlig in Ordnung, wir waren zu dritt auf einen Zimmer, es war völlig okay, aber die Toilette und die Duschsituation und die Küchensituation war für mich die ersten Wochen absolute Hölle, es war sehr schlimm. Die Toilette hat man sich mit Männern und Frauen geteilt und es waren halt nur vier Toiletten, dementsprechend sahen die auch aus und für mich war das am Anfang absoluter Schock, weil ich das so nicht kannte, und vor allem weil man es sich teilt, dass es keine separaten Toiletten sind. In der Küche war nur ein Herd mit einem Backofen, eine Mikrowelle und ein Metalltisch und sonst nichts. Aber das war auch okay, man hat sich arrangiert. Die Dusche, es waren drei Duschen für die Mädels und die waren manchmal verstopft und dann stand man in dem Wasser oder die Vorhänge waren halt kaputt, abgerissen, die Duschköpfe waren ab, so dass man Plastikflaschen ranschrauben musste. Das hätte ich nicht erwartet. Ich habe mich mit der Situation arrangiert, ich habe dann gesagt okay, ich kann es nicht ändern. Ich hatte wegziehen können, eine Wohnung nehmen können, aber ich wollte auf diesen sozialen Aspekt nicht verzichten, weil wir dann alle kennengelernt haben und so hat man auch mit den anderen Leuten mehr Kontakt, mit den anderen Erasmus Studenten und ich hatte ganz ganz tolle Mitbewohnerinnen.“ (heHUy22) 68“[...] ich wollte auf diesen sozialen Aspekt nicht verzichten [...]“ (heHUy22) 69 “Ezeket mind nem tudtam,csak hogy így (.) megérdeklődtem. De hogy ez egy kéthetes folyamat volt, mire megérdeklődtem és rájöttem igazából magamtól, hogy mit hogy kell elintézni. A tantárgyfelvétel is (,)
59
“These official things were (.) also obstacles. For example, it was a problem for me when opening a German account, (.) than I didn’t speak the German language fluently enough to explain my problem, and they didn’t understand me...” (heHUy16) 70 These struggles at overcoming “official”, administrative and bureaucratic, challenges are, therefore, an expression of the young person’s individual grappling with the organised society. In the context of mobility, they are to be seen less as collective youth practices than individual processes, which are at times supported by peers. This difficult process is also seen as a milestone by the young people. They are proud of themselves for having cleared such hurdles and they feel they belong to something new and can characterise themselves as independent. In this context, young people’s agency does not arise through youth as a particular societal form, since youth mobility cannot be seen as a specific form of young age. This is why some youth-‐specific processes are activated in which agency may arise: the search for free spaces, processes of delimitation, when facing and overcoming difficulties, when adapting to structures or deciding not to adapt to them. Nevertheless, these are not enough to delineate youth as a specific societal form. To conclude, youth practices as such are not to be found in the data. Nevertheless, one does find ambivalent practices and attitudes towards categories that are relevant in youth. One finds the topics age and youth, as well as practices that demonstrate the young people’s struggle to come to terms with our society’s labour-‐orientation and with bureaucracy. One finds adaptation framed as the pursuit of independence, paired with reference to youth-‐specific practices such as partying. These thematisations of having to find one’s way towards independence, while also referring to the supportive collective, can be viewed as specific to youth. The way in which it is done – i.e. subjectifying and personalizing the outcomes – can be considered to be specific to youth mobility. The question that is thereby answered is thus: How are mobility and youth linked and what does mobility do to “youth” as a specific stage of life?
7.5.4 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `youth with ambivalent youth practices’ across mobility fields
In what follows, the pattern of mobility “youth with ambivalent youth practices ”, which was presented above, is linked to the six mobility fields. In the mobility field “pupils’ exchange”, mobility is an important step in the process of becoming an adult. Leaving the family can also, however, cause psychological problems, as a result of the need to grow up prematurely. This can be interpreted as a case of half-‐independence, due to the fact that pupils often also “exchange” their families. The culture
teljesen más rendszer. Tehát nincsen Neptun ahol magadnak felveszed a tárgyakat, hanem le kell adni egy papírt, és ők felveszik neked a tárgyakat. Aztán kiderült ezek a tárgyak nekem nem is jók, mert túl magas SZINTEN vannak, (.) aztán megint le kellett adni egy másik papírt. Szóval ez így ez az adminisztráció az elején (..) elég (.) vontatottan ment. De utána igazából (.)nem volt semmi negatívum.“ (heHUy15) 70“Nehézség még (.) ezek a hivatalos dolgok. Például nekem problémám volt a német számlámmal, (.)akkor még nem tudtam olyan szinten németből, hogy precízen el tudjam mesélni, hogy tényleg mi a bajom, és nem értettek meg...“ (heHUy16)
60
shock can be overwhelming. As shown in the data, the family can hamper mobility and leaving stricter families can obstruct mobility and students return home. Mobility in higher education promotes independence and individual career paths. University students gain more independence, and, unlike high school students, they are able to deal well with culture shock. They gradually become independent, especially from their parents. In voluntary work, youth frames its practices as self-‐development: as a process in which young people get to know themselves better, explore their interests concerning their future careers, and gain experience in contexts with which they were previously unfamiliar. Most of the young people in the mobility field of “entrepreneurship” are looking for economic independence in an economic environment that is stamped by unemployment. In the mobility field “employment”, youth practices can be seen as a transition to adulthood: They are thus marked by distinct new practices, which in turn characterise the new period/stage of life. There is rich empirical evidence in the data on VET mobility that relates to age-‐specific practices and developmental tasks and how such tasks are accomplished. The mobility experiences of VET students are shaped by exploring new cultures, landscapes and lifestyles, as well as by making new friends. But they are also shaped by growing up, by finding one´s place in society, and by personal and career development. There are again here country-‐specific differences. These are connected to divergent aims, which are mainly due, in turn, to varying labour market situations: e.g. the prevalence of cultural curiosity among German VET students and of personal and career development among Spanish students.
7.6 The dilemma of the revolving door
The pattern ‘the dilemma of the revolving door’ cuts across the five patterns described above. This main transversal pattern stands out from the others, because it is about the dilemma that young mobile people experience, as delineated in the previous patterns: They cannot break out. Once they move out of one structure, they have to slide into the next. In general: “One cannot break out”. Metaphorically speaking, there is no door leading out, there are only revolving doors leading back in. Here, the generalizing subject “one” includes not only the young people (and, for example, their staying in peer relationships) (see 7.1 und 7.2), but also the ambivalences of the institutions -‐-‐ including the ambivalent youth practices within them (see 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5) – from which one cannot break out and which form mobility. The dilemma of the revolving door connects the patterns described above and is therefore their condensation. Since it arises from the merging of the other patterns, it can be called a “master pattern” and will be discussed in detail in the following. The idea of breaking out is closely linked to youth. In the classical sense, it involves breaking out of narrow familial contexts and similarly narrow school contexts. Youth mobility, in turn, features a double connotation of breaking out. On the one hand, the phase of youth is shaped by young people's separation, disengagement and exiting from the above-‐mentioned contexts. It is about breaking away and freeing up space for oneself, about opening new doors and following one’s own path – different from the paths others have
61
taken before you. This path of one’s own is usually not specified. This is the general idea of youth: The particular young person may take their own space to develop independently. On the other hand, in this regard, mobility is a geographical form of escape. Being mobile is compared to leaving something behind, going somewhere else, reaching a destination.
