Erasmus student mobility and the construction of European citizenship

1 Erasmus student mobility and the construction of European citizenship Enric Llurda*, Lídia Gallego-Balsà*, Clàudia Barahona□, Xavier Martin-Rubió* * Universitat de Lleida □ Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Abstract The Erasmus student mobility programme allocates three explicit objectives to the experience of spending a few months studying in another European country: to benefit educationally, linguistically and culturally; to promote co-operation between institutions; and to contribute to the development of a pool of well-qualified, open-minded and internationally experienced future professionals (European Commission,1996). However, although not stated as one explicit objective, the programme has sometimes been referred to as one of the most powerful tools of European integration. However, little research has been done so far on how this may alter students’ attitudes towards aspects of identity and feelings of citizenship. In this light, our study intends to cover this area of research by means of a set of quantitative and qualitative measures to determine the extent to which the Erasmus experience affected the sense of self as European citizens among a cohort of students from the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain), their position towards the notion of European citizenship and how this relates with the development of their plurilingual competence. Quantitative measures are based on the results of two questionnaires, one before and the other after the study abroad experience, whereas qualitative data were obtained through the analysis of discussion groups focusing on aspects of European vs. national identity and citizenship. Keywords: European citizenship, identity, student mobility, study abroad, Erasmus 2 1. Introduction The Erasmus student mobility programme allocates three explicit objectives to the experience of spending a few months studying in another European country: to benefit educationally, linguistically and culturally; to promote co-operation between institutions; and to contribute to the development of a pool of well-qualified, open-minded and internationally experienced future professionals (European Commission,1996). However, although not stated as one explicit objective, the programme has sometimes been referred to as one of the most powerful tools of European integration. In her speech of acceptance of the 2004 Principe de Asturias Award for International Cooperation, the European Commissioner for Education and Culture, Viviane Reding, declared that “Erasmus enables them (students) to discover sometimes for the first time a different kind of citizenship founded on roots common to all Europeans, respecting historical, cultural and linguistic diversity. However, little research has been done so far on how this may alter students’ attitudes towards aspects of identity and feelings of European citizenship. In this paper we aim at investigating the impact of the Erasmus experience on students’ construction (or lack of) a European identity and citizenship. To do so, we need to start by first exploring some of the concepts that constitute the core of our study, namely ‘European citizenship and identity’ and its connection with ‘plurilingual competence’. 1.1. European Citizenship and identity Defining Europe and European identity is difficult and a matter of ongoing discussion, as it can be seen in the debate over the origins of Europe. While some argue that Europe’s foundations are based on Christian roots, others completely disagree with this and emphasize a secular vision of the continent. The European Union as a supranational entity is said to embody some of the values that many Europeans celebrate as their identifying traits, but if defining the traits that characterise the members of a single country is rather difficult, defining them for the European Union (EU) is next to impossible. This can be observed if we focus on the notion of citizenship. Both identity and citizenship are rather connected but at the same time differentiated concepts. Whereas identity relates to the individual and their positioning towards a culture or group of people, citizenship relates to formally established bonds linking an individual to a given national society, by means of establishing some kind of mutual allegiance that may involve feelings of 3 identity but emphasise the rights and obligations of citizens with regard to their respective national state. This may involve some degree of conflict with the notion of ‘European citizenship’ established by European institutions. The concept ‘Citizenship of the Union’ was established in article 8.1 of the Maastricht Treaty: “Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.” Article 8.2 declares that these citizens will enjoy rights and be subject to duties, although no duties are listed. In the Amsterdam Treaty one line was added to article 8.1 of the Maastricht Treaty: “Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.” This addition seems to suggest a certain fear from member-states that an expansion of the status of Union citizenship may be detrimental to national identities (Mancini, 1998: 32). The report of the results of Flash Eurobarometer 365 (European Commission, 2013) indicates that although 81% of the respondents claim they are familiar with the term “citizen of the European Union”, only 46% say they are both familiar with it and know what it means. People know the expressions “citizenship” and “European Union”, so most say they are familiar with the concept, but when it comes to telling what this actually means, less than half claim they could do that. Citizenship is about rights and duties, but it is also about feeling part of a given political entity. Shore (2004: 29) argues that 'citizenship' is “a socio-cultural category that necessarily includes both legal and political as well as subjective, emotional and cultural dimensions”. These different components are connected, since the benefits and rights derived from being a citizen (the legal and political component) make people identify with this entity (the emotional element). The question is, however, whether an entity like the European Union, with its complex and