Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 Page 3 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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 4 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 5 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 6 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 7 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 8 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 9 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 10 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 11 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 12 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 13 of 112
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),
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 14 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 15 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 16 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 17 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 18 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 19 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 20 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 21 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 22 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 23 of 112
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)
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 24 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 25 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 26 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 27 of 112
- 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/.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 28 of 112
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
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Black / African 37,2% 68
White 36,6% 67
Coloured 12,6% 23
Indian 2,2% 4
Other 1,1% 2
Prefer not to answer 10,4% 19
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 29 of 112
Table 5: Current Age distribution of student respondents
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Answer Options Response Percent
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”
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 30 of 112
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)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Up to 3 months 0,6% 1
Up to 6 months 23,9% 43
Up to 12 months 34,4% 62
Up to 24 months 27,8% 50
Up to 36 months 13,3% 24
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Short-term (exchange) 50,0% 52
Full degree 50,0% 52
Total answers 104
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 31 of 112
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
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
No (not graduated) 3,8% 2
Yes (graduated) 38,5% 20
Still studying (not yet graduated) 57,7% 30
Total answers 52
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 32 of 112
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
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 33 of 112
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
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
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
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 34 of 112
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
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 35 of 112
Table 18: Expectations and motivations when applying for an Erasmus Mundus scholarship (multiple answers.)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 36 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 37 of 112
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 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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 38 of 112
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 dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 39 of 112
Table 19: What would you say the Erasmus Mundus programme lacks? (Multiple answers possible)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Other (please specify) 17,9% 32
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.)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Other (please specify) 5,6% 10
Total answered question 179
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
No 76,9% 40
Yes 23,1% 12
Total answers 52
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 40 of 112
Table 22: How many ECTS points did you earn at the EU University?
Answer Options Response Percent
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
2 semesters 37,3% 19
3 semesters 2,0% 1
4 semesters 52,9% 27
5 semesters 0,0% 0
6 semesters 7,8% 4
Total answers 51
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 41 of 112
Table 26: How long did it take you to complete the degree programme at the EU University?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
2 semesters 38,0% 19
3 semesters 2,0% 1
4 semesters 46,0% 23
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
Answer Options Response Percent
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 42 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 43 of 112
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
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
South Africa 85,0% 28
Europe 9,0% 3
Asia 6,0% 2
Total answers 33
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 44 of 112
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 45 of 112
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)
Answer Options Response Percent
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)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 46 of 112
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)
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Black African 10,6% 5
Coloured 21,3% 10
White 55,3% 26
Indian 2,1% 1
Other 2,1% 1
Prefer not to answer 8,5% 4
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Academic staff 85,1% 40
Administrative staff 8,5% 4
Managerial staff 6,4% 3
Total answers 47
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 47 of 112
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 completed the survey. The 3 full-
time researchers are all aged over 35 years.
Table 38: Employment level of EM beneficiaries (academic staff only)
Answer Options Response Percent
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)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 48 of 112
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)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 49 of 112
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
Answer Options Response Percent
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)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 50 of 112
Respondents were asked to indicate the duration of their stay. The majority (close to 61%) went
between two and four weeks.
Table 43: Duration of stay at the EU University (staff)
Answer Options Response Percent
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)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Other (please specify) 17,4% 8
Total answered question 46
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 51 of 112
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 dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor 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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 52 of 112
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)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Total answered question 46
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 53 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 54 of 112
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.)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Other (please specify) 8,7% 4
Total answered question 46
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.)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Total answered question 46
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 55 of 112
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.)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Too early to make an assessment 4,3% 2
Other 4,3% 2
Total answered question 46
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.)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
Too early to make an assessment 2,2% 1
Other 2,2% 1
Total answered question 46
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 56 of 112
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
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?
Answer Options Response Percent
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
answered question 46
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.)
Answer Options Response Percent
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
answered question 46
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 57 of 112
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
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
No 0,0% 0
Yes 100,0% 46
answered question 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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 58 of 112
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.
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.7 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 (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.”
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. 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.
The changing priorities appear to be, once again, influenced by geopolitical changes and
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 59 of 112
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 – 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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 60 of 112
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,
uptake and proper utilisation of international exchange and mobility programmes like EM.
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 61 of 112
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.
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. 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
some of the other HDIs.
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))
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 62 of 112
Although the directors and senior staff at the International Offices of some universities had been aware
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 63 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 64 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 65 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 66 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 67 of 112
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)
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, 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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 68 of 112
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.”
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; 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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 69 of 112
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
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 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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 70 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 71 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 72 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 73 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 74 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 75 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 76 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 77 of 112
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);
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 78 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 79 of 112
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.”
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 80 of 112
“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:
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 81 of 112
“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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 82 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 83 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 84 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 85 of 112
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”.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 86 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 87 of 112
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,
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 88 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 89 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 90 of 112
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).
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 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.
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 91 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 92 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 93 of 112
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 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.
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.
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.”
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. 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
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” 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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 94 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 95 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 96 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 97 of 112
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
everyone, compulsory, single answer]
o Very poor o Poor o Fair o Good o Very good
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 98 of 112
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
everyone, compulsory, single answer]
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 99 of 112
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]
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 100 of 112
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)
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 101 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 102 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 103 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 104 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 105 of 112
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]
o Very dissatisfied o Somewhat dissatisfied o Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied o Somewhat satisfied o Very satisfied
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]
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 106 of 112
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]
o Very poor o Poor o Fair o Good o Very good
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]
o Very poor o Poor o Fair o Good o Very good
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]
o Very poor o Poor o Fair o Good o Very good
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 107 of 112
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]
o Very dissatisfied o Somewhat dissatisfied o Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied o Somewhat satisfied o Very satisfied
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 108 of 112
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?
[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]
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?
[ask everyone, compulsory, single answer]
o Not at all o Very little
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 109 of 112
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.
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 110 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 111 of 112
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
Erasmus Mundus Action 2 South Africa: Tracer and Impact Study – Final Report Page 112 of 112