7.6.1 Breaking away from the parental home, searching for free space
In the data, this geographical going out is described socially as an emancipation from one’s parents, as autonomy from the family one has left behind, which leads, in turn, to independence and freedom:
“Hmm ... I think it was just kind of process of breaking away from home.” (heLUy01) 71
“I: You also wrote a post-‐it “freedom”. (.) Could you tell (.) (Y: mhm) something more about that? Y: Yes, as I said, I found it very good to see how it is, if you do not live in the hotel-‐mama (I: mhm). Yes, in my case it is rather that I aim for becoming independent, to have freedom and to shape the life by myself. (I: mhm) Also the household, (I: mhm) probably because I am little bit older [23-‐26], mhm (.) yes, then I come into conflict with my mom at home.” (heLUy05) 72
The feelings of freedom described by the young people, and their breaking out of familial structures, can be attributed to their stage of life: They use the possibility of living and coping in another part of the world, away from home, for a certain period of time. The following quotes exemplify this:
“Yes, so (I: mhm), freedom quite clear, to be away from home, ehm ... somehow not always, .. with, everything with ehm, so that parents know everything (I: mhm) (…) ... yes, freedom played a very big role (I: mhm), once to cope on my own, it could have been, that, that I would have said after half a year, it does not work.” (heLUy09) 73
“Ehm, the distance from home ... mh it played also a role, because I did not want to go to [town A, Germany], because .. yes, it was not the goal to come back home every weekend (I: mhm) and from [town A, Austria – place of study] it is quite difficult to come back home every weekend. And it is also more difficult for the parents to come each time (I: mhm) I think it is important.” (heLUy09) 74
These steps, described as a process of struggling towards freedom, are seen as being crowned by the achievement of gaining independence: 71“Hmm ... ich glaube es war einfach auch so ein Abnabelungsprozess . von zu dem zu Hause.“ (heLUy01) 72“I: Du hast ja auch ein Post-‐it Freiheit geschrieben. (.) Könntest du was (.) (Y: mhm) mehr darüber erzählen? Y: Ja, wie gesagt, also das fand ich sehr gut mal zu sehen wie es auch ist, wenn man nicht im Hotel Mama lebt (I: mhm). Ja, bei mir ist das jetzt eher so, dass ich schon danach strebe mhm eher nach selbstständig sein, Freiheit haben und das Leben mal selbst gestalten. (I: mhm) Auch was den Haushalt und alles betrifft, (I: mhm) wahrscheinlich weil ich jetzt auch schon älter bin, [23-‐26], mhm (.) da gerate ich oft mit meiner Mutter halt in nen Konflikt zu Hause, ne.“ (heLUy05) 73“Ja also (I: mhm), Freiheit ganz klar mal weg von zuhause sein, ehm ... irgendwie nicht immer das, .. mit, alles mit eh, dass die Eltern immer alles mitbekommen (I: mhm) (…) ... ja also die Freiheit hat dann doch eine ganz große Rolle gespielt (I: mhm), einmal auf sich allein gestellt sein, das hätte ja auch sein können, dass es, dass ich gesagt hab nach nem halben Jahr, es funktioniert nicht.“ (heLUy09) 74“Ehm, Entfernung von zuhause ... mh hat auch n Thema gespielt, dann ich nicht gerade nach [Stadt A, Deutschland] oder so gehen wollte, weil ... ja es war halt nicht das Ziel jedes Wochenende nach Hause zu kommen (I: mhm) und von [Stadt A, Österreich] ist es halt schwieriger jedes Wochenende nach Hause zu kommen. Und es ist da halt auch schwieriger für die Eltern jedes Ja-‐ jedes Mal runter zu kommen (I: mhm) und ehm ... empfind ich schon als wichtig.“ (heLUy09)
62
“The biggest difference between my life at home and there, is that everything, that I could thank for parental help at home, was achieved alone abroad.” (heHUe03) 75
“Since then I do not need to ask my parents for support, in any form.” (heHUe03) 76
For young people, the link to the term freedom is a longing for free space, which culminates in practices aimed at occupying social spaces and demarcating them by using youth’s own meanings and codes. Nevertheless, in the data young people integrate into similar structures, but mostly do not create new ones. This latter kind of practice is seldom found in the data, although the following might represent one example:
“And kind of to get rid out of chains (I: yes), so this eh, I always compare it with the moment, when you get your driving licence (I: mhm) and you have your own car, you can go where you want, you feel completely free.” (heLUy10) 77
In this quote, mobility is compared to obtaining one’s driving licence. It conveys the feeling of being able to go anywhere, anytime, by one’s own means: exploring new terrain and experiencing independence and "complete freedom".
7.6.2 Going out of Europe, organised breakout
As already mentioned, in this context, mobility is a geographical form of going-‐out and being mobile and is equated to leaving something, going somewhere else and reaching a destination. Youth present their mobility as something organised. If the degree of organisation is high enough, mobility is made possible. Furthermore, mobility could be possible by way of organisations, which become the starting and ending point of mobility. In the data, mobility can, therefore, only be discussed with reference to organisation. As mentioned in the four patterns described above, youth's desire to get “out” is eclipsed by the institutional alignment to the educational system and labour market. Modern forms of communication technology also maintain their familiar social ties. Within Europe, young people can leave, but not within the frame of the European educational systems and labour market. To achieve that, they need the reliable conditions of education and employment with which they are already familiar. They have to adapt to the labour market and be willing to learn. Instead of framing their stay abroad as a breakout, they describe its outcome in alignment with societal expectations of learning, development, achievement, and increasing and perfecting various social, personal and professional skills. They also describe it as an opportunity to build international links: to establish transnational relationships that may lead to opening new possibilities for them and to new collaborations.
7.6.3 Breaking out by going farther away
Since mobility is considered as fashionable, as something everyone does or even should do, the longer and farther away the better. Young people do want to get “out”. If going far
75 “A nagyobb különbség az itthoni é sottani életem között, hogy azt én magamnak teremtettem meg, itthon viszont szülői háttérnek köszönhettem.“ (heHUe03) 76 “Azóta nekem nem kell támogatást kérnem a szüleimtől, semmilyen formában.“ (heHUe03) 77 “Und so n bisschen dann diese FESSELN losmachen (I: ja), also das eh, ich vergleich das immer mit dem Moment, wenn man den Führerschein bekommt (I: mhm) und sein eigenes Auto hat, kann man auf einmal hinfahren wo man-‐, Man fühlt sich irgendwie total frei.“ (heLUy10)
63
away for a long time is not possible, going abroad within Europe for a short(er) period of time becomes somewhat a compromise:
“Well, of course, at our time this was very fashionable. Everyone went abroad to complete their studies abroad. But I did not want to be abroad for 3-‐4 years. Then I found this a so-‐so solution: I stay at home but I would like to go abroad with Erasmus in any case.” (heHUy15) 78
In the material, the wordings “to go further/far away” can be found when young people describe their attempts to go farther away, in order “really” to get out. The idea behind this seems to be that the greater the distance, the more chances there are really to get out.