non-state structure can generate the kind of complicity generally achieved at the local and state levels; whether meaningful citizenship can be created beyond the state. Scholars like Weiler (1999) argue that in the case of the European Union, a decoupling of the above mentioned components of citizenship has taken place. The author (ibid.) claims that in the current globalized stage people can identify with different collectives (demoi) based on different factors of identification, and that all these identifications are compatible. One can be German and Catholic at the same time, so one can feel German and European just the same. Weiler (1998) presents two visions derived from the introduction of the European citizenship construct into the treaties: the 'unity' vision, where European citizenship would be a step towards further 4 integration and the demise of national states within it; and the 'community' or 'supranational' vision, where the national and supranational levels are decoupled, and because they appeal to different aspects of the human being (the national to the irrational, and the supranational to the rational), they can coexist. Contrary to this view, Shore (2004) claims that the legal and political component cannot be simply decoupled from the emotional component. Not only would this be “empirically untenable”; it would result in a “disembodied, legalistic, and a-cultural view of citizens that simply does not correspond to lived reality” (Shore, 2004: 29). The case of the USA is used as a counter-example. One might want to consider that citizens of the USA feel what Habermas (1992) called “constitutional patriotism”. However, love for the constitution is neither better nor worse than love for the nation, and in fact the same amount of irrational behaviour can be generated in both cases. In the USA, there appears to be an emotional component coupled with the legal and political component coupled with the legal and political component. Smith and Kim (2006) report how the US moved from being ranked second in the 1995 on national pride and patriotism carried out by the International Social Survey Program, to being ranked first in its second round, in 2003. In the EU, the legitimacy is in the local, in the regional/national, and in the state/national, but so far there are no elements to suggest it is also felt at the supra-national level. There have been efforts to create this European identification from the top, but the very way it is being created shows the great difficulties the process is encountering. Whereas locating the demos at the state/national level in the USA presents no doubts, one might wonder where the European demos is. Is it one demos or different ones, as mottoes like “unity in diversity” or “peoples of Europe” suggest? These problems are in fact also present at the state level, like in the case of Spain. A great number of Spanish citizens display a nationalist discourse following Billig’s (1995) idea of ‘banal nationalism’, and their feeling of allegiance to the Spanish nation is treated as simple patriotism rather than nationalism. However, in regions like Catalonia, where the data presented in this study were collected, the dominant discourse conceives Catalonia as a nation integrated in a pluri-national state. This clash of discourses is present in everyday life, in the way people construct their identities in interaction (Martin-Rubio, 2011) and constitutes a salient factor for Catalan university students, also when they go on an Erasmus stay. 5 1.2. Study abroad and European citizenship Since the launch of the first Erasmus programme in 1987, student mobility in Europe has increased significantly. The programme was named after the Dutch humanist and theologian Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466-1536), but also served as an acronym for European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students. In 1995, Erasmus became part of the broader Socrates programme, which incorporated not only student mobility but also teaching staff mobility and international cooperation among universities, thus placing more emphasis on collaboration in higher education. In 2007, the Lifelong Learning Programme replaced the Socrates/Erasmus as an integrated EU action project for education and training. The current Erasmus+ programme, which started in January 2014, brings together all the existing EU schemes for education, training, youth and sport. Nevertheless, student mobility still remains at the heart of the programme, making it the most popular student exchange scheme in Europe. One of the main objectives of this successful EU student mobility policy is to serve “the purpose of economic cooperation, since the Erasmus programme aims at the training of European-minded professionals” (Papatsiba, 2005: 175). Thus, sojourners are envisaged as a pool of future graduates with experience of living in other member states, that is, with a better knowledge of other countries' economic and social life. This will make them more prone to create supranational networks in their professional careers, in consonance with the single market requirements. In keeping with this, the European Commission also stresses this link between education and work on its Erasmus+ homepage by stating that this programme “will support transnational partnerships among Education, Training, and Youth institutions and organisations to foster cooperation and bridge the worlds of education and work in order to tackle the skills gaps we are facing in Europe” (European Commission, 2015). In addition, the fact that this programme is supported by a grant system strengthens the idea of investment in the European Higher Education Area with a view to promoting competitiveness, innovation and economic growth and cooperation among member states. Despite the prevalence of this professional and economic vision of student mobility, the notion of European citizenship is not neglected. Papatsiba (2005) observes the reinforcement of this notion in the European Commission’s White Paper on Education and Training: Towards the Learning Society, which emphasises that “education and training will increasingly become the 6 main vehicle for self-awareness, belonging, advancement and self-fulfilment” (European Commission, 