the european union’s development co-operation...

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION INSTRUMENT PROGRAMME

ERASMUS MUNDUS SOUTH AFRICA

TRACER AND IMPACT STUDY

Final Report

Prepared by Hermien Kotzé and René Lenssen The project is financed by the European Union

and implemented by IBF International Consulting In collaboration with Baa Consultors

“The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken

to reflect the views of the European Union.”

Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report of 112

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 3

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................... 5

1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Introduction, Background and Objectives ................................................................................ 6

1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 7

1.3 General Conclusions, Policy and Impact ................................................................................. 8

1.4 Impact on Student beneficiaries .............................................................................................. 9

1.5 Impact on Staff beneficiaries ................................................................................................. 11

1.6 Impact on Higher Education Institutions ................................................................................ 12

2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Background to the Study ....................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Erasmus Mundus Action 2: Context, Data and Mobility and Partnerships (2011-2014) ....... 16

3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 18

4 Literature review / desk Study ........................................................................................................ 22

4.1 Academic Mobility and Tracer / Impact Studies .................................................................... 22

4.2 Student mobility in Africa and other Mobility Programmes open to South African nationals 25

5 Findings from online surveys ......................................................................................................... 28

5.1 Online Survey: Student beneficiaries .................................................................................... 28

5.1.1 Analysis of the Respondents ............................................................................................. 28

5.1.2 Expectations, Satisfaction and Impact ............................................................................... 34

5.1.3 Academic Achievements ................................................................................................... 39

5.1.4 Employment ....................................................................................................................... 41

5.2 Online Survey: Staff beneficiaries ......................................................................................... 45

5.2.1 Analysis of the Respondents ............................................................................................. 45

5.2.2 Expectations, Satisfaction and Impact ............................................................................... 50

6 Qualitative research process .......................................................................................................... 57

6.1 General findings..................................................................................................................... 57

6.1.1 Brief background: the (re)start of internationalisation in South African universities .......... 57

6.1.2 Erasmus Mundus broadened access to international scholarships and academic

exchanges ...................................................................................................................................... 59

6.1.3 Internationalisation requires strategic leadership .............................................................. 60

6.1.4 Different institutional responses to Erasmus Mundus, impact and lessons learned ......... 61

6.1.5 Lessons from the consortium approach ............................................................................ 67


6.1.6 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................... 68

6.2 Specific Findings.................................................................................................................... 69

6.2.1 Student beneficiaries: experiences and perceived impact ................................................ 71

6.2.2 Staff exchanges: experiences and perceived impact ........................................................ 78

6.2.3 Interviews with EU coordinating institutions ...................................................................... 83

6.2.4 Interviews with Stakeholders and other informants (SA, EU)............................................ 84

7 conclusions and lessons learnt ...................................................................................................... 87

7.1 Overall Policy and Programme Conclusions and Stakeholder Views ................................... 87

7.2 Impact on Student beneficiaries ............................................................................................ 88

7.3 Impact on Staff beneficiaries ................................................................................................. 90

7.4 Institutional impact ................................................................................................................. 91

8 Annexes.......................................................................................................................................... 94

8.1 Student Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 94

8.2 Staff Questionnaire .............................................................................................................. 103

8.3 List of Site Visits / Interviews / Focus Groups ..................................................................... 110


ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CHE Council on Higher Education (South Africa)

CHE Consult German Consultancy Firm (www.che-consult.de)

DG EAC Directorate-General Education, Audiovisual and Culture

DG DEVCO Directorate-General Development Cooperation

DHET Department of Higher Education and Training

EACEA Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

EC European Commission

ECTS European Credit Transfer System

EM Erasmus Mundus

EMA2 Erasmus Mundus Action 2

EU European Union

HEI Higher Education Institution

HESA Higher Education South Africa (www.hesa.org.za)

IEASA International Education Association of South Africa

SA South Africa

SOM Senior Officials Meeting (EC)

TORs Terms of Reference

http://www.che-consult.de/

http://www.hesa.org.za/


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction, Background and Objectives

This Tracer and Impact Study has been conducted in the context of the collaboration between

European Union and South Africa. The European Union has established a number of programmes

that provide opportunities for international cooperation in higher education, and the Erasmus Mundus

Programme is among them. South African higher education institutions (HEIs), students and staff of

HEIs have been eligible to participate in the Erasmus Mundus Programme since 2011. The

programme provides scholarships and mobility grants to students and staff to study, research or teach

in Europe.

The overall objectives of Erasmus Mundus Partnerships between South African and European HEIs

are to support South Africa's efforts in fostering sustainable development, including pursuit of the

Millennium Development Goals and the eradication of poverty and inequality, through mutual

intellectual exchanges and cooperation between European and South African HEIs. In particular, the

programme aims to contribute to the provision of appropriate high-level skills and strengthen political,

economic and cultural links between South Africa and the EU.

In South Africa, the programme is implemented with greater involvement of and cooperation between

the EU Delegation and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). DHET has sought to

use programmes such as the Erasmus Mundus to respond to South African peculiar challenges and

transformation objectives. These include, among others, redress, equity and quality within the system

of higher education. Overtime, these transformation objectives have formed an integral part of the

eligibility requirements.

Whilst information on how many people have benefited from the South African allocation under the

Erasmus Mundus programme is readily available, there has been a knowledge gap in relation to the

impact the programme has had in South Africa. For example, issues such as the progression,

completion and dropout rates within the programme remained an enigma. There was a paucity of

information on the impact of the programme on policy on higher education in South Africa and the

impact of the programme on livelihoods of the beneficiaries themselves. Perceptions – either of

beneficiaries or policy makers – about the programme were neither examined nor documented in a

systematic way.

Meanwhile recent studies on the Erasmus programme in Europe have demonstrated the positive

impact the programme has had. One such example is the 2014 Erasmus Impact Study that focused on

the "effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher

education institutions." The study found that students took the mobility because they believed studying

abroad enhanced their employability and that the programme enabled them to gain transversal skills

that are important to increase their prospects for employment.

However, this study focused on the impact of the Erasmus programme in Europe and not in the

partner countries like South Africa. It remained unknown if the same results could be found about the

South African leg of the programme. It is against this background that the EU Delegation to South

Africa envisaged a study to trace the beneficiaries of the programme and to evaluate the impact the

Erasmus Mundus Action 2 (EMA2) programme in South Africa.


1.2 Methodology

Tracer Studies, also referred to as graduate surveys or alumni surveys, have traditionally mainly been

conducted at institutional level to trace their graduates (i.e. by individual universities, faculties or even

departments only). With the growing importance of national and international accreditations and global

rankings these studies are increasingly also being conducted at national and international level as

well as across academic disciplines at multiple institutions and within programmes for the purpose of

quality assurance and curriculum reviews and higher education policy and planning purposes.

The tracer study was inspired by, and sought comparability with, two relevant other tracer and impact

studies: The Erasmus Impact Study (2014), conducted by CHE Consult, is a very comprehensive

scientific study and it aimed to answer two major questions. Firstly, it analyses the effects of Erasmus

student mobility in relation to studies and placements on individual skills enhancement,

employability and institutional development. Secondly, it examines the effects of Erasmus teaching

assignments/staff training on individual competences, personality traits and attitudes, as well as the

programme's impact on the internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions.

Another major, and for the purpose of this study even more relevant, tracer and impact study is the

annual Erasmus Mundus Graduate Impact Survey (EM-GIS) conducted by ICU.Net AG. Although

following a slightly simplified and more pragmatic approach, this tracer study is highly useful and

relevant as it allows for better comparison with Erasmus Mundus (EM) students globally rather than

the Erasmus Impact Study, as the latter focuses on intra-European mobility of students only. The EM-

GIS measures the impact of EM globally. Comparisons can be made with the results from this SA

Tracer and Impact Study.

Preceded by desk research, the tracer study consisted of a quantitative survey and a qualitative

research process. The quantitative survey traced all the students and staff from South African

universities who have benefitted from the Erasmus Mundus programme since 2011, when the first

group of direct beneficiaries took up their scholarships at the selected EU Universities. Since the

numbers of both categories of beneficiaries are relatively small, it was decided that no sampling

should take place for either of the two groups. Two separate questionnaires had been designed for

students and staff, respectively. The final response rate was 248 out of 542 (45,8%): 199 students (out

of 432, or 46%) and 49 staff (out of 110, or 44,5%).

The online survey was followed by a qualitative research process, which was intended to supplement

the findings of the survey by, inter alia, trying to probe a bit deeper behind some of the possible

reasons for the main findings and trends. The research team also tried to uncover some of the broader

social and institutional realities behind the statistics, in order to construct a more nuanced and layered

context for the overall findings about the impact of the Erasmus Mundus Action 2 (EMA2) programme

on its direct beneficiaries, South African HEIs and society at large.

In this first Tracer and Impact Study of EMA2, we have studied the impact of the programme of the

first four cohorts (2011-2014) of South African students and staff beneficiaries, who have travelled to

EU-universities for the purpose of short-term studies, full-degree studies and staff exchanges. As this

is the first study of such a kind in South Africa, it will be serving as a source and benchmark for follow-

up studies, as well as potential comparative studies on the impact of international academic mobility

on a national, regional and global scale.


1.3 General Conclusions, Policy and Impact

This tracer and impact study was conducted at a time when the EM programme was still ongoing and

with many beneficiaries still studying at the various universities, or even yet to depart. It is therefore

not yet realistic to consider this study as a comprehensive, authoritative tracer study. Nevertheless,

the results generally provide clear trends on the personal, professional and institutional impact of the

EMA2 programme in South Africa.

Furthermore, the South Africa tracer study has been inspired, and where possible aligned with the

other major tracer and impact studies on the Erasmus and the Erasmus Mundus programme. The

results are generally in line with the findings of these studies, even though they are not in all aspects a

100% copy, given the specific context and history of the South African higher education system and

environment; and the specific objectives that have been defined for the South African lot of the EMA2

programme.

The South Africa EMA2 programme’s specific objectives were to increase the qualifications of staff at

higher education through international cooperation in South Africa and to increase graduate output at

South African universities. Furthermore, the Calls for Applications for funding of consortia made

specific requirements for equal opportunities and representation in gender, population groups and the

various universities, including the Historically Disadvantaged Institutions (HDIs).

The mobility projects have been organised through SA-EU Partnerships. Beneficiaries and

stakeholders at institutional and policy level are unanimous in their assessment that the partnership

model and the relatively broad definition of eligibility in terms of beneficiaries and academic disciplines

has been the key success for the EMA2 programme in South Africa and will serve as the framework

and legacy for sustained collaboration between South Africa and the EU, as well as improved

institutionalisation of internationalisation at South African HEIs.

It has also been expressed that if there had not been a specific lot for South Africa, the participation

would have been far lower and South Africa would have lost out disproportionally against African

countries with traditionally higher international mobility.

However, due to the competitive nature of the Calls for Applications for funding of consortia, the EU

and South African institutions which already had existing collaborations and/or were more experienced

in EU-proposal writing, were initially in a better position to develop applications that met the

requirements as stipulated in the Calls. As a result, the first partnerships were almost exclusively

coordinated by EU-institutions in Belgium and The Netherlands and, in South Africa, by universities in

the Western Cape. Hence, especially in the initial years, mobility was not equally spread across

participating countries and universities. For example, the top-3 destination countries hosted 65% of the

students. These imbalances are equally reflected in the composition of the respondents in this survey.

In both the student and staff surveys, respondents were asked if they are living with a disability. Six

students and four staff responded this was the case. One respondent reported major issues affecting

performance (low class attendance). All others reported no major issues or minor issues that

eventually got resolved.


The EMA2 programme is currently the largest comprehensive international academic mobility

scholarship programme which is specifically targeting and defining numbers of scholarships

exclusively accessible to students and staff in South Africa. Other bilateral and/or global scholarship

programmes are either considerably smaller in terms of number of available scholarships and/or are

not as comprehensive as EMA2.The programme that comes closest in terms of numbers is the

collaboration between South Africa and Cuba for the training of medical doctors. However, in terms of

overall student mobility (including privately sponsored studies) from SA to other countries, the US

remains the most popular destination.

While the mobility of students and staff under EMA2 programme will continue to run for a number of

years, the academic mobility between South Africa and the EU will be integrated in the “Erasmus +” programme. In Erasmus + there will be no more room for a Partnership structure as in EMA2 and

mobility grants will be allocated to all participating EU-countries. Many universities in the EU and SA

have expressed concerns on the future sustainability and maintaining the broad access that was

possible under EMA2.

It was also observed that EMA2 is increasingly in competition with other scholarship/mobility

programmes and that South Africa is also developing linkages with the other BRICS countries. Also,

universities are (re)-prioritising their focus areas in their internationalisation strategies, with some

universities clearly focusing on Africa, and using international partnerships (e.g. through Erasmus

Mundus) to position themselves within the African continent.

1.4 Impact on Student beneficiaries

The students who have participated in this tracer and impact study are generally representative of the

population, although some deviations (up to 5%) have been found in gender and population

distribution: more females and more whites have completed the survey than they were represented in

the actual beneficiaries. However, as no major correlations have been found during cross-

tabularisation we assume that the results among student beneficiaries are representative in terms of

impact.

As mentioned, the initial composition of the EU-SA Partnerships was highly biased towards institutions

that were building on existing relationships and the capacity to develop proposals that met the

requirements as stipulated in the Calls for Proposals. As an unintended effect the majority of student

mobility was initially focussed on The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, who collectively hosted

more than 65% of the respondents. Initially the representation of the South African home universities

was not in balance, as the top-6 (out of 25) universities were the home of close to 60% of the

respondents and the top-3 home universities were all located in the Western Cape. Social sciences

was the pre-dominant academic discipline (over 32%), followed by Business Studies and Management

Sciences. Respondents were equally distributed across full-degree and short-term/exchange studies,

while the majority went for Master's Degree programmes.

Overall satisfaction levels with the EMA2 programme are very high. The respondents show a great

overall satisfaction with the Erasmus Mundus programme. 151 respondents (84.4%) are satisfied or

very satisfied. Less than 10% is dissatisfied. However, the satisfaction levels do vary across a number

of items. No significant correlation has been found with year of departure or destination countries

and/or universities. In comparison with their global counterparts South African student respondents are


less satisfied though. South African students are 5-6% less satisfied and in the global study only 5% is

not satisfied (against 10% from SA).

In terms of expectations and motivations the South African students ranked the improvement of

future careers prospects as the main reason to apply for an EM scholarship. This was followed by the

opportunity to study and live in Europe and to improve international networks. Transversal skills such

as intercultural competences, and academically related objectives and motivations were rated as

relatively less important.

However, in terms of impact as perceived by students, they responded that the greatest impact has

been on transversal skills such as personal growth and intercultural competences. Career

development was rated much lower than in relation to their expectations. Overall, SA graduates

reported a higher impact on all aspects compared to their global counterparts.

This is also reflected in the features that, according to students, the EM-programme is lacking:

contacts to potential employers, mentoring and preparation for the job market. However, in

comparison with the results from the global EM-graduate impact study, SA-graduates rated these as

less lacking than their global counterparts (even though the order of importance is the same).

However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the features of the EM programme (or what it is

lacking), the perception of the impact on their careers and the actual employability of EM-graduates.

The employability of EM-graduates is high. Only 17% of the recent graduates are currently

unemployed (and seeking work), while close to 64% is (self)-employed. Although it is difficult to

compare graduate short-term unemployment rates with long-term unemployment rates (which are

around 6%), these figures are consistent with results from the global Erasmus Mundus impact studies.

Secondly, 89% of the respondents indicate that EM has had a positive or very positive impact on their

employability. During interviews students illustrated this in terms of finding meaningful employment

and the ability to negotiate a better salary.

The majority of the graduates who are employed indicate that they are working within South Africa

(85%); this percentage is much higher than the figures found in the global EM Impact study. However

it has to be noted that there is a requirement to return to SA. It looks like this requirement is not strictly

adhered to. This percentage of returnees is much higher though than the figures found in the global

EM Impact study. Possible explanations include personal motivations such as family reasons (South

African beneficiaries are relatively older than global EM-beneficiaries), and the less favourable

employment opportunities in Europe (especially in social sciences).

The conclusions in terms of discrepancy between perceived impact measured through satisfaction

surveys and other methods of measuring effects is consistent with the methodological observations

made in the Erasmus Impact Study.

In terms of academic achievements of short-term exchange students it appeared that the respondents

had in general great difficulty in answering questions on credits earned and credit transfer. Only 12

respondents could at all indicate how many ECTS credits they had earned at the EU-university. From

follow-up questions it appeared that only 5 respondents knew how many ECTS were recognised at the

home institution. Of these 5 respondents only one respondent indicated that full credit transfer had

been in place at the time of the survey. During the student interviews it appeared that the situation was

not as bleak as resulted from the online survey and quite a few students had been able to


negotiate/arrange credit transfer upon return to their home institution. However, it appears that despite

the fact that learning agreements are in place, or have to be in place, credit transfer and academic

recognition of studies abroad remains an important challenge in the SA-EU student mobility. However,

the issues and challenges described are not that different from the early days of the Erasmus

programme within Europe.

For full degree students (mainly Masters, as not many have completed their full PhD yet) an almost

perfect correlation was found between overall scheduled duration and actual duration, which means

that study progress is almost according to schedule. A few extensions seem to have occurred.

As the impact could be influenced by processes, preparation and support by the home and host

institutions, students were also asked to report on these aspects. The majority (over 61%) of the

respondents reported the application process as “fair” while a smaller proportion found it to be either

difficult or easy. Over 67% of the respondents rated the institutional support during the application

process as good or very good.

Students were also asked to rate the level of support they received from the South African universities.

Although the majority is positive (around 38%), this is one of the areas where students are relatively

the least satisfied (close to 23%). However, no significant correlation has been found with year of

departure or home universities (the universities that were listed most by those who rated the support

as poor or very poor were among the universities that sent most of the students).

The level of support on arrival and during settling in provided by the EU-universities was consistently

rated higher than the support provided by the South African Universities. More than 70% of the

respondents rated these as good or very good, while less than 15% rated them as poor or very poor.

1.5 Impact on Staff beneficiaries

Females comprise over 61% of the respondents. This is an adequate representation of the gender

balance amongst staff beneficiaries. Overall, the number of female beneficiaries has been double the

number of males. Close to 62% of the staff beneficiaries were older than 45 years. Less than 13%

were younger than 35 years. Over 55% of the respondents indicated they are white. This distribution

can be attributed to the age distribution and the academic staff composition at South African

universities and their opportunity to capitalise on existing linkages with European universities.

The academic staff members were asked to indicate their professional employment level. The majority

was employed at senior lecturer level or higher. No junior lecturers were amongst the respondents.

Social sciences were again the major academic discipline (37,5%). The majority went for a period

between two and four weeks.

As was the case with student beneficiaries, the majority of the staff beneficiaries also originated from a

limited number of home institutions. The Top-3 sending institutions hosted over 53% of beneficiaries

and three Western Cape universities were in the Top-4, while these three (Western Cape) universities

represented over 51% of the beneficiaries.


In terms of destination countries, again a small group of popular countries emerged which hosted far

more staff than any other. Unlike for the destination countries for students, Belgium ranks highest,

while Sweden, Germany and The Netherlands rank second, third and fourth respectively. These Top-4

countries comprise the destinations of close to 72 % of the respondents.

Building international networks, international experience and research collaboration were the three

major motivations that stood out as the source of motivation for applying for an EM scholarship. The

main purpose of the stay at the EU-university was related to research collaboration and other

academic work with colleagues in the EU.

Although the majority was satisfied or very satisfied (67,4%), a relative large proportion (30,5%)

indicated that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied in relation to their expectations. This was

considered to be very high in relation to other answers and other studies. However, this relative high

dissatisfaction only relates to expectations. Overall satisfaction ratings are much higher (70%) and

also the dissatisfaction levels are significantly lower (8,6%). During interviews it appeared that much of

the dissatisfaction in terms of expectations was also related to other issues such as arrangements,

costs of accommodation and dealing with bureaucracies in the EU countries. Some other issues

mentioned occasionally were the limited availability of the hosts (busy agenda’s, although understood while seeing the nature of work and other commitments in practice).

Respondents were initially asked how, in general, EM had contributed to their personal and

professional development. As in the case of students, the greatest impact has been on personal

growth. This is followed by subject related expertise. In terms of specific aspects in relation to

professional development, the contributions to research related issues were the most often mentioned.

In terms of impact on the department, faculty or university, the greatest impact was to facilitate more

long-term institutional collaboration and the production of more internationally oriented research

through joint research programmes.

The vast majority of the respondents (more than 95%) indicated that their home university values

international exchanges like the Erasmus Mundus programme and they indicated unanimously that

they would recommend the EM-exchange programme to colleagues.

1.6 Impact on Higher Education Institutions

The process of internationalisation at universities in South Africa has been taking place in a broader

context whereby all of them have been forced over the past two or three decades to change quite

dramatically, in response to a whole new set of major national and international changes and

challenges. All this change had to be done at the same time that universities in South Africa faced a

range of major challenges relating to the transformation of their institutions. In addition, reforms

included the highly complex mergers of higher education institutions that took place during the early

2000s. These mergers consumed a lot of institutional energy and had far-reaching consequences for

all the institutions concerned. In some affected institutions the internationalisation agenda either “fell

through the cracks” or was put on hold during this difficult period; and later had to be resurrected.


Each university has its unique set of international partners, with some of the more established

universities having a really impressive array of partners across the world. At most of the universities

visited, the management of international relations and agreements is an ongoing process, with new

strategic priorities for international exchanges continually evolving.

Now, however, the trend appears to be in the direction of fewer, but more strategic international

partnerships. Senior managers at some of the universities have been demanding evidence of the

concrete benefits delivered by particular bi-lateral partnerships, before recommitting to renewing

agreements or forming new ones.

The changing priorities appear to be, once again, influenced by geopolitical changes and

considerations, which include a clear inclination towards the exploration of more South to South

collaboration, with universities in SADC and (rest of) Africa remaining the priority focus. Increasingly,

though, eyes are also being turned towards Asia – more specifically China and India; and the BRICS

countries more generally.

These moves towards repositioning and more strategic partnerships may eventually have a bearing on

future relationships with universities in Europe, especially when the Erasmus+ programme comes into

play.

There was one area of complete consensus, viz. that the Erasmus Mundus programme has really

broadened access to international scholarships for post-graduate students and staff exchanges,

across many disciplines; and where these had never existed before. The costs of international study

opportunities and academic exchange programmes are generally prohibitive for South African

universities, even for the more established and better-resourced universities – especially given the

present exchange rates.

It was found that an International Office cannot be a stand-alone or ‘add on’ operation in a university’s broader structures. In cases where the researchers found this to be the case, such International

Offices proved quite isolated and not very effective. On the other hand, it became clear that

universities where the top leadership/ executive management prioritises and drives the

internationalisation agenda hard and centrally, appear to do much better in terms of the promotion,

uptake and proper utilisation of international exchange and mobility programmes like EM.

The ideal situation is, of course, that the notion of internationalisation, including the pursuit of

international exchanges, research collaboration and study opportunities, should eventually become a

normal part of a university’s identity and activities. Apart from the more established universities, where

the notion of internationalisation has become reasonably entrenched, some of the universities of

technology have also made great progress in this regard and have used the EM programme very

strategically to further advance their internationalisation and larger transformation and capacity

building agendas. At the HDIs, the situation in this regard can best be described as different positions

on a continuum – ranging from excellent operations to various stages of development and progress at

some of the other HDIs.

Although the directors and senior staff at the International Offices of some universities had been aware

of the larger Erasmus programme in Europe, it appeared to have caught many of them a bit off guard

when it became available/ and was heavily promoted in South Africa in 2010. Apart from having to

form consortiums (which was not a well-known approach in South African universities at the time),


each university then had to decide rather quickly on an institutional response to the opportunities

offered by EM; and where to locate it within their institutions. In retrospect, it is clear that each

institution responded according to their particular institutional needs (and capacity) at the time. Some

institutions used the EM as a tool for staff development; whilst others placed EM in Graduate and

Research Offices to help develop the university’s research capacity.

Although the partnership/ consortium approach was not well-known/ or much used in universities in

South Africa, before EM introduced the concept; many EM coordinators and other senior staff in the

various International Offices lauded the eventual benefits and outcomes of the process – some of

them probably unintended. The general feeling is that everybody learned a lot through it, especially

about each other’s institutions. This is a particularly significant outcome in a country with a history of a very diverse, historically divided higher education sector.

