1

33rd Annual EAIR Forum 2011

Warsaw, Poland 28 – 31 August 2011 Organised under honorary auspices of the Minister of Science and Higher Education

Bridging cultures,

promoting diversity:

higher education in search of an equilibrium

2

Campus

Legend to SGH Campus Map: 1. Building "G" (main building) - al. Niepodległości 162 2. Building "A" (CPM & CEMS Office site) - ul. Rakowiecka 24 10. "Park" students' club - al. Niepodległości 196 11. Building "C" - al. Niepodległości 128 A – Bus stop T – Tram stop M – Metro station “Pole Mokotowskie” entrance In Building C: Classrooms 1A, 1B are located on the first floor. Classrooms 2A, 2B are located on the second floor. Classrooms 3A, 3B, 3C are located on the third floor. Classrooms 4A, 4B, 4D are located on the fourth floor.

3

WELCOME TO WARSAW The 2011 EAIR Forum will discuss new trends and challenges faced by higher education in a changing, dynamic, multi-cultural environment undergoing simultaneous processes of globalisa-tion, internationalisation and diversification. This "equilibrium" theme together with suitably designed tracks promises high-level academic discussion by HE prominent specialists and with internationally renowned keynote speakers. We are very hon-oured that the 2011 EAIR Forum is organised under honorary auspices of the Minister of Science and Higher Education. Poland, where more than fifty percent of young people are studying and where the HE system has been undergoing con-tinuous reforms for the last twenty years, is an appropriate place for such a discussion. It's not by chance that the Forum theme was chosen: Bridging cultures, promoting diversity: higher education in search of an equilibrium. We might doubt whether we will ever find this equilibrium; but we are sure that with the help of many Forum participants from all over the world we will build many bridges, learn about many cultures, improve our respect for diversity and return home with the feeling: "another EAIR Forum where we met interesting peo-ple in the domains of research, policy and practice - it has been value for money". And why Warsaw? There are several good reasons to come here and join us - not just for the Forum. Warsaw School of Economics is the oldest Economics school in Poland and one of the best universities for its subject in Central Europe. We can guarantee a friendly at-mosphere as well as legendary Polish hospitality; the late Polish summer will afford a mild warm climate; and, of course, Warsaw itself boasts a dramatic history and a lively cultural life. Warsaw is the city of Frederic Chopin's music: in fact he was born in a small village sixty kilometres away from Warsaw. You can discover interesting and beautiful places as well as Polish cuisine bridging Eastern and Western European traditions. We will be happy to receive you in Warsaw for this important 2011 Forum, and will provide you with many attractive events - both academic and social - as well as the intellectual pleasure of

engaging with higher education issues. And - as we already learned during the work in the Programme Committee - with a good sense of humour. Therefore, we found a kind of sub-title very appropriate for the Forum at Warsaw School of Economics: a Forum with a smile. Come smile with us!

Janina Józwiak, Forum Chair

Jakub Brdulak, Forum Co-Chair

4

CONTENTS Welcome to Warsaw 3 Your Forum Hosts EAIR 5 Warsaw School of Economics 5 Practical Forum Information Forum Venue 6 Student Help 6 Locations of Key Events 6 Timetable 7 Forum Information and Registration Desk 8 EAIR Forum Office 8 Name Badges 8 Lunches, Coffee and Tea Breaks 9 Message Boards 9 Exhibitors 9 Computer Facilities 9 Other Facilities 9 Language of the Forum 9 Social Events Welcome Reception 10 EAIR Newcomers’ Welcome Lunch 10 Forum Social Dinner 10 Forum Banquet 11 Academic Forum Programme Pre-Forum Activities 12 Welcome and Opening Plenary 13 Daily Plenary Keynote Address 14, 15 Concluding Plenary 16 EAIR Best Paper Award and EAIR Best Poster Award 16 Parallel Sessions 16 Tracks Tracks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and Poster Presentations 17 - 55

Practical Local Information Poland 56 Warsaw 56 Language 56 Currency 56 Banks 56 Telephone 56 Shopping Hours 56 Tipping 56 Electricity 56 Polish Time 56 Transport 56 Accommodation 57 Liability 57 EAIR Information EAIR Annual General Meeting 58 Forum Website 58 EAIR Information 58 EAIR Committees 58, 59 EAIR 34th Annual Forum Stavanger, Norway 59 Index of Track Chairs, Keynotes and (Co-) Authors 60, 61