“I: Please imagine such a situation, hm playing again, ok, in the front of you there is a person, who wants to go abroad to study, but is not completely sure. What do you tell her? (9s) Y: mh (5s) Now, so I am three and half year back now from [town C, France] (I: mhm), then I would tell me, yes, you would better have gone further away (I: okay, yes), that’s why I would tell her (I: mhm) go, do the journey (I: okay) further away ... it is a nice experience .. (I: mhm) yes.” (heLUy12) 79
“Well I do not know, so far I have many dreams one more year in Norway, afterwards maybe to Barcelona or Costa Rica, we will see…I have dream about working in different countries far away from Norway. […]” (emNOy08)
Although from young people's perspective, this approach might seem like the right solution for actually “getting out”, it is not by distancing themselves geographically from what they are leaving behind that young people can actually better “cut the cord” or break out.
7.6.4 Media as an obstacle to (digitally) breaking out
New media and virtually unlimited accessibility across geographical borders and time-‐zones are the best demonstrations of how, due to worldwide digitalization, it is becoming increasingly difficult to break out and, for example, be out of reach. “Hm, yes, I/ well (.) I/ I would leave the family and [city X in Germany] and so on out, because (.) that simply were two different things at that time. So for me it was the first time, that I really was separated from my family, (.) and my parents didn’t really get along with that at the beginning. So they/ they/ they wanted to / they wanted a lot, umm, hear, more or less. (.) So / we agreed on: okay, talking on the phone once a week, skyping or something like that. And that (I: Mhm.) was even too much for me. I just real/ really wanted to be there. I wanted to concentrated myself on being there and not have that much connection to home.” (vwDEy03) 80
78 “Mert ugye ez a mi időnkbe nagy divat volt. Mindenki kiment, hogy a teljes tanulmányt külföldön csinálja meg. De én ezt nem akartam, hogy 3-‐4 évig külföldön legyek. És akkor ilyen is-‐is megoldásnak találtam: itthon maradok, de mindenképpen ki szeretnék menni Erasmus-‐szal.“ (heHUy15) 79“Und jetzt stell dir mal bitte so ne Situation vor, hm wieder spielen, also vor dir sitzt eine Person, die eh, .. ja die will so, ins Ausland gehen um zu studieren, ist, ist sich aber nicht sicher. Was sagst du der Person? (9s) Y: mh (5s) Jetzt, eh nach ..den, also nach .. drei, dreieinhalb Jahren bin ich jetzt .. eh .. fertig, also (I: mhm) war das mit [Stadt C, Frankreich] (I: mhm), da würd ich mir sagen, ja, fährst du doch vielleicht weiter weg gewesen (I: okay, ja), deshalb würde ich dem dann (I: mhm) auch sagen, ja .. geh auf die Reise (I: okay) weiter weg und ... ja es ist ne tolle Erfahrung .. (I: mhm) ja.“ (heLUy12) 80 “Hm, ja, ich/ also (.) ich/ ich würd jetzt aus diesem hier erst mal so ein bisschen die Familie und Hamburg und so so ein bisschen rauslassen, weil (.) das auch schon zwei unterschiedliche Sachen waren, einfach zu der Zeit.
64
As in this quote, the stay abroad is often meant to be used as a way to get out and be somewhere else (“I just real/really wanted to be there”). Again, however, it clearly shows the dilemma of the young person, who has to compromise with his or her parents and skype or talk over the phone once a week, even though the speaker would have preferred to have less contact. Too strong a connection to home would disrupt his/her process of being there; A weaker connection would create tensions with the parents, since both parties know that they could be in touch daily, even constantly. Completely breaking out in the form of no contact is, therefore, neither justifiable nor possible. On the contrary, when leaving for their stay abroad, youth extend their field of online communication to include their parents, in ways in which they might not have done before, as shown in the following quote:
“I have fully computerized my parents totally. I have installed them Skype and yes, all the social media helps a lot. The first time I went to England it was not that easy, there were not as many social networks but I remember I used MSN with my family but now we see each other's faces. (...) With my dad and mostly with my friends I use more Whatsapp, Facebook but Skype with the family.” (enESy03) 81
Breaking out and not keeping in touch is not an option, because nowadays there are too many ways in which one could maintain contact to one’s family and friends. Youth react by actively managing their communication channels and those of their parents too: “I have fully computerized my parents totally” (see quote above). Group chats are used to keep a conversation going and to keep in touch: not about problems or needs, but about incidents (“something funny happens to someone”, ibid.) within one’s peer group (friends) nearby or across borders. It is about having a share in everyday life events and not missing out on things, as well as about sharing feelings with one’s family or friends, in order to feel less isolated – especially at the beginning of the experience.
“With my family, I call. A lot actually (Laughter). Uh, but we do also Skype, cause it’s cheaper, uhm, so a lot through texts and phone with my family, but with my friends mostly uh, it’s online. Uh, because it is not like we are having long conversations, it is more like it is a group chat and then something funny happens to someone, and they will post it and someone will react. So it’s more of an on-‐going conversation really than that we actually agree. Okay, we need to take time to talk, because getting all of them to take the time, at the same time, to have a conversation is uh, impossible.” (emNOy06)
Also das war für mich auch so das erste Mal, dass ich so wirklich richtig von meiner Familie getrennt war, (.) und meine Eltern sind am Anfang auch überhaupt nicht gut damit klargekommen. Also die/ die/ die wollten da/ die wollten halt ganz viel, äh, hören, so mehr oder weniger. (.) Also so/ wir haben uns dann darauf geeinigt: Okay, einmal die Woche telefonieren wir, skypen oder irgendwie sowas. Und das (I: Mhm.) war mir dann sogar schon zu viel. Also ich wollte eigentlich wirk/ einfach wirklich da sein. Ich wollte mich auf dort konzentrieren und wollte dann nicht so viel auch Verbindung zu zu Hause haben.“ (vwDEy03) 81 “Totalmente, he computarizado a mis padres totalmente, les he puesto el Skype y sí, sí todo lo de las redes sociales ayuda muchísimo. Yo la primera vez que me fui a Inglaterra no había tantas facilidades, no había tantas redes sociales pero me acuerdo que utilizaba el Messenger con mi familia y ahora también nos vemos la cara. (…) Con mi padre sobre todo con los amigos más Whatsapp, Facebook pero Skype con la familia.“ (enESy03)
65
“Well, anyway, you have a bad day; you call your friends on Skype, for whatever. Eh, it helps you stand up a lot. And in a country, at first especially, especially at the beginning when you do not know anyone that you lock yourself a little more in your world until you start a little more to see the light, you know people and such.” (vcESy02) 82
The next quotes show that sometimes the contact is deliberately reduced, in order to be able to focus on being abroad. Continuous connection to home can prove to inhibit the breaking out, while, at the same time, inhibiting new experiences and a focus on where one currently is:
“There was such friend with whom I didn’t communicate, but it was variable. So there were times when I focused on them, and there were times when I focused on my exchange year, but in general, I talked with everybody at least a couple of sentences.” (peHUy06) 83
“I used Skype. Maybe twice, three times. Cause I didn’t want to keep in touch too much, I wanted it to be my experience, a little bit separated from my life in Italy.” (peNOy15) The intensity of the contact is varied, but it is never cut off completely. Young people do not want to leave behind their former contexts while abroad. Therefore, they use the virtual world to be both here and there. This makes compromises necessary and it may lead to not being able to be abroad completely: It impedes completely breaking out.
