DOCTORAL STUDENT MOBIILITY

IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SOCRATES/ERASMUS PROGRAMME

1995-2000

 

 

PREPARED FOR THE MEETING OF DIRECTORS-GENERAL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND
PRESIDENTS OF RECTORS’ CONFERENCES

 

HALMSTAD,  MAY 6-8 2001

 

Dr. I V MITCHELL

 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

BRUSSELS

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

Historical
perspective

 

The promotion of
cooperation at doctoral studies level was first discussed at the Informal
Council of Education and Research Ministers at Schwerin  (July 1994) under the
German Presidency. In the framework of the French Presidency of the European
Union during 1995, a seminar on doctoral studies was organised by the French
Ministry of Education at Epinal in March 1995. Its aim was to collect
information on doctoral programmes, policy and systems in Europe and examine the
means of reinforcing European cooperation in the subject.  Prospects for
developing cooperation in the field were also examined at the Director-Generals
of ministries of Education Conference held at Salamanca under the following
Spanish Presidency.

 

A report on
doctoral studies in the European region by CEPES/UNESCO was published in 1994. 
However, since there was a need for a more detailed knowledge than that provided
by the study on a number of aspects of doctoral studies, the Commission funded a
study by the "European Institute for Citizens’ Rights" in 1995. In particular
this took account of the experience acquired by the International Temporary
Advisory Committee on Doctoral Studies (CPRT) involving The Netherlands,
France, Germany and Belgium
which had put forward a
number of suggestions for encouraging cooperation at this level of studies.

 

The basic aim of
the Commission’s 1995 study – which was based on the results of a
questionnaire-based survey –  was to add to and enrich the available data in
order to allow for a closer study of the situation and of the different
structure of doctoral systems in Europe. Furthermore, the study examined
different types of European cooperation concerning doctoral studies that were
developed in the framework of the ERASMUS Programme.

 

Using the
information collected from EU Member States (as well as Norway, Switzerland and
Iceland), the results could be summarised as follows:

 

°         
some 500 institutions in Europe confer doctorates;

°         
approximately 250,000 students are in doctoral studies, or over 50,000 students
embark on a thesis each year;

°         
approximately 45,000 doctorates are conferred each year.

 

The study also
highlighted the great variety of doctoral systems in place in Europe, but it
also showed where there was some convergence. It was suggested that the
reinforcement of the quality of doctoral programmes and the establishment of a
high-level scientific and technological community are goals that can be attained
through cooperation and mobility.

 

New developments

 

Recent developments underway in higher
education policies such as the Bologna Declaration on the creation of a
European Higher Education Area^[1];
diploma recognition issues;  gender equality;  e-Learning  as well as the recent
initiative of the European Union to create a European Research Area^[2] are
playing their part in making a reality of the " knowledge society".

 

Since then, 
Ministers meeting at the European Councils’ of Lisbon (1999), Nice (2000),
Stockholm (2001) and elsewhere have all reiterated the importance of academic
and student mobility in Education and Training policies and the pre-eminant role
that cooperation in education and research can play in employment policies and
in enhancing the knowledge and information society  in Europe.

 

A strong education base is a guarantee
for remaining competitive in a global economy and the information society. It is
one of the basic driving forces behind economic and social progress and a key
factor in business competitiveness, employment and the quality of life. 

 

Encouraging young researchers to
participate actively in international and European co-operation networks and to
undertake part of their advanced training (postgraduate and doctoral studies) in
another country will give them a valuable experience of working in a
multicultural environment. Such cooperations will contribute considerably to the
maintenance and improvement of European competitiveness in all areas. It will
also speed up and facilitate the pooling of resources and the creation of common
infrastructures.

 

Doctoral studies are at the boundary of
higher education and research: being at one and the same time, part of the
academic educational process, with the eventual awarding of an academic
qualification (e.g. Ph.D), and the basis of a research training for an eventual
career in research, academia or elsewhere in the labour market. As such it is
important to have a thorough and up-to-date knowledge of the doctoral education
and training systems and structures in place in Europe together with reliable
data, as a basis for future Community policy-making in the area of higher
education and research.

 

Understanding
the essential characteristics of the different national doctoral studies systems
offers a basis for the exchange of experiences. It is also essential for
improving cooperation in this area, the need and utility of which are amply
demonstrated by the wide range of initiatives already carried out in this field.

 

An updated and
comprehensive survey of the data on doctoral studies will help expand and verify
the data on doctoral studies in the different universities and countries
participating in the Socrates/Erasmus programme.

 

The aim of the
present project is threefold: 

 

·       
to
analyse the evolution of the cooperation concerning doctoral mobility and
studies at Community level in the framework of the Socrates/Erasmus programme
(1995-2000), particularly in the light of the organisational changes in moving
from the ICP (inter-university cooperation programmes) to the IC (institutional
contract) mode but also from the fact that the number of countries participating
in the programme has almost doubled, from 18 to 29.