5

FORUM HOSTS

EAIR - The European Higher Education Society became an independent membership organisation in 1989. Over the years it has expanded considerably and currently has nearly 500 members from 50 differ-ent countries all over the world including Africa, South America, Asia and Australasia. EAIR is a unique association for professionals in the area of higher education management and for academics researching that area. These professionals and academics are working in universities, polytechnics and other higher education institutions, primarily but not exclusively in Europe, both in university administration and in academic departments with particular research interests in management issues. EAIR is also of relevance to policy makers in government ministries and policy units.

EAIR holds its annual forum in August or September and organises seminars on specific topics that are of current interest. EAIR publishes a journal Tertiary Education and Management (TEAM) and a Monograph Series Research, Policy and Practice in Higher Education. The EAIR Secretariat is located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. For more information: www.eair.nl.

Welcome to Warsaw School of Economics The history of the Warsaw School of Economics (SGH) begins in 1906 with the foundation of the Private Courses of Commerce for Men. In the XX century the School underwent numerous changes in its structure and teaching programme. It changed its name a few times, too. The School’s present name (Szkola Glówna Handlowa, literally meaning Main School of Commerce) emerged for the first time in 1933. The outbreak of World War II did not stop the School’s activity, which, under conspiracy, continued with its pre-war pro-gramme.

It was not until the political change in 1989 that the School was in a position to officially carry out new programme and organisa-tional reforms in order to comply with market economy requirements. The milestone of this process was the return to the tradi-tional name of the School – Warsaw School of Economics (SGH) in 1991 and a reform of the education system, so that all our students can now pursue individual courses of study. In 2006 we introduced the new Statute, which declares that our educational system is based on the Bologna Declaration. The Warsaw School of Economics is the oldest university of economics and management in Poland. As it seeks to impart a Euro-pean dimension to its academic activity, SGH combines an over century-long tradition with engagement in the contemporary world and the pursuit of future challenges. In its educational endeavours, the School seeks to provide students with the latest knowledge, solid working skills and a sense of responsibility to society. In its research activities, the School is guided by respect for the truth and usefulness to society. The School conducts both its educational and research activities in the field of economics and managerial sciences drawing on the achievements of other social sciences. Graduates of SGH, equipped with the latest gen-eral and specialized knowledge, are making a significant contribution to economic, social and political life in Poland and abroad. Together with academic and administrative staff, students and representatives of milieus connected with the School, they create the image of SGH, promoting its achievements and realizing its mission together. For more information: http://www.sgh.waw.pl/index_en.html

6

PRACTICAL FORUM INFORMATION Location: Warsaw School of Economics Campus SGH Building A and Building C Warsaw Forum Venue The EAIR Forum Warsaw 2011 will take place in Building A and Building C at the SGH Campus of the Warsaw School of Econom-ics. The main Forum venue and all the parallel sessions will be in Building C. The Opening and Closing Plenary and the Keynote addresses will take place in Aula A of Building A. You will find the locations of key events listed on the next page and on the final timetable. You can find a map of the SGH Campus on page inner cover. Student help Students from the Warsaw School of Economics will be at the service of the participants and will try to help you with any kind of questions you might have. Locations of key events Forum Information/Registration desk Building C – Room 3C EAIR Forum Office Building C – Room 3C Opening/Closing Plenary/Keynotes Building A – Aula A Welcome Reception Sunday 28 August Club Park – Building 10 Campus Map Newcomers’ Welcome Lunch (by invitation) Monday 29 August Building C – Corridor 2nd Floor EAIR Annual General Meeting Tuesday 30 August Building A – Aula A Lunch & Coffee/Tea breaks Building C - Entresol Poster Presentations Monday 29 August Building C – Room 3B Sessions Track 1 Building C – Room 1A Sessions Track 2 Building C – Room 2A Sessions Track 4 Building C – Room 2B Sessions Track 5 Building C – Room 3A Sessions Track 6 Building C – Room 3B Sessions Track 8 Building C – Room 4A Sessions Track 9 Building C – Room 4B SIG Meeting ‘Quality in Higher Education’ Sunday 28 August Building C – Room 2A SIG Meeting ‘Student Experience’ Sunday 28 August Building C – Room 2B SIG Meeting ‘Exploiting Data Repositories’ Sunday 28 August Building C – Room 3A Presentation ‘How to get published’ Sunday 28 August Building C – Room 1B Pre-Forum EAIR EC meeting Sunday 28 August Building C – Room 1A Pre-Forum Stavanger PC meeting Sunday 28 August Building C – Room 1A Pre-Forum TEAM Editorial Board meeting Sunday 28 August Building C – Room 3B The Forum exhibitors and message boards are located in Building C – Ground Floor in the Main Hall opposite to the reception/registration area. The poster boards are located in Building C in the corridor on the third floor close to room 3B.