1995: 2) and that “education lays the foundations of awareness and of European citizenship” (ibid: 10). Likewise, “with this increasing freedom of movement should come a growing European consciousness instilled through greater awareness of others as a result to exposure to new cultures and societies” (European Commission, 1996: 1). However, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that European identity may stem directly from mobility and exposure to other cultures. Scholars like Papatsiba (2006:109) argue that “without a specific systematic action to support intercultural learning, acquiring a feeling of belonging in an enlarged Europe, enriching national identities with the desired European dimension, seems to be a random outcome of individual experiential learning”. In line with this, Byram (2008) proposes a framework of education for intercultural citizenship in order to prepare younger generations for globalisation and help them acquire a sense of belonging to international communities, with ties to their country of origin. More specifically, regarding the European situation, he suggests that the policy for citizenship education is underdeveloped as the Council of Europe has not proposed any particular action that reveals concern with the promotion of citizenship education nor has articulated the concept of transnational civil society, both key aspects for the evolution of a European identity. Similarly, Davies (1997:105) points out to “a lack of consistency in the way the word citizenship is used and at times it is ignored altogether in favour of terms which seem to imply that a somehow neutral collection of data or movement of people for vocational purposes is all that is required”. Concerning students’ perceptions, Erasmus mobility is, in general, deemed a challenging experience providing many benefits. For example, it is widely accepted that a stay abroad results in personal development and improved capacities to adapt to a changing environment (Carlson & Widaman, 1988; Cash, 1993; King & Young, 1994; Kauffmann et al., 1992; Milstein, 2005). More specifically, with respect to students’ perception of citizenship, their participation in the programme seems to widen their feelings of belonging to Europe. However, this seldom constitutes an explicit awareness of European identity at the end of their stay abroad. As Papatsiba (2005: 184) concludes in her study on political and individual rationales on student mobility, the gains of cultural transmission and development of the European identity “seem to take a second place, welcomed as we can see, yet fragile”, which reveals that fostering student 7 mobility is not enough for the acquisition of a European citizenship. 1.3. From plurilingual competence to the development of European citizenship Language, similarly to geographical boundaries, is commonly considered to be one of the main resources that states have at their disposal to construct the identity of its citizenry and situate and delimit people living within their political boundaries. Linguistic homogenization of a citizenry is pursued not so much for communicative purposes but for the purpose of identification (Hobsbawm, 1990). Indeed, Billig (1995: 14) argues that those nations in which different linguistic groups co-exist are fragile and might break into pieces in periods of crisis. The assumption that there is a natural link between a language and its speakers is a fairly recent phenomenon (Blackledge, 2000). In Medieval Europe, boundaries were not constructed based on linguistic differences. In fact, linguistic homogenisation became possible thanks to the printing industry, since it enabled the mass circulation and spread of one variety of language. The language variety that triumphed over others usually coincided with that of the ruling elite of a nationalistic movement. Two extremely well-known cases are those of France (Billig, 1995) and Italy (Hobsbawm, 1990) whose current official national languages were only known to a small elite when they gained their current status. These examples reflect that in the construction of a nation, having a common language has little to do with allowing communication but is instead related with issues of power (Hobsbawm, 1990). Gramsci (1971) proposed that the control of the state could not endure without the agreement of the subordinated groups. Such an agreement is achieved through ideological persuasion, which often consists of a process of linguistic normalisation, after which people become convinced that the domination of one variety over others is the natural state of things. For this reason, multilingualism is often perceived as a threat to national unity. And yet, despite the attempts of governments to maintain linguistic homogeneity within its boundaries, multilingualism represents the distinguishing feature of an increasing number of globalised, hybrid and multicultural societies, like the European. The states that make up the EU have traditionally constructed their national identity on the basis of monolingualism, which raises questions about what counts as a language in Europe and who has the power to make that decision. The case of Europe is interesting because, even if in general terms some may claim that there is a 8 shared set of beliefs, values, behaviour, history or geography, plus a common flag and a shared anthem, it is “obviously not possible to create a language comparable to a national language to symbolise the European identity or embody the shared beliefs and values in the way that a national language does” (Byram, 2008: 140). For this reason, Byram excludes the possibility of European identity being constructed analogously to national identity. The acquisition of a European identity is based on the acquisition of plurilingual competence, a fact that may alter the taken-for-granted reality of nation building. Byram (2008) holds that linguistic diversity appears in the language education policy of the Council of Europe (2006) as one of the sine qua non conditions for the success of particular aspects of social policy, such as the exercise of democracy and social inclusion, accessing economic and employment opportunities, or the evolution of a European identity. Similarly, Beacco and Byram (2007: 9) argue