7.6.5 Focussing on the dilemma of the revolving door
Although the young people go abroad, move out geographically, and work their way towards their own free spaces, in regard to youth mobility, it cannot be said that they are able to break out. This specificity of youth – disentangling oneself from known environments and seeking new spaces – does not apply here. Young people cannot move outside institutionalities and institutional expectations, outside adult society and organisational contexts. They neither establish nor enter into a space that they can create for themselves: one that was not pre-‐existing or pre-‐established. On the contrary, the young people have to move their way into new structures and practices, while trying to move out they actually move (back) in. There is no way out of the dilemma, because there are only revolving doors that lead them to having to stay “here” in different ways. What happens is that they frame their practices and experiences as learning and as success. In youth mobility, youth as a specific social form fades out, but young people themselves do not. They – and their actions and positions – are visible at another level. Young people see themselves as successful when they can go abroad, after having organised their period of mobility. They define their mobility, and their dealing with the process of organising it, as a success story. They promote the skills they have gained abroad, the contacts they have
82 “Pues, igual, tienes un día malo, llamas a tus amigos por Skype, por lo que sea. Eh, te ayuda a levantarte mucho. Y en un país, al principio sobre todo, sobre todo al principio cuando no conoces a nadie que te encierras un poco más en tu mundo hasta que empiezas un poco más a ver la luz, conoces a gente y tal.“ (vcESy02) 83“Volt olyan, akivel egyáltalán nem tartottam, de általában hullámzó volt. Tehát volt olyan, amikor inkább rájuk fókuszáltam többet, volt olyan, amikor inkább a csereévemre fókuszáltam, de úgy általánosságban mindenkivel legalább egy pár mondatot beszéltem az év során.“ (peHUy06)
66
made, and the networks they have established. They see their mobility as fruitful for themselves and also for society at large, as exemplified by the following quotes:
“[…] The business consists in.. We offer educational consultancy to Romanian pupils and students who want to study abroad. What distinguishes us from our competitors is that (laughs) the entire concept is based on personal experience, with real pupils who went there, studied there and, more than this, they made a successful career for themselves afterwards… […] What I can tell you is that the pupils are Romanians from Romania, they are very open to studying abroad, they are focused on the mobility, they try to make the most of the opportunities around them, they are not afraid, they are very courageous to try out new things, and this helps us a lot, also from a financial point of view, since any business has to live, but also has social responsibility, to give back to the community what we have learned in other places.” (enROy18) 84
It is all about young adults finding their way in a society. Their mobility is one module in this process. The risk of “failing” abroad is reduced by the fact that the process of organising their stay makes the young people organisationally prepared. Thus, mobility, or the fact of being in a foreign country, is no longer the main challenge. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the young people do not “get out” – not even in the destination country. This does not necessarily represent a loss for them, however. They stay in contact with their friends and family in their home country and even in the destination country, they usually remain in a very specific, homogeneous group (including other foreigners, people with the same level of education, etc.). The practices in which they engage in the destination country are generally the same ones in which they engaged in their country of origin: They change their location but not their practices.
7.6.6 Comparison of the pattern of mobility `the dilemma of the revolving door’ across mobility fields
The master code and pattern of mobility “the dilemma of the revolving door” will now be linked to the six mobility fields. In the mobility field “pupils’ exchange”, international mobility is more than merely changing schools or dormitory. Besides geographical movement, it also represents a new life, which fosters responsibility, intercultural understanding and tolerance. Due to the clear institutional framework, within which pupils usually go abroad for one semester or one year, upon their return, they go back to their old practices. However, many mention that they have changed and, having gotten a taste of travel, intend to do more travel in the future (usually thanks to many new international friends). Regarding the mobility field “higher education”, mobility often provides an independent life even for students who had already left their parents’ home (e.g. were living in a dormitory)
84 “[…] Afacerea constă în..Noi oferim consultanţță educaţțională pentru elevi şi studenţți români care vor să studieze în afară. Cu ce ne deosebim noi de competitorii noştri este că (râde) tot conceptul a fost bazat pe experienţțe proprii, cu elevi adevăraţți care au plecat acolo, au studiat acolo şi nu numai, au avut o carieră de succes după, pentru că ne interesează foarte mult rezultatele de după,…[…] Ce pot să să spun este că elevii sunt români din România, sunt foarte deschişi la a studia în afară, adică sunt focusaţți pe mobilitate, încearcă să profite cât pot de mult de oportunităţțile din jurul lor, nu le este frică, sunt foarte curajoşi să încerce lucruri noi şi asta ne ajută pe noi foarte mult, şi din punct de vedere financiar, bineînţțeles, pentru că orice business trebuie să trăiască, dar şi ca responsabilitate socială, să dăm înapoi comunităţții ceea ce am învăţțat noi prin alte locuri.“ (enROy18)
67
and students gradually become independent (especially from their parents). In the mobility field “voluntary work”, geographical movement leads to a form of social and institutional initiation. “Entrepreneurship” comes after a geographical move to break out; and for the mobility field “employment”, mobility is triggered by the need to break a habitualised routine and thus marks the beginning of a new routine that – over time – might become again habitualised. Organisational structures to a large extent predefine the frame of mobility experiences (especially for German VET students taking place in group mobilities, but to a considerable extent also for individually organised mobilities in both countries) and set limits to breaking out. However, the narratives suggest that, in some ways, young people seek and find opportunities and spaces to break out, while not giving up their old bonds: e.g. by making the new places (that they did not originally chose) their own, by (at least temporarily) detaching from the family, by making their own mobility decisions within the restricted frame, and by striving for independence. They thus explore their agency within the temporal and structural terms of the opportunities and spaces they find during their period of mobility.
7.7 Concluding remarks on the patterns of youth mobility
Chapter 7 presented, discussed and illustrated the characteristics of the patterns of youth mobility that emerged from the data collected in the qualitative workpackage (WP3) of the MOVE project: peers as mobility incubators; learning something through mobility; institutionalized work and education as national enabling patterns; organisational membership, the crux of mobility; youth with ambivalent youth practices; and the dilemma of the revolving door. Each pattern and its characteristics were then related to the mobility fields explored in MOVE. The main conclusion, which arises from an analysis that traverses all patterns and fields, is that young people connect their mobility and leaving home with the desire to break out by exploring new contexts and spaces. At the same time, due to structural and social circumstances, this process is more one of moving in than one of moving out: While becoming mobile, the young people have to go through practices that introduce them to bureaucratic structures and procedures, to new practices of everyday life, to norms and practices of work society, etc. Youth mobility cannot be seen as a way to break out, but should be seen rather as an initiation: an entrance into the abovementioned societal contexts.
8 Discussion of hindering and fostering factors
This chapter discusses factors that play a role in motivating or hindering young people to become mobile. With respect to the patterns of mobility, these factors are apparent on different levels: on the level of European policy, in the context of social-‐structural institutional and organizational aspects, and on a personal level. In addition, attention should be paid to the specific instruments that are needed to hinder or foster the mobility of young people.
In the context of youth mobility, young people’s agency is strongly influenced by their exchange with their peers. They provide mutual support for one another, give one another
68
advice based on their own previous experiences, assess and rate risks, and make mobility-‐related information available. The peer group is a source of agency and provides a context within which agency is experienced by young people.