 

·       

to  present a detailed updated view of the salient features of the different
National doctoral studies systems within the 29 countries^[3] now
participating in the Socrates/Erasmus programme. This will be achieved by
collating detailed data on the national situations in these countries
(especially the numbers and types of institutions conferring doctorates, the
number of theses examined, the procedures and legal requirements to obtain a
doctorate, the number of mobile doctoral students both nationally and within the
Erasmus programme), so that a comparison of the different systems can be made.

 

·       
to
survey the different models of subject-based doctoral study cooperations
currently underway in Europe (such as doctoral schools, European doctorates,
joint curricula, information exchange, networking) and where possible their
effects on employment, by collecting and analysing data from the "Thematic
Networks" operating in the Socrates/Erasmus programme since 1995.

 

 

The rest of this paper will present an
initial analysis of the
doctoral
mobility in the framework of the Socrates/Erasmus programme (1995-2000)
as a basis for discussion in the present meeting.

 

The following problem areas, which are
believed to influence the overall doctoral mobility within the programme, are
highlighted;

 

·       
With the advent of eleven
new countries into the Erasmus programme, is the evolution in doctoral
mobility since 1995 satisfactory compared with All student mobility?

 

·       
In the light of the 
two-cycle/three cycle debate stimulated by the Bologna process, can an effect on
the age distribution in the doctoral mobility by country be observed?

 

·       
 Is the gender balance for
doctoral mobility satisfactory with respect to subject popularity, 
country flows, etc.?

 

·       
Compared with ‘All’
student mobility, is the requirement that Erasmus mobility must be not less
than three months and not more than twelve months optimal for doctoral
students?

 

·       
How does the subject area
chosen by doctoral students compare to those chosen by ”All’ students?

 

·       
Compared with ‘All’
student mobility, are the doctoral mobility flows between countries
satisfactory?

 

 

Methodology

 

The analyse
was made on the full data sets (the so-called "anondata")  that were provided
regularly by the Erasmus National agencies as part of their annual final reports
to the Commission. These data sets contained detailed information on all student
mobility flows actually having taken place within the relevant academic year. 
From 1997/98 onwards (under the new management structure of the IC) they
contained information on the home institution; age; sex; nationality; subject
code; degree title; level of study; host institution; months abroad; month in
which study commenced; years of prior study; use of ECTS; special needs;
teaching in host language; period of industrial placement; Erasmus grant, etc.
Unfortunately, no information on the level of study  was available for
the transition years 1995/96 and 1996/97 where the ICP regime was still
operative.

 

However, to
draw comparative conclusions from the data in fact proved rather more
complicated than initially envisaged. This was not only the result of the
increasing number of countries, and hence universities, participating in
Erasmus, which makes a year-on-year comparison difficult but also because the
divergence in national education systems and qualifications (highlighted in the
Bologna process as the two-cycle versus the three cycle higher education
structures) which makes a simple comparison and study methodology difficult. 

 

Concerning
diploma titles, we referred where necessary  to the latest available
report on the higher education systems, qualifications and diploma titles
published by the European Commission in 1998^[4] and
the reports published by the Eurydice Unit for the EU countries and the CEEC
countries (1999)^[5] and
(1999)^[6]. 

 

Concerning
the level of study (U,P,D) provided in the data sets, certain arbitrary
distinctions have been made in the analysis of the "anondata", to achieve a more
comprehensive comparative study from which general conclusions might be drawn.

 

In an effort
to bridge the differences in mobility numbers inherent in the (long) initial
first cycle of countries having a two-cycle system and the (shorter) initial
first cycle for countries having a three-cycle system,  the number of
postgraduate students (the "P" level) from countries having the two-cycle system
was taken to be the sum of all those who are identified as having studied for
three or more years. This affected in particular the countries of AT, DE, DK,
ES, IT, NL, SE.

 

For the
doctorate level, the number of students that were identified by the National
Agencies as studying at "D" level was taken as the guiding figure but it quickly
became obvious that this was not a sufficient condition since some countries
chose incorrectly to include ‘Master’ level diplomas (MA, MSc, Maîtrise,
Magistère etc.) or, even in some cases, ‘Batchelor’ level diplomas (BA, etc.)
under "D".  In other cases, doctorate level diplomas such as Ph.D or D.Phil.
were assigned as "P" (postgraduate level). Therefore it was decided to also take
into account the ‘diploma title’ and ‘years of study’, where possible to
distinguish between the "P" and "D" levels. Certain professional qualifications
such as medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical doctors were included as doctoral
level although, "engineer" (ingénieur) have been put in "P" level, due to the
heterogeneity in the nature of the diploma title.