that, since Europe is a multilingual territory (as a whole and in every part), the sense of belonging to Europe and the acceptance of a European identity depends on the ability to interact and communicate with other Europeans using the full range of one’s linguistic repertoire. In this light, individuals are encouraged to become plurilingual or, in other words, to acquire linguistic competence in different languages at different stages and experience in different cultures (Council of Europe, 2001: 168). In this regard, Beacco (2005: 20; as cited in Byram, 2008) suggests that cultural and linguistic tolerance and respect needs to be instructed in order to develop “pluricultural and plurilingual capability” because even if plurilingualism may become a factor of people’s everyday life, they need to become aware of their own linguistic diversity and value it. The sense of belonging to a national group is acquired and maintained in social interaction through language (Byram, 2008: 138). This fact emphasizes that language is not just a symbol of national identity but also embodies it. Byram (2008) discusses the implications of this for the construction of European identity and makes three points. Firstly, individuals may have many social identities and different degrees of attachment to them, such as in the cases of Andalusia and Catalonia in Spain, or Scotland in Great Britain. In the case of European identity, Byram holds that it may not appear to compete with national identity but it is an additional identity, comparable to the notion of ‘Asian identity’ that emerges in South and East Asia as a counterbalance to ‘Westernization’. In second place, only in cases where people may adopt two social 9 identities of the same nature, tensions may arise because the values and beliefs associated with those groups may seem incompatible. This would be the case of an individual who claims to have two national identities, especially if these two identities appear to be in conflict. Finally, Byram’s third point is that for the construction of European identity, as well as for the construction of national identities in general, schools can represent a valuable tool. Therefore, the introduction of a European dimension into the curricula of schools across Europe would set off this process. One way of introducing the European dimension is by fostering multilingualism in schools. 2. Data and methodology The research discussed here is part of a larger project investigating the impact of Catalan university students’ international mobility experiences within Europe on their English skills, intercultural competence and on their assumption of an enhanced European identity and awareness of the concept of European citizenship. In this particular study, we aimed to focus on the latter aspect and thus explored, through a survey and focus group discussions, students’ engagement with the notions of European identity and citizenship. In recent years, research in the context of internationalization of higher education has already examined the language attitudes of students, teaching and administrative staff in the context of Catalonia (see, for instance, Garrett and Gallego-Balsà, 2014; Lasagabaster et al. 2013; Llurda et al., 2013, 2014). However, none of them has yet explored the evolution of these attitudes or how the notion of European identity evolves after a stay abroad. 2.1. Survey data The survey data was obtained from a group of 46 Erasmus students from the Universitat de Lleida (henceforth, UdL) who participated in the Erasmus European student mobility programme during the academic year 2013-2014. Students were enrolled in different academic programmes, including humanities, social sciences, medicine and nursing, and engineering. The questionnaire was developed after reading the literature on aspects of citizenship and European identity. It mainly consisted of a set of Likert-scale questions reflecting some of the ideas found in the literature relating to European citizenship and identity. The questionnaire was drafted and then piloted for clarity among a group of six people before being implemented. 16 ST7 no\ In extract 3 the presence of a local language in a foreign land does not appear as an obstacle for students to work abroad. The stay in Denmark appears to have contributed to their empowerment (line 4), making the intrinsic interest in a potential job more important than the fact that it may be necessary to learn the local language (line 7). ELL, one of the researchers, pushes the students a bit further by asking them whether they would be scared about encountering a language, e.g. Lithuanian (line 9-10), with even fewer speakers than Danish. Faced with this question, ST6 and ST7, categorically deny so (lines 11-13). ST6 adds that if people in the foreign country can communicate in English, then, it would not be a problem to move abroad, which highlights a sense of empowerment after having lived in a context where English works as a lingua franca. Next, faced with this reply, SMA, another researcher, insists on whether, after their stay, the students consider that English is enough to move around Europe (extract 4), to which a student responds that not knowing the local language may be a source of trouble. Extract 4. English is not enough (Post-Denmark) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SMA abans de marxar us vam fer una pregunta que era que no necessiteu cap altra llengua per voltar per Europa\ amb l’anglès en tinc més que suficient\ (…) ST4 bueno però depèn d’on vagis\ hi han països que potser no saben anglès la la majoria de gent SMA o sigui que l’anglès no és suficient per voltar per Europa\ ST6 una amiga meva a Lituània va estar before leaving we asked you a question which was that you didn’t need any other language to move around Europe\ with English it is more than enough\ (...) well but it depends where you go\ there are countries where maybe most people do not know English so English is not enough to move around Europe\ a friend of mine lived in Lithuania 17 10 11 vivint tres mesos i tenia anglès bastant bo i va dir que allí ningú parlava anglès\ ningú\ i que per comunicar-se ho va passar fatal\ for three months and her English was pretty good and she said that there no one spoke