8.1 European Level
On the hindering side, it becomes clear that the definition of mobility is too narrow. There is mainly an economic focus on mobility and the conceptualisation of youth is poorly developed. The scope for experimental mobility is lacking, whereas there is a clear focus on programmatic lines that concentrate on a particular aim: such as education and employment. At the same time, the technical administration means that this great inclusionary idea is implemented in an instrumental fashion. In the context of hindering factors affecting young mobile people on the European level, citizenship has no meaning: It vanishes and mobility is not put into practice to achieve its actual aim of creating a European civil society. Rather, it aims mainly at strengthening employability. This can lead to youth having to justify their mobility by the need to learn something. By comparison, on the fostering side, mobility is an inclusionary factor for young people. But it is so only by virtue of the openness that lies behind the following idea: that of creating mobility in Europe as a cross-‐border form of inclusion, with the aim of giving the younger generation equal opportunities for education, work and learning. In this context, there is a broad understanding of the term “inclusion”. Returning to the hindrances, there is a strong division between “internal” and “external” mobility in Europe. This leads to fractures that young people themselves bring up: especially, for example, in the field of volunteering. It can be said that the discussion about mobility is more about procedure than about content and it is assumed that mobility can be dealt with instrumentally, rather than structurally. Hence, on the fostering side, transparent means of access will be needed, which should not, however, be overly bureaucratised. In the different countries, there are still major barriers to mobility (e.g. Germany’s dual training system). There are country-‐specific barriers that must be reduced; and there are programmes/procedures that have already been adopted, such as to enable experiences of mobility (e.g. the recognition of young Spaniards’ work in Germany). The latter need to be further developed to foster youth mobility. The multiple forms of mobility that exist side-‐by-‐side without overlapping represent a further hindering factor on the European level: e.g. the citizen engagement found in volunteering is rarely seen in other fields such, as student or scholastic exchanges, etc. Pillarisation has not taken place within the different structures and types of mobility are planned and managed separately. Thus, regarding youth mobility, the overarching idea of the European citizen as such has not been achieved and young people perceive difficulties to move outside of each type of mobility: learning, studying, employment, etc. On the fostering side, it can be observed that central institutions, such as school and work, have been involved – but they have to go against their own forms of institutionalisation, in order to display openness to youth mobility. What needs to be stressed on the European level is that young people (as peers) cannot themselves influence or help design programmes. They are not given an opportunity to do so in the course of their period of mobility. On the fostering side, peers are seen as a group within which young people can shape things even on the programmatic level: e.g. volunteering at specific points (such as conferences).
69
8.2 Socio-‐structural, institutional and organisational aspects
On the hindering side, mobility can be viewed as a form of social inequality. There is clearly a selection process for admission into programmes. Programmes for schoolchildren are still the most egalitarian, but the older the young people are, the more selective the process becomes on every level: age, class, gender, status. On the other, the fostering, side, it can be observed that the more scope there is for structuring and the more openness there is in institutional contexts (e.g. in education), the greater is the fostering effect. The more group-‐centred the schemes are (as in schools, centring on schoolchildren) and the less individually selective they are, the more social justice there is. Furthermore, it should be pointed out regarding the hindering factors that ambivalent institutional approaches (work, family and education) have a major effect on the structure of youth mobility. The ambivalent constructions found in Europe’s work-‐based and knowledge-‐based society have a huge effect on the structure of youth mobility (with all the fears it involves). This fact has not been processed nor reflected upon enough, i.e. youth mobility (a good example being employment mobility) is subjected to these ambivalent constructions and individuals have to deal with them themselves. On the fostering side, it can be noted that young people want to experience a European educational area. There is indeed an intention to create such an area by institutional means, but the institutional implementation has not been as sussesful as it was aimed for. Within this educational area, individual coping strategies could be developed and people could acquire the necessary skills. A further hindering factor with respect to socio-‐structural and institutional aspects, is the fact that institutional means are used to compensate for certain deficiencies that could or should in fact be offset in some other way: e.g. young trainees or volunteers have to deal with issues that they do not feel qualified to tackle. They thereby support the entire structure. This is why the structural imbalance is placed in the hands of young persons: Young people are burdened with excessive institutional demands. An organisational aspect on the fostering side is transparent, overarching and transnational work in the organisations that enables access to youth mobility. Organisations have a good network in the different mobility fields: They can lobby together, inform one another about programmes, and support one another. Organisations are able to provide support on a very “personal” level (especially vis-‐à-‐vis bureaucracy, e.g. if someone does not understand a form) and have special structures for the provision of help by mentors and former volunteers. This means that peers can mediate between organisations and young people. It creates flexible enablement contexts within organisations and young people manage to apply this in practice by way of participative elements. Such trickling down effects can be organised participatively and open up new spaces where peers and others can process their experiences. Nevertheless, on the hindering side, processes in organisations are, or are becoming, too restrictive and too highly selective. They are drawing attention away from actual mobility, leading to a prominence of bureaucratic and selection processes that take the place of the mobility itself. The act of organising shifts the attention towards getting involved and turns mobility into an elite training centre. This leads to selectivity and standardisation. In this context, there is no flexibility or less flexibility in terms of recognition. For example, if a
70
person does not hand in a required report, their stay abroad will not be recognised. It could also be that recognition contexts are not organised transparently. Viewing this from a fostering perspective means that young people can also use organisational structures to their own advantage: e.g. gaining work experience abroad to “rake in” money, but without abiding by other structures, such as reports etc. The consequence is that young people end up with no form of certification, but have been able to “do their thing”: i.e. to go abroad without needing a justification, a reason or a specific aim, without having to comply with norms and adapt to structures in order to “get out”. Here, organisation becomes an end in itself. It is no longer clear what it is enabling or that it is enabling anything and programmes turn into door-‐openers: into tools to allow access for certain – usually privileged – groups who have access to the necessary information and resources. This offers a large scope for action.
8.3 Personal Level
On a personal level, there is little space for personal spheres of experience within youth mobility, when the structures are taken into account: Young people do not break out; they stay on track and move into structures and pre-‐existing spaces. On the other hand (on the fostering side), mobility can open up different spheres of experience. The family enables and supports mobility. Young people detach from their family via mobility, developing individually in other spheres of experience. Mobility also means establishing connections, enabling transformation, personality development, ability to reflect, etc. Mobility is not just about working one’s way through a programme. Another both hindering and fostering factor on the personal level is peer ‘pressure’: Young people become mobile because their peer group is mobile too. Both peers who foster and support young people, without putting on pressure on them, and peers who do put pressure on one another can play a role here, helping to prevent or promote youth mobility.