 

 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

 

The analysis and
figures which follow are presented under the following headings:

 

Evolution of doctoral mobility

 

Figure. 1         Total student
mobility: evolution with time

Figure. 2         Doctoral,
Postgraduate, Undergraduate mobility: evolution with time

 

Age distribution of doctoral students

 

Figure. 3         Doctoral Age
distribution with time

Figure. 4         Doctoral Age
distribution by country

Figure. 5         Doctoral Age
distribution with time for FR, UK, AT, PT

 

Gender distribution

 

Figure. 6         Ratio of  Female to
Male doctoral students in mobility

Figure. 7         Doctoral Gender
distribution with time

Figure. 8         Doctoral Gender
distribution by country

Figure. 9         Doctoral Gender
distribution by Age group

 Figure. 10      
Doctoral Female Age distribution with time

 Figure. 11      
Doctoral Male Age distribution with time

 

Duration of
mobility

 

Figure. 12       Doctoral  versus ‘All’
students: average duration of mobility

 

Subject popularity

 

Figure. 13       ‘All’ student mobility
by subject (95/96 & 99/00 in numbers)

Figure. 14       ‘All’ student mobility
by subject (95/96 & 99/00 in percentage)

Figure. 15       Doctoral mobility by
subject (for 97/98 and 99/00  in percentage)

Figure. 16       Doctoral Gender
mobility by subject (in numbers)

 

Doctoral flows

 

Figure. 17       Ratio of doctoral to
‘All’ student mobility flows for EU countries

Figure. 18       Ratio of doctoral to
‘All’ student mobility flows for non-EU countries

 

Evolution of
doctoral mobility

 

The general conclusion is that doctoral
level mobility is becoming an increasing part of the overall Erasmus Programme
mobility. In  the academic year 1995/96, 471 students were studying at doctoral
level compared to 17,841 postgraduate students (i.e. 2.6%) and 65,251
undergraduates (0.72%). By 1999/00, the figures had increased to 1,307 doctoral
students compared to 34,700 postgraduate students (i.e. 3.8%) and 71,621
undergraduates (1.8%). A three-fold increase in doctoral students can be
observed compared to undergaduate students and a nearly two-fold increase in
doctoral students compared to postgraduate students.

It is noteworthy
that the percentage of doctoral students remains fairly static between the years
1995/96 to 1997/98 whereas the large increase in doctoral student numbers

occurs in the last two academic years
1998/99 and 1999/00, where the CEEC (Central and Eastern European countries)
were fully participating for the first time.

 

Age distribution
of doctoral students

 

80% of mobile
doctoral students are under thirty years of age with about 50% in the age group
25-29 years. Less than 5% are over 35 years of age.

However, looking at the age
distribution by ‘Big’ country (those countries having a statistically
significant number of mobile doctoral students) over the 5 year period shows
wide variations in the age distributions of the doctoral students. For example,
doctoral students from Austria and Germany are typically older (60%, between
25-29) than doctoral students from Spain and France where between 60-70% are in
the younger age bracket (20-24 years). Italy and Portugal, on the other hand,
have almost

 

 

no mobility of
doctoral students under 25 years. The newly participating CEEC

 countries, Czech
republic, Poland and Roumania have doctoral students substantially in the 25-29
years age bracket. The UK, with a 3-cycle education structure, appears to send
as many doctoral students in the youngest age group (20-24 years) as in the
25-29 years cohort.

  

Taking the four extreme cases France, UK, Austria and Portugal , to see if there
are

  

variations in the age evolution by
academic year, only in the case of Portugal can any substantial changes be noted
in the variation between the number of doctoral students in the age groups 25-29
and 30-34 years. The number in the age group 20-24 years

nevertheless
remains insignificant.

 

Gender distribution

Over the duration of 5 years
(1995-2000), the average Gender ratio for Doctorate mobility is Female: 54% and
Male 46%.

During the five
years for which data has been analysed (academic years 1995-2000) an evolution
towards equal numbers of female and male doctoral mobility is observed.
 In  the academic year 1995/96, 61% of doctoral students were
female.  By 1999/00, the corresponding female percentage had fallen to 51%.

However, once again, looking at the
Gender distribution by ‘Big’ country (those countries having a statistically
significant number of mobile doctoral students) over the 5 year period shows
wide variations in the gender distributions of the mobile doctoral students. For
example, more than 65% of doctoral students from Spain and France are female
compared with Germany and the UK where the female percentage is around 40%. It
also appears that doctoral mobility from the CEEC (Czech republic, Poland and
Roumania is predominantly male (female: 40-45%; male:55-60%).