English\ no one\ and she struggled to communicate Similarly to the focus group session before the students’ stay in Denmark, there is a prevailing vision of Europe as a linguistically heterogeneous territory also as regards the knowledge of English as a foreign language (lines 6-8). The researcher, SMA, pushes the students to position themselves towards whether English is enough to move around Europe or not (lines 9-10) to what ST6, who previously stated that she is not scared of moving abroad without knowing the local language (extract 3), supports her argument that English is not enough in Europe by using a personal anecdote (lines 11-15). The preservation of a linguistically heterogeneous view of Europe together with the lack of fear of encountering local languages abroad reinforces the idea that the stay in Denmark may have provided students with a sense of empowerment to move abroad through English but also stresses the need to learn local languages. This sensitivity towards local languages, which is shared by the three groups of students, might be greatly influenced by the fact that they all come from a Catalan-speaking background and they are particularly aware of the need to use and protect languages with lesser international value. The students who carried out their stay in Italy express similar views towards the role of English as a means to communicate around Europe. However, compared to the other two groups of students (UK and Denmark), knowing only English is presented as a personal limitation, thus emphasizing the importance of learning the local language, i.e. Italian. Furthermore, we can observe a critical stance towards the ‘obligatory nature’ of English today. Extract 5. One language is never enough (pre-Italy) 1 2 ST8 no t’estanquis només en l’anglès perquè potser ara potser està ehm suficient entre cometes però d’aquí do not stagnate only in English because it may be ehm\ 18 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 un temps no bueno (...) SMA no creus que la majoria saben anglès ara/ ST9 perquè és lo que volen inculcar\ (0.5) com que manen els de dalt i volen ficar això (...) ST10 jo crec que no ens hem de tancar sols en en parlar l'anglès\ sí que l'anglès et pot ajudar (0.3) a que si estàs en algun lloc i no saps ben bé com dir a que si no saps ben bé parlar aquell idioma que et puguis defensar en anglès i que t’entenguin\ o sinó doncs mira a gestos\(0.4) enough now so to speak but not in the future (...) don’t you think the majority of people knows English now/ this is what they want to inculcate\ (0.5) as the people in charge want to establish this (...) I think we shouldn’t limit ourselves to speaking English\ English can be useful (0.3) for instance if you are in a place and you don’t know how to speak that language you can defend yourself in English so they can understand you\ otherwise you can use gesture\ (0.4) Speaking English as the only foreign language emerges as a personal limitation because the relevance of English may be transitory (lines 1-4). This could be interpreted as a way in which the students, who may expect learning Italian while abroad, emphasize the need to speak languages other than English and legitimate their own linguistic repertoires. Furthermore, a disaffiliation with the dominant role of English emerges in the interaction (lines 8-10). ST9 adopts a critical stance and states that the majority of people speak English as a result of the topdown policies that “the people in charge” (line 9) are trying to implement. 3.2 Conflicting categories: Europe vs. comfort languages One of the items in the questionnaire that students had to rank from 1 to 5 (according to how 19 much they agreed or disagreed to it) was: “In the future, I would like to work in another European country”. While this does not specifically address the European identity construct, it clearly shows how present the idea of moving to a different country is in the students’ minds, thus signalling the size of the mental barrier that may or may not prevent them from considering a job opportunity in a European country, different from their own. The mean result of this item was rather high before the mobility experience (PRE-Q: x = 4.27) and clearly lower in the after condition (POST-Q: x = 3.93). The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test showed that the results were significantly different (p < .05). What is more striking, though, is the fact that the variation is in the negative direction, that is students appear to be less willing to work in another European country after having spent some months abroad. It is as though instead of promoting European integration and a higher sense of proximity, the mobility experience had slightly promoted a vision of distance and separation. And yet, this must be contrasted with the outcome of another section in which students were asked to indicate (also from 1 to 5) how willing they would be to move to a list of different settings for work (see Table 2). The results point to a clear preference for some places over others. For instance, it is striking to observe how the most favoured option is an English-speaking country within Europe closely followed by Catalonia, Northern/Central Europe and North America. Other countries that in principle seem to be culturally closer to the students receive lower scores. Such is the case of Spain (not counting Catalonia) and European countries where the official languages are a Romance languages. Finally Latin American countries clearly trail behind the rest as potential places to work. Overall, this question seems to point to English as an important element in deciding how likely it is for somebody to consider working outside their hometown. Table 2: Rate From 1 to 5 what places you would be willing to go to work and live in the future PRE-Q POST-Q out of my city but within Catalonia 3.87 4.22 out of Catalonia but within Spain 3.52 3.85 20 to any Roman-language-speaking European country 3.59 3.96 to any English-speaking European country 4.20 4.24 to any Northern or Central European country 3.91 4.09 to Latin America 2.70 2.96 to the USA and Canada 4.00 3.89 to Asia 2.60 2.65 I’ve never considered the possibility of living abroad 1.48 1.48 When we look at this issue in the focus group