8.4 Specific instruments
On the level of specific instruments, it becomes clear that the dissemination of information regarding mobility can hinder or foster it. The fact is that this information is not necessarily always compiled in a youth-‐friendly manner. Information alone is not enough and, in order to foster mobility, it has to fit in with young people’s appropriative and participatory structures, as well as to take institutional ambivalence into account. The keyword here is digitalisation. This means that the dissemination of information has to take place on digital web 2.0 media, such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Questions are answered interactively (online filter bubble phenomenon; extreme filters and reinforcement effect). This kind of dissemination of information opens up interactive spheres of information provision that are flexible, accessible, adaptable, and youth-‐friendly. If digitalisation remains vague, leads nowhere, does not reach out to all groups of people, but just to certain ones (i.e. only uses certain newsletters, etc.), if information is not brought across adequately to peers as incubators, and if digitalisation is not peer-‐tailored, it can hinder the mobility of young people. Financial mechanisms represent another specific instrument. On the hindering side, financial barriers can prevent mobility, because not all young people enjoy the same (good) financial conditions that allow them to become mobile. This leads to not enough young
71
people being mobile or mostly the same social classes being mobile. To foster the mobility of more young people from various classes, financial support should be adapted to the special needs of each country and/or each young person. Broader financial support and the promotion of young people with less financial means are necessary. Some possibilities are increasing the number of scholarships, to provide the opportunity for a larger number of students to be mobile, as well as needs-‐based scholarships for students coming from less wealthy countries, and greater promotion and support of training companies. In this connection, another idea for fostering mobility is further to popularise existing programmes for job starters and to establish closer collaboration among employment services, companies, educational institutions, and youth centres. As concerns hindrances in educational programmes, there is no accessibility to educational programmes abroad for all young people. Better information, increased cooperation with the new EU research and higher educational institutions, and improved processes of degree recognition would foster accessibility to educational programmes abroad. Language skills represent another factor that can foster or hinder mobility. Insufficient language skills can reduce young people’s capacity to become mobile. In this connection, better language training (for better integration) enables cultural exchange and fosters mobility abroad. The needs of the different groups of young mobile people should be kept in mind here: e.g. young mobile workers and young mobile students may require different language training. Bureaucratic challenges can also hinder mobility. Creating welcoming centres or information platforms specifically for young people in the host countries is one idea for overcoming these bureaucratic obstacles. Such centres and platforms could offer access to helpful information on society, institutions, housing, banking, etc. In order to provide a summary overview, the following table lists all the above-‐mentioned hindering and fostering factors that result from the analysis of the data. Table 3.5.: Factors hindering and fostering youth mobility
Level Hindering Fostering European policy Understanding of youth mobility
Definition of mobility is too narrow: purely economic focus or too poorly developed youth-‐related conceptualisation (no / too little scope for experimental behaviour, a clear focus on programmatic lines that each concentrate on a particular point, such as education / work. At the same time, this technical administration means that this great idea of inclusion is implemented instrumentally.
• Socio-‐economic reduction; citizenship has no meaning / vanishes;
• Mobility is not put into practice to achieve its actual idea of creating a European civil society (rather than to strengthen the rights of mobile people such as workers, students, etc.): employability and learning trap
• Traps in transition
Mobility is an inclusionary factor, but only by virtue of the openness behind this idea: creating mobility in Europe as a form of cross-‐border inclusion, with the aim of giving the young generation equal opportunities for education, work and learning; broad understanding of the term “inclusion”
72
Internal / external mobility
Strong division between “internal” and “external” mobility in Europe leads to fractures that young people themselves bring up (especially, e.g., in the field of volunteering)
Access to mobility
Discussion is only about procedure; it is assumed that mobility can be dealt with instrumentally, rather than structurally
Transparent means of access (which should not, however, be “overly bureaucratised”)
Country specificities
In the different countries, there are still major barriers to mobility (e.g. Germany’s dual training system) à country-‐specific barriers
Programmes / procedures that have (already) been adopted, so as to enable experiences of mobility (e.g. recognition of young Spaniards’ work in Germany)
Pillarisation and institutionalization of mobility
Multiple forms of mobility exist side-‐by-‐side without overlapping (e.g. the citizen engagement found in volunteering is rarely seen in other fields such as student or school exchanges, etc.). Pillarisation does not take place within the different structures; types of mobility are planned and managed separately; regarding youth mobility, the overarching idea of the European citizen as such has not been achieved: young people perceive difficulties to move outside of each type of mobility: learning, studying, employment, etc. Example of mixed mobility types from the material: voluntourism. Consequence: social (peers’) disapproval
Central institutions such as school and work are involved – though they have to go against their own forms of institutionalisation, in order to display openness
Peers Peers: young people themselves cannot influence or help design programmes. They have no opportunity to do so (no participation)
Wherever peers are seen as a group, young people can shape things even at the programmatic level (e.g. volunteering, at specific points, such as conferences)
Socio-‐structural, institutional aspect
Selectivity of processes of admission
Social inequality, clearly selective process for admission to programmes; programmes for schoolchildren still the most egalitarian, but the older the young people are, the more selective the process becomes on every level (age, class, gender, status)
The more scope there is for structuring / the more openness there is in institutional contexts (e.g. in education), the greater the fostering effect. The more group-‐centric the schemes are (as in the institution of the school, centring on schoolchildren) and the less individually selective they are, the more social justice there is
Institutional approaches
Ambivalent institutional approaches (to work, the family and education) have a major effect on the structure of youth mobility
• The ambivalent constructions found in Europe’s work-‐based and knowledge-‐based society have a huge effect on the structure of youth mobility (with all the fears it involves); this fact is not processed/reflected upon, i.e. youth mobility (a good example being employee mobility) is subjected to those ambivalent constructions and individuals have to deal with them themselves.
Young people want there to be a European educational area. There is indeed the intention to create this by institutional means, but institutional implementation has failed. Within this educational area, individual coping strategies could be developed and people could acquire the necessary skills
Institutional means
Institutional means are used to compensate for certain deficiencies that could/should in fact be offset in some other way (e.g. young trainees or volunteers deal with some issues that they do not feel qualified to tackle); they help support the entire structure; structural imbalance is placed in the hands of young persons
• Young people burdened with excessive institutional demands
73
Funding practices
Elusive means and practices of EU funding, which young people cannot easily comprehend
Organisational aspect
Transparency of organisation
Transparent, overarching, transnational organisation enables access to youth mobility; “local is just not enough”; when the organisation is “suddenly” no longer there / withdraws, young mobile adults feel “lost”
• Organisations together have a good network in the different mobility fields: They can lobby together, inform one another about programmes, support one another, etc.
