BRIDGE PROJECT
FINAL CONFERENCE
Joint Programmes Require Joint Forces:
the Management Aspect
Francesco Girotti
International Relations Division, Bologna University
JOIMAN project‘s coordinator
18 October 2012, Malta
1
STARTING POINTS
• Joint Programmes: Integrated study programmes offered by 2
or more institutions leading to the award of a Double, Multiple or
Joint Degree
• JOIMAN focused on the Administration and Management of JP
•
•
WHY?
Because of the Erasmus Mundus impact
Because of the nature of the network
• Surveys
HOW?
to JP coordinators (Master, Doctorate, EU&NonEU),
study visits, international conferences, papers, discussions,
networks
2
JOIMAN FINDINGS AT A GLANCE
3 main messages:
1. There are different models of Joint Programmes, with different
levels of integration and different impact on the planning,
organisation and management of the programmes themselves
2. Institutional strategy, support and commitment are crucial for
the implementation of Joint Programmes
3. Being aware of the processes allows to think in advance
3
MESSAGE 1: DIFFERENT MODELS
Highest level of Integration
(EM Model)
Joint Admnistration of students and ad hoc services
Joint QA measures
Common budget and tuition fees
Jointly developed curriculum (new, learning outcomes
based,)
Focus on international students
QA measures standards jointly agreed
Curriculum based on existing courses/ exploitation of
excellences (Comparison of learning outcomes)
Jointly agreed students’ services and standards
Based on own institution tuition policies
Lowest level of Integration
(Structured mobility in
Bilateral coop.)
Focus on local students
Curriculum based on existing comparable courses
(input based)
4
MESSAGE 1: DIFFERENT MODELS (DOCTORATES)
International
collaboration
Individual
programmes
Cotutelle
Joint
doctoral
programme
Joint doctoral
degree and
programme
Research
Courses
Structure of
cooperation
Selection/admission
Supervision
Defence
Monitoring/reporting
Employability
Funding/fees
Double or multiple
degrees
Joint degree
5
Degree of jointness and integration in the cooperation
5
MESSAGE 1: DIFFERENT MODELS
Positioning your joint programme in the appropriate level of
integration has a deep impact on the management of the joint
programme itself.
I.E: Large integrated consortium: increase the critical mass,
share of resources and expertise, increase the quality of the
mobility offer BUT more coordination efforts and costs
(meetings, staff mobility etc) more harmonization problems
(procedures, legislations, cultures)
I.E: targeting international students: more chances to attract
best students, creation of a real international environment BUT
more efforts in marketing the programme, more efforts in the ICT
infrastructures, more efforts in services for students etc
6
MESSAGE 2: INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT
Most common obstacles detected:
1. Legislation on joint degrees
2. Institutional regulations
3. Different Education Systems (length of study, accreditation)
4. Tuition fees policies
5. Funds and Human Resources
7
WHY INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTMENT IS IMPORTANT?
•To prepare the ground through external actions
•
•
To advocate changes at national level
•
Creating appropriate structures for the development and
implementation of JP
Developing a network-based strategy
•To prepare the ground through internal actions
•
•
•
•
•
Creating/adapting internal rules
Coordinating the efforts of the many actors involved
Providing funds for new initiatives
Promoting the professional development of administrators and
academics involved
Fostering the initiatives of academics
8
THIRD MESSAGE: KNOW THE PROCESS AND THINK
FIRST
First action of the JOIMAN group has been the definition of the
processes in order to draft a comprehensive questionnaire for JP
coordinators.
Processes have been refined after the submission
questionnaires and study visits.
of
This allowed us to draft a map which could be useful and
adaptable to any Joint Programme for the planning of the
management phase.
9
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE PROCESSES?
Because most of the detected obstacles in the management of Joint Programmes
are at Programme level and can be approached during the
development/negotiation phase
•Lack of information on the educational systems of the partners
•Late involvement of key people
•Confusion in terminology
•Late definition of procedures for the administration of students
•Duplication of quality assurance requirement, without a clear reflection on the
harmonization of the existing – institutional – procedures with the needs of
international dimension of the programme
•Late discussion on calendars, credits, thesis procedures, certification, phd
candidate supervision etc
10
Students’ administration timeline
Application
Transversal processes
Promotion
Receipt of application
Selection
Selection round for non EU
Selection round for EU
Communication of results
Admission
Enrolment
Visa procedures
Enrolment procedures
Welcoming services
Welcoming
Language training
Cultural integration
Academic Tutoring
Teaching
Preparation to the mobility
Transfer of student’s’ career
Tutoring of the mobility
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
Welcoming services
Mobility
Cultural integration
Academic Tutoring
Transfer of students’ career
Dissertation
Joint jury
Diploma and
DS
Joint signature or request
of multiple diplomas
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
Quality in the
application phase:
transparency
Quality of the
selection
Quality
management tools
Evaluation of
teaching
Evaluation of
services
F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L
Sharing of the budget
Management and
distribution of fees
Management of
scholarships
Reserves for
sustainability
Ex post evaluation:
student’s career
Ex – post evaluation:
feedback from the
labour market
Overall evaluation of
the programme
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
Accounting /
reporting
11
12
Tangible outputs
Good practice report on the management of JP (Master
EU-non EU and Doctorates)
Annexes: Cooperation agreement template, Glossary,
example of guidelines, national legislations on tuition fees
Thematic papers
Contributions from
international seminars
JOIMAN web site: www.joiman.eu
13
14
15
HOW TO USE THE RESULTS
Traditional way: Reading
(adapting concepts to different contexts, adapting tools such as the
cooperation agreement template to our needs)
Innovative Way…
16