Cuantificación de la magnitud del problema osteoporótico en la AR

Even though this study is not quantitative and can therefore not provide re- presentative information of this nature, the question of numbers still posed itself several times during the project: Are mobility windows a mainstream or a marginal phenomenon? This question could be understood in at least two different ways. On the one hand, it could be read as an inquiry on whether mobility windows are a model often used by institutions to facilitate mobility, particularly when compared to other types of mobility arrangements. On the other hand, it could be understood as an inquiry on the degree to which stu- dents make use of the possibility to participate in such arrangements. Do many programmes and institutions implement mobility windows?

During the sampling phase, we approached more than 40 higher education institutions in the target countries, several of whom were generally seen as frontrunners in internationalisation. Still, only about half of them said they had at least one programme with a mobility window in place. The respondents often said they made use of many other kinds of mobility arrangements which however did not fall within the scope of our definition of mobility windows. This could be read as a first indication that mobility windows, at least accord- ing to our definition presented in section 2.2, might not be such a frequently used means to support mobility after all.

Our research was not designed to examine the reasons for this. However, set- ting up mobility windows seems to require quite some determination, good- will and resources. There are also clear benefits attached, but many of them come only in the medium or long run. And in times of austerity and more calls for public accountability, many institutions have to look for activities that pay off sooner rather than later. One can assume that these reasons may deter many institutions from implementing mobility windows in their programmes. Clearly, however, much more research specifically dedicated to the frequency of mobility windows and, if applicable, reasons for their scarcity would be needed for a final assessment of these issues.

Do the windows support the mobility of most or just a minority of students? As highlighted several times throughout this publication, mobility windows are often portrayed in the European-level policy discourse as a promising way to increase credit mobility and to reach European mobility targets. However, the programmes covered in the study seem to show a mixed reality. Certainly, in those programmes with mandatory windows (of either the Ma-Hip or the Ma-Lop types) participation in window mobility is 100%. Nevertheless, such programmes only represent a minority within our sample and are, in general (with the exception of the Saxion BBA in Tourism Management), programmes in which the enrolled cohorts of students tend to be rather small. The average number seems to be around 25-30 students per programme. Regarding the op- tional window programmes (Op-Hip and Op-Lop windows), participation rates in those programmes for which we had this information seem to be between 10- 20% of all enrolled students. However, in absolute numbers this translates into as few as two to maximum ten students per programme (average participation being four-eight students per programme, as already discussed in section 5.4). In the programmes visited, outgoing student numbers did not always reflect the degree of student interest in the mobility windows. In many cases a maximum number of available places was allocated per year. The number of actual slots was always the result of an agreement reached between the partner institu- tions. Limitations were usually set either because of capacity limits at the host institution/s (e.g. it could not accommodate more than x students per year) or by the support mechanisms of the home programme (e.g. it only had financial support for a limited number of students). During the site visits, we came across both programmes that experienced more interest from students than the avail- able places window mobility could accomodate, as well as programmes that could not really reach the upper (although still small) limit of participation. In contrast to politicians’ ambitions, very few programme coordinators stated they set up mobility windows because they wanted to increase mobility num- bers. Other rationales seemed to prevail. Some programme coordinators even deliberately wanted to limit enrollment in their programmes as a means to raise the quality of the education offered and thereby increase students’ employabil- ity. In their view, smaller-size, targeted programmes could facilitate professional insertion better than mass programmes would. Others specifically recommend- ed limiting participation in window mobility and to only send abroad those stu- dents who are ‘fit’. One programme coordinator even recommended to “keep it small”, referring to the actual numbers of window mobile students.

Several programme coordinators seemed to see mobility windows as an instrument for the efficient handling of mobility. In their view, this ‘beaten track’ approach removes some important mobility obstacles that other kinds

of mobility arrangements do not. They felt that mobility windows helped in- crease the overall quality of the mobility experience, but not so much sheer numbers. If such views are shared by the majority of programme coordina- tors in Europe, the policy discourse might be raising false expectations in this regard. Further investigation would, nevertheless, be needed.