Organisational support
When organisations manage to provide support on a very “personal” level (especially with bureaucracy, e.g. if someone does not understand a form), when there are special structures for help by mentors, former volunteers, etc.: peers mediate between organisations and the young persons: flexible enablement contexts within organisations: organisations manage to apply this in practice. Trickling down with participative elements in organisations: trickling down can be organised participatively and can open up new spaces in which peers and others can process their experiences
Organisational processes
Processes are/are becoming too restrictive and highly selective; processes are drawing attention away from actual mobility (“if I can deal with this process, then I’m basically already mobile”)
• Organisation shifts attention towards getting involved
• Organisation turns into elite training centre
• This leads to selectivity and standardisation
Organisational practices of recognition vs. restriction
No flexibility in terms of recognition (e.g. if you have not handed something in, your stay abroad will not be recognised)
Or: using organisational structures for your “own advantage” (e.g. doing work experience abroad, to “rake in” money, but without abiding by other structures (such as reports, etc.), the consequence being that you end up with no certification, but have been able to do “your thing”. Flexibility, openness: organisation becomes an end in itself; it is no longer clear what it is enabling or that it is enabling anything; programmes turn into door-‐openers / tools to allow access for certain groups only: offers scope for action
Transparency regarding recognition
Intransparency in the organisation of recognition contexts
Organisational approach to disability
Disability is not addressed on an organisational level, no transparency regarding adequate positions, lack of structural support, leading to no applications by disabled young people
Specific instruments
74
Disseminating information
Information is not necessarily always compiled in a “youth-‐friendly” manner: “information alone is not enough”; it has to fit in with young people’s appropriative and participatory structures
Spreading information strategically Information has to fit in with young people’s appropriative and participatory structures and take institutional ambivalence into account
Keyword: digitalisation
Digitalisation If digitalisation remains vague, leads nowhere, and does not reach out to all groups of people, but just to certain ones (i.e. only uses certain newsletters etc.), and if it is not brought across to the peers as incubators; if digitalisation is not peer-‐tailored
Use “new” digital Web 2.0 media such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. Questions are answered interactively (filter bubble phenomena; extreme filters and reinforcement effect)
Opens up interactive spheres of information provision, which are open, adaptable and youth-‐friendly (seen more as a recommendation)
Financial support Financial barriers: not all young people have the same (good) financial conditions to become mobile -‐-‐ Not enough young people are mobile or: mostly the same social class
Support adapted to the special needs of each country/ of each young person = wider financial support, promoting of young people with less financial resources; more promotion and support of training companies: Further popularisation of existing programs for job starters. Close collaboration among employment services, companies, and educational institutions and youth centres
Accessibility to programmes
No accessibility to education programmes abroad for all young people
Providing better information, increasing the cooperation with the new EU research and higher education institutions, and improving the processes of degree recognition
Language acquisition
Insufficient language skills to become mobile Better language training (for better integration) – enables cultural exchange
Contextual support
Bureaucratic challenges Create welcoming centres/information platforms specifically for young people in the host countries: access to helpful information on society, institutions, housing, banking, etc.
Gender equality Entrepreneurial mobility has a strong gender bias
Supporting women’s entrepreneurship through the creation of support structures and programmes for woman entrepreneurs, especially with families
Personal level
Spheres of experience
No space for personal spheres of experience (people do not break out, they stay on track)
Mobility opens up different spheres of experience
Individual development
Family enables / supports mobility; set apart / disassociated from family via mobility, developing individually during youth in other spheres of experience
Finding connections, enabling transformation (personality development, ability to reflect, etc.), and it is not just about working their way through a programme.
Peers Peer pressure Peer effect: being mobile because the peer group is mobile too: peers who foster and support you, without exerting pressure
Coping Burdening can be seen on an individual level as a form of coping; young persons learn to deal with various tasks
75
9 References
Altissimo, A. (2016). Combining egocentric network maps and narratives: An applied analysis of qualitative network map interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21 (2), 14.
Altissimo, A., Herz, A., & Schröer, W. (2017): Jugendmobilität: Europäische Zivilgesellschaft stärken. WISO direkt, (1), 1-‐4
Amit,V. (2011). Before I settle down: Youth travel and enduring life course paradigms. Anthropologica, 53(1), 79-‐88. Accessed 23.08.2017
Behrens, J., & Rabe-‐Kleberg, U. (2000). Gatekeeping im Lebenslauf – Wer wacht an Statuspassagen? Ein forschungspragmatischer Vorschlag, vier Typen von Gatekeeping aufeinander zu beziehen. In Hoerning, E.M. (Ed.), Biographische Sozialisation (pp. 101-‐136). Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
Beine, M., Noël, R., & Ragot, L. (2014). Determinants of the international mobility of students. Economics of Education Review, 41, 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.003
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2006). How Is Agency Possible? Towards an Ecological Understanding of Agency-‐as-‐Achievement (Working Paper Five). Exeter: Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
Böhnisch, L. (2012). Sozialpädagogik der Lebensalter: Eine Einführung. Weinheim & München.
Brandsma, J., & Bruin-‐Mosch, C. (2006). MoVe-‐iT: A comparative study on mobility in IVET in 33 European countries. Hertogenbosch: CINOP, Centre for Innovation of Education and Training. Accessed February 21, 2017. ec.europa.eu/education/more-‐information/doc/moveitcountry_en.pdf.
Bronfenbrenner U., & Crouter, AC. (1983). The evolution of environmental models in developmental research. In Mussen P., (Ed.), The Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 1, Theories of Development (pp. 358–414). New York: Wiley.
Cairns, D. (2014). Youth Transitions, International Student Mobility and Spatial Reflexivity: Being Mobile? London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carmichael, F., & Woods, R. (2000). Ethnic penalties in unemployment and occupational attainment: evidence for Britain. International Review of Applied Economics, 14(1), 71-‐98. doi:10.1080/026921700101498
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
Clark, Z. (2015). Jugend als Capability. Der Capabilities Approach als Basis für eine gerechtigkeits-‐ und ungleichheitstheoretische Jugendforschung. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.
Ecarius, J., & Eulenbach, M. (Eds.). (2012). Jugend und Differenz: Aktuelle Debatten in der Jugendforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-‐1023.
European Commission. (2009). An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering: A Renewed Open Method of Coordination to Address Youth Challenges and Opportunities. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
76
Fulge, T., & Vögtle, E. M. (2014). Sweeping change — but does it matter? The Bologna Process and determinants of student mobility. In K. Martens, P. Knodel, & M. Windzio (Eds.), Internationalization of Education Policy (pp. 67–88). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137401694_3
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Havighurst, R. (1951). Development Tasks and Education. New York. Herz, A. (2012). Erhebung und Analyse ego-‐zentrierter Netzwerke. In Kulin, S., Frank, K.,
Fickermann, D., & Schwippert, K. (Eds.), Soziale Netzwerkanalyse. Theorie -‐ Praxis – Methoden (pp. 133-‐150). Münster: Waxmann.
Herz, A., Peters, L., & Truschkat, I. (2015). How to do qualitative structural analysis: The qualitative interpretation of network maps and narrative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [52 paragraphs], 16(1). Retrieved from http://nbn-‐resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-‐fqs150190.
Hess, S. (2010). Transnationale Zonen der Prekarität. In Götz, I., Lehnert, K., Lemberger, B., & Schondelmayer, S. (Eds.), Mobilität und Mobilisierung. Arbeit im sozioökonomischen, politischen und kulturellen Wandel (pp. 181-‐200). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus-‐Verlag.
Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative approaches. In Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 404-‐416). Los Angeles: Sage.
Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (2010). Vom Einzelfall zu Typus: Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
King, R., Lulle, A., Morosanu, L., & Williams, A. (2016). International youth mobility and life transitions in Europe: questions, definitions, typologies and theoretical approaches. Working Paper. Sussex Centre for Migration Research.
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2009). St.meld 14 (2008-‐2009). Internasjonalisering av utdanning. Kunnskapsdepartementet / Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved from Oslo: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/a0f91ffae0d74d76bdf3a9567b61ad3f/no/pdfs/stm200820090014000dddpdfs.pdf.
Leaman, J., & Wörsching, M. (Eds.). (2010). Youth in Contemporary Europe. New York/London: Routledge.
Leccardi, C., & Ruspini, E. (Eds.). (2006). A New Youth? Young People, Generations and Family Life. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Lovdata. (2017). Forskrift om tildeling av utdanningsstøtte for undervisningsåret 2017–2018. Kunnskapsdepartementet / Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved from: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2017-‐03-‐10-‐309.