Little difference can be noted in the Gender distribution analysed by Age group
except for the youngest doctoral cohort, between the ages of 20-24, where the
female percentage exceeds the male percentage by more than 14%

An interesting trend can be noted  in the following two charts where the
evolution in female and male age distribution are followed separately. Whereas
the age distribution for female doctoral students appears little altered in the
more mature age groups, a decrease in the aveage age for the youngest group
(20-24) from about 25% to 17% (compensated by an equivalent increase in the
25-29 age group) in the final two years when the CEEC countries began to send
doctoral students abroad.

On the other hand,
the age distribution for male doctoral students in the age group 25-29 shows a
continuous increase from about 15% in 1995/96 to over 30% in 1999/00, i.e. the
average male doctoral age is becoming progressively older year-on-year at the
expense of the youngest and oldest cohorts.

 

 Duration
of mobility

The question has been raised as to whether the obligatory mobility period set by
the Erasmus rules (of not less than 3 months and not more than 12 months is
optimal for doctoral students. The following chart shows the average duration
spent on mobility by doctoral students compared with all students (undergraduate
and postgraduate).  It is immediately clear that doctoral students on average
spend shorter periods abroad than other level students. More than half of all
doctoral students spend the minimum mobility period abroad whereas under
25% of ‘all’ students do so. Only 20% of doctoral students choose to benefit
from the full period of one year compared to 40% of the other levels

Subject
popularity

 

An important area to
investigate is the relative popularity of the subject area chosen by the mobile
doctoral student in the host university. Are there differences compared with
‘All’ students? The subjects have been grouped according to the 16 principle
subject area codes used in the Erasmus programme.

In the two figures
which follow the distribution in Subject popularity is shown for ‘‘All’
students.  The results for the academic years 1995/96 and 1999/00 are
compared so as to cover the beginning and end of the five year period 1995-2000
and, therefore, before and after the full participation of the CEEC countries in
the Erasmus programme (which began fully in 1998/99).

An increase in actual student numbers
in all subject bands is clearly seen between the years 1995/96 and
1999/00, with notable increases in Business and management studies (+5000),
Languages and philology (+4500) and the Social sciences (+3000). However, taking
the relative popularity in subject chosen for the two years as a  percentage
of the total student numbers per year (thereby eliminating the effect of the
normal annual growth in total students numbers) shows quite a different picture.
In fact almost no variation in the relative subject popularity can be
observed between 1995/96 and 1999/00 in spite of the joining of 11 new
participating countries and the student population increasing from 80,000 to
over 107,000.

The trend in relative Subject popularity by doctoral students (for the
two academic years 1997/98 and 1999/00) is quite different. Firstly and in
contrast to ‘All’ students, large percentage differences are seen in almost all
subject bands between the two years (before and after the full participation of
the CEEC countries in the Erasmus programme). Engineering & Technology (+15%)
and Natural sciences (+7%) became much more popular, whereas Humanities (-8%),
Languages & philology (-8%) and Law (-2%) became relatively less popular.

Secondly, even prior to the advent of the
CEEC countries into the programme, the popularity of Business and management
studies is very low  compared with ‘All’ students (less than 1%). The most
popular subjects in 1999/00 are now Engineering and Technology (20%),  Medical
sciences (15%), Natural sciences (14%) and Social sciences (8%).

 

Large differences
are also noted in the Subject popularity as a function of Gender.

 

Not entirely surprising is the fact
that Engineering & Technology is three times more popular with male doctoral
students than females. Perhaps more surprising is the fact that in the medical
sciences almost twice the number of female students choose to be mobile than
males and even in the Natural sciences the is a majority of female doctoral
students. Woman are also in the majority in Art & Design, Education & teacher
training, Language & Philology and the Social sciences.

Doctoral flows

 

The achievement of
balanced student mobility flows (i.e. as many students leaving a country as
entering it) is one of the basic objectives of the Erasmus programme. Through
special supporting measures, provided by the programme since the very beginning,
this has largely been realised for all participating countries with the notable
exception of the UK and to a lesser extent Ireland.  It is interesting to study
if doctoral level students follow the same trend. The two charts below show the
Ratio of Doctoral students to ”All’ students by country (as both home and host
country).

While there are
indeed differences in ‘receiving’ and ‘sending’ doctoral flows for the EU
countries they are typically not more than double and are predominantly (with
the exception of Austria and Spain) net receiving countries (largely due
to large inflows from the CEEC countries in the past two years). This is
confirmed in the chart of non EU countries where the CEEC countries are large
net exporters of doctoral students to the EU countries. In the cases of the
Czech republic, Poland and 
Slovakia, the outflow of doctoral
students represents between 12 and 16% of the total student outflow! The inflow
of doctoral students received by these countries is however negligible.