South African International Offices were unanimous that there were no other international scholarship

and staff exchange opportunities available in South Africa, even vaguely comparable to those offered

by EM. It is therefore clear that nothing on the scale and breadth of this programme can be sustained/

or be sustainable when it comes to an end. Universities in South Africa simply do not have the kind of

resources required for a programme like this – even the more established and better-resourced ones,

which may have a few more options compared to most of the HDIs, but still nothing compared to EM.

At some of the HDIs, the answer was very simple: “We have no other scholarships.”

It is therefore with a sense of disappointment that many of the EM coordinators have to start

considering their universities’ options post-EMA2. There is a certain sense in which EM coordinators

feel that they have just really started to understand the consortiums and learnt to work well with their

South African and European partners; have built up a momentum around the EM programme; and that

EM now is so much better known in their institutions – amongst both students and staff.

There was agreement that the EM programme and consortiums facilitated the exploration of new bi-

lateral partnerships. EM made it possible to get to know potential new partners, before committing to

formal agreements. Some of the new and existing bi-lateral partnerships may well be able to leverage

new sources of funding that could benefit a handful of staff and possibly post-graduate students –

even potentially through Erasmus+ – but they could presumably never deliver the kind of broad-based

opportunities that EM made available to students and staff in South African universities.

Erasmus+ was not very well known in some universities, especially in some of the HDIs. Where it was

better known, it was felt that the way this programme works, viz. on the basis of signing many different

bi-lateral agreements; appears to be “on a collision course” with the general trend whereby the more

established universities are moving towards fewer, but more strategic partnerships. Some respondents

hoped that there could have been a bit more continuity between EMA2 and Erasmus+, with elements

of the old system – especially the consortia model - retained in the new one.


2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background to the Study

This Tracer and Impact Study has been conducted in the context of the EU-SA collaboration on

education. This collaboration can be traced as far back to the signing of the EU strategy on Africa and

the the Joint Action Plan signed in Brussels on 14 May 2007 to implement the South Africa - European

Union Strategic Partnership, including cooperation on Education and Training. The subsequent

meeting between former President Mbeki, Presidents Sarkozy and Barroso on the occasion of the EU-

SA summit held in France in July 2008, the EU-SA Joint Cooperation Council meetings of 4 November

2008 and 23 July 2009, which called for the broadening cooperation to the areas of Education and

Training set in motion the implementation of the Erasmus Mundus programme in South Africa. The

European Union has established a number of programmes that provide opportunities for international

cooperation in higher education, and the Erasmus Mundus Programme is among them. The

programme has become one of the European Union's flagship programmes for worldwide co-

operation in higher education.

South African higher education institutions (HEIs), students and staff of HEIs have been eligible to

participate in the Erasmus Mundus Programme since 2011. The programme provides scholarships

and mobility grants to students and staff to study, research or teach in Europe. Whilst there are

different Actions of Erasmus Mundus, South Africa's participation has notably been higher under

Action 2 which fosters multilateral partnerships between South Africa and EU based Universities.

Action 2 (Erasmus Mundus Partnerships) is strongly supported by the South African Department of

Higher Education and Training (DHET).

The overall objectives of Erasmus Mundus Partnerships between South African and European HEIs

are to support South Africa's efforts in fostering sustainable development, including pursuit of the

Millennium Development Goals and the eradication of poverty and inequality, through mutual

intellectual exchanges and cooperation between European and South African HEIs. In particular, the

programme aims to contribute to the provision of appropriate high-level skills and strengthen political,

economic and cultural links between South Africa and the EU.

The contribution of the EU to the programme in South Africa between 2011 and 2014 is €22.6m. An additional €4.4 million was allocated to facilitate EU mobility to South Africa. However, this mobility

only started in 2014. About €36.7 million has been allocated to South Africa towards the

implementation of the new Erasmus + programme for the period 2014 to 2020.

In South Africa, the programme is implemented with greater involvement of and cooperation between

the EU Delegation and the DHET. The DHET has sought to use programmes such as the Erasmus

Mundus to respond to South African peculiar challenges and transformation objectives. These include,

among others, redress, equity and quality within the system of higher education. Overtime, these

transformation objectives have formed an integral part of the eligibility requirements.

The participation of South African Universities in the Erasmus Mundus programme has evolved

overtime. Using a targeted approach and stringent eligibility requirement, the programme has also

managed to galvanize the participation of Historically Disadvantaged Universities. For example, at

least four of the Universities forming a consortium needed to come from the Historically

Disadvantaged Universities for the consortium to be eligible for funding.


Whereas the uptake of mobility started slow, it has increased gradually over the years. More than 500

masters and doctoral students and HEI staff, selected on a competitive basis by contracted

partnerships of European and South African HEIs, have received scholarships from this programme

since 2011. The duration of mobility has varied between 1 and 36 months. While some students went

to Europe for full degree studies others went for a few months as part of their study programmes back

in their home institutions. The mobility of staff has varied between a few days and sometimes lasted

up to 3 months. Recently the programme has also facilitated the mobility of students and staff from

Europe to South Africa. Over 25 students and staff from Europe had already been granted mobility to

South African universities in the second semester of 2014. More are departing in 2015.

Whilst, information on how many people have benefited from the South African allocation under the

Erasmus Mundus programme has been readily available, there was a knowledge gap in relation to the

impact of the programme in South Africa. For example, issues such as the progression, completion

and dropout rates within the programme remain an enigma. There was a paucity of information on the

impact of the programme on policy on higher education in South Africa; and the impact of the

programme on the livelihoods of the beneficiaries. Perceptions – either of beneficiaries or policy

makers – about the programme had neither been examined nor documented.

Meanwhile recent studies on Erasmus programme in Europe have demonstrated the positive impact

the programme has had. One such example is the 2014 Erasmus Impact Study that focused on the

"effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher

education institutions." The study found that students took the mobility because they believed studying

abroad enhanced their employability and that the programme enabled them to gain transversal skills

that are important to increase their prospects for employment.

However, this study focused on the impact of the Erasmus programme in Europe and not in the

partner countries like South Africa. It was not known whether the same results could be found about

the South African leg of the programme. It is against this background that the EU Delegation to South

Africa envisaged a study to trace the beneficiaries of the programme and to evaluate the impact the

programme has had.

2.2 Erasmus Mundus Action 2: Context, Data and Mobility and

Partnerships (2011-2014)

The Erasmus Mundus Programme comprises three actions:

Action 1 comprises the Erasmus Mundus joint programmes of outstanding quality at masters and

doctoral levels, including scholarships to participate in these programmes;

Action 2 (previously "Erasmus Mundus External Co-operation Windows") consists of the Erasmus

Mundus Partnerships between European and third country higher education institutions (HEIs),

including scholarships for mobility at all academic levels; and

Action 3 seeks to promote European higher education through projects that enhance the

attractiveness of Europe as an educational destination and a centre of excellence at world level.


The Erasmus Mundus Action 2 (EMA2) which is strongly supported by the Department of Higher

Education and Training is implemented by Partnerships or a Consortia of EU and SA Universities

selected through a competitive tender process. All beneficiaries have received their award through one

of these partnerships.

The overall SA mobility data (2011 – 2014) are as follows:

TABLE 1 : SUMMARY OF MOBILITY DATA (2011-2014)

Round Masters Doctoral Staff Total

2011 79 44 37 160

2012 57 27 21 105

2013 64 38 27 129

2014 80 43 25 148

Total 280 152 110 542

In addition, in 2014 the first cohort of 27 beneficiaries from the EU commenced their study or staff

exchange at SA universities.

The partnerships for 2015 have been selected following Calls for Applications in 2014. The Masters

and Doctoral students, post-doctoral fellows and university staff who will be awarded scholarships in

2015, could be the last to be awarded EMA2 scholarships, except if there will be extension especially

if not all the available scholarships are taken up in one year. This cohort will go to European

universities from September 2015.

The future

In 2014 the current Erasmus Mundus Programme will be replaced by the Erasmus+ Programme. The

activities indicated above for EMA2 will continue in parallel with activities related to the new Erasmus+

Programme.


3 METHODOLOGY

The overall research approach for this Tracer and Impact Study was guided by the specific objectives

as defined in the Terms of Reference.

A number of categories of respondents had been defined for the objectives of this tracer and impact

study:

Direct beneficiaries – Indirect beneficiaries

Students – Staff

Masters students – Doctoral students

Full degree students – Short-term students

Academic staff – Administrative staff

European Union – South Africa

EU universities – SA universities

EU stakeholders – SA stakeholders

For the purpose of this study students and staff have been defined as direct beneficiaries, while the

EU and South Africa, and its participating universities and other higher education stakeholders are

regarded as indirect beneficiaries.

The primary focus was on South African mobility to EU institutions as this was an essential part of the

programme from 2011 onwards. EU mobility to SA commenced only in 2014 and only the first cohort

of 27 beneficiaries was, in principle, available for this study.

The research methodology for this Tracer and Impact study consisted of three inter-related

stages:

1. A desktop review

An initial desk-top quick-scan was conducted, which included a review of relevant research and

methodologies on international impact and tracer studies of university graduates; statistical and other

background information on EU and South African collaboration in the higher education arena; an

overview of the South African higher education landscape and the changing policy developments that

have shaped it over time, especially as relating to the Erasmus Mundus programme and the

internationalisation of higher education in general. The full desktop review has been expanded over

the course of this study and is presented in Chapter 4.

2. A Quantitative Survey

Through an on-line survey. This survey traced all the students and staff from South African universities

who have benefitted from the Erasmus Mundus programme since 2011, when the first group of direct

beneficiaries took up their scholarships at the selected EU Universities. The total population of SA

beneficiaries is 542, of which 432 are students and 110 staff. Since the numbers of both categories of

beneficiaries are relatively small, it was decided that no sampling should take place for either of the

two groups. Two separate questionnaires have been designed for students and staff, respectively. The

key survey themes and the on-line implementation of the survey are presented in greater detail below.

The majority of the 27 EU beneficiaries, especially the students, are still in SA and were only targeted

in the quantitative research.


The quantitative online survey addressed five thematic areas, which were partly identical for students

and staff. The structure of the survey items/questions per thematic area was as follows:

The student survey addresses the following thematic areas:

1. Socio-demographic data and scholarship data

2. Mobilisation (expectation, application and preparation)

3. Study Achievements (separate for short-term and full degree studies)

4. Employment data (upon return)

5. Impact (employability, transversal skills, satisfaction vs. expectations, improvements and

recommendations)

The staff survey addresses the following thematic areas:

1. Socio-demographic data and scholarship data

2. Mobilisation (expectation, application and preparation)

3. Role and impact (objective, career, transversal skills, satisfaction versus expectations,

improvements and recommendations)

Two online questionnaires had been designed: one for the staff exchange scholarship and one for the

student exchange scholarship. These questionnaires were entered into Survey Monkey (Professional)

Excel databases; with SA and EU beneficiaries and their contact details having been provided by the

EU-Delegation in SA. The online surveys are presented in Annex I (students) and II (staff).

The online surveys were sent to all SA beneficiaries with e-mail addresses as provided in the

databases from the EM-Partnerships. The database appeared to be up-to-date. The pre-testing of the

survey led to a negligible number of only two respondents who indicated not to understand a question.

The online surveys opened after the long Easter weekend on Wednesday 8th of April 2015 (staff) and

Thursday 9th of April 2015 (students) respectively and closed on Friday 24

th of April 2015. A reminder

was sent on the 15th of April 2015.

The final response rate was 248 out of 542 (45.8%): 199 students (out of 432, or 46%) and 49 staff

(out of 110, or 44.5%). This is considered to be a very high response rate for an online survey.

However, not all questions / sections were applicable to all respondents; hence actual responses may

be lower.

The full data set with results and graphs is available in an MS-Excel file. As cross-tabulation

opportunities through Survey Monkey are limited, these were carried out through MS-Excel tools

and/or manually.

3. Qualitative research process:

The online survey was followed by a qualitative research process, which was intended to supplement

the findings of the survey by, inter alia, trying to probe a bit deeper behind some of the possible

reasons for the main findings and trends. The research team also tried to uncover some of the broader

social and institutional realities behind the statistics, in order to construct a more nuanced and layered

context for our overall findings about the impact of the EMA2 programme on its direct beneficiaries,

South African HEIs and society at large.


More generally, the qualitative research was applied as a kind of ‘fine-toothed comb’ approach, to uncover the more complex or nuanced insights and interpretations that a survey is not designed to/ or

capable of capturing, viz. to find the missing pieces of the puzzle. Interviews with key national and

international stakeholders in the EM programme in South Africa; and with the people actually running

the programme in different universities in the country, provided many such valuable insights and

interpretations. The many touching stories of personal and professional transformation, shared with us

by student and staff beneficiaries of EM, also offered prime examples of how qualitative research can

help to construct a more complete and in-depth assessment of an area of investigation.

Given South Africa’s colonial and apartheid history – particularly the legacy of the racially segregated

and unequal education system prevalent during the apartheid era – the research team also tried to

capture a sense of some of the historical, political and socio-economic factors behind some of the

survey findings. One of the main areas of concern, for example, was the continued under-

representation of students and university staff from previously disadvantaged groups (and HDIs)

amongst the selected beneficiaries of EMA2. Although gradually improving, this trend remains evident

in the findings of the latest (2015) online survey. This situation persists despite considerable efforts

made in this regard by the majority of stakeholders in the EMA2 programme. Some of the barriers to

international mobility, identified by a variety of respondents interviewed during the field trips, will

therefore be discussed in the section on student beneficiaries below.

Fieldwork

The fieldwork was conducted over a period of three weeks in May 2015 and involved visits to eleven

universities, in six provinces in South Africa. In the case of two universities, where senior staff

responsible for EMA2 was not available during the field visits to their respective cities, they were

subsequently interviewed via Skype. Altogether then, the research team interviewed senior staff at

International Offices, EMA2 consortium coordinators and EMA2 beneficiaries at thirteen universities in

South Africa. Where universities had no or very little engagement with the EMA2 programme over the

years, or indicated no availability to collaborate, the research team opted not to include them in the

fieldwork itinerary. A number of key informants and stakeholders in the EMA2 programme in South

Africa were also interviewed, as were some of the EU coordinators of the various consortiums.

In-depth interviews were conducted with the directors and/ or other staff members of the various

International Offices or, in some cases, the senior staff of the Research or Post-Graduate divisions of

the universities (where the EMA2 programme is based in some universities). The majority (4 out of 5)

of the South African coordinators of the different EM consortiums were included in this round of

interviews – as most of them head the afore-mentioned offices. In addition, in-depth interviews were

conducted with a range of relevant stakeholders in the Gauteng region, including representatives from

the EU Delegation in South Africa, the DHET, HESA, and from the European side the EU Directorate

General for Education and Culture (DGEAC) and Development Cooperation (DEVCO). Some of the

EU coordinators of EM consortiums were subsequently interviewed via Skype.

Focus group discussions were conducted with small groups of student and staff beneficiaries of the

EMA2 programme during the field visits. In most cases, despite the fact that the research team

enlisted the help of the various International Offices to organise the focus groups, it proved difficult to

gather enough beneficiaries for the focus groups. This was especially the case with regard to student

beneficiaries, where it became evident that many have either already graduated and left their

respective universities; were still studying in Europe or were simply not available on the date of our

visits.


At the universities where there were inadequate numbers of student beneficiaries available for the

focus groups, the researchers often opted for interviewing individual students that were available,

including via tele-conference, in one case. At one of the universities, a mixed group of student and

staff beneficiaries were gathered together for a focus group. At another university, a couple of written

testimonials from students still studying in Europe were provided to the researchers, in lieu of a focus

group. All in all, the research team only managed to conduct three proper focus groups with student

beneficiaries of EMA2.

In some cases, there was a discernible sense of “research fatigue,” in that both students and staff beneficiaries expressed a gentle questioning of why they had to provide [yet again] more feedback on

their EM experiences. Some indicated that they had just completed the online survey and therefore felt

they had already provided their input; whilst others indicated that they have completed similar surveys

and/or attended similar meetings or events over the past few years.

Staff beneficiaries, although in most cases still employed at the universities that facilitated their staff

exchange to an EU university, were not always easy to gather in one place either, as they were either

teaching or attending meetings. With the help of the respective International Offices, though, the

research team managed to conduct five bona fide staff focus groups, one mixed focus group (as

indicated above) and nine individual interviews with staff beneficiaries of EM.

The high quality of engagement and the valuable information and insights shared with the research

team in the course of these focus groups and interviews, however, made up for the lack of larger

numbers. Although each staff member obviously had a unique experience at the EU university they

went to, many common themes and trends emerged from these research engagements, which will be

discussed in the section on staff beneficiaries below.


4 LITERATURE REVIEW / DESK STUDY

4.1 Academic Mobility and Tracer / Impact Studies

Tracer Studies, also referred to as graduate surveys or alumni surveys, have traditionally mainly been

conducted at institutional level to trace their graduates (i.e. by individual universities, faculties or even

departments only). With the growing importance of national and international accreditations and global

rankings these studies are increasingly also being conducted at national and international level as

well as across academic disciplines at multiple institutions for the purpose of quality assurance and

curriculum reviews and higher education policy and planning purposes.

With the growth of specific policies and programmes, and especially the EU programmes Erasmus

(Mundus) and Socrates, another dimension of tracer and impact studies has been added, being the

impact of international mobility programmes. These programmes (and hence the studies) are

targeting a population which is less homogeneous than “traditional” tracer studies (e.g. all graduates from Faculty of X at University Y in Country Z). For instance the population for SA Erasmus Mundus

Action 2 will consist of various beneficiaries (students and staff, coming from a variety of HEI

institutions in SA (and to a lesser extent from Europe) and visiting a variety of institutions in the EU

(and to a lesser extent SA) and representing a variety of academic disciplines.

It is well understood that the foundations of higher education tracer studies, especially in Europe, are

laid by The University of Kassel in Germany (under the leadership of Dr Ulrich Teichler) and the

recent “Erasmus Impact Study (EIS)”1 (conducted by a Consortium led by Dr Uwe Brandenburg of

CHE Consult), has its roots in the same theoretical tradition.

The EIS is a very comprehensive scientific study and itaims to answer two major questions. Firstly, it

analyses the effects of Erasmus student mobility in relation to studies and placements on individual

skills enhancement, employability and institutional development. Secondly, it examines the effects of

Erasmus teaching assignments/staff training on individual competences, personality traits and

attitudes, as well as the programme's impact on the internationalisation of Higher Education

Institutions. The EIS uses an innovative methodology by introducing a psychometric-related tool and

related facts, perceptions, personality traits and attitudes. To measure real developments in the skills

of students and staff after their stay abroad, the EIS used six 'memo© factors' developed by CHE

Consult which are most closely related to employability: Tolerance of Ambiguity (acceptance of other

people’s culture and attitudes and adaptability), Curiosity (openness to new experiences), Confidence

(trust in own competence), Serenity (awareness of own strengths and weaknesses), Decisiveness

(ability to make decisions) and Vigour (ability to solve problems).

These six memo© factors are characteristics of personality traits. The six Memo factors are the IP of

CHE Consult and could for that reason not be used for this tracer and impact study. Secondly, the

population of the SA tracer and impact study is believed to be to too small to make this exercise

meaningful at this stage (the sample of the EIS included close to 79,000 individual responses. Finally,

the context of the Erasmus programme is different from the Erasmus Mundus programme for SA. The

main difference is that Erasmus allows to a greater extent the inclusion of work experience/internships

and, secondly, the EU-participants can benefit from the free mobility of persons and labour within the 1 CHE Consult et al.The Erasmus Impact Study: Effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students and

the internationalisation of higher education institutions. European Commission: Education and Culture, 2014.


EU-Member States. These are major differences that will influence the impact (and the research

design) on employability factors for non-EU students. Finally, a major methodological statement in the

EIS is that measuring competences and effects requires other methods in addition to satisfaction

surveys.

Despite some of these differences the EIS offers major insights on the impact of mobility programmes

for students, staff and HEIs. Some of these insights include:

- Mobile students, in general, and Erasmus students showed higher values for the six

personality traits than non-mobile students -even before going abroad. In this respect EIS

confirms previous research that claimed that individuals with predispositions such as

openness and adaptability are more likely to go abroad. Once, they had gone abroad, mobile

students also increased their advantage on the memo© values over the non-mobile students.

- The share of employers who considered experience abroad to be important for employability

also nearly doubled between 2006 and 2013 from 37% to 64%.

- More than 90% of the students reported an improvement in their soft skills, such as

knowledge of other countries, their ability to interact and work with individuals from different

cultures, adaptability, foreign language proficiency and communication skills

- In addition, 99% of the HEIs saw a substantial improvement in their students’ confidence and

adaptability.

- Job placements seem to have a specifically direct effect in that more than one in three

students who did an Erasmus work placement was offered a job by their host company and

they also seem to foster entrepreneurship: almost 1 in 10 students on a job placement started

their own company, and more than 3 out of 4 plan to or can envisage doing so.

- Mobility also affects employment rates. Former mobile students are half as likely to

experience long-term unemployment compared with those not going abroad. Even five years

after graduation, the unemployment rate of mobile students was 23% lower than for non-

mobile students.

- Mobility also affects the social life of students. At the time of the survey, 32% of all mobile

alumni and 33% of the Erasmus alumni had a life partner of a different nationality than their

own, nearly three times more than among the non-mobile alumni (13%), and 24% of mobile

alumni and 27% of Erasmus alumni had met their current life partner during their stay abroad.

- A majority of HEIs consider Erasmus to be the most relevant strategic asset of any

educational programme offered to students. Of the various Erasmus actions, study mobility is

considered the most important in relation to internationalisation by 83% of HEIs and for their

international profile (80% of HEIs).

- More than 70% of the staff agreed that the most important aspect of mobility was the increase

in their knowledge of good practices and skills to the benefit of their home HEI. Of the

academic staff, 81% observed beneficial effects on the quality of teaching and on multi-

disciplinary and cross-organisational cooperation in teaching, 92% saw effects on international

cooperation, and 69% observed a positive impact on research opportunities.

Another major, and for the purpose of this study even more relevant, tracer and impact study is the

annual Erasmus Mundus Graduate Impact Survey conducted by ICU.Net AG2. Although following a

slightly simplified, and more pragmatic approach this tracer study is highly useful and relevant as it

allows for better comparison with Erasmus Mundus students globally rather than the Erasmus Impact

2ICU.Net AG Erasmus Mundus. Graduate Impact Survey, September 2014 (also previous editions available)


Study, as the latter focuses on intra-European mobility of students and staff only. The EM-GIS

measures the impact of EM globally. Comparisons can be made with the results from this SA Tracer

and Impact Study.

In terms of overall satisfaction the EM-GIS finds that 91% of the beneficiaries are satisfied or very

satisfied with the EM-programme. As will be shown, for South African student beneficiaries this is

85%, slightly less than EM globally. EM-GIS found that 2% of the beneficiaries are not satisfied, while

9.5% of the SA-beneficiaries are not satisfied.

In terms of satisfaction with the courses, the EM-GIS finds that globally 84% of the beneficiaries are

satisfied, while this applies to 81.5% of the SA beneficiaries. Globally, dissatisfied beneficiaries

comprise 6%, while for South African beneficiaries this is 13%. In general it appears that SA-

beneficiaries are less satisfied than at a global level. The EM-GIS study found no significant

differences across fields of study.

The EM-GIS has researched what according to beneficiaries is lacking in the EM programme. This

includes:

- Contacts to potential employers (66.8%)

- Practical experiences (53,6%)

- Mentoring (35,2%)

- Integration activities (34,5%)

- Flexibility in the content of the courses (18,5%)

- Programme not well-prepared for the job market (12,1%)

The SA study found different percentages, especially for contacts to potential employers (37,4%) and

practical experiences (14,5%) and preparation for the job-market (26,3%) but these aspects are still

the main things that are lacking; however it is considered less important than globally. Mentoring

scores 27,4% in the SA study.

The global survey also looks at employability and it finds that upon graduation 64.7% have found a

job. For SA-graduates this percentage is 63.3% (based on 71 respondents only), which is more or less

comparable.

The EM-GIS assesses the impact of EM on the graduates. The results are:

- Intercultural competences (56,4%)

- Career (43,3%)

- Subject related expertise (39%)

- Personality/personal growth (29,5%)

- Attitude towards Europe and the EU (25,1%)

- Private life (14,2%)

For South Africans personal growth is the most important (86,6%), followed by intercultural

competences (70,4%). Career development is mentioned by 54,2% of the South African respondents.

Overall, South African respondents more often mention the impact than their global EM-beneficiaries,

which could mean that EM has a stronger impact on SA-beneficiaries than EM-graduates globally.