MOVE D2.4 (2016): Sampling and secondary analyses of maco data of youth mobility in Europe and the partner countries
MOVE D3.1 (2015): Mobility/ Migration and Agency within the MOVE project – Linking Theory and Methodology
MOVE D3.3 (2016): Internal working paper: Data collection and analysis method[ologie]s in WP3
MOVE D3.4 (2017): Six internal reports from the countries with the focus on two types of mobility
Otto, H.-‐U., & Rauschenbach, T. (2008). Die andere Seite der Bildung: Zum Verhältnis von formellen und informellen Bildungsprozessen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
77
Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (1992). What is a case? In Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (Eds.), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 1-‐18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rodriguez Gonzalez, C., Bustillo Mesanza, R., & Mariel, P. (2011). The determinants of international student mobility flows: An empirical study on the Erasmus Programme. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 62(4), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-‐010-‐9396-‐5
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In Flick, U. (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 170-‐183). London: Sage.
Schröer, W., & Sting, S. (2003). Gespaltene Migration. In Blickpunkte sozialer Arbeit, Vol. 3 (pp. 9-‐25). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barden, B., Bergmann, J., Couper-‐Kuhlen, E., Günthner, S., et al. (1998). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte, 173, 91-‐122.
Statistics Norway. (2016). Facts about education in Norway. Retrieved from Oslo: https://www.ssb.no/en/utdanning/artikler-‐og-‐publikasjoner/facts-‐about-‐education-‐in-‐norway-‐2016.
Stauber, B. (2014). Jugend und sozialer Wandel. In Faas, S., & Zipperle, M. (Eds.), Sozialer Wandel. Springer: Wiesbaden.
Steinke, I. (2007). Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung. In Flick, U., von Kardorff, E., & Steinke, I. (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (pp. 319-‐331). Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch.
Taha, N., & Cox, A. (2014). International students’ networks: a case study in a UK university. Retrieved from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/80391/2/International%20Students%20Networks-‐April14%20accepted%20version.pdf
Tungesvik, R. (2016). Det beste året i mitt liv. Retrieved from Bergen: https://www.siu.no/publikasjoner/Alle-‐publikasjoner/Brukerundersoekelse-‐av-‐norske-‐elever-‐paa-‐utenlandsopphold-‐i-‐Vg2.
Van Mol, C. (2014). Intra-‐European Student Mobility in International Higher Education Circuits: Europe on the Move. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Mol, C., & Timmerman, C. (2014). Should I stay or should I go? An analysis of the determinants of intra-‐European student mobility. Population, Space and Place, 20, 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1833
Walther, A. (2006). Regimes of youth transitions. YOUNG, 14(2), 119-‐139. doi:doi:10.1177/1103308806062737
Witzel, A., & Reiter, H. (2012). The Problem-‐Centred Interview: Principles and Practice. London: SAGE.
Woodman, D., & Wyn, A. (2015). Youth and Generation: Rethinking Change and Inequality in the Lives of Young People. Sage Publications Ltd.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
78
Annex – Data Documentation
Several data documentation procedures were jointly developed by UH (University of Hildesheim) and all partners, in order to sort and manage the collected data as clearly as possible.
CaseIDs in WP3
A standard for CaseIDs was developed by WP3 Lead (UH, P2) from the start of the data collection phase. CaseIDs show which data comes from which case and serve for anonymization. Each partner created a list of all conducted interviews and generated a list of CaseIDs for each interview (= case). Additionally, CaseIDs were used to link the different documents belonging to one case (e.g. the transcript of the interview and the network map). The transcripts and short sequences from the transcripts were named using the CaseID. When communicating research results, CaseIDs are also used. Table 3.2.: Generation of Case ID / Overview on Case ID
Information Code 2 digits mobility type he=higher education; vw=voluntary work;
em=employment; vc=vocational training; pe=pupils’ exchange; en=entrepreneurship
2 digits country/institution LU=Luxembourg; DE=Germany; RO=Romania; HU=Hungary; NO=Norway; ES=Spain
1 digit Type e=expert; y=youth 2 digits number of
interview from 01 to 05 for experts/ from 01 to 15 (or more) for youth
E.g., the fifth interview with a youth in voluntary work done by UH (Germany) has this CaseID: vwDEy05. The CaseIDs will be used to indicate the sequences taken from the interview in the analysis presented in the subsequent chapters.
Language and pseudonymisation in the interview
(Partial) transcriptions were made in the language in which the interviews were conducted. After transcription of the interviews, transcripts of interviews were pseudonymised: meaning the names of the interviewees and of all the actors mentioned were changed. In some cases, the country or city of stay during the mobility was also changed. Each institution produced its own pseudonymisation chart that contains information about the actor “behind” the pseudonym. This chart was only stored locally and not exchanged via the internet. Whenever interview material was exchanged per email between mobility couple partners or within the consortium, pseudonymised translations to English were produced, with the pseudonymised version in the original language included.
Rules for transcription
The following rules for transcription are a condensation of different “systems” (rules for transcription influenced by Selting et al. (1998)). These rules were condensed by WP3 Lead (UH, P2) and used by all partners as guidance. However, some transcriptions subcontracted to an external company did not fully follow this system. Transcripts of interviews were
79
named as follows: CaseID of the interviewee and a “t” for transcript. E.g. vwDEy01t. In this report, however, the t is omitted, since all data included here is taken from transcripts. Indicating parts of the interviews was done differently by each partner. If only partial transcription was performed, timecodes indicating the beginning and the end of the sequences are presented. If a full transcript is the basis of the selected sequence, the indication can be based on (1) the number of the line in the original transcript document, (2) the transcript as presented in the coding software or (3) the timecode. Table 3.3.: Rules for transcription
Rule Explanation Example This is my HOME,… Emphasizing is introduced by using CAPITAL
LETTERS this is where I CAME from
(.) short break
(..) medium break
(…) long break
(5) for longer breaks please count the seconds
(incomprehensible 3 sec) Section one cannot understand; please report the length of the section; please also set a timecode to know where the sequence is, if you want to listen to it later on
(?) Section one thinks one has understood but is not 100% sure
/ interruptions, truncated word “I am worr/ upset” If words were repeated more than once in an interview, they are also transcribed
“Um”, “Uh-‐huh”, “Ah, ok” are transcribed, not in a separate line but within the text of the other speaker – only if they do not contribute to or influence the interview
IP: It was a nice day and I went for walk (I: Hmmm). After that I felt very sick and called the ambulance.
Sighing is marked by (Sigh) – single bracket.
Laughing is marked by (Laugh) – single bracket.
Overlaps of speech The beginning and the end of the section of speech that is overlapped by an interruption/interjection is marked by //. The beginning and the end of the interjection itself are also marked by //. So the overlapping interjection is in between the two double-‐slashes // and is in an extra line.
I think we should go out because //the sun’s shining right now// and it will be really cold tomorrow. //But I don’t want to go out!// And I know that if we don’t go out now, we won’t go out at all today.
Referencing interview data in D3.5
In the empirical chapters of this report (chapters 7 & 8), sequences from the qualitative data are used to exemplify the patterns of mobility. For the analysis, sequences from the
80
interviews (parts of the transcripts) had already been translated into English, so as to embed them in the presentation of results in the previous report, D3.4. The original versions of each of these sequences are presented in a footnote. In case the interview was conducted in English, no footnote is provided here. Some quotes have been shortened slightly, in order to focus on the main message in question; such omissions are marked as follows: […].