Annex VI: Survey results - regional data
| Author | European Education and Culture Executive Agency (European Commission) |
| Pages | 60-95 |
60 INTRAACP ACADEMIC MOBILITY SCHEME SCHOLARSHIP HOLDERS’ IMPACT SURVEY RESULTS
Annex VI: Survey results - regional data
A. Overall Evaluation of Mobility - Africa
Type of activities during mobility
The students and sta from Lot 1 – Africa who participated in the survey have engaged in a number of
dierent activities during the term of their mobility. Unsurprisingly, the activities in question vary per type
of mobility.
The Master students spent most of their mobility period following relevant courses (86%) as well as
conducting research (80). They have also had an opportunity to participate in scientic events during
their exchange (78%).
Research and production of publications were the primary activities for Doctoral level students in the course
of their mobility. The majority of them have dedicated either all or most of their time to the two activities.
In addition, 62% of the Doctoral students spent at least some time disseminating good practices. Most
respondents have also contributed to establishment of contacts and/or cooperation between research
units to a varying degree with 21% spending most of their time on this activity.
Academic and the Administrative sta mostly focused on implementing project-related activities.
Overall satisfaction with the mobility experience
The vast majority of survey participants across all mobility proles/categories were satised with the
services and support provided by the host universities.
The academic and work guidance received from host institutions is highly rated by the scholarship holders
from across the board with 92 of Master students, 85 of PhD students, 86 Academic sta, and 82
of Administrative sta considering the support useful. The logistical and administrative assistance during
the dierent stages of mobility is also very well perceived by the respondents from all types of mobility.
However, the survey results indicate that there is a room for improvement when it comes to collecting
feedback from the scholarship beneciaries and addressing their feedback to improve mobility experience.
35 of the PhD respondents do not consider that their feedback was requested on a regular basis while
37 of Master students, 40 of Academic and 21 of Administrative sta also share this concern. In
addition, a fair number of Master (38) and Doctoral (43) students consider that their feedback was
not taken into account to improve their mobility experience. The sta who participated in mobility ows
had a more positive outlook on how their feedback was handled in relation to their mobility experience as
59 of Academic and 58 of Administrative sta believe that their input was adequately considered.
Impact on scholarship holders
The positive eects of the Programme on the scholarship holders are wide ranging. In terms of career
development, the majority of respondents across all groups agree that their scholarship has contributed
to their career development. Recognition among peers and superiors was another prominent advantage
whereby 87 of PhD students, 77 of Academic sta, and 63 of Administrative sta report positive
impact in this area.
In addition, a large share of respondents describe an increase in responsibilities following their participation
in the Programme with the Doctoral students benetting the most in this regard (76). Better access to
training opportunities was also a signicant advantage of the Programme across all mobility types.
ANNEXES
61
INTRAACP ACADEMIC MOBILITY SCHEME SCHOLARSHIP HOLDERS’ IMPACT SURVEY RESULTS
TITLE
Compared to other types of mobility, the PhD students were the group that beneted from salary increase
the most (38) while only 3 of the respondents from the Administrative sta felt that the exchange led
to an increase in their remuneration.
Impact on home institutions
It is evident that the nature of the impact on the home institutions from the respondents’ viewpoint
varies per category of the scholarship holders. The data also suggests that the Programme has generated
multifaceted favourable eects for the sending institutions.
From the perspective of the PhD survey participants, their participation in the Programme had a positive
impact on their home institutions in several ways. 79 of PhD respondents consider that the scientic/
academic capacities in their universities were bolstered as a result of the mobility. A large share of
the Academic sta (74) also strongly believe that the academic capacity of their universities was
strengthened. The two groups of respondents also strongly agree that their mobility had a positive eect
on the research capacity (83 PhD; 74 Academic sta) and the fostering of research innovation.
The Administrative sta who took part in the survey also report a number of benets on their home
institutions thanks to their exchange. The greatest number of respondents (80%) agree that their mobility
has contributed to the development of the university administrative and management capacities.
Scholarship holders from across the board consider that the mobility ows reinforced the visibility and
attractiveness of the home institutions.
Some recognition-specic impact of the Programme have also emerged. 34 of Academic sta say that
the mobility ows had positive eects on the mobility recognition procedures at their home institutions,
while 42 of Administrative sta believe that the coordination between departments and university
authorities on recognition has improved.
Impact on host institutions
The mobility ows have also undeniably aected the host institutions in a number of positive ways. The
results of the survey indicate that the perceived impact on host institutions is comparable to the impact
on the home universities.
Overall, the PhD level survey participants consider that the host universities mostly benetted from
strengthening of academic, scientic, and research capacities, as well as from fostering research
innovation. However, the results indicate that a higher number of respondents believe that the home
universities benetted more in the aforementioned areas compared to the host universities. The Academic
sta believe that the home institutions had a greater impact as a result of the mobility ows as opposed
to the host institutions in every category of the survey.
Concerning the views of the Administrative sta, as in the case of home institutions, the majority of
respondents (75) believe that the administrative and management capacities of the host universities
had increased thanks to the Programme. Another notable benet of the Programme is bolstered visibility
and attractiveness of the host institutions.
In terms of the impact on recognition, the results of the survey are similar to those for the home universities.
Although only a moderate number of the respondents consider that the Programme engendered positive
developments on the mobility recognition procedures, the largest number of Academic sta believed that
the recognition procedures are the most aected (32), while the Administrative sta (35) view the
coordination between departments and university authorities on recognition as the most impacted area.
ANNEXES
62 INTRAACP ACADEMIC MOBILITY SCHEME SCHOLARSHIP HOLDERS’ IMPACT SURVEY RESULTS
Type of scholarship: Master
56%
41%
4%
8%
2%
30%
40%
13%
20%
5%
9%
14%
34%
24%
19%
2%
3%
28%
17%
17%
3%
2%
22%
31%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Following courses/training
Research
Paripang in scienc conferences/ events
Wring academic papers
Volunteering
All the me Most of the me Some me Lile me I did not undertake this acvity
53%
41%
43%
46%
35%
37%
31%
20%
14%
39%
46%
44%
45%
46%
45%
47%
39%
33%
6%
8%
9%
7%
11%
11%
15%
24%
23%
2%
4%
4%
2%
7%
6%
6%
13%
15%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
3%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I received adequate and useful academic/work/research
guidance and mentoring (for instance from my academic
supervisor advisors, peers, researchers, host instuon)
My host university had adequate academic/work/research
structures to receive me/support me
I was sased with the quality of the acvies that I
pursued at the host university (for instance studies, training,
research)
The acvies that I followed matched my
learning/work/research plan or my previous experience
I received adequate and useful preparatory
logisal/administrave support to organise my mobility
from the host university/coordinator before my mobility
period
My host university had adequate logisal/administrave
structures to receive me/support me (for instance
Internaonal relaons oce or contact person)
I was sased with the logiscal/administrave support I
received
My host university asked me to provide regular feedback on
my mobility experience/content
My feedback was taken into account to improve my
mobility experience/content
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree I do not know
Figure 50 - Please specify which amount of your time you allocated to the following activities during your
mobility (n=446)
Figure 51 - Please rate the following statements in relation to your mobility period (n=446)
ANNEXES
To continue reading
Request your trial