Finally, the EM-GIS also looked at the place of residence of EM-graduate (non-EU citizens). It appears

that initially (first two years upon graduation) the percentage that remains in the EU lies at 45%, while

this decreases to 32% after 5 years after graduation. As shown from the survey the number of SA-

students that returned to South Africa is 85%.

4.2 Student mobility in Africa and other Mobility Programmes open

to South African nationals

The EMA2 Programme is one of the international scholarship / mobility programmes accessible to SA-

nationals. As has been indicated in Chapter 2, the EMA2 provided over the past four years mobility

grants to 542 beneficiaries (542 postgraduate students and 110 staff).

In this section a comparison is made with other international academic mobility from South African

students. Firstly, we look at overall international mobility of South African students. According to the

latest UNESCO data3 the number of South African students studying abroad (all levels of post-

secondary education) was 6,166.

Table 1: Top-10 destination countries of post-secondary South African students

1. United States 1,159

2. United Kingdom 1,339

3. Australia 787

4. Cuba 426

5. Bahrain 184

6. Mauritius 177

7. Saudi Arabia 173

8. Germany 164

9. Canada 150

10. Brazil 138

The above data does not yet include mobility to countries such as China, which is increasingly

becoming attractive for international students and plans are afoot to recruit more than 400 students

annually from South Africa4.

In terms of overall mobility, SA ranks 17th in absolute numbers in comparison to other African

countries.

3http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-student-flow-viz.aspx

4http://www.chinafrica.cn/english/The_Latest_Headlines/txt/2014-05/21/content_620157.htm

http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-student-flow-viz.aspx

http://www.chinafrica.cn/english/The_Latest_Headlines/txt/2014-05/21/content_620157.htm


Table 2: Top-10 Countries in terms of international Post-secondary Mobility

1. Morocco 42,800

2. Nigeria 38,851

3. Algeria 22,465

4. Cameroon 20,093

5. Zimbabwe 19,658

6. Tunisia 19,506

7. Kenya 13,258

8. Egypt 11,627

9. Senegal 11,298

10. Botswana 8,562

17. South Africa 6,378

Although the motivations and opportunities for studying abroad vary both in home and host countries,

it is clear that South Africa has a relatively limited tradition of international academic mobility in

comparison to other African countries, especially in relation to the size of its population. In the case of

Maghreb (North African) countries, it has to be noted that the majority of international mobility is

towards France, which makes comparison with South Africa rather difficult.

Furthermore, the table above provides data on full degree mobility, not just postgraduate studies; and

most of the studies are privately sponsored and/or home government supported. Only a small

proportion of the students referred to above are sponsored through dedicated scholarship

programmes of the host country, even though some migration policies (and absence of tuition fees,

e.g. in France) contribute to high international mobility flows from former French colonies, including

sub-Sahara countries such as Senegal and Cameroon. SADC policies also contribute to high mobility

from students from Zimbabwe and Botswana (for which South Africa is, in both cases, the no. 1

destination). South Africa receives more international students (60,000!) than it sends abroad, e.g. as

demonstrated in the Project Atlas5 and has become one of the leading “exporters of education”.

In terms of scholarship programmes the following scholarship programmes, particularly targeting

African and/or SA nationals, are available:

- Chinese Government Scholarship, a new programme managed in collaboration with DHET, 34

scholarships offered for the first intake in 2015, currently the selection process for the 2016

intake is underway

http://www.dhet.gov.za/internationalScholarships/CHINESE%20GOVERNMENT%20SCHOLA

RSHIPS.html,

5http://www.iie.org/Services/Project-Atlas/South-Africa

http://www.dhet.gov.za/internationalScholarships/CHINESE%20GOVERNMENT%20SCHOLARSHIPS.html

http://www.dhet.gov.za/internationalScholarships/CHINESE%20GOVERNMENT%20SCHOLARSHIPS.html

http://www.iie.org/Services/Project-Atlas/South-Africa


- South Africa-Cuba Medical Programme, last cohort 126 SA students,

http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/more-sa-medical-students-cuba

- African Union Mwalimu Nyerere Scholarship, currently closed except for a special call for

applications for students living with a disability,

- Russian Government Scholarships, a limited programme of 5 scholarships in collaboration

with DHET,

http://www.dhet.gov.za/internationalScholarships/RUSSIA%20SCHOLARSHIPS.html

- Australia Awards Scholarships www.australiaawardsafrica.org, on average 5-10 SA awardees

per year,

- Canada, African leaders for Tomorrow programme to be launched in September 2015

http://www.cbie.ca/what-we-do/student-portal/african-leaders-of-tomorrow-scholarship-

program/,

- New opportunities arising through the Master Card Foundation Scholars Programme

http://mastercardfdnscholars.org/ through various forms of collaboration, e.g. University of

Pretoria and University of Cape Town,

- Africa-India Capacity Building Partnership (in collaboration with MNAUSS, only in 2013, for 75

African students,

- Swedish Institute, 10 scholarships for SA nationals

https://studyinsweden.se/scholarship/swedish-institute-study-scholarships-for-south-african-

students/.

http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/more-sa-medical-students-cuba

http://www.dhet.gov.za/internationalScholarships/RUSSIA%20SCHOLARSHIPS.html

http://www.australiaawardsafrica.org/

http://www.cbie.ca/what-we-do/student-portal/african-leaders-of-tomorrow-scholarship-program/

http://www.cbie.ca/what-we-do/student-portal/african-leaders-of-tomorrow-scholarship-program/

http://mastercardfdnscholars.org/

https://studyinsweden.se/scholarship/swedish-institute-study-scholarships-for-south-african-students/

https://studyinsweden.se/scholarship/swedish-institute-study-scholarships-for-south-african-students/


5 FINDINGS FROM ONLINE SURVEYS

In this section the results and analysis of the two online surveys are presented. After the initial analysis

of the results, some findings were specifically addressed in the qualitative analysis. The results from

the qualitative analysis (through interviews and focus groups) are presented in the next chapter.

5.1 Online Survey: Student beneficiaries

In total 199 student beneficiaries started to complete the online survey. 11 respondents indicated in

the test question that they had not received an Erasmus Mundus scholarship and at that stage they

exited the survey. Hence, the remaining number of respondents is 188.

5.1.1 Analysis of the Respondents

The gender distribution in the survey is almost in balance. However, this is not an accurate reflection

of the population, an issue which also occurred during the mid-term evaluation in 2013. In the total

population more males than females were awarded scholarships, 54% of the beneficiaries were male

against 46% female. This imbalance specifically applies to Masters, while slightly more females were

awarded scholarships for Doctoral studies. The overall breakdown of the respondents is presented in

the table below.

Table 3: Gender distribution of student respondents

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Female 51,9% 95

Male 47,0% 86

Prefer not to answer 1,1% 2

Total answers 183

The distribution among population groups is presented in the table below. The number of Black/African

and White respondents is almost equal. However, over the years gradually more Black/Africans were

awarded scholarships, but they are relatively under-represented in the survey.

Table 4: Population Group distribution of student respondents


Response Count

Black / African 37,2% 68

White 36,6% 67

Coloured 12,6% 23

Indian 2,2% 4

Other 1,1% 2


Total answers 183

Respondents were asked to provide their age at the time of completion of the survey. The age

breakdown is presented in the table below. Most of the respondents over 30 years are enrolled in PhD

programmes.


Table 5: Current Age distribution of student respondents


Response Count

Under 25 years 14,2% 26

25 – 29 years 50,8% 93

30 – 34 years 18,5% 34

35 – 39 years 5,5% 10

40 – 44 years 4,4% 8

45 years and older 6,6% 12

Total answers 183

Respondents were also asked to indicate if they are living with a disability. Six students (3.3%)

indicated they were living with a disability. Four of the six respondents who indicated that they were

living with a disability elaborated in greater detail. Two of the students indicated that they experienced

no setbacks. One respondent indicated that due to language issues it was difficult to get an

appointment with the appropriate medical staff in a local hospital. The other respondent, who suffers

from depression, and although on medication, felt “low” (missing family and friends), and struggled to

attend classes.

Table 6: Student Respondents living with a disability


Response Count

No 96,7% 177

Yes 3,3% 6

Total answers 183

Student beneficiaries under the EMA2 programme can also be staff members of South African

universities. Some South African universities used the EMA2 programme as a means to upgrade the

academic qualifications of their staff through enrolling them in Master or Doctoral degree programmes

at EU universities. Respondents who responded “not applicable” are considered to be part of the so-

called “free movers”, i.e. currently not enrolled at one of the SA universities, but participating in the

programme as target 2. The breakdown of the respondents is as follows:

Table 7: Student Enrolment and/or employment status at a university in South Africa when receiving the EM scholarship


Response Count

Enrolled as a student only 64,9% 120

Employed as a staff member and also a student 13,5% 25

Not applicable 21,6% 40

Total answers 185

Respondents were also asked to indicate in which type of programmes they were enrolled at the home

institution in South Africa. Respondents who indicated “not applicable” are considered to be part of the

so-called “free movers”


Table 8: Degree or programme enrolment at your university in South Africa when receiving the EM scholarship

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Master’s degree 53,3% 96

PhD 27,8% 50

Honours degree 3,3% 6

Post-doctoral fellow 0,6% 1

Not applicable 15,0% 27

Total answers 180

Respondents were asked to indicate in which year they travelled to the EU University. Beneficiaries

who travelled in the past two years exceeded the number from the first two years. However, many

beneficiaries who travelled in the past two years are still studying at the EU universities, and were

therefore less in a position to report in great detail about impact.

Table 9: Year of departure to the EU University (students)


Response Count

2011 20,6% 37

2012 18,9% 34

2013 22,2% 40

2014 38,3% 69

Total answers 180

Respondents were asked to indicate the duration of their studies at the EU universities, which applies

to current students as well as to returned students. Students who indicate that they are studying up to

36 months are all PhD students. The breakdown is presented in the table below.

Table 10: Duration of studies at the EU University


Response Count

Up to 3 months 0,6% 1





Total answers 180

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they went as full degree or short-term (exchange)

student to the EU university. In the survey they were equally represented.

Table 11: Short-term (exchange) vs. full degree enrolment at the EU university?


Response Count

Short-term (exchange) 50,0% 52

Full degree 50,0% 52

Total answers 104


Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were still studying at the EU university or had

completed their studies. It has to be noted that those who indicate that they have completed their

(short-term studies at the EU universities may still be studying at the South African universities to

complete their degree. This has also implications for the respondents who are able to report on their

current employment status in the next paragraphs.

Table 12: Continued enrolment vs. completion of studies at EU University


Response Count

Still studying at EU university 41,9% 75

Completed studies at EU university 58,1% 104

Total answers 179

The fact that not all students will immediately be available on the labour market is also reflected in the

table below. Close to 58% of the students who have returned to South Africa indicated that they are

still studying.

Table 13: Graduation status at the South African university you were studying at when receiving the Erasmus Mundus award


Response Count

No (not graduated) 3,8% 2

Yes (graduated) 38,5% 20

Still studying (not yet graduated) 57,7% 30

Total answers 52


The breakdown of the sending SA-universities is presented below. The results also show that the top 6

sending universities represent 110 (59,4%) of the respondents. The Top-3 universities are all located

in the Western Cape Province.

Table 14: Home universities in South Africa for EM beneficiaries


University of Stellenbosch 11,9% 22

University of the Western Cape 10,8% 20

University of Cape Town 10,3% 19

University of KwaZulu-Natal 9,2% 17

University of Free State 8,6% 16

University of Pretoria 8,6% 16

University of the Witwatersrand 5,9% 11

University of Fort Hare 4,9% 9

University of Limpopo 4,9% 9

Cape Peninsula University of Technology

3,8% 7

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

3,2% 6

Rhodes University 2,2% 4

Durban University of Technology

1,6% 3

Tshwane University of Technology

1,6% 3

University of Johannesburg 1,1% 2

North-West University 0,5% 1

University of South Africa 0,5% 1

University of Venda 0,5% 1

Central University of Technology

0,0% 0

University of Zululand 0,0% 0

Other 9,7% 18

Total answers 185


The majority of the students are studying in the Social Sciences (60 or 32,4%). The “over-representation” of social sciences in this survey is partly caused by the fact that in the initial cohorts,

social sciences attracted more students. This has gradually become more balanced in the later

cohorts.

Table 15: Academic discipline of EM awardees


Social Sciences 32,4% 60

Business Studies and Management Sciences

13,0% 24

Natural Sciences 10,8% 20

Medical Sciences 8,1% 15

Education, Teacher Training 5,9% 11

Geography, Geology 4,9% 9

Engineering, Technology 4,3% 8

Agricultural Sciences 3,2% 6

Communication and Information Sciences

3,2% 6

Mathematics, Informatics 3,2% 6

Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning

1,6% 3

Other areas of study: Alternative Energy Resources, Climate Change, Sustainable Development

9,2% 17

Total answers 185

The destination countries are presented below. The Top-3 destination countries (Netherlands,

Belgium, and Germany) hosted 118 (or 65,5%) of the students. The imbalance is especially caused

because the first cohorts appear to be over-represented in the survey. Some smaller destination

countries (Denmark, Lithuania, and Portugal) were not represented among the respondents.

Table 16: Destination countries in the EU of EM beneficiaries


Netherlands 26,7% 48

Belgium 26,1% 47

Germany 12,8% 23

Sweden 6,1% 11

Italy 5,0% 9

United Kingdom 5,0% 9

Czech Republic 3,9% 7

France 3,3% 6

Slovenia 2,8% 5

Spain 2,8% 5

Austria 1,1% 2

Finland 1,1% 2

Ireland 1,1% 2

Poland 1,1% 2

Latvia 0,6% 1

Romania 0,6% 1

Total answers 180


The over-representation of the three countries is also reflected in the EU-universities. Interestingly the

top-2 universities (University of Antwerpen and KU Leuven, both in Belgium) are also very committed

coordinators of the initial partnerships and, especially in the beginning, better resourced to place

students.

Table 17: EU host universities with at least 3 respondents


University of Antwerpen 12,2% 22

KU Leuven 8.3% 15

University of Amsterdam 6.1% 11

University of Bologna 5.0% 9

Tilburg University 4.4% 8

University of Leipzig 4.4% 8

RU Groningen 3,8% 7

Radboud University 3,8% 7

Masaryk University 3.3% 6

Gent University 3.3% 6

FU Berlin 2.7% 5

Lund University 2.7% 5

Utrecht University 2.7% 5

Ruhr Bochum University 2.2% 4

University of Hull 2.2% 4

University of Ljubljana 2.2% 4

University of Duisburg-Essen 2.2% 4

Karolinska Institut 1.6% 3

Maastricht University 1.6% 3

University of Granada 1,6% 3

University of Uppsala 1,6% 3

VU Amsterdam 1.6% 3

Other 19,4% 35

Total 180

5.1.2 Expectations, Satisfaction and Impact

In this section we are looking at the expectations of the students and the satisfaction with a number of

aspects of the EM-programme. The table below indicates that future career prospects was the most

listed motivation/ expectation to apply for an EM-scholarship, while academic and reputational issues

and motivations were relatively less important. The finding that improved career prospects are

presented as the most important driver is important throughout this study and it will again be

addressed in some of the subsequent sections on student satisfaction and in terms of features that are

not sufficiently developed in the EMA2 programme.


Table 18: Expectations and motivations when applying for an Erasmus Mundus scholarship (multiple answers.)


Response Count

To improve future career prospects 84,6% 154

The opportunity to live and study in Europe 77,5% 141

To improve international networks 67,0% 122

The prospect of receiving a scholarship to study in Europe

62,6% 114

To improve inter-cultural competencies 57,1% 104

Academic excellence offered in my field of study/discipline

60,4% 110

The academic reputation of the participating EU universities

56,6% 103

The reputation of Erasmus Mundus 27,5% 50

To improve foreign language competencies 24,2% 44

The prospect of a double/joint degree 17,0% 31

Other (please specify) 4,4% 8

Total answered question 182

The respondents show a great overall satisfaction with the Erasmus Mundus programme. 151

respondents (84,3%) are satisfied or very satisfied. Less than 10% is dissatisfied. However, as will be

shown from the figures below, the satisfaction levels do vary across a number of items. No significant

correlation has been found with year of departure or destination countries and/or universities.

Beneficiaries were asked to rate the application process for the EM-scholarship. The majority of the

respondents (64,1%) answered that it is a fair process, which is considered to be logical as the

(online) application form and also the follow-up in terms of placement requires a lot of work. No

significant correlation was found with the year of departure as it would have been expected that the

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

Diagram 1: Overall satisfaction with the Erasmus Mundus scholarship programme (students)

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied


procedure would become less complicated over the years and/or applicants would be able to get help

from other students or their international offices.

Students were asked to rate the institutional support (both from the SA institution and the EU-

coordinators) during the application process. More than to 67% answered that the support was good

to very good, while less than 10% indicated it was poor or very poor.

Students were also asked to rate the level of support they received from the SA universities. Although

the majority is positive (around 38%), this is one of the areas where students are relatively least

satisfied. However, no significant correlation has been found with year of departure or home

universities (the universities that were listed most by those who rated the support as poor or very poor

were among the universities that sent most of the students).

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

Diagram 2 : Rating of the application process for the Erasmus Mundus scholarship (students)

Very difficult

Difficult

Fair

Easy

Very easy

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

Diagram 3 : Rating of the level of institutional support you received during the application process (students)

Very poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Very good



rated higher than the support provided by the SA Universities. More than 70% of the respondents

rated these as good or very good, while less than 15% rated them as poor or very poor.

Respondents were asked to rate the satisfaction with the courses that they took at the EU-university.

More than 81% answered that they were somewhat or very satisfied with these courses. Close to 13%

indicated that they were dissatisfied with the courses.

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

Diagram 4: Rating the level of support received from the university in South Africa, in preparation for departure to Europe

Very poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Very good

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

45,0%

50,0%

Diagram 5: Rating the level of support received from host university in the EU on your arrival and in the initial period of settling into the new

environment

Very poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Very good


Students were asked to indicate what the EM programme lacks. As can be seen from the table below

“contacts to potential employers” and “preparation for the job market” were listed in the top-3. This is

an important finding as these items that are most lacking are the same as the key motivation to apply

for an EM-scholarship. However, the item “contact to potential employers” was not further specified

and can vary from short-term internships/practical experience to prospects of finding a job in an EU-

country after their EM scholarship.

This question was used by respondents to ventilate a number of issues, concerns, recommendations

and experiences. Although not all answers relate to features “lacking in the programme” most of the

answers can be categorised as follows:

- Lack of research funding / opportunities for field work

- Lack of availability of Masters by research/dissertation

- Issues with PhD supervision (SA and EU-institutions)

- More events/opportunities for EM-students to liaise/interact/follow-up

- Quite a number of individual testimonies about non-satisfactory handling of personal

issues/emergencies by the international offices (especially in the EU)

- Inadequate preparation/handling of logistical issues (accommodation, social security,

health/sickness issues, accidents etc.)

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

Diagram 6: Satisfiaction with the courses taken during Erasmus Mundus study programme

Very dissatisfied



Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied


Table 19: What would you say the Erasmus Mundus programme lacks? (Multiple answers possible)


Response Count

Contacts to potential employers 37,4% 67

Mentoring 27,4% 49

Preparation for job market 26,3% 47

Flexibility in structuring your study programme 17,3% 31

Adequate academic supervision 16,2% 29

Practical experience 14,5% 26

Nothing 19,0% 34

Too early to say 14,0% 25


Total question answered 179

Students were asked to rate the impact of the EM programme on their personal and professional

development. The highest impact of EM was on personal growth and intercultural competencies.

Interestingly these were not listed among the highest expectations and motivations when applying for

an EM-scholarship. Career development, which was the highest motivation, was listed by 54% of the

respondents.

Table 20: In which of the following areas did the Erasmus Mundus programme have the greatest impact on your personal and professional development? (Multiple answers.)


Response Count

Personal growth 86,6% 155

Intercultural competencies 70,4% 126

Attitude towards Europe and EU 59,2% 106

Subject related expertise 59,2% 106

Career development 54,2% 97

Private life 35,8% 64

Too early to say 5,6% 10



5.1.3 Academic Achievements

The respondents generally had great difficulty in answering questions on credits earned and credit

transfer. Only 12 respondents could indicate how many ECTS credits they had earned at the EU-

university (however the survey also included students still studying in the EU). From follow-up

questions it appeared that only 5 respondents knew how many ECTS were recognised at the home

institution. Of these 5 respondents only one respondent indicated that full credit transfer had been in

place at the time of the survey.

Table 21: Do you know how many ECTS points you earned at the EU University?


Response Count

No 76,9% 40

Yes 23,1% 12

Total answers 52


Table 22: How many ECTS points did you earn at the EU University?


Response Count

<10 8.3% 1

11-20 16.6% 2

21-30 41.6% 5

>31 33,3% 4

Total answers 12

From the two tables below it appears that credit transfer for exchange / short-term students is a major

issue for EM-students. Most students were not able to tell if and how many ECTS were recognised

and only one student in the survey indicated that that credits were actually recognised. This issue has

been followed up during the qualitative research and it appeared that the picture is not as bleak as the

findings do suggest.

Table 23: Do you know how many ECTS credit points were recognised by your home (South African) University?


Response Count

No 58,3% 7

Yes 41,7% 5

Total answers 12

Table 24: How many ECTS points were recognised by your home (South African) University?

Answers Response Percent

Response Count

0 80.0% 4

30 20.0% 1

Total answers 5

The following two tables provide a comparison between scheduled duration of studies for full degree

students and actual duration. Although there is not much room for extension of the EM-scholarships

there is almost perfect correlation between overall scheduled duration and actual duration, which

means that study progress is almost according to schedule. A few extensions seem to have occurred.

Table 25: How many semesters was the scheduled duration of your degree programme at the EU University?


Response Count

2 semesters 37,3% 19

3 semesters 2,0% 1


5 semesters 0,0% 0

6 semesters 7,8% 4

Total answers 51


Table 26: How long did it take you to complete the degree programme at the EU University?


Response Count


3 semesters 2,0% 1


5 semesters 4,0% 2

6 semesters 8,0% 4

Still studying 2,0% 1

Did not complete the degree / left university. 0,0% 0

Total answers 50

5.1.4 Employment

The employment status of students who graduated either from SA or from EU-universities is presented

below. Employment is at 63,3%; unemployment is at 16,9%. Graduates with employment represented

16 graduates from HDIs (40%) and 24 graduates from traditional universities (60%). Unemployed

graduates represented 6 from HDIs (50%), 4 from traditional universities (33%) and two indicated

“other”.

Table 27: Present employment status of EM graduates


Response Count

Employment full-time, paid 56,3% 40

Employment, part time, paid 0,0% 0

Employment without pay (e.g. voluntary work or internship)

4,2% 3

Self-employed 2,8% 2

Not employed but studying 11,3% 8

Not employed but seeking employment 16,9% 12

Not employed and not seeking employment 0,0% 0

Other 8,5% 6

Total answers 71

In total 40 respondents indicated their current job titles. 5 Respondents preferred not to disclose.


Table 28: Job titles of EM graduates(in alphabetical order)

Response Count (if>1)

Business Analyst

Candidate Attorney

Chief Officer

Climate Change and Sustainability

Climate Team Manager (Research)

Community Service Pharmacist

Development Practitoner

Director Academic Affairs

Environmental Consultant

Expert Performance Fees

Geophysicist Intern

4

Junior Consultant

Junior Lecturer

Junior Quantitative Analyst

Lecturer 4

Librarian: Finance and Administration

Librarian: IT

Operations Officer 2

Quantity Surveyor

Pre-authorisation consultant

Project Manager 2

Registered Nurse

Research Project Manager

Researcher

Senior Auditor

Senior Economist Senior Lecturer and Head of Faculty

Technical Specialist

Underwriter

Volunteer Drugs and Health Officer

Writer and Concept Developer


The following employers were listed by the respondents

Table 29: List of Employers of EM graduates Response

Count (if >1)

Accenture UK

BP

Cape Peninsula University of Technology 2

Damelin Higher Education College and Cape University of Technology

De Beers

Department of Correctional services

Divine Inspiration

Discovery Health

Durban University of Technology

FutureWorks Sustainability Consulting

FW de Klerk Foundation

Gauteng Department of Social Development

Global Kinetic Software Engineers

Human Sciences Research Council

Imani development

International Criminal Court

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

North-West University

Old Mutual 3

Rhodes University 2

Self-employed

South African History Online

South African Reserve Bank

Symington & de Kok Attorneys

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

University of Free State 2

University of Johannesburg

University of Kwa Zulu Natal

University Medical Center Utrecht

University of Stellenbosch Business School (Executive Development)

WSP Environment & Energy

The majority of the respondents (85%) who answered this question have returned for employment in

South Africa, which is actually a requirement in EMA2. However 7 respondents who indicated their job

title and employer did not indicate the location.