sessions, we find that students moving to the UK and Denmark show no explicit preference for EU-countries despite the different attempts by researchers to elicit that kind of response through references to the practical advantages of belonging to the EU. The presence of English in the host country emerges as a determining factor regardless of whether such country is within the EU or not. When students show a preference to move within Europe, it is either because there is less red-tape required in the process of moving abroad, or because European countries are perceived as being safer than places in South-America, for instance. Extract 6 is a clear example of the role of English and safety in the selection process. Extract 6. English and personal safety (pre-Denmark) 1 2 JMC al vostre passaport no només hi diu Espanya sinó que hi diu Unió Europea/ això a vosaltres us fa sentir especialment in you passport it doesn’t only say Spain but also European Union/ does it make 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 tranquils no/ e mira ara estic molt bé en un àmbit de una certa unitat política (…) ST6 jo ni m’ho plantejo\ vull dir no sé\ JMC perquè anar fora de la Unió Europea hi haurieu anat igual/ si no aneu a Dinamarca i diu parlen anglès a Lituània és de la Unió Europea\ (…) si parlessin anglès allà/ ELL us haguéssiu anat a qualsevol país del món ST11 sí\ ST5 sí\ ST11 bueno bueno tampoc tots ST6 mentre parlin anglès sí\ ALL [laughs] ST6 si hi hagués l'anglès sí\ ELL si hi hagués l'anglès sí\ a qualsevol no/ ST11 jo voldria anar al Japó\ (…) no tinc cap problema\ hi ha altres països que tinc més reticència\ SMA per exemple/ ST11 Sud-Amèrica Àsia\ ELL mhm\ you feel specially at ease/ like saying look I am fine in an area of a certain political unity (...) I don’t give it any thought\ I mean outside the European Union would you have gone anyway/ if you don’t go to Denmark they speak English in Lithuania it’s in the European Union\ (...) if they spoke English there/ would you have gone to any country in the world yes\ yes\ well well not any as long as English is spoken there yes\ [laughs] if there is English yes\ if there is English yes\ but not to any/ I’d like to go to Japan\ (…) I have no problem\ there are other countries where I’d be more reluctant to go\ such as/ South-America Asia\ mhm\ if there was English I’d go no doubt\ for me Mexico Mexico scares me quite a lot\ this is a different thing\ right/ 22 25 ST12 parlés en inglès jo hi aniria de patac\ ST11 jo Mèxic Mèxic me fa bastanta por\ però això ja són altres coses\ no/ In extract 6, JMC, one of the researchers, reminds students that their passports include the words ‘European Union’ or that the EU is an area of a certain political unity (lines 1-6). ST6 is the only student to react to this question saying that she has not paid much attention to it (line 7). Faced with this, JMC and ELL reformulate the question and ask whether the students would move to European countries where English is not widely spoken, as Lithuania, or any country in the world (lines 8-13). In the next turns, the students reply that they would move to countries where English is spoken, but whether these countries are within Europe does not really matter. Together with the presence of English, personal safety is mentioned as another important matter of concern (lines 19-29). However, in the pre-Italy and post-Italy groups, the presence of English is not a prominent feature in determining a future place to live. The typological similarity between languages appears as a factor that conditions the sense of proximity between cultures and, therefore, influences the availability that the students manifest to move abroad. Similarly to the previous focus group sessions the geographical distance or the fact of moving inside or outside the European Union appears mostly in the background. Yet, in the following extract, student ST13 states that she would not live in Germany, because of the difficulty of learning the language rather than the cultural distance, whileST14 emphasizes cultural distance as a reason for not choosing Germany as a likely destination. Extract 7. You can adapt to the people but not to the language (post-Italy) 1 2 3 4 ELL si haguessis de dir\ ostres ara mira m’he de buscar la vida\ he de buscar feina fora tu dieu osti podeu anar a qualsevol lloc\ però ara ui segons on quines persones són vull dir faríeu distincions/ o no/ if you had to say\ well now I had to find a living\ find a living abroad would you say we can go to any place \ but now well depending on the people you would make distinctions/ or not/ 23 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ST13 mhm\ home ja saps que (…) són diferents\ però hi pots anar igual\ ELL bueno\ sí\ vull dir que us buscaríeu ST14 igual jo a Alemanya no ho triaria perquè no m’agrada gaire com són\ ST13 jo potser més per l’idioma\ que és més complicat\ (…) ST15 per la gent t’adaptes\ és més l’idioma\ ST13 clar\ mhm\ well you already know that (…) they are different but you can still go\ well\ yes\ I mean that you would find a I wouldn’t choose Germany because I don’t really like how they are I wouldn’t go there rather for the language\ which is more complicated\ (…) you adapt to the people\ it’s rather the language sure In this extract both students agree on rejecting a country like Germany, which works as an example of a country that the students perceive as culturally and linguistically distant. We cannot determine which factor is more important, either language or culture, but we could interpret that these students, who had chosen Italy for their Erasmus, express a higher reluctance to moving beyond their comfort zone. 3.3. European allegiance This section explores the ambivalence in the discourses associated to European identity and citizenship. Whereas sometimes a shared cultural identity is emphasized, on other occasions it is the practical benefits of being a European citizen that constitute the keystone of Europeanness. Another point of analysis is the students’ affiliation to Europe in relation to other Western countries and national identities. The questionnaire included four items that directly enquired about students’ own identity in connection to each of the following categories: Catalan, Spanish, European, and global- 24 cosmopolitan. No significant differences were found between the two moments of measurement, but clear differences that deserve comment were found among the four categories suggested. Thus, the average response to whether they considered their identity to be fully Catalan was around 3.5 on both occasions, whereas the support for the idea of a “fully Spanish identity” was 2.4. Interestingly, when they were asked about ‘European identity’, the support was between Catalan and Spanish (x = 3.24 before and x = 3.07 after the stay) and “global and cosmopolitan identity” received about the same support as “Catalan identity” (around 3.5). This suggests a clear stigmatization of Spanish identity among Catalan university students, an aspect that may be related to the current political climate of distrust and lack of understanding between Catalonia and the rest of Spain at the political level. Apart from the above set of four questions, a group of 9 items were identified in the questionnaire as dealing with aspects of European identity. No significant differences between the results before and after the study abroad experience were detected. The Wilcoxon SignedRank test was used for the comparison with negative results in all cases. Yet, an analysis of the mean results obtained in the different Likert-scale items of the questionnaire at the two times in which it was taken (before and after the mobility experience) reveals a higher agreement to some items than to others. Table 3 shows the items that deserve attention for the remarkably low ratings given by students both before and after the experience of mobility, whereas no item yielded a mean score of above 4. We have arbitrarily established 4 (in a scale of 1 to 5) as the threshold for determining high results, whereas the boundary for identifying a low result has been set at 2.5. The most obvious finding here is the lack of very high results, thus suggesting a general lack of enthusiasm for aspects related to European identification. Table 3: Variation in European allegiance Item PRE-Q POST-Q p < .05 4 - I think it would be good to get back to establishing controls at the borders between the different UE countries 1.70 1.63 14 - The European project will eventually fail 2.41 2.74 * 25 A final set of items dealing with European identity asked students to rate different elements according to whether they could be considered characteristic of European identity (Table 4). Here, it is not surprising to see the importance attached to the mobility factor, which increases significantly after the Erasmus experience. The other factor that also shows significant variation is ‘democratic values’, which brings to mind the idea that the Erasmus mobility has made students more aware of the deep identification of Europe with such values. Table 4: Rate the extent to which these aspects characterise European identity: Before After p < .05 Mobility 4.13 4.49 * Democratic values 3.54 3.96 * Social welfare 3.67 3.78 Cultural level 3.78 4.02 Economic power 3.35 3.54 Multilingualism 4.07 4.15 In the analysis of the focus group sessions, two main themes have been detected: first, the difficulty in differentiating European identity from the broader category of Western identity; second, the clash between a European identity and a traditional national identity. a. European vs. Western identity Across the three focus group sessions, feelings of cultural proximity and a shared identity among Europeans emerge, particularly in opposition to Asian cultures. The students point to communicative and cultural differences to justify these affinities and dissimilarities. One example of this can be found in extract 8, from the UK pre-stay focus group. Extract 8. European vis-à-vis Asian and identities (pre-UK) 32 would also contribute to our understanding of the Erasmus experience. Overall, the current study has brought us a better understanding of how students construct their own identity with regard to the notion of Europe and their sense of having a European citizenship. The interplay between the benefit of having a shared language (i.e., English) and the need to be able to communicate in the relevant language/s in each community appears to be something students grasp during their stay abroad. However, as indicated in previous studies, it appears thatmore carefully planned preparation would enhance the beneficial effects of the experience. Home institutions should more seriously think about implementing preparatory programmes prior to the students’ departure, rather than leaving the impact of the experience to the simple encountering of random experiences by students. Acknowledgements: The research on which this article is based was supported by: (1) research grant FFI2012-35834, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO), Interculturalidad, ciudadanía europea e ingleś como lingua franca: entre las políticas y las prácticas en los programas de movilidad internacional universitaria, January 2013-June 2016, and (2) the Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca de la Generaliat de Catalunya (2014SGR 1061). We are most grateful to Josep M. Cots and Sònia Mas for their invaluable contribution in the data gathering, Vasilica Mocanu for their help in the elaboration of the questionnaire, the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and David Block for the editorial support. Any shortcomings are exclusively our own responsibility. References Beacco, J. and Byram, M. (2007) Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe (main version). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved 25th May 2015 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Guide_niveau3_en.asp Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism, London: Sage. Blackledge, A. (2000) Monolingual ideologies in multilingual states: Language, hegemony and social justice in Western liberal democracies. Sociolinguistic Studies, 1(2), 25–45. Bliesener, U. (2003) European language policy – Frustration and hope: A personal view of the 33 state of affairs. In R. Ahrens (ed.) Europäische Sprachenpolitik. European Language Policy. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, pp. 75-98. Block, D. (2015) ‘Researching language and identity’. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (eds). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2nd edition. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 527-540. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, London, & New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Byram, M. (2008) From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship. Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Carlson, J. and Widaman, K. (1988) The effects of study abroad during college on attitudes toward other cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 1-17. Cash, R.W. (1993). Assessment of study abroad programs using surveys of student participants. In Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research Chicago, Illinois (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Nº ED 360 925) Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved April 24, 2014 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf --. (2006) Plurilingual education in Europe: Fifty years of international cooperation. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved May 25, 2015 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/PlurinlingalEducation_En.pdf Davies, I. (1997) Education for European citizenship: A review of some relevant documentation. In I. Davies and A. Sobisch (eds) Developing European Citizens. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Press. European Commission (1995) White Paper on Education and Training. Towards the Learning Society (retrieved April 2015 from http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf) --. (1996) The obstacles to transnational mobility. Green paper (Retrieved April 2015 from 34 http://aei.pitt.edu/1226/1/education_mobility_obstacles_gp_COM_96_462.pdf) --. (2013) European Union Citizenship, Flash Eurobarometer, 365. --. (2015) Erasmus+ homepage (Retrieved April 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/discover/index_en.htm) Garrett, P. & Gallego-Balsà, L. (2014) International Universities and Implications of Internationalisation for Minority Languages: Views from University Students in Catalonia and Wales. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 361375, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.874434. Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers. Retrieved from http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/gems/kaufmancynthia/gramsci.pdf Habermas, J. (1992) Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe, Praxis International, 12 (1), 1-19. Hobsbawm, E. J. (1990) Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kauffmann, N.L., Martin, J.N., Weaver, H.D. & Weaver, J. (1992). Students abroad: Strangers at home, education for a global society. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Kalocsai, K. (2014) Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca. A study of Erasmus Students in a Central European Context. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. King, L. and Young, J. (1994) Study abroad: Education for the 21st century. Unterichtspraxis, 27, 77-87. Lasagabaster, D., Cots, J.M. & Mancho-Barés, G. (2013) Teaching Staff’s views about the internationalization of Higher Education: The Case of Two Bilingual Communities in Spain. Multilingua, 32(6), 751-778. Lever, P. (2003) The future of Europe: Will we all speak English? In R. Ahrens (ed.) Europäische Sprachenpolitik. European Language Policy. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, pp. 101-112. 35 Llurda, E., Cots, J.M, & Armengol, L. (2013) Expanding Language Borders in a Bilingual Institution Aiming at Trilingualism. In: H. Haberland, D. Lonsman and B. Preisler (eds.). Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounter in International Terciary Education (pp. 203-222). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. --. (2014) Views on multilingualism and internationalisation in higher education: administrative staff in the spotlight, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35:4, 376391, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.874435. Mancini, G.F. (1998) Europe: The Case for Statehood, European Law Journal, 4 (1), 29-42. Martin-Rubió, X. (2011) Identity Construction in 2 Bilingual Communities: clashing nationalist discourses. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag. Milstein, T (2005) Transformation abroad: Sojourning and the perceived enhancement of selfefficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 217-238. Papatsiba, V. (2005) Political and individual rationales of student mobility. A case-study of ERASMUS and a French regional scheme for studies abroad. European Journal of Education, 40 (2), pp 173-188. --. (2006) Study Abroad and Experiences of Cultural Distance and Proximity: French Erasmus students. In M. Byram and A. Feng (eds) Living and Studying Abroad (pp 108-133). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Shore, C. (2004) Whither European Citizenship? Eros and Civilization Revisited, European Journal of Social Theory, 7 (1), 27-44. Smith, T.W., and Kim, S. (2006) National Pride in Comparative Perspective: 1995/96 and 2003/04, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18 (1), 127 – 136. Vlaeminck, S. (2003) A European strategy for linguistic diversity and language learning. In R. Ahrens (ed.) Europäische Sprachenpolitik. European Language Policy. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, pp. 33-43. Weiler, J.H.H. (1999) The Constitution of Europe: ‘Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?’ and Other Essays on European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 36 Wood, L. A. and Kroger. R. (2000) Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. SAGE Publications. Annex 1: Data description Pre-Denmark: Focus group session before the stay in Denmark Post-Denmark: Focus group session after the stay in Denmark Pre-UK: Focus group session before the stay in the United Kingdom PostUK: Focus group session after the stay in the United Kingdom Pre-Italy: Focus group session before the stay in Italy Post-Italy: Focus group session after the stay in Italy Annex 2: Transcription conventions rising intonation / falling intonation \ pause of 0.5 seconds (0.5) text missing (…) paralinguistic information [text]