Number of windows per programme

Given the difference between the number of programmes and the number of win- dows we covered in the study – 32 to 42 – it is quite clear that one single study programme can have more than one mobility window, although this was not ex- tremely frequent amongst the cases we examined. The majority of programmes we covered in the study, namely 25, contain only one mobility window5_.

5 _{In some cases the number of windows in a programme was not immediately apparent. For}

example, in three of the Romanian double degree programmes covered, students had to spend a

Amongst our 25 one-window programmes, the window is more often used for study than for internship purposes. We only came across one case that incorporates a single window for practical training. This is the UCU in Africa window, number 30 in Table 3, which facilitates a mix of field trips in Africa and an internship at a locally-based NGO.

Concerning the multiple-window programmes, our sample covers four programmes with two mobility windows and three programmes with three windows. The multiple windows can either be of the same type, as is for example the case for the Ca’Foscari Bsc in Economics and Management, which incorporates two Ma-Lop windows for study, one to the US and the other to France, or of different types. Especially in double or joint degree programmes, it does not seem uncommon to have one window of the most structured Ma-Hip type, generally for studies, accompanied by another/other optional window(s) – of either the Op-Hip or Op-Lop types. Such an example is the Groningen EM MSc CEMACUBE (Biomed. Eng.) programme, which in- corporates one Ma-Hip window (27a) for study, followed by an Op-Hip (27b) for study and an Op-Lop (27c) for internships. Many of the Op-Lop windows covered in the study were actually the second or third window in a multiple- window programme, generally following a mandatory window.

A very interesting multiple-window example is also the Saxion BBA Tourism Management programme, which incorporates the only Ma-Hip window for internships amongst the cases in our sample, followed by two Op-Lops – one mixed (for studies or internships abroad) and one for study (research and thesis) abroad.

The present chapter concludes the more conceptual and, thus, more abstract part of the publication. This part provided a clear account of the thinking and the overall process of generating the typology of mobility windows. It introduced the four main types and their main characteristics, as well as a set of ‘real life’ examples observed during the project’s field stage. Part 2 of the publication will give further insights into the actual functioning of mobility windows, starting from the rationales for creating mobility windows, continu- ing with the preliminary stages – the set-up of windows – and moving on to organisational aspects, to then conclude with observations on the evaluation stage of mobility windows.

for studies (in all cases of the Ma-Hip type) and one for practical training (either of the Ma-Lop or the Op-Hip type). We have decided to count these in the study as one mixed purpose window, as the programme coordinators regarded this period as one single window and not two separate ones.

Part 2. Mobility windows in action: functioning,

typical challenges and observed solutions

4. Why mobility windows? Rationales at the study

programme and the institution level

Irma Garam Centre for International Mobility

The idea of mobility windows gained current in European discussions based on the hope that windows would be helpful in removing barriers to the inter- national mobility of students in higher education and thus help increase mo- bility numbers. As mentioned earlier, these barriers include the poor recogni- tion of studies abroad and the extension of the duration of studies because of experience abroad. In the European policy discourse, increasing international student mobility is an important goal because mobility supposedly enhances the quality of education and research, strengthens the overall internationali- sation in European higher education, enhances students’ personal develop- ment and employability, fosters the capacity to deal with other cultures and encourages linguistic pluralism (Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, 2009).

So why do institutions and study programmes develop such integrated mo- bility arrangements? How do institutions justify the integration of mobility windows into the curricula of their study programmes? Looking at the em- pirical material gathered through the site visits, it is possible to sum up nine rationales that were mentioned by the visited institutions and programmes with mobility windows. Overall, the rationales mentioned by the interviewees show that programmes and institutions develop mobility windows because they expect them to be beneficial for all parties involved – students, the study programme(s) in question and the institution as a whole.

Based on our research, coordinators of programmes with mobility windows do not seem to have had different rationales for building such mechanisms compared to rationales usually associated with other types of mobility ar- rangements. In fact, most of the rationales mentioned refer to student mobil- ity at a more general level and not specifically to mobility windows as such. Furthermore, none of the nine rationales seemed to be exclusive to only one particular type of mobility window of the four types identified in chapter 3.