Table 30: Location of current employers of EM graduates


Response Count

South Africa 85,0% 28

Europe 9,0% 3

Asia 6,0% 2

Total answers 33


Respondents indicated if their current job was their first position. It appears that about half of the

respondents had previous jobs. There is no further information available on the nature of these jobs

(e.g. part-time jobs during studies).

Table 31: Is this your first position after leaving university?


Response Count

No 51,1% 23

Yes 48,9% 22

Total answers 45

The great majority of respondents (38 out of 45, or 84.4%) indicated that EM had a positive or strong

positive impact on their employability.

Table 32: To what extent has Erasmus Mundus had a positive or negative impact on your ability to find employment after leaving university?


Response Count

Strong negative impact 0,0% 0

Negative impact 2,2% 1

No impact 13,3% 6

Positive impact 44,4% 20

Strong positive impact 40,0% 18

answered question 45

A limited number of 23 respondents were willing to indicate their gross monthly salary. Mean gross

salary reported is R 21,540; median gross salary reported is R 20,000. One respondent was working

as a volunteer. The highest reported salary was R 39,000.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Diagram 7: Current gross monthly salary in 1,000 Rand


5.2 Online Survey: Staff beneficiaries

In total 49 staff beneficiaries started to complete the online survey. Two respondents indicated in the

test question that they had not received an Erasmus Mundus scholarship and at that stage they exited

the survey. Hence, the remaining number of respondents is 47.

5.2.1 Analysis of the Respondents

Respondents were asked to indicate their gender. Females comprise over 61% of the respondents.

This is an adequate representation of the gender balance amongst staff beneficiaries. Overall, the

number of female beneficiaries has been double the number of males.

Table 33 : Gender distribution of respondents (staff)


Response Count

Male 38,3% 18

Female 61,7% 29

Total answers 47

Respondents were asked to indicate their current age (at the time of completion of the survey). The

breakdown is presented in the table below. Close to 62% of the staff beneficiaries were older than 45

years. Close to 13% were younger than 35 years.

Table 34: Age distribution (present) of respondents (staff)


Response Count

25 – 29 years 4.2% 2

30 – 34 years 8,5% 4

35 – 39 years 19.1% 9

40 – 44 years 6.3% 3

45 – 49 years 17.0% 8

50 – 54 years 17.0% 8

55 – 59 years 12.7% 6

60 years and older 14.8% 7

Total answers 47


Respondents were asked to indicate to which population group they belong. Over 55% of the

respondents indicated they are white. This distribution can also be attributed to the age distribution

and the academic staff composition at SA universities and the opportunity to capitalise on existing

linkages with European universities.

Table 35: Population group distribution of respondents (staff)


Response Count

Black African 10,6% 5

Coloured 21,3% 10

White 55,3% 26

Indian 2,1% 1

Other 2,1% 1


Total answers 47

Three respondents indicated that they were living with a disability. Two of the respondents indicated

that they had no or no major challenges during their stay at the EU university. One respondent

reported initial challenges in getting used to the public transport system and other navigation issues

due to visual impairment.

Table 36: Are you living with a disability?


Response Count

No 93,6% 44

Yes 6,4% 3

Total answers 47

The majority of the beneficiaries were academic staff members (85%), while the other 15% comprised

of administrative and managerial staff.

Table 37: University staff categories of EM beneficiaries?


Response Count

Academic staff 85,1% 40

Administrative staff 8,5% 4

Managerial staff 6,4% 3

Total answers 47



was employed at senior lecturer level or higher. No junior lecturers completed the survey. The 3 full-

time researchers are all aged over 35 years.

Table 38: Employment level of EM beneficiaries (academic staff only)


Response Count

Junior lecturer 0,0% 0

Lecturer 22,5% 9

Senior lecturer 30,0% 12

Full-time researcher 7,5% 3

Associate professor 20,0% 8

Full professor 20,0% 8

Total answers 40

The majority of the respondents are working in the social sciences, followed by medical sciences. This

distribution is slightly different from the student beneficiaries. Especially business studies and

management sciences rank lower in the staff survey.

Table 39: Field of study or academic discipline (academic staff only)


Response Count

Social Sciences 37,5% 15

Medical Sciences 15,0% 6

Education, Teacher Training 10,0% 4

Communication and Information Sciences 10,0% 4

Business Studies and Management Sciences 7,5% 3

Agricultural Sciences 5,0% 2

Engineering, Technology 5,0% 2

Mathematics, Informatics 5,0% 2

Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning 2,5% 1

Other areas of study: Alternative Energy Resources, Climate Change, Sustainable Development

2,5% 1

Geography, Geology 0,0% 0

Natural Sciences 0,0% 0

Total answers 40


The sending SA-institutions are presented below. Three institutions in the Western Cape are in the

Top-4 and these three institutions represent 51% of the respondents.

Table 40: Home university at the time of receiving the Erasmus Mundus (staff)


Response Count

Cape Peninsula University of Technology 21,3% 10

University of the Western Cape 19,1% 9

University of Pretoria 12,8% 6

University of Stellenbosch 10,6% 5

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University 8,5% 4

University of Free State 8,5% 4

University of Cape Town 4,3% 2

University of Limpopo 4,3% 2

University of the Witwatersrand 4,3% 2

Durban University of Technology 2,1% 1

University of KwaZulu-Natal 2,1% 1

North-West University 0,0% 0

Rhodes University 0,0% 0

Tshwane University of Technology 0,0% 0

University of Fort Hare 0,0% 0

University of Johannesburg 0,0% 0

University of South Africa 0,0% 0

Central University of Technology 0,0% 0

University of Venda 0,0% 0

University of Zululand 0,0% 0

Other 2,1% 1

Total answers 47


The destination countries are provided in the table below. Unlike in the destination countries for

students, Belgium ranks highest, while Sweden, Germany and The Netherlands rank second, third and

fourth respectively. Countries that have no responses have received SA staff members but no surveys

were completed. The Top-4 countries comprise the destinations of close to 72 % of the respondents.

Table 41: Destination countries of EM staff beneficiaries


Response Count

Belgium 21,7% 10

Sweden 19,6% 9

Germany 17,4% 8

Netherlands 13,0% 6

Czech Republic 6,5% 3

Italy 4,3% 2

Spain 4,3% 2

United Kingdom 4,3% 2

Denmark 2,2% 1

Ireland 2,2% 1

Latvia 2,2% 1

Portugal 2,2% 1

Lithuania 0,0% 0

Poland 0,0% 0

Romania 0,0% 0

Slovenia 0,0% 0

Finland 0,0% 0

Austria 0,0% 0

France 0,0% 0

Total answers 46

Similarly, the universities visited correspond with the major destination countries. All three visitors to

the Czech Republic went to Masaryk University.

Table 42: Universities with at least 2 respondents (staff beneficiaries)


KU Leuven 13.0% 6

University of Antwerpen 8.6% 4

FU Berlin 8.6% 4

Karolinska Institut 8.6% 4

Lund University 6.5% 3

Masaryk University 6.5% 3

University of Amsterdam 4.3% 2

University of Bologna 4.3% 2

University of Leipzig 4.3% 2

University of Hull 4.3% 2

University of Duisburg-Essen 4.3% 2

University of Granada 4.3% 2

Other 21.7% 10

Total answer 46


Respondents were asked to indicate the duration of their stay. The majority (close to 61%) went


Table 43: Duration of stay at the EU University (staff)


Response Count

Up to 1 week 0,0% 0

Two weeks to one month 60,9% 28

Two months 15,2% 7

Three months 19,6% 9

More than three months 4,3% 2

Total answers 46

5.2.2 Expectations, Satisfaction and Impact

The respondents were asked to indicate the motivations and expectations for applying for an EM-

scholarship. Building international networks, international experience and research collaboration were

the three major motivations that stood out from all the others.

Table 44: Expectations when applying for an Erasmus Mundus staff exchange scholarship? (Multiple answers possible)


Response Count

To build international networks with esteemed colleagues in your field of study

89,1% 41

To obtain international experience in your academic discipline

71,7% 33

To collaborate on research projects with esteemed colleagues in your field of study

71,7% 33

To experience different cultural contexts 43,5% 20

To improve your chances of career advancement at your home university

17,4% 8

To explore career opportunities in the European Union

6,5% 3

To explore career opportunities in other parts of the world

6,5% 3

To improve your foreign languages competencies 4,3% 2




The satisfaction/dissatisfaction towards expectations and experiences are presented below. Although

the majority is satisfied or very satisfied, a relative large proportion (30.5%) is dissatisfied or very

dissatisfied in relation to the expectation. However, this relative high dissatisfaction only relates to

expectations. As will be shown from overall satisfaction ratings in the next diagram, the dissatisfaction

levels are significantly lower.

Overall satisfaction with the Erasmus Mundus programme is much higher, as 86.9% is somewhat

satisfied or very satisfied with the programme, while 8.6% is not satisfied.

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

Diagram 8: Satisfaction against expectations of the Erasmus Mundus staff exchange programme

Very dissatisfied



Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

Diagram 9: Overall satisfaction with the Erasmus Mundus staff exchange programme


The main purpose of the stay at the EU-university was related to research collaboration and other

academic work with colleagues in the EU. The breakdown is presented in the table below. The

respondents who mentioned “other” provided very specific information on their topics for research or

acquiring new knowledge.

Table 45: What is/was the purpose of your stay at your host university in the EU (multiple answers)


Response Count

Research collaboration with academic colleagues at your host university

78,3% 36

Co-authoring academic papers, peer-reviewed articles or book chapters with academic colleagues at your host university

26,1% 12

A teaching assignment (visiting lecturer) 19,6% 9

Conducting research as part of ongoing studies towards a higher degree or qualification

13,0% 6

Post-doctoral research 6,5% 3

Meeting with International Office Staff / Erasmus Mundus Coordinator(s)

4,3% 2

Other 15,2% 7


Respondents were asked to rate the application process for the EM scholarship. Unlike the students

only less than 10% found the application process to be difficult, while the majority rated the application

process as fair.

All staff members answered that they found the institutional support adequate (ranging from fair to

very good.

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

Diagram 10: Rating of the application process for the Erasmus Mundus scholarship

Very difficult

Difficult

Fair

Easy

Very Easy


The level of support provided by the SA university is ranked adequate by the majority of the

respondents. Less than 9% indicated this to be poor or very poor. This percentage is much lower than

for students.

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

45,0%

Diagram 11: Rating of the level of institutional support received during the application process

Very poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Very good

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

Diagram 12: Rating of the level of support received from university in South Africa, in preparation for departure to Europe

Very poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Very good


The various types of support provided by the home institution are provided in the table below.

Table 45: To what extent does your home university have adequate support measures in place to facilitate international staff exchanges? For example, which of the following does it have? (multiple answers.)


Response Count

A well-functioning International Office 82,6% 38

Flexibility around sabbatical leave 54,3% 25

Pre-departure briefings 23,9% 11

Adequate provision for replacement staff 21,7% 10

None 2,2% 1



Respondents were also generally positive on the level of support by the EU universities on arrival and

settling in, however the percentage of respondents that rated the support very good is relatively

higher.

Staff beneficiaries were asked what in their view the EM programme is lacking. The respondents who

answered “other” mainly reported about individual incidents and less about structural shortcomings. Issues reported included duration of their stay, lack of contact with supervisor/mentor, arrival during

summer holidays, issues with insurance claims and expensive accommodation.

Table 46: What would you say the Erasmus Mundus staff exchange programme lacks? (multiple answers.)


Response Count

Lack of practical support, for example with accommodation

15,2% 7

Inadequate institutional arrangements to include you in academic processes and routines

13,0% 6

Lack of proper induction and orientation on arrival 8,7% 4

Too early to make an assessment 0,0% 0

None 58,7% 27

Other 13,0% 6


0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

Diagram 13: Rating the level of support eceived from host university in the EU on arrival and in the initial period of settling into the new

environment


Respondents were initially asked how, in general, EM has contributed to their personal and

professional development. As was the case with the students, the greatest impact has been at

personal growth. This is followed by subject related expertise.

Table 47: In which of the following areas did the Erasmus Mundus programme have the greatest impact on your personal and professional development? (multiple answers allowed.)


Response Count

Personal growth 71,7% 33

Subject related expertise 63,0% 29

Career development 47,8% 22

Intercultural competencies 43,5% 20

Attitude towards Europe and EU 37,0% 17

Private life 6,5% 3


Other 4,3% 2


Respondents were also asked to indicate on specific aspects the experiences at the EU-university

contributed to professional development. In this question the contributions to research related issues

were the most often mentioned.

Table 48: How did your experiences at the host university in the European Union impact on your professional development? (Multiple answers.)


Response Count

Provided fresh perspectives on your existing research interests and projects

91,3% 42

Provided impetus to start new or more advanced research endeavours

58,7% 27

Motivated you to increase your output of peer-reviewed articles in international journals

54,3% 25

Contributed to the development of better academic and research networks with colleagues in the EU and beyond

54,3% 25

Enhanced your teaching skills 26,1% 12

Career advancement/ promotion offered at home institution

8,7% 4

Career changes, e.g. offers from other universities (local or international)

6,5% 3

Contributed to the completion of a post graduate degree (Masters or Doctoral)

4,3% 2


Other 2,2% 1



The majority of the respondents provided feedback on their experiences to their colleagues at the

university.

Table 49: Did you provide feedback and/or present the activities you undertook during your Erasmus Mundus international exchange to colleagues in your department, research institute, faculty or at a university-wide occasion?


Response Count

Yes 84,8% 39

No 13,0% 6

I am still at the EU university 2,2% 1

Total answers 46

The vast majority of the respondents indicated that their home university values international

exchanges like the Erasmus Mundus programme.

Table 50: To what extent do you think your home university values international staff exchange programmes like Erasmus Mundus?


Response Count

Not at all 0,0% 0

Very little 4,3% 2

To some extent 39,1% 18

To a great extent 56,5% 26


Respondents were asked to provide information on the direct impact of the Erasmus Mundus

programme on their institution (various levels). The answers are provided in the table below.

Table 51: What, in your view, is the direct impact of a programme like Erasmus Mundus on your department, centre or institute at your home university? (You can provide multiple answers.)


Response Count

Help to facilitate more longer-term institutional collaboration between your university and universities in the EU

67,4% 31

Production of more internationally recognised research

63,0% 29

Joint research programmes resulting from international collaboration

63,0% 29

Improved quality of teaching/ instruction 41,3% 19

Improved human resource capacity in your department and the university at large

41,3% 19

Producing more research relevant to South Africa’s key socio-economic challenges

23,9% 11

Enhanced access to international funding sources for research

19,6% 9

Establishment of joint post-graduate study programmes/ degrees

6,5% 3

None 0,0% 0

Other 2,2% 1



Table 52: Given your experience with the Erasmus Mundus scholarship programme, would you motivate your students and colleagues to apply for similar study or staff exchange opportunities abroad


Response Count

No 0,0% 0

Yes 100,0% 46


6 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PROCESS

Given the rather ‘broad sweep’ approach to the qualitative research outlined above; this section will essentially consist of two types kinds of findings:

a) General findings and broader trends observed in the course of ALL the interviews and focus

groups conducted, but more particularly interviews with Directors and staff of International

Offices and/or the Research or Post-graduate Divisions in South African universities (in some

universities the EM programme is run from these latter offices).

b) Specific findings relating to the experiences of/ and perceived impact of EM scholarships on

students and university staff who were beneficiaries of the programme is South Africa – as

recorded during the focus groups and individual interviews held during May 2015 at

universities around South Africa.

6.1 General findings

6.1.1 Brief background: the (re)start of internationalisation in South African

universities

Universities in South Africa are obviously all different, each with its own history and unique character.

One thing that they share, though, is that all of them have been forced over the past two or three

decades to change quite dramatically, in response to a whole new set of major national and

international changes and challenges. Broadly speaking, these changes resulted in a range of new

policy directives and [often] long and tortuous processes of institutional change, many of which are

ongoing.

Internationally, changes included the advent of globalisation, the spread of neo-liberal economic

policies around the world (which eventually affected the ways universities were regarded, run and

funded quite fundamentally), the growing importance of knowledge economies and information-based

technologies and the development of a global work place. After decades of relative isolation during the

apartheid era; and in the aftermath of an international academic boycott that lasted from the mid-

1960s to 1990, South African universities had to “catch up” fast and start to develop new ways of responding to these global changes.

All this had to be done at the same time that universities in South Africa faced a range of major

challenges relating to the transformation of their institutions, as required by the new democratically

elected government. In addition to the more obvious race, language and inequality issues that had to

be addressed, reforms included the highly complex mergers of higher education institutions that took

place during the early 2000s. The mergers consumed a lot of institutional energy and had far-reaching


consequences for all the institutions concerned. In some affected institutions, we were told, the

internationalisation agenda either fell through the cracks or was put on hold during this difficult period;

and later had to be resurrected.

In many universities, the first stage of their process of “re-connecting” with the global academic community, involved the renewal and strengthening of existing relations and agreements with their

more traditional counterparts in Western Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. In a very

changed country and world, though, many new opportunities were also opening up during the 1990s,

viz. to explore new relations and exchange agreements with universities in countries not previously on

the South African university radar – in the first instance, on the African continent, but also beyond.

The more established and better resourced universities appeared to have initially taken the lead in the

process of international outreach and most of them established international offices quite early on in

the 1990s [the International Office at Stellenbosch University, for example, has been in existence for

21 years].6 The HDIs followed in their footsteps and developed their own preferred international

relations and exchange agreements over time. Over the years, a situation has evolved whereby

almost every university in the country now has an International Office, in one form or another. Some

are strong, well-resourced and integrated in the executive management structures of their institutions;

whilst others are still in various stages of development.


universities having a really impressive array of partners across the world.7 At most of the universities


strategic priorities for international exchanges continually evolving (as the world continues to change).

At present, though, there appears to be a clear pause for reflection and (re)prioritisation at a

number of the bigger universities, apparently signalling the end of the era of ‘mass expansion’ of international relations. After the years of academic isolation ended, many universities in South

Africa continuously explored new avenues for international collaboration and signed bi-lateral

agreements with universities in many parts of the world. According to a senior respondent at one of

the International Offices, “in the early years, just signing a bi-lateral agreement was deemed a

success.”


partnerships. Senior managers at some of the universities have been demanding evidence of

the concrete benefits delivered by particular bi-lateral partnerships, before recommitting to

renewing agreements or forming new ones. Rather complex processes of “weighing and sifting” are therefore in place in a number of universities – partly driven by resource constraints and lessons

learned during the “mass expansion” phase, but also by shifting strategic priorities.


considerations. During interviews with the various international offices, the researchers detected a

clear inclination towards the exploration of more South to South collaboration, with

universities in SADC and (rest of) Africa remaining the priority focus Increasingly, though, eyes

6 Interview with senior staff member at the Post-Graduate and International Office, Stellenbosch University.

7 See for example the websites of the International Offices at the Universities of Stellenbosch and Cape Town.


are also being turned towards Asia – more specifically China and India; and the BRICS




play – a scenario that will be explored in more detail in the section on Sustainability below.

6.1.2 Erasmus Mundus broadened access to international scholarships and

academic exchanges

“People feel that Erasmus Mundus is within their grasp. With other scholarship programmes, like

Fulbright and Mandela-Rhodes, candidates have to be exceptional. Erasmus Mundus provides people

with the opportunity to develop into someone exceptional.” (Director, International Office)

There was one area of complete consensus amongst ALL the respondents interviewed during the

qualitative research exercise, viz. that the Erasmus Mundus programme has really broadened access

to international scholarships for post-graduate students and staff exchanges, across many disciplines;

and where these had never existed before. This includes the fact that the programme is also open to

administrative and professional support staff; and that this has created “unheard-of” opportunities for this category of staff. EM has also opened up opportunities for South African students, scholars and

other university staff to study at/ or visit top-rated universities in Europe, many of which had no or few

historical ties with South African universities in the past.

All the senior staff at the various International Offices (or other institutional ‘homes’ of EM) agreed that there were simply no other, comparable international scholarships for South African students

and academics. In the case of students, comparisons were routinely made with scholarship

programmes like Fulbright, the Mandela-Rhodes Foundation and Commonwealth scholarships – with

everybody concluding that these programmes were a lot more competitive and that candidates have to

be truly exceptional to stand a chance to win one of these scholarships. There were also just a finite

number of these scholarships available each year, so the average student (interviewed) did not even

consider, in their wildest dreams that they would apply or be considered for these.

In the case of staff, respondents noted that, apart from academics/ researchers with an A-rated NRF

status, or those benefitting from a special bi-lateral agreement; the average academic also had few

opportunities to go on the kind of staff exchanges offered by EM. Academics who have been on staff

exchanges, generally praised the excellent reputation of the universities in Europe, which form part of

the various consortia. The specific section on staff beneficiaries will discuss, in more detail, the

various/ varied intellectual and research engagements that staff beneficiaries had at the various

universities in Europe.

The costs of international study opportunities and academic exchange programmes are generally

prohibitive for South African universities, even for the more established and better-resourced

universities – especially given the present exchange rates. Similar to earlier studies/ impact

assessment of EM in South Africa and internationally, the present study also found that the fact that

EM scholarships were “all-inclusive” and regarded as “very generous,’ contributed to their attractiveness. It meant that there was no need for universities to raise extra funds to send their


students and staff to the European universities. This is obviously a huge attraction in South Africa,

where around 50% of the population live in poverty – a socio-economic background shared by a very

significant percentage of “previously disadvantaged” students.

The problem is, though, that the EMA2 programme is coming to an end soon; and most of the

universities indicated that they are in no position to replicate anything on the scale of what EM

offered. As will be indicated on the section on Sustainability, there appeared to be general agreement

at the various International Offices that, given their need to shrink their bi-lateral relations/ agreements,

rather than expand them; and to start thinking and acting more strategically, they were not sure if

Erasmus+ could offer the same opportunities that were available under EMA2. At present therefore,

there is a general perception that EM created really unique opportunities that have never existed

before; but that now, possibly, will never exist again.

6.1.3 Internationalisation requires strategic leadership

“I really believe that if internationalisation is not driven from the Vice-Chancellor’s Office, it is not working.” (Director of an International Office)

One of the most important insights gained during interviews with the directors and staff of International

Offices at universities across South Africa is that an International Office cannot be a stand-alone or

‘add on’ operation in a university’s broader structures. In cases where the researchers found this to be the case, such International Offices proved quite isolated and not very effective. On the other hand, it

became clear that universities where the top leadership/ executive management prioritises and drives

the internationalisation agenda hard and centrally, appear to do much better in terms of the promotion,


Although the researchers noted several examples where the Vice-Chancellors of universities strongly

supported internationalisation, the best known example is at the University of the Free State, where

Professor Jonathan Jansen regards internationalisation as an essential element of the university’s

“Human Project” and the broader transformation agenda at this historically Afrikaans university.8

According to respondents in the university’s International Office, he has brought in new ways of thinking about internationalisation, which are now becoming infused in the university’s ethos and

everyday practices.9

He also uses international exposure to help open up mind-sets and worldviews; and bringing new

ideas to the institution. Apart from creating international opportunities for staff, that are now expected

to have international links; he has also, on occasion, arranged for groups of first year students to go

abroad – to help unlock minds and bring the lessons back to their peers in the institution.

Unsurprisingly then, EM was used in quite a targeted manner in this university, to help address the

particular challenges faced here, including the dearth of “people of colour” (a phrase used by a senior respondent) with Masters degrees and PhDs.

A number of respondents, at different universities, suggested that there ought to be a direct reporting

line between the International Office and the executive management of a university. In another best-

8 Interview with respondents from the International office at UFS, May 2015.

9 Ibid.


case scenario, the director of an International Office indicated that these conditions were already in

place in his institution and he also had a seat on the university’s Senate. The ideal situation appears to be one where the notion of internationalisation is incorporated into the strategic plans of universities –

as a central motif and cross-cutting issue – from where it informs most aspects of academic life and

management decisions [and] gradually permeates the institution at all levels. In some universities

there has been a gradually expansion of the meaning and application of the notion of

internationalisation, with a senior respondent describing the changes as follows:

“This is dynamic territory. First, we just regarded it as international mobility programmes, but it has

become much more. It now influences many areas, including curriculum development and e-learning.’

Some of the directors of International Offices interviewed, indicated that concerted efforts have been

made in their institutions to get the Deans of all faculties involved in the internationalisation agenda,

including in spreading the word about the opportunities available from the EM programme and helping

to identify post-graduate students and staff that could benefit from the programme. If this becomes

standard practice, Departments and academics will be kept informed of all international exchange

opportunities available for themselves and their students.

It was often suggested during interviews and focus groups that academic staff can play a much more

active role in persuading their post-graduate students to make better use of international study

opportunities like EM – especially if they have themselves been on a staff exchange or have been

involved in long standing research collaborations with universities abroad. These and other, similar

suggestions will be discussed in the relevant section below.



normal part of a university’s identity and activities. The researchers encountered several examples of universities where these conditions were largely in place/ or starting to fall into place, and it certainly

appears to make a difference in terms of the promotion and uptake of international student and staff

exchanges.

Apart from the more established universities, where the notion of internationalisation has become

reasonably entrenched, some of the universities of technology have also made great progress in this

regard and have used the EM programme very strategically to further advance their

internationalisation and larger transformation and capacity building agendas. At the HDIs, the situation

in this regard can best be described as different positions on a continuum – ranging from excellent

operations at the University of the Western Cape to various stages of development and progress at


6.1.4 Different institutional responses to Erasmus Mundus, impact and

lessons learned

“Erasmus Mundus has reached into areas of South African academia and academic life that no other

programme has done before.” (Director of an International Office))



of the larger Erasmus Mundus programme in Europe, it appeared to have caught many of them a bit

off guard when it became available/ and was heavily promoted in South Africa in the late 2000s.

Apart from having to form consortiums (which was not a well-known approach in South African

universities at the time), each university then had to decide rather quickly on an institutional response

to the opportunities offered by EM; and where to locate it within their institutions. Their responses

varied. In retrospect, it is clear that each institution responded according to their particular institutional

needs (and capacity) at the time. Since a lot of reflection is starting to take place now, the EM

coordinators interviewed during the field visits, had interesting lessons, perspectives and

retrospectives to share. A few examples10 of different approaches adopted (and the lessons learned)

are discussed below:

Stellenbosch University (SU) had, at the time, just merged their International Office and Post-

Graduate division to become the Post Graduate and International Office, so they regarded it as

(primarily) a great opportunity for their post-graduate students. Staff study opportunities and

exchanges appear to never to have been a major priority, as academic staff generally enters

employment at the university with the required higher degrees (68% have PhDs); and support staff

was seemingly never a priority group in terms of the EM programme.11

After initial uncertainty about the appropriate ‘institutional home’ for EM at the University of Cape

Town (UCT), the International Academic Programme Office (IAPO) took responsibility, as it had

existing expertise in international mobility programmes.12 Since there were/ and are so few

scholarships available for studies abroad, especially in Europe (and none, as comprehensive and

generous as EM – a point made by ALL EM coordinators and beneficiaries interviewed), UCT decided

it was an opportunity not to be missed, as explained by a senior manager in IAPO:

“Fully funded programmes like Erasmus Mundus are rare, so we regarded it as a golden opportunity.

We grabbed it and ran with it and tried to get as much as possible from it.”

At both these universities EM was essentially implemented as a completely open application process,

with the idea of trying to attract as many applicants as possible. In both cases, the expected flood of

applicants did not materialise and the EM coordinators in both institutions realised that it will take

a lot more concerted effort and plain hard work to persuade more post-graduate students and

staff to apply – a sentiment that was widely shared by all the EM coordinators at the

universities visited.

During the interviews with these (and other) coordinators, they spoke about the lessons they have

learned in this regard and of the many barriers to mobility that they came to recognise in the process.

[The barriers to mobility will be discussed in the section on student beneficiaries]. In both cases, these

two universities did not opt for sending staff on full degree programmes, as the majority of their

academic staff already has PhDs.

10 Due to the wide scope of this impact study, the researchers could unfortunately not include the approaches and

experiences of every single university in South Africa in this section.

11 Interview, Post Graduate & International Office, Stellenbosch University. June 2015.

12 Interview, IAPO, UCT.


The two Universities of Technology included in the field visits, viz. the Cape Peninsula University of

Technology (CPUT) and the Durban University of Technology both adopted a much more targeted

approach. Being Universities of Technology and both institutions being the result of complicated and

drawn-out merger processes in the first half of the 2000s, one of their most compelling institutional

needs was the improvement of the academic qualifications of their staff.

CPUT is the best known example of where an institution decided to utilise the opportunities offered by

EM solely to develop and improve the level of academic qualifications of their staff – both academic

and professional support staff. They selected to send their staff to do full degree programmes (mostly

Masters, but also some PhDs) at various EU universities. It seems to have been a very worthwhile

decision, as evidenced in the two staff focus groups conducted at CPUT, where some wondrous tales

of personal and professional development were related to the researchers.

In all cases, the staff beneficiaries formed new international networks that they still maintain and draw

on for expertise and support. Academic staff, who attended the focus groups, reported that they had

unbelievable intellectual experiences and exchanges with supervisors and colleagues at the EU

universities they attended and were challenged to produce work that they did not think they were

capable of before.

The strategic decision of the university to use EM to improve the qualifications of their staff has

therefore largely paid off, as almost all staff members present in the focus groups indicated that they

could employ their newly acquired skills directly in their immediate work environment. The many

benefits of international exposure and the enormous expansion of minds, mind-sets and world views

related to the researchers; are also bound to have an invigorating impact on sections of the institution

and the broader internationalisation project at CPUT.

Whether there has been enough critical mass to have a significant institutional impact is not yet clear.

It was generally agreed by interviewees around the country that it is not easy to quantify the

institutional impact of EM, but that, “these things have a life of their own” and will, by implication, have some kind of snowball effect over time.

There are, of course, more difficult lessons to be leant as well – as the effects and consequences of

participating in international mobility programmes gradually start to manifest in institutions. For

example: an unforeseen problem was raised in the focus groups at CPUT (and by a few staff

members at other universities) – relating to the institutional responses on the return of staff

beneficiaries from Europe. Some staff members complained that when they came back from Europe,

with their newly acquired higher degrees from excellent universities; having being personally and

professionally enriched and transformed, they found themselves back in the same old uninspiring jobs,

often reporting to people less qualified than themselves and with hardly a mention, congratulatory note

or recognition of their experiences and achievements abroad. High levels of frustration and discontent

were reported in some instances.

Since they were, understandably, tied into quite lengthy contracts [given the investment the university

had made in them], they could not look for more rewarding positions elsewhere and therefore felt

completely stuck. It was reported that, in one or two cases, other universities had snapped up some of

the newly returned staff, by simply buying them out of the contracts. The lesson here is obviously

that an institution cannot simply invest that heavily in the capacity development of staff


members, without creating the necessary institutional space, on their return from their studies,

to develop further and be appointed/ or promoted to a position more appropriate to their newly

acquired skills and qualifications.

The words “blooming and blossoming” were often used at CPUT and UWC to describe the personal and professional development and transformation undergone by students and staff that had been on

EM scholarships, but it is obviously important to make sure that these new ‘blooms and blossoms’ do not wither again, when neglected in ‘dry and dusty corners’ of the institutions.

The Durban University of Technology (DUT) was a later entrant into the EM programme, only

joining in late 2012, with active participation starting in 2013. They also decided to prioritise staff

development and to use the scholarship opportunities offered by EM for staff members to complete

their Masters degrees and PhDs at European universities. Possibly as a result of joining later, DUT

was in position to make another strategic decision, viz. to apply an even more targeted approach, by

linking the selection of staff candidates to known areas within the institution where scarce

skills had to be developed. The selected staff members were then sent to EU universities where

these scarce skills were being taught to acquire the said skills.

DUT selects students for post-graduate studies in Europe as well, but generally applies the same

criteria of needing to study in areas where scarce skills were required – in the hope that these

students will return to the institution and make valuable contributions in their respective fields. Like at

Stellenbosch University, their International and Post-graduate Offices, operate as a joint office, with

the latter therefore able to give direct and informed academic input into the identification and selection

of the best candidates to fulfil both the EM criteria and DUT’s criteria relating to scarce skills and expertise.

Another priority has been to select staff members that have recently completed PhDs to go on EM

staff exchanges or post-doctoral fellowships (which have become available more recently), “to expose them to research intensive environments, in the hope that it will help to reignite their enthusiasm and

drive.”13According to the director of the International Office at DUT, the guiding principle in their

approach to EM was always that it should be utilised in a manner that brought ‘collective and systemic

benefits’ to the institution.14 This was obviously an appropriate and innovative way for a University of

Technology to respond to the broad range of scholarship opportunities and participating EU

universities offered by EM, as they have to strive to be/ remain at the cutting edge of technology and

science.

There is a general (untested) sense that DUT, having joined the EM programme in South Africa

relatively late, was in a better position to make more informed and strategic decisions about how to

utilise it. In the process, it seems that they have managed to establish quite a few best practices. It

was not possible for the researchers to ascertain a sense of the individual or institutional impact of the

strategic decisions made at DUT, partly because it is way too early to gauge impact; and partly

because most of their staff and students who were selected for studies in Europe were still studying

there at the time of the field trips.

13 Skype interview with Director of International office, DUT, June 2015.

14 Skype interview, June 2015.


The University of the Western Cape (UWC) and the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

(NMMU) adopted yet another approach and decided to house the EM programme in their respective

post-graduate and research divisions. [The International Office at the University of the Witwatersrand

has also indicated that they are moving in the direction of more collaboration with their post-graduate

division]. At UWC the EM programme is run from the Division for Post-Graduate Studies (DPGS),

described as a “one stop shop” and “first port of call” for post-graduate students on the university

website.15 The website also states that, “central to this approach will be a focus on strengthening the

university’s research niche areas as important domains for post graduate education”16 – which is an

important area of learning, increasingly recognised by respondents at a number of the universities

visited (compare DUTs approach, above), when discussing other/ better ways in which EM could have

been used in their institutions.

In quite a few instances, EM coordinators and academics that went on staff exchanges to EU

universities, suggested that in future it may be advisable to use opportunities like those

offered by EM, in a more targeted manner, viz. to prioritise areas where there are skills

shortages/ scarce skills in the research priority areas of a particular university (or even the

country) and use that as part of the selection criteria for post-graduate students and staff who are

interested in studying/ or going on staff exchanges abroad.

Whether or not UWC included their research priority areas as [additional] guidelines in the selection

criteria for student and staff applicants, is not known as the issue was not raised during the

interviewing process at DPGS. It does raise a bigger point though about the different/ or more

strategic ways in which EM has/ or could have been applied in different university contexts,

including its potential to develop more research capacity in HDIs and to enhance research

collaboration in all participating universities – a point which will be discussed in a bit more detail

below.

What is known, is that the DPGS proved the right home for the EM programme, in that it was located

right there at the “one-stop shop” where post-graduate students go anyway, and are generally

encouraged and nurtured.17 Being familiar with postgraduate programmes and -students across the

university, this division was obviously best placed to help identify and select candidates that would

benefit from the opportunities on offer through EM, viz. in a far more immediate and informed capacity

than an International Office could have done. UWC also used a targeted approach in that they wanted

to advance previously disadvantaged students. The Director of the division was very clear in this

regard:

“My position has always been that we should use Erasmus Mundus to create opportunities for those

who have never had opportunities and will get it through no other programme.”

For this, she has worked very hard, at every opportunity. She goes to extraordinary lengths to

persuade and encourage post-graduate students to apply for EM scholarships and to help them

overcome the many ‘barriers to mobility’ faced by a student population like that of UWC. She leads

and inspires them through her own personal example and exhorts them to “raise your expectations of

15See http://www.uwc.ac.za/Students/Postgraduate/Pages/default.aspx

16 Ibid.

17 Interview with Director of DPGS.

http://www.uwc.ac.za/Students/Postgraduate/Pages/default.aspx


yourself” and do things for themselves, if they want to rise above their socio-economic circumstances,

as she did. At a number of universities, this kind of intense, often personal involvement of the

EM coordinators, played a huge role in overcoming the barriers to mobility; and their

inspirational roles were recognised as such in the student focus groups. As indicated before, all

the coordinators also agreed that it takes hard work to persuade students in South Africa to apply for

international scholarships like EM.

[At the University of the Free State (UFS) EM was similarly used in a targeted manner to help fast-

track the “up-skilling” of previously disadvantaged staff and students, as indicated in the previous section. The EM coordinator and staff at the International Office at UFS also went out of their way to

assist [especially] students to apply and leave for post-graduate studies in Europe. They are fully

aware of the many “barriers to mobility” and even go to the extent of meeting with parents and grandparents to help persuade them of the tremendous benefits that await their children should they

get the opportunity to do post-graduate studies abroad.18 {This is, incidentally, also done at the

International Office at the University of KwaZulu-Natal}].19

At NMMU, the International office handed the EM programme to the Research Capacity

Development (RCD) Office, which forms part of the university’s Research and Engagement Portfolio; from the very outset. The RCD’s webpage is very clear about their role in the university: “RCD focuses its activities around the development of researchers, in addition to rendering financial assistance to

postgraduate and postdoctoral candidates.”20This positioning of EM in NMMU is very telling (and

clever), as it neatly situates the programme in a place where it can contribute directly to the

development of greater research capacity in the university (and ultimately the country) by, inter

alia, making these generous scholarships available to its postgraduate students and staff.

NMMU has therefore also selected to use a more targeted approach with regard to EM, according to

their specific institutional needs, viz. to use it, in the first place, to help develop and enhance the

university’s research capacity, which is not yet on a par with the more established universities.21

Like in the cases of UWC, DUT and Stellenbosch University, the benefit of locating EM in the broader

Post-graduate Studies/ Research portfolios is that the staff of the RCD office is in a far better position

to identify and help select candidates for EM scholarships, as they know the university’s research needs (including areas of scarce skills and skills deficits), its researchers (established and emerging)

and its post-graduate students, in other words, all the right intersections. They are also in a better

position to help formulate the learning agreements for students; and understand the whole process of

academic recognition and credit transfers.

As lessons have been learnt and reflection starts to takes place, some of the other universities have

also realised that maybe their Research Offices might have been a more appropriate home for EM. At

UCT, for example, a senior manager at IAPO reflected that, “if there had to be a brand new EM programme now, we would place it in the Research Office.” Although they have worked much more closely with the research office over the past two years, she predicted that in the future there will be

18 Interview with respondents at the International Office, UFS, May 2015.

19 Interview with respondents at the International Office, UKZN, May 2015.

20See http://rcd.nmmu.ac.za/

21 Interview with respondents at RCD, May 2015.

http://rcd.nmmu.ac.za/


a lot more collaboration between the research and the internationalisation sectors at the

university. She concluded as follows:

“Erasmus Mundus lies at the heart of this intersection. In the beginning we saw it as a mobility

programme for students and staff, but gradually we discovered its potential to leverage research

collaboration.”22

There was certainly a broad consensus in the above regard during interviews and focus groups with

staff beneficiaries of EM across South Africa: almost every single academic beneficiary indicated

that they have either strengthened existing research ties with their counterparts at the

respective EU universities and/or established new ones, with long-term prospects. Similarly,

almost all of them indicated that they were working on co-publications with colleagues and

counterparts at the universities they visited. In some cases, a number of future collaborations on

publications had already been identified in advance.

In some cases, their EU colleagues/ or team members had promised to/ or have already come to meet

with them at their home universities in South Africa. So, although the total number of EM beneficiaries

(students and staff) at each university is not large, all these positive research spin-offs must slowly

start to have an impact on universities in South Africa. These issues and insights will be discussed in

more detail in the section on staff beneficiaries.

6.1.5 Lessons from the consortium approach

“Erasmus Mundus forced us, as tertiary institutions in South Africa to, collectively, look at what the

objectives of the programme are/ or should be; and to identify together, the direction we should take.” (Respondent from an International Office)




them probably unintended. The general feeling is that everybody learned a lot through it,

especially about each other’s institutions. This is a particularly significant outcome in a country with

a history of a very diverse, historically divided higher education sector, where universities often lived

almost in parallel universes, for example, the Afrikaans – English universities’ divide, the established universities with good academic reputations and the historically disadvantaged ones (often based in

rural areas). Although reportedly a rather complex situation initially – as universities were more used to

competition (or even distrust) – the representatives of all these diverse institutions were brought

together in the consortiums and had to make decisions together. A respondent from an Afrikaans

university commented on this process:

“One of the unintended consequences of Erasmus Mundus is that it brought South African universities together in the consortiums and, in the course of the whole process, the coordinators got to know each

other and the different contexts of their universities much better.”23

22 Interview, IAPO, May 2015.

23 Respondent from an International Office, interviewed via Skype in June 2015.


The same respondent described this whole process as a “significant side benefit,” and went on to recount the lessons learnt about how to [delicately] balance the self-interest of one’s own institution with the need to act collectively to ensure the best possible outcome. This sometimes meant that, “I had to stand back a bit from my own institutional interests, to help reach broader, collective goals that

were in the national interest.”24 She concluded that this was not an outcome that anybody anticipated,

but that it has been a very positive side effect or unintended consequence of the whole EM consortium

approach.

The EM coordinators from other institutions agreed that a lot of learning took place in the consortiums

and they often had to act collectively to solve problems and look for solutions together. The Director of

one of the International Offices expressed the wish that the EU would consider funding the work of the

consortiums for a while longer, in order that the networks formed (in South Africa and the EU) can be

further developed and consolidated – as really important work was being done in the consortiums.

The concern here is that a lot of knowledge and institutional memory has been created in the various

consortiums, which may possibly now (with the end of EMA2 in South Africa in sight) essentially go

nowhere. It will therefore probably be advisable, at the very least, to get the members of the

consortiums to collaborate on writing up the knowledge gained and lessons learnt.

6.1.6 Sustainability

As indicated before, respondents from all the International Offices were unanimous that there were no

other international scholarship and staff exchange opportunities available in South Africa,

even vaguely comparable to those offered by EM. It is therefore clear that nothing on the scale and

breadth of this programme can be sustained/ or be sustainable when it comes to an end. Universities

in South Africa simply do not have the kind of resources required for a programme like this – even the

more established and better-resourced ones. They may have a few more options up their sleeves,

compared to most of the HDIs, but still nothing compared to EM. At some of the HDIs, the answer was

very simple: “We have no other scholarships.”





EM now is so much better known in their institutions – amongst both students and staff; and at this

very point, it is about to end.

In many cases, the EM programme has changed the lives of its beneficiaries (especially the students)

so fundamentally; and students appear to be finally becoming more interested in studying abroad – as

the word starts getting around from the student alumni of EM and the broader university community in

South Africa. At one of the International Offices, a staff member remarked about this growing interest:

“I have been working with international exchange students for ten years and now, more than ever before, there is an interest to study abroad amongst our own students.”25

24 Ibid.

25 Interview at International Office, May 2015.


It is therefore not really an opportune time for the programme to end, but EM coordinators are

accepting that these decisions are not in their hands.

As indicated at the start of this section of the report, the process of considering and reconsidering

options takes place amid quite fundamental shifts in the strategic positioning and international

priorities of especially the bigger, more established universities. Although, in some cases, the

processes of strategic repositioning are not completed/ or are ongoing, the indications are reasonably

clear in which general directions this process is moving, viz. towards more South to South

collaboration, which includes the BRICS countries.

All this does not mean that Europe is about to disappear off the South African university radar; just that

the talk is generally of fewer, but more strategic international partnerships. This will probably, in

some cases, necessitate an end/ or a limitation to the era of exciting exploratory relationships with

universities outside the traditional confines of Western Europe; and a return to tried and tested existing

bi-lateral partnerships and exchange agreements.26 The researchers have been told, though, of

instances where South African universities have signed MoUs with universities in the newer EU

member countries, after particularly fruitful collaboration in the EM consortiums.

There was agreement in several quarters that the EM programme and consortiums facilitated the

exploration of new bi-lateral partnerships. As there was no pressure to commit to 5 year bi-lateral

agreements, EM made it possible to get to know potential new partners, before committing to formal

agreements. Some of the new and existing bi-lateral partnerships may well be able to leverage new

sources of funding that could benefit a handful of staff and possibly post-graduate students – even

potentially through Erasmus+ – but they could presumably never deliver the kind of broad-based




bi-lateral agreements; appears to be “on a collision course” with the trends described above, whereby

the more established universities are moving towards fewer, but more strategic partnerships.27 Some

respondents hoped that there could have been a bit more continuity between EMA2 and E+, with

elements of the old system retained in the new one.

There are many uncertainties therefore, but one thing is certain: there will be no replacement for EM in

South African universities.

6.2 Specific Findings

This section will discuss the findings relating to student and staff beneficiaries of the EM programme,

as recorded in focus groups and individual interviews conducted at thirteen universities in South Africa

during May 2015. As indicated in the section on Methodology, the research team was unable to

conduct focus groups or interviews with a large number of EM beneficiaries, due to their general

unavailability (for a variety of reasons).

26 Assessment based on interviews with EM coordinators at 2 established universities.

27 Interview with key respondents in established university, May 2015.


We are grateful, however, to the students and staff who were available and gave generously of their

time; and shared their experiences, perspectives and enthusiastic responses with the research team.

As will be seen in the two separate sections below, the inputs and responses received from these two

groups of EM beneficiaries were overwhelming positive and their various experiences were often

described in superlative terms.

Although, in the greater scheme of things, the numbers of students and staff that participated in

the EM programme in South Africa are relatively small, most of the EM coordinators in the various

International Offices agreed that the experiences of studying in Europe were generally life-changing

for their students and, in different ways, also for their staff. Below are statements in this regard from

two senior persons in the International Offices of two different universities:

“A huge amount of work therefore goes into creating opportunities for relatively small numbers of people, but we don’t do it for the impact in terms of big numbers, but because it really does change

lives.” (Respondent, established university)

“We don’t only measure our success in terms of the numbers of students and staff that went on the different mobility programmes, but also in terms of the networks formed and international exposure

gained.” (Respondent, University of Technology)

The findings from the interviews and focus groups are described and discuss below – first the student

findings, followed by the staff findings. Liberal use has been made of quotations, in order to convey a

more immediate sense of the experiences, stories and insights that the participants shared with us.


6.2.1 Student beneficiaries: experiences and perceived impact

6.2.1.1 Introduction

“I went to a township school and I used to hear about other children (in model C schools) who went on

overseas exchanges. There were never any opportunities like that at my school. It was always a

dream of mine to go overseas – if not to study, just to put my foot there and say I have been there. So

when the opportunity came up, I knew for sure that I was definitely going to go.” (Student beneficiary, NMMU)

“I know this sounds soppy, but I have to say it, the ema2sa initiative is ‘a dream come true’ for me. I

dreamt of an opportunity like this and, actually, something better came along. Still I catch myself

waking up in the morning and remembering where I am, what I am doing, that I am completely

supported through this whole experience; and I cannot believe my luck. I feel deeply grateful and I am

delighted that there are so many of us who are benefitting from this organisation. Thank you for all the

very hard work and goodwill that has gone into giving many of us these life-changing opportunities.” (Student beneficiary, UCT; still studying in Europe)

“Erasmus Mundus makes our students’ dreams come true.” (Respondent, International Office, UKZN)

If there was to be a golden thread that wound through most of the focus groups with student

beneficiaries of EM, it would be this “dream come true” scenario. In most cases, the likelihood of these

kinds of opportunities ever coming their way had probably never entered the imagination of the

majority of participants in the focus groups. Although the financial costs of studying abroad are

prohibitive for the vast majority of South Africans, students from poor (often rural) socio-economic

backgrounds would normally not even begin to think (or dream) of such a possibility. In the focus

groups, student participants related how many of them had never even travelled outside the town or

city where they were living or studying. Then they were presented with the opportunity to go and study

at some of the best and oldest universities in Europe. In the words of a respondent from the

International Office at UKZN:

“We’ve had students who have never been to an airport, let alone getting on a plane; but they got on

that plane, travelled by themselves and managed very well in Europe.”28

EM has therefore created really unique/ and previously unimaginable opportunities for students in

South Africa, especially for those from previously disadvantaged and poor backgrounds. It put their

lives on a different course; and slowly, as they speak of their experiences and persuade their peers

to also apply for international scholarships, the influence (and inspiration) of these life-changing

experiences may start to grow in their social circles, communities, workplaces and beyond.

28 Interview International Affairs Office, May 2015.


Before returning to this “dream narrative,” though, the next two sections will consider some of the factors that have made it difficult to get students to the point of actually applying for the EM

scholarships and to board that plane to Europe.

6.2.1.2 The post graduate student profile in South Africa

One of the reasons for the relatively low numbers of post graduate students that applied for EM

scholarships is that there are simply not that many post graduate students in South Africa, in the first

place; and, secondly, post graduate students that are also South African citizens. Almost all the EM

coordinators and senior staff of International Offices interviewed, specified that the majority of their

post graduate students are not South African citizens and could therefore not qualify for the

EM scholarships. Otherwise, most of them stated, the number of applicants would have been much

bigger.

Many indicated that post graduate students from [especially] other African countries were “queuing up” to apply for these scholarships, but had to be informed that the programme unfortunately excludes

them. In the case of Stellenbosch University, they eventually practiced a kind of ‘dual system,’ whereby South African students would be encouraged to apply for EM scholarships; whilst reserving

other international scholarship opportunities for their foreign students – in this way, trying to spread

opportunities more fairly.29

The pool from which of South African post graduate students had to be encouraged to apply for EM

scholarships, is therefore quite small, to begin with. In 2012, for example, a total of 49 561 students

were enrolled in Master’s degree programmes; and 13 964 in Doctoral programmes in public HEIs in

South Africa – together constituting 6.7% of the total student enrolment in public HEIs in that year.30

There is, however, a huge disparity between enrolment and graduation statistics, illustrated by

the fact that in the same year only 10 334 Master’s students and 1 878 doctoral students actually

graduated – constituting graduation rates of respectively 21% and 13%. This is considerably lower

than the benchmarks set in the National Plan for Higher Education (Department of Education: 2001),

which were “set on the basis that at least 75% of any cohort of students entering a programme should

complete their degrees or diplomas.”31

South Africa therefore produces woefully inadequate numbers of Masters and Doctoral graduates.

This is particularly apparent when compared with other developing countries, for example Brazil,

where the university of Sao Paulo alone produced 2 244 PhDs in 2010, compared to the total 1 423

produced in the entire university system in South Africa in the same year.32 South Korea and Brazil,

respectively, produced 187 and 48 doctoral graduates per one million citizens annually, whereas

South African only produced 28 per million.33

29 Interview, respondent from Post Graduate & International Office, SU, June 2015.

30 DHET, 2014, Statistics on Post-School Education and Training in South Africa: 2012.

http://www.dhet.gov.za/DHET%20Statistics%20Publication/Statistics%20on%20Post-

School%20Education%20and%20Training%20in%20South%20Africa%202012.pdf Accessed, 28 July 2015.

31 Ibid.

32 Figures quoted in a presentation by Higher Education South Africa to the Portfolio Committee on Higher

Education in the South African Parliament in 2014. Reported in City Press, 2014-04-08.

33 Ibid.

http://www.dhet.gov.za/DHET%20Statistics%20Publication/Statistics%20on%20Post-School%20Education%20and%20Training%20in%20South%20Africa%202012.pdf

http://www.dhet.gov.za/DHET%20Statistics%20Publication/Statistics%20on%20Post-School%20Education%20and%20Training%20in%20South%20Africa%202012.pdf


In this small pool there are also not that many black South African post graduate students, as has

been indicated by several reports/ sources in recent years. This reality also helps to explain the

continued under-representation of black students in the EM programme, despite a lot of collective

efforts to address the situation. A range of other barriers to mobility that apply to this group of students

(and others) are discussed in the next section.

Another important/ and related issue is that South African universities are often very reluctant to

‘release’ their post graduate students to participate in international mobility programmes, as

they are (a) a rather scarce “commodity” and (b) there is a lot of pressure from the national higher education authorities to produce more post graduates. This pressure is, inter alia, being exerted via

the state’s funding model of universities, viz. whereby state subsidies are linked to various indicators, including the numbers of post graduate students registered and graduating.

This appears to be the main reason why the majority of EM student beneficiaries went on the so-called

“sandwich” programmes and not to do full degrees. Some universities were quite upfront about their self-interests in this regard, whilst others were more elusive about it. In some cases coordinators told

us that it was made “very clear upfront” that no post graduate student is going on a full degree programme. In some cases, respondents from particular International Offices indicated that there had

been more interests in the full degree programmes but that students were discouraged from going that

route. The most honest response received from an International Office was the following:

“As universities in South Africa, we are all competing for the same small pool of post graduate students in the country. So if you have a promising student, especially from previously disadvantaged

groups, you don’t want to take any risk to lose this student. It is a matter of survival – that is what we’re being judged on by the government, and where we get our money (subsidies) from. So, to say that you

are actively encouraging such a student, not only to go to another university in South Africa, but

overseas, is not strategic, to say the least. It goes against the very grain of all our strategies that say

we must recruit more post graduate students.”34

Another related concern, raised in a number of interviews, was around the role of supervisors, viz.

that sometimes the South African supervisor of a post graduate student, selected for an EM

scholarship, was either unhappy about the student leaving and/or trying try to block it; or registration

periods had be extended as a result of the months spent at a European university; all of which caused

tension. Recommendations were also made, in many cases that much more clarity was needed about

the respective roles of the supervisor in South African and the one allocated to the student at the EU

university.

It was reported that there was often little prior agreement and/or communication between the

supervisors during the students’ studies at the EU university. In quite a few cases, students reported in the focus groups that the courses they did in the EU university did not respond directly to their

research for their post graduate degree in South Africa, but that it did not really matter, as it gave them

new and interesting perspectives on their work or field of study. This is not necessarily an opinion that

most supervisors will share or relish.

Many PhD students also reported that, in fact, they did not really have a supervisor at the EU

university and had to put some courses together for themselves. In the end, much of this whole issue 34 Interview, May 2015.


probably forms part of the steep learning curve that was involved in establishing a mobility programme

as extensive as EM in a country where this has not happened before (on this scale).

6.2.1.3 Barriers to international student mobility in South Africa

As indicated in the section on “General Findings” above, the consortiums were formed, the roadshows took place, the application processes opened, but the applicants did not come flooding in. As also

mentioned before, most of the EM coordinators and staff of International Offices soon realised that it

would require hard work and a lot of continuous motivation and persuasion to get their post graduate

students to apply for EM scholarships.

The research team therefore probed interviewees in the International Offices and student participants

in the focus groups about their perceptions of the reasons for the slow uptake of EM opportunities. The

responses were many and varied – ranging from socio-economic factors to the institutional cultures of

universities in South Africa. The list below includes some of the most important factors that appear to

be acting as barriers to international student mobility in South Africa – some personally observed by

the researchers during the focus groups. It is, however, important to note that this is by no means an

authoritative account, merely factors observed and/or discussed in the various forums.

A confidence issue?

Although it is impossible to generalise, it appeared that there might be a confidence issue involved;

especially amongst students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds; and especially those

attending HDIs. For example, at the start of a student focus group at an HDI, when students were

introducing themselves and why/ and how they applied for EM, every single one started by saying, “I didn’t think I would get it; I didn’t think I stood a chance.” When asked why they responded in this way and why not more students at their university had applied for EM, they responded, “because of the kind of student that we have at this university.” When asked what kind of student that was, they responded that students at their university generally thought that they were “not good enough” and that their institution (which is actually an excellent university) would not be regarded (internationally) as

“good enough.” In the end, of course, all of them proved to be vastly better than “good enough” and the majority were working on their PhDs when this discussion took place. The confidence issue can

obviously be linked with a number of other factors, including socio-economic status, the generally bad

quality of basic education in townships and rural areas, no history of international travel and many

more.

Socio-economic factors

Again, it is difficult to generalise, but hundreds of thousands of students in the higher education

system in South Africa come from poor socio-economic backgrounds. In most cases, they have also

received their basic education in a shockingly inadequate basic education system – a combination of

factors that often makes the fact that they have actually arrived at a university a sheer miracle.

Reaching post graduate studies would therefore constitute a further miracle; and the prospect of

studying abroad simply beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, as indicated above.

An important point emphasised during interviews with respondents from the various International

Offices, is that students from these backgrounds are by no means the sole preserve of the HDIs. All

the more established universities (routinely accused of getting the lion’s share of total candidates selected for EM scholarships) pointed out that they, in fact, have many thousands of students from


previously disadvantaged backgrounds as well – many of whom received financial aid from the state

or the university itself. In some cases, like UKZN and NMMU for example, these institutions were the

results of mergers with HDIs – which means that they have in fact “absorbed” all the dynamics and challenges of an HDI.

Apart from poor socio-economic background potentially impacting on the confidence question posed

above, quite a few respondents indicated that there was often a lot of family pressure on students from

these backgrounds to leave university after their first degree; in order to enter the job market and help

support their families. [There were even reports of student beneficiaries of EM, who used part of their

stipends to help support family members back in South Africa].

In this kind of scenario, it takes a lot of persuasion from EM coordinators and the many incredible

people in the International Offices, to get parents to agree to post graduate studies (in the first place)

and then abroad, on top of it. This is why many of these good people have meetings with parents and

grandparents, as indicated in the previous section. This also helps to explain why there are not more

students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds amongst the EM student beneficiaries.

Related to all the above, is the reality that overseas travel, not to mention studies, is very far removed

from the daily realities of the majority of South Africans. It is generally regarded as the preserve of

wealthy South Africans and “not for people like us,” a refrain the researchers often heard in the

engagements with student beneficiaries at HDIs.

An insular society?

Some respondents suggested that South Africa’s long international isolation during the apartheid era and its location at the southern end of Africa could be another contributing factor to the fear of travel

and the unknown (generally) that was often either expressed openly or sensed by the researchers.

More than 20 years after the end of apartheid, the now rather tattered belief that South Africa is a

unique place, a special case scenario, etc., presumably still contributes to a [perceived] lack of

curiosity about the rest of the world.

The Director of the International Office at one of the universities of technology bemoaned the fact that

there seems to be a rather pervasive lack of a broader world view in many sectors of South African

society; and that many people do not understand the notions of “a global perspective, knowledge economy and global workplace.” The respondent was concerned that South Africa is “falling behind,” especially when compared with other African countries that were “far savvier about all this” and have long known the value of international study and the global workplace. African students were queuing

up for the EM opportunities, but had to be turned away, he said, whilst South African students had to

be motivated and persuaded to do the same.

Combined with the socio-economic factors, discussed above, this perceived sense of insularity, can

act as another barrier to international student mobility. The average South African student, not from a

middle class or wealthy background (and often first generation at university), simply has no

precedents of international travel or studying abroad in their immediate families and

communities. We often heard the phrase, “I didn’t know what to expect.” Many of the student

beneficiaries also stated that they had never lived away from home and were unsure of how they

“would be able to cope” in a foreign country.


Once again, it has taken a committed and concerted effort of the various EM coordinators and staff

from the International Offices to put their minds at ease, and to provide a sense of what to expect – to

the extent of guaranteeing that they will be physically and financially safe and well taken care of.

Increasingly, the student beneficiaries returning from studies in Europe have started to play an

enormously powerful role in helping to break down the fear and uncertainty. They have inspired

their friends and fellow students to also apply for the EM scholarships (which many in the focus groups

indicated they in fact did, as a result of this advice).

The researchers have termed this phenomenon, “the power of the alumni,” and the important factor

here is that this person is somebody they can identify with, “one of us,” from the same poor background; and he or she could get on that plane, all on their own and not only survive, but thrive, in

Europe. The standard response was then, “if (s)he could, then I can as well.” The alumni have

therefore become powerful role models and ought to be used a lot more in the promotion of EM.

Obviously they can’t be everywhere or commit their whole existences to this role, but their testimonies can be captured on video and used in marketing campaigns. Greater use of social media has also

been suggested by the alumni interviewed, in marketing EM, as young people understand and use this

media all the time.

Institutional culture at universities?

Finally, one of the EM coordinators, who wrote a Master’s thesis on barriers to student mobility, suggested that, more important than socio-economic or financial factors, are the institutional cultures

of the majority of universities in South Africa – where a period abroad, as part of one’s degree

programme, has never been a feature or accepted practice. When a student therefore registers for a

degree, he or she foresees that it will proceed in a known manner, over a specified timeframe; and

that will be essentially that. To take time out of that known format and timeframe to go and study

abroad for a semester or two is therefore [literally] a foreign concept. Similarly, the universities have

never organised their students’ studies in this manner and therefore also the resistance from supervisors and some departments, that has been mentioned above. Once again, EM has therefore

presented a learning experience to universities in South Africa (which might now not be continued on

the same scale).

6.2.1.4 Lessons and experiences

“The experiences that came with this exchange cannot be traded for anything. I would recommend

that anybody, if given the opportunity, should go on such an exchange programme.” (Student beneficiary, NMMU)

The many, varied and enthusiastic experiences shared in the focus groups cannot be properly

captured adequately in a report like this. As indicated at the outset, the overall narrative was one of

“dreams come true” and “life changing experiences.” Words and phrases like mind blowing, amazing, wonderful and the likes, abounded in most of the focus groups and individual interviews with student

beneficiaries. What follows is therefore just a summary of some of the impressions, experiences and

lessons shared in these forums, starting with the academic experiences.

Academic experiences

Although the majority of respondents indicated that they did courses in the EU university that

were not always directly related to their research/ thesis in South Africa, it generally proved


interesting and useful; and often opened their eyes to other possibilities, perspectives and

avenues that they could pursue in their research back at their home institutions;

Generally students were enormously impressed with the excellent reputations of the various

EU universities they went to;

Admiration was routinely expressed for the calibre of teaching, often by world class

academics, in many instances from all over world; and the kind of eminent academics and

researchers participating in seminars (one student mentioned a Nobel laureate who gave a

seminar that he attended);

Many were in awe of the world class/ cutting edge facilities offered, e.g. the libraries and

laboratories – the likes of which they have not seen before;

Many commented on the fact that there appears to be funding/ resources available in EU that

can buy the best equipment (e.g. in laboratories), with the science students being particularly

impressed;

Many commented on the work ethic in the EU universities, the sense of discipline they

acquired there, proper time keeping, strict observance of deadlines, hard work, mandatory

class attendance, learning to work more independently, being pushed to reach higher

intellectual heights, etc.

All the focus group participants commented on the wonder and benefits of sitting in classes,

seminars and study groups with post graduate students from all over the world; the level of

debate witnessed in these fora, as well as in everyday academic engagements;

Some worked very closely in study groups with post graduate students from all over world,

benefiting from the many different perspectives, approaches and examples; formed bonds of

friendship with other international students (which most of them still maintain);

Formed global professional networks that are still in place and can easily be contacted/ drawn

on (email & social media makes it easy);

Learnt to think globally, both in general and about their respective field/ disciplines;

Regarding credit transfers/ academic recognition, most respondents indicated that they have

received an academic transcript/ record from the EU university they attended, but that it was

generally not required in terms of their studies in SA, which were mostly research-based

Masters and PhD studies. Although most of them have included the records of their European

studies in their CVs, the general sentiment was that it was, “the broader learning experience and exposure that counted most, not the credits earned.”

Social and cultural experiences and life skills gained

In most cases, it was their first time traveling overseas/ to Europe – so many were overawed,

with statement like, “I fell in love with Europe, so beautiful, so old, so much history, layers and layers of it;”

Some travelled quite a bit, others less. Some went on organised tours offered during

orientation, later followed up with more personal exploration. Some were invited to cultural

events, music concerts, festivals; by local friends they made;

They loved the public transport systems, which are safe and efficient;

Most said that, over all, they engaged more with other international students, than with local

people and culture; and formed friendships and networks with these students, which they

expect to last. These new friendships also helped to broaden their horizons even further;

Almost everyone commented on the experiences of meeting people from so many different

cultures and how it gave them a much better understanding of different cultures (which also

helped to look anew/ appreciate South Africa’s different cultural contexts and practices);


They learnt to be/ operate independently, often first time away from parental home, first time

travelling overseas, living in a totally different context, having to look after themselves,

including handling own finances, learning to cook, etc.

In most cases they regarded the stipends as generous and were able to live well. Very few

cases were reported where hardships were experienced, except where stipends were paid

late. Some felt that it was important to inform prospective applicants about this, viz. that

everything will be taken care of and they will be fine;

There were some stories about initial difficulties, finding their feet, language difficulties in

countries where English not widely spoken, e.g. Spain, Czech Republic, Italy; but most

indicated that in the universities people did speak English. Most of these stories were told in a

humorous tone, and regarded as part of the learning experience and the discovery of one’s own resilience and adaptability;

Many discovered the notion of a common humanity" – that we are all fundamentally the same,

with common social and political problems;

Observations about how some of the EU countries visited, represented examples of how

societies and countries can work. Female students commented on the wonderful realisation

that they could walk and travel safely, even at night;

A small minority claimed to have experienced racism in the EU countries where they studied,

but no other claims in this regard.

Personal development

As also found in the online survey, this is an area that respondents really emphasised in the focus

groups and interviews. Areas emphasized include the following:

They acquired confidence/ the whole experience in Europe and how they coped, performed

academically, the engagements with other international students, etc., boosted their

confidence;

Gained self-knowledge/ the whole experience “teaches you a lot about yourself and other people;”

Came back enriched, changed forever; can never be the same person again.

They felt that they had matured, in the process;

Learnt to be independent;

Learnt about their own resilience.

6.2.1.5 Conclusion

All in all, the opportunities to study and live in Europe clearly had immeasurable effects on the

personal and professional lives of the student beneficiaries of EM. All the EM coordinators and staff of

International Offices commented on the total transformation their students have undergone and used

many examples to illustrate their claim. Although, as indicated, a chapter like this can never capture

the richness and variety of the experiences and insights shared with the researchers during the

qualitative research processes, the brief summary of experiences above clearly illustrates how the

various barriers and obstacles discussed in the first part of this section, can/ and have been overcome.

As one of the EU coordinators said, “Our students came back as global citizens.”

6.2.2 Staff exchanges: experiences and perceived impact

6.2.2.1 Introduction


During May 2015, the research team conducted five focus groups and ten individual interviews with

staff members from universities across South Africa; that had been on staff exchanges or post-

graduate studies at universities in Europe. The latter category applied largely to professional support

staff from the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, where a strategic decision was made early on

to use the opportunities offered by EM for staff development, viz. to improve the general level of post-

graduate qualifications of their staff.

Altogether the numbers of staff members that have taken advantage of the EM opportunities are not

that many (110 in total); and it was reported at several universities that sometimes the call for

proposals/ applications had to be extended in order to attract more applicants. The reasons for the

slow uptake vary across different institutions, each of which has its own particular priorities and

agendas with regard to international staff mobility.

At some of the more established universities, the uptake of staff exchange opportunities was generally

not that great – primarily, it seemed, because academics at these institutions have many existing/

ongoing international links with counterparts in different parts of the world. This includes various forms

of bi-lateral agreements around, for example, research collaboration, co-authoring of publications and

external examiners. Most of the top academics routinely attend international conference and have

extensive international networks.

Even so, it was reported at some of the International Offices that interest in the programme is

increasing and that they are receiving more inquiries from staff about the exchange opportunities.

They attributed the increase to the fact that the programme has become better known and that, like in

the case of student beneficiaries, staff members have heard about all the positive experiences of their

colleagues who went on exchanges to Europe.

The university staff that did make use of the EM staff exchanges on offer found it enormously

advantageous to their personal and professional development – as reflected in the findings of the

online survey; and then related in the focus groups and individual interviews. Although academics of

all age groups reported very positive and enriching academic and personal (growth) experiences, the

experiences of the younger academics, researchers and professional support staff were particularly

valuable and seen as [generally] life-changing and career-enhancing. The responses recorded below

provide some insight into how the opportunity to take up staff exchanges at top European universities

changed the perspectives and academic direction of two young academics in quite fundamental ways:

“Before, I don’t think I would have been looking seriously for international exchange opportunities, partly because it has previously been completely unaffordable. Also, if I had to start looking for

international collaboration on my own, I would probably not have known where to start.”

“You can read someone’s work, exchange emails with them, but there is no substitute for the face to face engagements and intellectual exchanges you can have with top academics in these universities

in Europe. The kind of engagement that I had with the professor at Karolinska Institutet would normally

have been completely outside of my experience. It was good to be there and see what the best people

in the world are doing. It changed my thinking fundamentally and provided me with new perspectives

on my research and teaching.”


“I’ve always seen myself as an independent thinker, but after that experience, I definitely became more open to different perspectives – in terms of my approach to research, but also in terms of seeing

the value of international conversation.” (Young academic, NMMU, 1 month exchange)

“I regard my experiences at Bologna University as an academic adventure. I had a wonderful

experience in a wonderful context – the oldest university in Europe. My office was in a 16th century

villa. It was a highly reinvigorating experience in terms of my life, career and general direction. You

can’t put a price on the wider perspectives gained. It is priceless. I will go back there in a heartbeat.” (Young academic, UFS, 1 month exchange)

Generally, as in the case of student beneficiaries, it proved quite difficult to convey the variety, depth

and richness of the various experiences and insights shared with the research team in the course of

the focus groups and interviews; and therefore the main responses, trends and findings will be

summarised in the rest of this section of the report.

6.2.2.2 Motivations for applying for staff exchanges

Motivations obviously varied widely, depending, inter alia, on the beneficiary’s individual interests, their institutional affiliation (and the specific staff development priorities of each institution), their academic

or professional status/ level of seniority and research or other related interests.

In the more established universities, one of the routine responses – when asked about motivation to

go on staff exchanges – is that it is now a standard expectation in their universities that academic staff

must have international links and collaborate with colleagues abroad; and develop an international

research/ publication/ and conference profile. The EM staff exchanges, although short, were therefore

perceived by some of the (more senior) staff beneficiaries as an opportunity to open up new or

additional avenues to further existing academic/ research collaboration with colleagues in EU

universities; and/or initiate new areas of research and research collaboration.

Some of the staff beneficiaries sought guidance and/or collaboration with known international

experts in their respective fields – with some seeking theoretical guidance or mentorship (especially

in the case of some of the younger researchers and academics working on PhDs); and others,

collaboration in more applied or policy research areas, including areas of crucial national interest in

South Africa, like HIV/AIDS. In the majority of cases, respondents indicated that their expectations in

this regard were generally met and often exceeded.

Many of the younger academics and other professional staff spoke with awe about the fact that the

“foremost” researchers/ academics were located in the departments/ institutes that they went to – in

some cases, the very people whose writings they were prescribing to their students at home. Most

respondents spoke of the amazing intellectual exchanges that took place with the academics/ experts

they went to see or were partnered with in Europe. Although many of the “superstar academics” (as a young academic referred to them) were obviously not endlessly available for meetings and other forms

of academic/ intellectual engagement, respondents indicated that it was the quality, not quantity of

time spent with them that mattered most. In some cases, these engagements led to young

researchers and academics finding new directions and perspectives in their research

endeavours:


“These are people whose work I was prescribing to my students; and here I was sitting with them and having the most amazing conversations. She [a professor] changed my thinking about my research,

about what I was trying to do.”35

Some participants in the staff focus groups indicated that they had simply needed time to either

reflect and renew their personal and academic focus; or simply have time to work on a PhD in

relative peace, in beautiful and supportive environments. One or two indicated that they felt they

had become quite stuck/ stagnated in their careers or home institutions and the staff exchange gave

them an opportunity to find new direction in terms of research areas and their careers. Quite a few

reported a sense of reinvigoration and new motivation for their work at home.

Finally, some went to EU universities to complete higher degrees, especially in cases of some of the

Universities of Technology, as indicated before.

The various motivations described above, are by no means representative of all the motivations

shared in the focus groups and interviews, but presents a kind of “snapshot” of some motivations and if/ how they were met.

6.2.2.3 General findings: academic and research experiences

These experiences obviously vary widely, as each person went to an EU university for their own

unique purposes. There are some common experiences and insight though, including the following:

Absolutely everybody agreed that EM afforded them (and their students) opportunities that

would not otherwise have been possible; and that it has broadened access to study and

exchange opportunities in Europe on a scale that was previously unimaginable. Many

praised the many/ various opportunities afforded to them, which they insisted would not have

been possible without the generous support of the EM programme;

Most respondents indicated that their expectations regarding the various academic, research

and networking goals they had in mind at the outset of their staff exchanges in the EU, were

generally met and more often exceeded;

All respondents agreed that the majority of EU universities that participate in the various EM

consortiums have excellent academic reputations, including some of the oldest universities in

Europe;

Many reported excellent/ great/ critical intellectual engagements with their European hosts,

counterparts and colleagues; which was often not the case/ or possible in their own

department/ universities;

Many commented of the generally high level/ depth of discussions and debates, even in

everyday discussions and social exchanges. Quite a few respondents also commented on the

easy and warm sense of collegiality observed and experienced in staff tearooms in the EU

institutions they visited;

Except where there were pre-existing/ ongoing academic or research collaborations in pace,

quite a few respondents indicated that they did not see a lot of their official host person/

professor in the EU university, as these persons were often exceedingly busy or had gone on

work trips or holidays. This had, partly, to do with the differences in European and South

African academic years. In some cases, respondents did not mind this very much as they had

35 Young academic, individual interview, May 2015.


very fruitful engagements with other staff members in the departments or institutes where they

were based; and/or actually wanted a quiet time just to reflect and write;

Staff that went on Masters and PhD scholarships told stories of how they had to learn to study

again; and the challenges (and benefits) of being a mature student amongst a lot of young

students. The academics amongst them, noted how they benefited from attending classes and

observing how other academics taught, which helped them to improve their own teaching

methods on their return to their home institutions;

Most respondents commented on the amazing new international networks they formed; and

how even accidental meetings, have sometimes led to new insights and collaboration that will,

in many cases, last for a long time;

Like in the case of student beneficiaries, many staff also spoke of how they often met

researchers/ academics from many parts of the world who were also visiting the EU university

they went to – which was deemed an extra bonus of their exchanges;

In the majority of cases, respondents reported that, as a result of all their planned and

unplanned meetings and networks formed, they are still collaborating on research projects

and/or co-publications with their European counterparts (or colleagues in other parts of the

world);

In some cases, some of the above-mentioned networking activities led to new bi-lateral

agreements on departmental or even university level. The formation of new bi-lateral

relations and partnership agreements was generally regarded as one of the most

beneficial outcomes the EM programme;

Most respondents commented on the incredible value of being taken out of the rut/ comfort

zones of their own jobs; and the institutional battles and politics in their home universities. This

enabled them to spend quality time in totally new, creative and stimulating contexts in the EU

universities they visited. It was often reported that these conditions contributed to new

perspectives and a widening of horizons;

Many expressed their admiration for the work ethic in the EU universities they visited and what

a lesson it has been for most of them; learning, inter alia, what hard work it took to become an

internationally recognised academic/ researcher;

Quite a few respondents commented that they realised, in the course of various academic

engagements, that South Africa has particular areas of expertise that are quite unique, often

deriving from our particular/ peculiar challenges; and that we do top rate/ very innovative

research in many fields;

One or two respondents commented on the fact that they participated in seminars or other

forums, essentially representing “voices from the global South” and how seriously their inputs were being taken; which constituted an affirming and confidence building experience;

Also, on their return, having gained broader contexts in relation to, inter alia, their work, the

workings of international higher education institutions, [essentially everything], they often

experienced a new appreciation for the worth of their own institutions and realised that,

in many respects, it compared quite well with the EU institutions visited. There was

recognition that South African universities generally have far less resources than the EU

counterparts, but similar intellectual and research capacity.

6.2.2.4 Impact on departments/ home universities

There was a general sense here that the numbers of staff that have been on the EM staff exchanges

have not been very high, viz. have not reached a critical mass; and therefore the impact on the home

institutions have not been that significant yet. Many respondents however suggested that these kinds


of experiences and exchanges “have a life of their own” and that the personal and professional changes undergone on individual levels; plus the networks formed, will kind of [organically] lead to all

kinds of outcomes and consequences.

One young female academic described her experience [very enthusiastically] at Bologna University as

“an academic adventure” (which she combined with a full-on take in of the cultural and social delights

of Italy). Most of the younger staff (including the non-academic staff) described their academic

and social/ cultural experiences as truly life changing and that it will influence their careers and

the people around them in a positive manner for many years to come. The older, more

established academics were a bit more staid in their responses about institutional impact, but

generally concurred that their experiences will influence their teaching, research output and

publication record.

Most staff respondents did not report back formally to colleagues in their departments or faculties, but

often did so informally. Maybe this should be a recommendation, that they be required to do so, as it

can have a powerful inspirational impact which may prompt others to seek similar opportunities.

[Although, one young academic thought it would be difficult to contextualise his experiences at the EU

university he went to and to convey the sense of broadening and exposure he experienced there].

Many have inspired/ or influenced their post-graduate students to apply for EM (or other international)

scholarships, with some of the students going to the same departments/ at the same EU universities

as their lecturers/ supervisors – this helping to strengthen bi-lateral relations, as well as creating

opportunities for young researchers. In this way the influence/ impact of EM spreads and will start

permeating institutions in South Africa.

6.2.3 Interviews with EU coordinating institutions

Interviews with the EU-coordinating institutions provided insights in the development of the

partnerships with the SA-consortia, the impact of EM-SA on the EU institutions, practicalities that

influenced the implementation of EM and the issue of sustainability. Some of the EU-coordinators

represented the initial partnerships (of which some have been closed), others have just started.

The initial partnerships were very broad in composition and academic disciplines, and in most cases

built on existing relationships. Development of the proposals happened in collaboration with the SA-

partner, who also played a major role in bringing the other consortium partners on board in order to

respond to the selection criteria (e.g. representation of the HDIs). The newest Partnerships have a

more thematic focus, e.g. innovation/entrepreneurship and development studies. Thematic focus now

appears to be a recipe for success, in the view of some EU-respondents.

EU-institutions confirm that it was initially not that difficult to develop a winning proposal but the main

challenge was to find suitable students. It was reported that especially the HDIs initially had a

challenge in providing candidates that meet the entry requirements of the EU-institutions, especially in

subject areas beyond social sciences. This has gradually changed, also through better awareness and

information/communication strategies.

The issue of credit transfer and academic recognition has been a challenge. Although learning

agreements are in place it was reported that the issue of credit transfer was initially received with a lot

of suspicion/scepticism by the SA partners. Gradually the procedures became more accepted but it is

still on a bilateral case-by-case basis in most of the short-term student mobility. Institutions also


reported about the possibilities of double degree agreements. However, given the overall issues with

mutual recognition this is currently still “a bridge too far”. EU-coordinators have also been involved in

the “early days” of ERASMUS are able to testify of the initial challenges within Europe and hence can

fully understand the issues in the South African context.

EU-coordinators all report to have been pleased with the EM-programme and the opportunities it has

created to strengthen the collaboration with South African HEIs. However, the two newest Partnership

coordinators found it too early to assess impact. Most of them are wary about the impact of Erasmus+

as the mobility is now less “within control”. However, almost all EU-coordinating institutions and the

institutions that have participated in EM for South Africa, have prioritised South Africa in their

internationalisation strategies and applications for Erasmus+; they also reported that collaboration with

SA universities in the past five years has transformed from development cooperation into academic

collaboration, especially in the area of joint research. One university also reported an application under

Erasmus+ for further capacity building in internationalisation at South African HDIs.

Some EU-coordinators report that the EM-SA-networks also strengthened their own European

collaborations and networks. The Partnerships have various degrees of alumni policies and

instruments to remain in touch with their alumni. Some partnerships have Facebook or LinkedIn

alumni groups and through these they also try to trace their graduates and measure impact.

6.2.4 Interviews with Stakeholders and other informants (SA, EU)

The stakeholders consulted in South Africa were DHET, EU-Delegation, IEASA and HESA; in Europe:

DG-DEVCO and DG-EAC. The interviews conducted served mainly to support and contextualise the

findings on impact issues at the various levels and to connect these initial findings with their policies,

programmes and priorities.

All stakeholders confirm that in their views EM in South Africa has contributed to the overall objectives

of the EM programme as well as to the needs of SA and its higher education systems and institutions.

Stakeholders have worked very closely in the design of the South African window of EM to integrate

the overall EM objectives and the specific needs and context of the SA environment. In terms of the

overall EM objective it has become clear that European Higher Education has been promoted and that

this has been implemented through the new SA-EU partnerships. The needs of the South African

higher education system have also been addressed, especially through contributing to the upgrading

of the academic qualifications of staff members at SA HEIs and to increase the graduate outputs.

DHET has been very pro-active and EU-DEVCO has been instrumental in supporting these priorities.

Furthermore, through the Call for Applications specific needs could be addressed in order to promote

equal opportunities in terms of access from HDIs, populations groups and gender (“transformation objectives”). It is believed by policy makers that objectives in terms of equal opportunities have been

partly achieved. This applies especially to a gradually increased gender balance/representation and

an increasing participation of HDIs. Stakeholders confirm that the objective of a balanced

representation of SA population groups has not yet been achieved.

During the various reflections on how the programme was initially intended, designed and

implemented stakeholders informed us that it was initially not easy to address and/or be very

prescriptive towards all policy objectives and priorities. The HE system is in an ongoing transformation

process and has to deal with a great variety of issues and challenges. It was known that

internationalisation was not always high on the HEI’s agenda and that South Africa always has had a


low tradition of international academic (student and staff) mobility, whether through programmes or

privately motivated/sponsored.

Hence the main initial priority was to create a culture of international academic mobility and to create

opportunities for equal access with as little as possible limitations and specific requirements. During

the launch of the programme in 2010 all universities were involved in information sessions (plenary

and on campus). The first Call for Applications resulted in a number of applications of various quality

and the winning Partnerships were only those who could build on existing local and international

partnerships and experienced proposal writers.

As a result the better equipped institutions and networks benefitted more than hoped for and the initial

unintended effect was an over-representation of partnerships and mobility to a limited number of EU

countries, from a limited number of South African HEIs, and an over-representation of social sciences.

It is also expressed that at an individual level the advantaged benefitted more than the disadvantaged

and that initial participation was far from a true reflection of student and staff composition at SA’s HEIs. In that regard it has again to be mentioned that one specific priority was to upgrade qualifications of

SA-nationals, as South African HEIs are still relying substantially on foreign academic staff.

However, the successful partnerships also served as examples for the next Call for Applications and

gradually the local collaboration and representation developed, with more actual participation of HDIs

and a better spread across academic disciplines. It was expressed by stakeholders that being more

selective/prescriptive “we would not have had the kick-start that we actually had” and “it is better to fix the initial problems at a later stage”.

All stakeholders express that the Partnership approach and the requirements for participation and

representation were the major success factor in the implementation of EM and that it will be the main

legacy of EM for future international collaboration between South Africa and the EU Member States,

internationalisation in general and capacity development at international offices at South African HEIs.

Respondents also noticed “the emergence of new leaders in internationalisation at South African

HEIs.” Also the fact that there was a specific window for South Africa has been extremely important.

“The history and context of South Africa is so much different than that of other countries”.

EM in its current form will still remain for a few years through the more recently approved Partnerships;

however EM will come to an end and will be integrated into the Erasmus+ programme, which

admittedly is different from EMA2 which encouraged consortia partnerships. This is the new reality and

it is now up to the institutions to implement and maintain sustainable collaboration. Mobility to and from

South Africa is now shaped through bilateral allocations of scholarships.

It was mentioned that through Erasmus+ probably the SA HE priorities might not be addressed in a

systematic, prioritised manner as through EMA2. However, it was stated that also in Erasmus+ there

will be opportunities for capacity building projects for higher education – albeit less so for individuals,

and from the EU-perspective it has been mentioned that the EU has other programmes and

instruments to contribute to the needs of the South African HE system. Education is very high on the

agenda of DEVCO in terms of priorities for South Africa.

Stakeholders also confirm that the EM-Partnership approach is also “easier to manage” at a national level. This was specifically expressed by DHET who have a specific International Scholarship Section

in place: “the EM partnership arrangement replaces definitely a lot of implementation issues and challenges that we as DHET have when dealing with bilateral agreements with various governments

and other entities”.


The issue of academic recognition and credit transfer has been addressed. It appeared from the

student surveys that academic recognition and credit transfer of ECTS earned at the EU-institutions

hardly occurred. Although during interviews with students and staff at International Offices it appeared

that the picture was not as alarming as appeared from the survey, it has to be mentioned that South

Africa has not had a national system of credit transfer between SA universities, so it has to be

understood that credit transfer between international institutions is even a larger step ahead.

Stakeholders all have an interest in promoting the internationalisation of South African higher

education. In 2008 the International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA) was formed and

this is the major platform for South African HEIs to promote the internationalisation of education.

DHET is developing, with the support of the EU, a new policy framework / strategy for

internationalisation of SA Higher Education. DHET has a dedicated International Partnerships and

Scholarships section and also HESA has prioritised the support of internationalisation of South Africa’s universities in its Strategic Framework for 2015-2020.

Stakeholders are also aware that EM and Erasmus+ are not the only international mobility

programmes and that SA institutions are also (re)defining their international strategies and their

position in Africa and the BRICS countries. Other issues and possible areas for future research include

longitudinal tracer and impact studies, and the issue of brain-drain.


7 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT

7.1 Overall Policy and Programme Conclusions and Stakeholder

Views

In this first Tracer and Impact Study of Erasmus Mundus Action 2, we have studied the impact of the

programme of the first four cohorts (2011-2014) of South African students and staff beneficiaries, who

have travelled to EU-universities for the purpose of short-term studies, full-degree studies and staff

exchanges. As this is the first study of such a kind in SA, it will be serving as a source and benchmark

for follow-up studies, as well as potential comparative studies on the impact of international academic

mobility on a national, regional and global scale.

This tracer and impact study is conducted at a time when the EM programme is still ongoing and while

many beneficiaries are still studying at the various universities, or even have to depart. Therefore it is

not yet realistic to consider this study as a comprehensive, authoritative tracer study. Nevertheless,

the results provide in general a clear trend on the personal, professional and institutional impact.

Furthermore, the South Africa tracer study has been inspired, and where possible aligned with the

other major tracer and impact studies on the Erasmus and the Erasmus Mundus programme. The

results are generally in line with the findings of these studies, even though they are not on all aspects

a 100% copy given the specific context and history of the South African higher education system and

environment and the specific objectives that have been defined for the SA lot of the EMA2

programme.

The SA EMA2 programme had as specific objectives to increase the qualifications of staff at higher

education through international cooperation in SA and to increase graduate output at South African

universities. Furthermore, the Call for Applications made specific requirements for equal opportunities

and representation in gender, population groups and the various universities, including the Historically

Disadvantaged Institutions (HDIs).

The mobility projects have been organised through SA-EU Partnerships. Beneficiaries and

stakeholders at institutional and policy level are unanimous in their assessment that the partnership

model and the relatively broad definition of eligibility in terms of beneficiaries and academic disciplines

has been the key success for the EMA2 programme in South Africa and will serve as the framework

and legacy for sustained collaboration between South Africa and the EU, as well as improved

institutionalisation of internationalisation at SA HEIs.

It has also been expressed that if there had not been a specific lot for South Africa, the participation

would have been far lower and South Africa would have lost out disproportionally against African

countries with traditionally higher international mobility.

However, due to the competitive nature of the Call for Applications, the EU-institutions and SA-

institutions, which already had existing collaborations and/or more experienced in EU-proposal writing

were initially in a better position to develop applications that met the requirements as stipulated in the

Calls. As a result the first partnerships were almost exclusively coordinated by EU-institutions in

Belgium and The Netherlands and in South Africa by universities in the Western Cape. Hence,


especially in the initial years mobility was not equally spread across participating countries and

universities. For example, the top-3 destination countries hosted 65% of the students. These

imbalances are equally reflected in the composition of the respondents in this survey.

In both the student and staff survey respondents were asked if they are living with a disability. Six

students and four staff responded this was the case. One respondent reported major issues affecting

performance (low class attendance). All others reported no major issues or minor issues that

eventually got resolved.

The EMA2 programme is currently the largest comprehensive international academic mobility

scholarship programme which is specifically targeting and defining numbers of scholarships

exclusively accessible to students and staff in South Africa. Other bilateral and/or global scholarship

programmes are either considerably smaller in terms of number of available scholarships and/or are

not as comprehensive as EMA2 .The programme that comes closest in terms of numbers is the

collaboration between South Africa and Cuba for the training of medical doctors. However, in terms of

overall student mobility (including privately sponsored studies) from SA other countries, the US

remains the most popular destination.

While the EMA2 programme will continue to run for a number of years, the academic mobility between

SA and the EU will be integrated in the “Erasmus +” programme. In Erasmus + there will be limited

scope for the Partnership structure as in EMA2 but bilateral cooperation among HEIs and mobility

grants will be allocated to all participating EU-countries. Many universities in the EU and SA have

expressed concerns on the future sustainability and maintaining the broad access that was possible

under EMA2.

It was also observed that the EM is in increasing competition with other scholarship/mobility

programmes and that SA is also developing linkages with the other BRICS countries. Also, universities

are (re)-prioritising their focus areas in their internationalisation strategies, with some universities

clearly focusing on Africa, and using international partnerships (e.g. through Erasmus Mundus) to

position themselves within the African continent.

7.2 Impact on Student beneficiaries

The students who have participated in this tracer and impact study are generally representative for the

population, although some deviations (up to 5%) have been found in gender and population

distribution: more females and more whites have completed the survey than they were represented in

the actual beneficiaries. However, as no major correlations have been found during cross-

tabularisation we assume that the results among student beneficiaries are representative in terms of

impact.

As mentioned the initial composition of the EU-SA Partnerships was highly biased towards institutions

that were building on existing relationships and the capacity to develop proposals that meet the

requirements as laid down in the Calls for Proposals. As in unintended effect the majority of student

mobility was initially focussed on The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, who collectively hosted

more than 65% of the respondents. Initially the representation of the SA home universities was

skewed as the top-6 (out of 25) universities were the home of close to 60% of the respondents and the

top-3 home universities were all located in the Western Cape. Social sciences was the pre-dominant


academic discipline (over 32%), followed by Business Studies and Management Sciences.

Respondents were equally distributed across full-degree and short-term/exchange studies, while the

majority went for Master Degree programmes.

Overall satisfaction levels with EMA2 programme are very high. The respondents show a great

overall satisfaction with the Erasmus Mundus programme. 151 respondents (84,4%) are satisfied or

very satisfied. Less than 10% is dissatisfied. However, as will be shown from the tables below, the

satisfaction levels do vary across a number of items. No significant correlation has been found with

year of departure or destination countries and/or universities. In comparison with their global

counterparts SA-student respondents are less satisfied than found in the global impact study. SA

students are 5-6% less satisfied and in the global study only 5% is not satisfied.

In terms of expectations and motivations the SA students ranked the improvement of future careers

prospects as the main reason to apply for an EM scholarship. This was followed by the opportunity to

study and live in Europe and to improve international networks. Transversal skills such as intercultural

competences, and academically related objectives and motivations were relatively less important.

However, in terms of impact as perceived by students, they responded that the greatest impact has

been on transversal skills such as personal growth and intercultural competences. Career

development was rated much lower than in relation to their expectations. Overall, SA graduates report

a higher impact on all aspects than their global counterparts.

This is also reflected in the features that, according to students, the EM-programme is lacking:

contacts to potential employers, mentoring and preparation for the job market. However, in

comparison with the results from the global EM-graduate impact study, SA-graduates rate these less

than their global counterparts (even though the order of importance is the same).

However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the features of the EM programme (or what it

lacks), the perception of the impact on their careers and the actual employability of EM-graduates. The

employability of EM-graduates is high. Only 17% of the recent graduates are currently unemployed

(and seeking), while close to 64% is (self)-employed. Although it is difficult to compare graduate short-

term unemployment rates with long-term unemployment rates (which are around 6%) these figures are

consistent with results from the global Erasmus Mundus impact studies. Secondly, 89% of the

respondents indicate that EM has had a positive or very positive impact on their employability. During

interviews students illustrated this in terms of finding meaningful employment and ability to negotiate a

better salary.

The majority of the graduates who are employed indicate that they are working within South Africa

(85%); this percentage of returnees is much higher than the figures found in the global EM Impact

study. However it has to be noted that there is a requirement to return to SA. It looks like this

requirement is not strictly adhered to. Possible explanations include personal motivations such as

family reasons (SA beneficiaries are relatively older than global EM-beneficiaries), and the less

favourable employment opportunities in Europe (especially in social sciences).

The conclusions in terms of discrepancy between perceived impact measured through satisfaction

surveys and other methods of measuring effects is consistent with the methodological observations

made in the Erasmus Impact Study.


In terms of academic achievements of short-term exchange students it appeared that the respondents

had in general great difficulty in answering questions on credits earned and credit transfer. Only 12

respondents could at all indicate how many ECTS credits they had earned at the EU-university

(however the survey also included students still studying in the EU). From follow-up questions it

appeared that only 5 respondents knew how many ECTS were recognised at the home institution. Of

these 5 respondents only one respondent indicated that full credit transfer had been in place at the

time of the survey. During the student interviews it appeared that the situation was not as bleak as the

online survey and quite a few students had been able to negotiate/arrange credit transfer upon return

to their home institution. However, it appears that despite the fact that learning agreements are in

place or have to be in place, credit transfer and academic recognition of studies abroad remains an

important challenge in the EU-SA student mobility. However, the issues and challenges described are

not that different from the early days of the Erasmus programme within Europe.

For full degree students (mainly Masters, as not many have completed their full PhD yet) almost

perfect correlation was found between overall scheduled duration and actual duration, which means

that study progress is almost according to schedule. A few extensions seem to have occurred.

As the impact could be influenced by processes, preparation and support by the home and host

institutions students were also asked to report on these aspects. The majority (over 61%) of the

respondents reported the application process as fair while a smaller proportion found it to be either

difficult or easy. Over 67% of the respondents rated the institutional support during the application

process as good or very good.

Students were also asked to rate the level of support they received from the SA universities. Although

the majority is positive (around 38%), this is one of the areas where students are relatively least

satisfied (close to 23%). However, no significant correlation has been found with year of departure or

home universities (the universities that were listed most by those who rated the support as poor or

very poor were among the universities that sent most of the students).


rated higher than the support provided by the SA Universities. More than 70% of the respondents

rated these as good or very good, while less than 15% rated them as poor or very poor.

7.3 Impact on Staff beneficiaries

Females comprise over 61% of the respondents. This is an adequate representation of the gender

balance amongst staff beneficiaries. Overall, the number of female beneficiaries has been double the

number of males. Close to 62% of the staff beneficiaries were older than 45 years. Less than 13%

were younger than 35 years. Over 55% of the respondents indicated they are white. This distribution

can be attributed to the age distribution and the academic staff composition at SA universities and

their opportunity to capitalise on existing linkages with European universities.


was employed at senior lecturer level or higher. No junior lecturers were amongst the respondents.

Social sciences were again the major academic discipline (37,5%).The majority went for a period



As for student beneficiaries, also the majority of the staff beneficiaries originated from a limited number

of home institutions. The Top-3 sending institutions hosted over 53% of beneficiaries and three

Western Cape universities were in the Top-4 and these universities represented over 51% of the

beneficiaries.

In terms of destination countries, again small group of most popular countries emerged which hosted

far more staff than any other. Unlike for the destination countries for students, Belgium ranks highest,

while Sweden, Germany and The Netherlands rank second, third and fourth respectively. These Top-4

countries comprise the destinations of close to 72 % of the respondents.

In terms of motivations and expectations for applying for an EM-scholarship, building international

networks, international experience and research collaboration were the three major motivations that

stood out from all the others possible answers. The main purpose of the stay at the EU-university was

related to research collaboration and other academic work with colleagues in the EU.

Although the majority is satisfied or very satisfied (67,4%), a relative large proportion (30,5%) is

dissatisfied or very dissatisfied in relation to the expectation. This was considered to be very high in

relation to other answers and other studies. However, this relative high dissatisfaction only relates to

expectations. Overall satisfaction ratings are much higher (70%) and also the dissatisfaction levels are

significantly lower (8,6%). During interviews it appeared that much of the dissatisfaction in terms of

expectations was also related to other issues such as arrangements and costs of accommodation in

the EU. Some other issues mentioned occasionally were the limited availability of the hosts (busy

agenda’s, although understood while seeing the nature of work and other commitments in practice).

Respondents were initially asked how, in general, EM has contributed to their personal and

professional development. As for students, the greatest impact has been at personal growth. This is

followed by subject related expertise. In terms of specific aspects in relation to professional

development, the contributions to research related issues were the most often mentioned.

In terms of impact on the department, faculty or university the greatest impact was to facilitate more

long-term institutional collaboration, production of more internationally oriented research through joint

research programmes.

The vast majority of the respondents (more than 95%) indicated that their home university values

international exchanges like the Erasmus Mundus programme and they indicated unanimously that

they would recommend the EM-exchange programme to colleagues.

7.4 Institutional impact

The internationalisation at universities in South Africa has been taking place against a background that

all of them have been forced over the past two or three decades to change quite dramatically, in

response to a whole new set of major national and international changes and challenges. All this

change had to be done at the same time that universities in South Africa faced a range of major

challenges relating to the transformation of their institutions. In addition, reforms included the highly

complex mergers of higher education institutions that took place during the early 2000s. These

mergers consumed a lot of institutional energy and had far-reaching consequences for all the


institutions concerned. In some affected institutions the internationalisation agenda either “fell through

the cracks” or was put on hold during this difficult period; and later had to be resurrected.


universities having a really impressive array of partners across the world. At most of the universities


strategic priorities for international exchanges continually evolving.


partnerships. Senior managers at some of the universities have been demanding evidence of the

concrete benefits delivered by particular bi-lateral partnerships, before recommitting to renewing

agreements or forming new ones.


considerations, which include a clear inclination towards the exploration of more South to South

collaboration, with universities in SADC and (rest of) Africa remaining the priority focus. Increasingly,

though, eyes are also being turned towards Asia – more specifically China and India; and the BRICS




play.

There was one area of complete consensus, viz. that the Erasmus Mundus programme has really

broadened access to international scholarships for post-graduate students and staff exchanges,

across many disciplines; and where these had never existed before. The costs of international study

opportunities and academic exchange programmes are generally prohibitive for South African

universities, even for the more established and better-resourced universities – especially given the

present exchange rates.

It was found that an International Office cannot be a stand-alone or ‘add on’ operation in a university’s broader structures. In cases where the researchers found this to be the case, such International

Offices proved quite isolated and not very effective. On the other hand, it became clear that

universities where the top leadership/ executive management prioritises and drives the

internationalisation agenda hard and centrally, appear to do much better in terms of the promotion,




normal part of a university’s identity and activities. Apart from the more established universities, where

the notion of internationalisation has become reasonably entrenched, some of the universities of

technology have also made great progress in this regard and have used the EM programme very

strategically to further advance their internationalisation and larger transformation and capacity

building agendas. At the HDIs, the situation in this regard can best be described as different positions

on a continuum – ranging from excellent operations to various stages of development and progress at




of the larger Erasmus programme in Europe, it appeared to have caught many of them a bit off guard

when it became available/ and was heavily promoted in South Africa in the late 2000s. Apart from

having to form consortiums (which was not a well-known approach in South African universities at the

time), each university then had to decide rather quickly on an institutional response to the

opportunities offered by EM; and where to locate it within their institutions. In retrospect, it is clear that

each institution responded according to their particular institutional needs (and capacity) at the time.

Some institutions use the EM as a tool for staff development; others place EM in Graduate and

Research Offices to develop the university’s research capacity.




them probably unintended. The general feeling is that everybody learned a lot through it, especially

about each other’s institutions. This is a particularly significant outcome in a country with a history of a very diverse, historically divided higher education sector.

SA International Offices were unanimous that there were no other international scholarship and staff

exchange opportunities available in South Africa, even vaguely comparable to those offered by EM. It

is therefore clear that nothing on the scale and breadth of this programme can be sustained/ or be

sustainable when it comes to an end. Universities in South Africa simply do not have the kind of

resources required for a programme like this – even the more established and better-resourced ones,

which may have a few more options compared to most of the HDIs, but still nothing compared to EM.

At some of the HDIs, the answer was very simple: “We have no other scholarships.”





EM now is so much better known in their institutions – amongst both students and staff. Yet, the new

Erasmus+ programme might not be implemented in the same was as EMA2.

There was agreement that the EM programme and consortiums facilitated the exploration of new bi-

lateral partnerships. EM made it possible to get to know potential new partners, before committing to

formal agreements. Some of the new and existing bi-lateral partnerships may well be able to leverage

new sources of funding that could benefit a handful of staff and possibly post-graduate students –

even potentially through Erasmus+ – but they could presumably never deliver the kind of broad-based




bi-lateral agreements; appears to be “on a collision course” including trends whereby the more

established universities are moving towards fewer, but more strategic partnerships. Some respondents

hoped that there could have been a bit more continuity between EMA2 and Erasmus+, with elements

of the old system retained in the new one.


8 ANNEXES

8.1 Student Questionnaire

March 2015

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION- everyone

The Delegation of the European Union in South Africa is currently undertaking a study to measure the

impact of the Erasmus Mundus programme on its beneficiaries. As you have received a scholarship

from the Erasmus Mundus programme, the EU Delegation is interested in learning more about the

impact your experience has had on important issues such as your progress with your studies, career,

professional development and overall satisfaction with the programme.

The results of the study will contribute to a better understanding of the overall impact of the Erasmus

Mundus programme and how it can be improved.

Therefore we kindly ask you to complete this survey, which will take approximately 15 minutes to

complete.

Your answers will remain confidential. We will only report on overall survey results.

For more information on this survey, please contact Hermien Kotzé at [email protected].

SECTION B: SCREENING - everyone

1. Did you receive an Erasmus Mundus scholarship to participate in an exchange or full

degree programme with a European University? [ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Yes o No[exit from survey]

2. Were you enrolled as a student and/or employed by a university in South Africa when

receiving the scholarship?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Enrolled as a student only o Employed as a staff member and also a student o Not applicable

3. At which university in South Africa was this?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Cape Peninsula University of Technology o Central University of Technology o Durban University of Technology o Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University o North-West University o Rhodes University o Tshwane University of Technology o University of Cape Town o University of Fort Hare o University of Free State o University of Johannesburg o University of KwaZulu-Natal o University of Limpopo

mailto:[email protected]


o University of Pretoria o University of South Africa o University of Stellenbosch o University of the Western Cape o University of the Witwatersrand o University of Venda o University of Zululand o Other

SECTION C: PERSONAL DETAILS- everyone

4. What is your field of study or academic discipline?[ask everyone, compulsory, single

answer]

o Agricultural Sciences o Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning o Business Studies and Management Sciences o Education, Teacher Training o Engineering, Technology o Geography, Geology o Mathematics, Informatics o Medical Sciences o Natural Sciences o Social Sciences o Communication and Information Sciences o Other areas of study: Alternative Energy Resources, Climate Change, Sustainable

Development

5. In which province in South Africa were you living in when you received the Erasmus

Mundus scholarship?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Eastern Cape o Free State o Gauteng o KwaZulu-Natal o Limpopo o Mpumalanga o Northern Cape o North West o Western Cape o N/A – was not staying in South Africa

6. What is your age?[ask everyone, compulsory]

o Open ended

7. Gender?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Male o Female

o Prefer not to answer


8. Population Group?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Black African o Coloured o White o Indian o Other o Prefer not to answer

9. Are you living with a disability? [ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o No o Yes

10. Please indicate whether you have experienced additional challenges, related to your

type of disability (i.e. in addition to the standard challenges associated with foreign

travel and studies at foreign universities), when applying for and taking up your

Erasmus Mundus scholarship in the EU. If so, please list the challenges you have

experienced:[only ask if YES to previous question, then optional]

o Open ended

SECTION D: APPLICATION PROCESS AND SUPPORT- everyone

11. What were your expectations when you applied for an Erasmus Mundus scholarship?

You may select multiple options.[ask everyone, compulsory, multiple answers]

o The opportunity to live and study in Europe o The prospect of receiving a scholarship to study in Europe o The reputation of Erasmus Mundus o The academic reputation of the participating EU universities o Academic excellence offered in my field of study/discipline o To improve future career prospects o To improve foreign language competencies o To improve inter-cultural competencies o To improve international networks o The prospect of a double/joint degree o Other

12. How would you rate the application process for the Erasmus Mundus scholarship?[ask

everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Very difficult o Difficult o Fair o Easy o Very Easy

13. How would you rate the level of institutional support you received during the

application process?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Very poor o Poor o Fair


o Good o Very good

14. How would you rate the level of support you received from your university in South

Africa, in preparation for your departure to Europe? [ask everyone, compulsory, single

answer]

o Very poor o Poor o Fair o Good o Very good

15. How would you rate the level of support you received from your host university in the

EU on your arrival and in the initial period of settling into the new environment?[ask



SECTION E: DETAILS OF UNIVERSITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION-

everyone

16. In which year did you travel to the EU University?[ask everyone, compulsory, single

answer]

o 2011 o 2012 o 2013 o 2014 17. For which university in the EU have you been awarded a scholarship?[ask everyone,

compulsory, single answer]

o Open question

18. In which EU country is this university located?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Austria o Belgium o Czech Republic o Denmark o Finland o France o Germany o Ireland o Italy o Latvia o Lithuania o Netherlands o Poland o Portugal


o Romania o Slovenia o Spain o Sweden o United Kingdom o Other

19. For which degree or programme were you enrolled at your university in South Africa

when you were awarded the Erasmus Mundus scholarship? [ask everyone, compulsory,

single answer]

o Honours degree o Master’s degree o PhD o Post-doctoral fellow o Not applicable

20. How long will you be/ did you study at the EU University?[ask everyone, compulsory,

single answer]

o Up to 3 months o Up to 6 months o Up to 12 months o Up to 24 months o Up to 36 months

SECTION F: LEVELS OF SATISFACTION WITH ERASMUS MUNDUS

- everyone

21. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Erasmus Mundus scholarship programme? [ask


o Very dissatisfied o Somewhat dissatisfied o Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied o Somewhat satisfied o Very satisfied

22. How satisfied are you with the courses that you are taking/ took during your Erasmus

Mundus study programme?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Very dissatisfied o Somewhat dissatisfied o Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied o Somewhat satisfied o Very Satisfied

23. What would you say the Erasmus Mundus programme lacks?

[You may tick more than one option]

o Adequate academic supervision o Flexibility in structuring your study programme


o Mentoring o Contacts to potential employers o Practical experience o Preparation for job market o Nothing o Too early to say o Other, please explain.

24. In which of the following areas did the Erasmus Mundus programme have the greatest

impact on your personal and professional development?

[You may tick more than one option]

o Intercultural competencies o Career development o Subject related expertise o Personal growth o Private life o Attitude towards Europe and EU o Too early to say o Other (please explain)

SUB SECTION

25. Are you still studying at the EU University or have you completed your studies in

Europe?

o Still studying (if still studying, this is the end of the survey) o Completed (continue with Section G or H, depending on answer on Question 20)

26. Are you/ did you study for a short-term (exchange) or a full degree at the EU university?

o Short-term (exchange) – complete section G and H o Full degree - complete section – complete section I

SECTION G: ECTS POINTS FOR SHORT TERM MASTER DEGREE

STUDENTS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THEIR STUDIES – sub section

27. Do you know how many ECTS points you earned at the EU University?[subgroup,

students who studied =< 12 months on EM, compulsory, single answer]

o Yes o No

28. How many ECTS credit points did you earn at the EU University? [subgroup, students

who studied =< 12 months on EM, ask only if yes to previous question, optional]

o Open ended

29. Do you know how many ECTS credit points were recognised by your home (South

African) University?[subgroup, students who studied =< than 12 months, compulsory, single

answer]


o Yes o No

30. How many ECTS credit points were recognised at your home (South African)

university?[subgroup, students who studied =<12 months, compulsory, ask only if yes to

previous question, optional]

o Open ended

SECTION H: COMPLETION OF MASTER DEGREE STUDIES -

everyone

31. Have you graduated from the South African university you were studying at when you

received the Erasmus Mundus award?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Yes (go to 32) o No (go to 33) o Still studying (end of survey)

32. In which year did you graduate from your South African university? [ask if YES to

previous question, compulsory, single answer]

o Open ended

Continue with Q36

33. What is the reason for not graduating before leaving university? [ask if NO to question

31, compulsory, single answer]

o Open ended Continue with Q36

SECTION I: COURSE LENGTH AND COMPLETION FOR FULL

DEGREE STUDENTS –sub section

34. How many semesters are/ were the scheduled duration of your degree programme at

the EU University?[subgroup, students who studied > 12 months, compulsory, single answer]

o 2 semesters o 3 semesters o 4 semesters o 5 semesters o 6 semesters

35. How long did it take you to complete the degree programme at the EU

University?[subgroup, students who studied > 12 months, compulsory, single answer]

o 2 semesters o 3 semesters o 4 semesters o 5 semesters o 6 semesters o Still studying (end of survey)


o Did not complete the degree / left university Please explain (if did not complete)

SECTION J: EMPLOYMENT STATUS

36. Which of the following best describes your present employment status? [ask everyone,

single answer, compulsory answer]

o Employment full-time, paid o Employment, part time, paid o Employment without pay (e.g. voluntary work or internship) o Self-employed o Not employed but studying. (continue with 42) o Not employed but seeking employment (continue with 42) o Not employed and not seeking employment(continue with 42) o Other

37. If you are employed, please indicate what is your present job title/ position?

o Open ended

38. What is the name of your employer?

o Open ended

39. Where is this company or institution based?

o City: o Province: o Country:

40. Is this your first position after leaving university? [ask if Employed or Self Employed,

single answer, compulsory]

o Yes o No

41. What is your monthly gross salary?

o In SA Rand: o In another currency: o I prefer not to provide this information

42. To what extent has Erasmus Mundus had a positive or negative impact on your ability

to find employment after leaving university

o Strong negative impact o Negative impact o No impact o Positive impact


o Strong positive impact

SECTION K: THANK YOU

Thank you for your participation in this survey. You answers will help Erasmus Mundus to improve its

programme


8.2 Staff Questionnaire

March 2015

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION

The Delegation of the European Union in South Africa is currently undertaking a study to measure the

impact of the Erasmus Mundus programme on its beneficiaries. As you have received a scholarship

from the Erasmus Mundus programme, the EU Delegation is interested in learning more about the

impact your experience has had on important issues such as your career, professional development

and overall satisfaction with the programme.

The results of the study will contribute to a better understanding of the overall impact of the Erasmus

Mundus programme and how it can be improved.

Therefore we kindly ask you to complete this survey, which will take approximately 15 minutes to

complete.

Your answers will remain confidential. We will only report on overall survey results.

For more information on this survey, please contact Hermien Kotzé at [email protected].

SECTION B: SCREENING

1. Did you receive an Erasmus Mundus scholarship to participate in a staff exchange

programme with a European University? [ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Yes o No[exit survey]

2. At which university were you employed at the time of receiving the Erasmus

Mundus scholarship? [ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Cape Peninsula University of Technology o Central University of Technology o Durban University of Technology o Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University o North-West University o Rhodes University o Tshwane University of Technology o University of Cape Town o University of Fort Hare o University of Free State o University of Johannesburg o University of KwaZulu-Natal o University of Limpopo o University of Pretoria o University of South Africa o University of Stellenbosch o University of the Western Cape o University of the Witwatersrand o University of Venda o University of Zululand o Other

mailto:[email protected]


SECTION C: PERSONAL DETAILS

3. Are you primarily a member of administrative, managerial or academic staff? [Ask

everyone, single answer, compulsory]

o Administrative staff o Managerial staff o Academic staff

4. At which professional level are you employed in your university? [ask only academic

staff, single answer, compulsory]

o Junior lecturer o Lecturer o Senior lecturer o Full-time researcher o Associate professor o Full professor

5. What is your field of study or academic discipline? [ask only academic staff, single

answer, compulsory]

o Agricultural Sciences o Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning o Business Studies and Management Sciences o Education, Teacher Training o Engineering, Technology o Geography, Geology o Mathematics, Informatics o Medical Sciences o Natural Sciences o Social Sciences o Communication and Information Sciences o Other areas of study: Alternative Energy Resources, Climate Change, Sustainable

Development

6. What is your age?[ask everyone, compulsory]

o Open ended

7. Gender?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Male o Female

o Prefer not to answer

8. Population Group?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Black African o Coloured o White o Indian o Other o Prefer not to answer


9. Are you living with a disability? [ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o No o Yes

10. Please indicate whether you have experienced additional challenges, related to

your type of disability (i.e. in addition to the standard challenges associated with

foreign travel and studies at foreign universities), when applying for and taking up

your Erasmus Mundus scholarship in the EU. If so, please list the challenges you

have experienced:[only ask if YES to previous question, then optional]

o Open ended

SECTION D: APPLICATION PROCESS AND SUPPORT

11. What were your expectations when you applied for an Erasmus Mundus staff

exchange scholarship? You can provide more than one answer. [ask everyone,

compulsory, multiple answers]

o To obtain international experience in your academic discipline o To build international networks with esteemed colleagues in your field of study o To collaborate on research projects with esteemed colleagues in your field of study o To experience different cultural contexts o To improve your foreign languages competencies o To improve your chances of career advancement at your home university o To explore career opportunities in the European Union o To explore career opportunities in other parts of the world o Other

12. To what extent are you satisfied that your expectations of the Erasmus Mundus

staff exchange programme are being / were met? [ask everyone, single answer,

compulsory]


13. What is/was the purpose of your stay at your host university in the EU? You can

provide multiple answers. [ask everyone, multiple answers, compulsory]

o A teaching assignment (visiting lecturer) o Conducting research as part of ongoing studies towards a higher degree or qualification o Post-doctoral research o Research collaboration with academic colleagues at your host university o Co-authoring academic papers, peer-reviewed articles or book chapters with academic

colleagues at your host university o Meeting with International Office Staff / Erasmus Mundus Coordinator(s) o Other (please specify)

14. How would you rate the application process for the Erasmus Mundus

scholarship?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]


o Very difficult o Difficult o Fair o Easy o Very Easy

15. How would you rate the level of institutional support you received during the

application process? [ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]


16. How would you rate the level of support you received from your university in South

Africa, in preparation for your departure to Europe? [ask everyone, compulsory, single

answer]


17. How would you rate the level of support you received from your host university in

the EU on your arrival and in the initial period of settling into the new environment?

[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]


SECTION E: DETAILS OF UNIVERSITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

18. In which year did you travel to the EU University?[ask everyone, compulsory, single

answer]

o 2011 o 2012 o 2013 o 2014

19. To which EU country did you travel to?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Austria o Belgium o Czech Republic o Denmark o Finland o France o Germany


o Ireland o Italy o Latvia o Lithuania o Netherlands o Poland o Portugal o Romania o Slovenia o Spain o Sweden o United Kingdom o Other

20. Which university in the EU hosted you during the staff exchange?[ask everyone,

compulsory, single answer]

o Open question

21. How long is/ was your stay at the EU University? [ask everyone, compulsory, single

answer]

o Up to 1 week o Two weeks to one month o Two months o Three months o More than three months

SECTION F: LEVELS OF SATISFACTION WITH ERASMUS MUNDUS

22. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Erasmus Mundus staff exchange

programme? [ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]


23. How satisfied are you with the staff exchange experience at your host university in

the European Union?[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]

o Very dissatisfied o Somewhat dissatisfied o Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied o Somewhat satisfied o Very Satisfied

24. What would you say the Erasmus Mundus staff exchange programme lacks? [ask

everyone, compulsory, multiple answers possible]

o Lack of proper induction and orientation on arrival o Lack of practical support, for example with accommodation


o Inadequate institutional arrangements to include you in academic processes and routines o Too early to make an assessment o None o Other, please explain

25. In which of the following areas did the Erasmus Mundus programme have the

greatest impact on your personal and professional development?[ask everyone,

compulsory, multiple answers possible]

o Intercultural competencies o Career development o Subject related expertise o Personal growth o Private life o Attitude towards Europe and EU o Too early to make an assessment o Other (please explain)

SECTION G: ROLE AND IMPACT OF ERASMUS MUNDUS

SCHOLARSHIP

26. How did your experiences at the host university in the European Union impact on

your professional development? You can select more than one answer.

[ask everyone, compulsory, multiple answers possible]

o Enhanced your teaching skills o Provided fresh perspectives on your existing research interests and projects o Provided impetus to start new or more advanced research endeavours o Motivated you to increase your output of peer-reviewed articles in international journals o Contributed to the completion of a post graduate degree (Masters or Doctoral) o Contributed to the development of better academic and research networks with colleagues in

the EU and beyond o Career advancement/ promotion offered at home institution o Career changes, e.g. offers from other universities (local or international) o Too early to make an assessment o Other

27. Did you provide feedback and/or present the activities you undertook during your

Erasmus Mundus international exchange to colleagues in your department,

research institute, faculty or at a university-wide occasion?


o Yes o No o I am still at the EU university

28. To what extent do you think your home university values international staff

exchange programmes like Erasmus Mundus?


o Not at all o Very little


o To some extent o To a great extent

29. To what extent does your home university have adequate support measures in

place to facilitate international staff exchanges? For example, which of the

following does it have? [ask everyone, compulsory, multiple mention]

o A well-functioning International Office o Flexibility around sabbatical leave o Adequate provision for replacement staff o Pre-departure briefings o None o Other (please specify)

30. What, in your view, is the direct impact of a programme like Erasmus Mundus on

your department/ centre/ institute at your home university? You can select more

than one answer.[ask everyone, multiple mention, compulsory]

o Improved quality of teaching/ instruction o Production of more internationally recognised research o Joint research programmes resulting from international collaboration o Enhanced access to international funding sources for research o Producing more research relevant to South Africa’s key socio-economic challenges o Establishment of joint post-graduate study programmes/ degrees o Improved human resource capacity in your department and the university at large o Help to facilitate more longer-term institutional collaboration between your university and

universities in the EU o None o Other

31. Given your experience with the Erasmus Mundus scholarship programme, would

you motivate your students and colleagues to apply for similar study or staff

exchange opportunities abroad

o Yes o No

SECTION H: THANK YOU

Thank you for your participation in this survey. You answers will help Erasmus Mundus to improve its

programme.


8.3 List of Site Visits / Interviews / Focus Groups

Date Institution Interviewee(s) Remarks (HK=Hermien Kotze, RL=Rene Lenssen)

FTF = Face to Face; S/T = Skype/Telephone

12 May 2015 University of Western Cape

Prof Lorna Holtman (Head of Division for Post-graduate Studies & SA coordinator of AESOP & INSPIRE) Dr Edna Rich, individual staff interview, Dept of Social Work. Staff focus group (3 participants) Student focus group (5 participants)

HK / FTF

13 May 2015 Cape Peninsula University of Technology

Dr Merle Hodges, Director of International Office and SA coordinator of EUROSA III Zinzi Nkalishana, International Office Two separate focus groups with staff members

HK/FTF

14 May 2015 University of Cape Town

Lara Dunwell – International Academic Programme Office (IAPO) Penny van Zyl – IAPO One focus group with staff members (4 participants)

HK/FTF

18 May 2015 Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

Dr Nico Jooste, President IEASA

Prof Blanche Pretorius, Research Capacity Development (RCD) Office Imtiaz Khan, RCD One focus group with students (3 participants) One individual staff interview

HK/FTF

20 May 2015 University of Fort Hare, East London Campus

Ms Ayanda Boysen and colleague in, International Affairs Office

One individual staff interview.

HK/FTF

21 May 2015 University of KwaZulu-Natal

Tasmeera Singh, International Relations Office Preshantha Reddy, International Relations Office

HK/FTF

22 May 2015 HESA

DHET

Dr. Berene Kramer

Mr Mahlubi (Chief) Mabizela

RL/FTF

RL/FTF

25 May 2015 University of Free State Dineo Gaofhiwe-Ingram, Head International Affairs

Chevon Jacobs, senior officer, in same office staff focus group (3 participants) individual staff interview telephone interview with student beneficiary

HK/FTF

25 May 2015 University of Venda Mr. Cornelius Hagenmeier, Director IO (telephone)

Two individual staff interviews

RL/FTF and TS

26 May 2015 University of Limpopo Two individual student interviews and one individual staff interview (facilitated by Mr. Goldmarks Makamure)

RL/FTF


27 May 2015 University of Pretoria Ms. Louise Euthimiou, Director International Office

One mixed focus group (6 members)

RL/FTF

28 May 2015 University of Witwatersrand

Ms. Alison Simons, Programmes and Projects Coordinator

Two individual interviews (student and staff)

RL/FTF

29 May 2015 European Union Delegation to the Republic of South Africa

Mr. Christophe Larose, Acting Head of Mission

Mr. Brutus Malada, Project Officer Post-school Education and Training

RL/FTF

2 June 2015 Uppsala University Mr Gustaf Cars, INSPIRE RL/ST

3 June 2015 University of Antwerpen Ms. Annelien de Winter, EUROSA RL/ST

6 June 2015 Durban University of Technology

Mr. Lavern Samuels, Director International Office

HK/ST

9 June 2015 KU Leuven

EU-DG DEVCO

EU-DG EAC

Radboud University

Ruhr University Bochum

Ms. An Huts, EM2SA

Mr. Augustin Tshiani and Ms. Aurora Iglesias-Ortego

Ms. Deirde Lennan

Ms. Marijke Delemarre, SAPIENT

Dr. Gabriele Baecker, EUSA-ID

RL/ST

18 June Stellenbosch University Ms. Huba Boshoff, Post Graduate and International Office

HK/ST

the european union’s development co-operation...

Documents