7

TIMETABLE Saturday 27 August 16:00 - 20:00 Registration and EAIR Forum office hours Sunday 28 August 09:00 - 19:00 Registration and EAIR Forum office hours 10:00 - 12:30 Pre-Forum meeting SIG ‘Quality in Higher Edu cation’, Building C – Room 2A 10:00 - 12:30 Pre-Forum meeting SIG ‘The Student Experi ence’, Building C – Room 2B 10:00 - 12:30 Pre-Forum meeting SIG ‘Exploiting Data Reposi tories’, Building C – Room 3A 10:00 - 13:00 Pre-Forum EAIR Executive Committee meeting, Building C – Room 1A 14:00 - 16:30 Pre-Forum Stavanger 2012 Programme Com mittee meeting, Building C – Room 1A 14:00 - 16:30 Pre-Forum TEAM Editorial Board Meeting, Building C – Room 3B 15:00 - 16:30 Pre-Forum Session on ‘How to get Published’, Building C – Room 1B 17:00 - 18:00 Welcome and Official Opening Plenary, Building A – Aula A 18:00 - 19:00 Plenary Opening Address, Building A – Aula A 19:00 - 21:00 Welcome Reception, Club Park – Building nr. 10 on Campus Map Monday 29 August 08:00 - 18:00 Registration and EAIR Forum office hours 09:00 - 09:45 Plenary Keynote Address, Building A – Aula A 10:15 - 10:30 Parallel sessions/Introductions 10:30 - 11:00 Parallel sessions 1 + Poster Presentation 1 11:00 - 11:30 Coffee/tea break, Building C - Entresol 11:30 - 12:00 Parallel sessions 2 + Poster Presentation 2 12:15 - 12:45 Parallel sessions 3 + Poster Presentation 3 12:45 - 14:15 Lunch, Building C – Entresol 12:45 - 14:15 EAIR Newcomers’ Welcome Lunch (invitation only), Building C – Corridor 2nd Floor 14:15 - 14:45 Parallel sessions 4 15:00 - 15:30 Parallel sessions 5 15:30 - 16:00 Coffee/tea break, Building C – Entresol 16:00 - 16:30 Parallel sessions 6 16:45 - 17:15 Parallel sessions 7

17:30 - 18:00 Parallel sessions 8 20:30 Forum Social Dinner at Restaurant Qchnia Artystyczna, l. Jazdow 2, Ujazdowski Castle Tuesday 30 August 08:00 - 18:00 EAIR Forum office hours 09:00 - 09:45 Plenary Keynote Address, Building A – Aula A 10:15 - 10:45 Parallel sessions 1 10:45 - 11:15 Coffee/tea break, Building C – Entresol 11:15 - 11:45 Parallel sessions 2 12:00 - 13:00 EAIR Annual General Meeting, Building A – Aula A 13:15 - 14:30 Lunch, Building C – Entresol 14:30 - 15:00 Parallel sessions 3 15:15 - 15:45 Parallel sessions 4 15:45 - 16:15 Coffee/tea break, Building C – Entresol 16:15 - 16:45 Parallel sessions 5 17:00 - 17:30 Parallel sessions 6 20:30 Forum Banquet at the Sabat Theatre, ul. Foksal Wednesday 31 August 08:00 - 13:00 EAIR Forum office hours 09:00 - 09:45 Plenary Keynote Address, Building A – Aula A 10:15 - 10:45 Parallel sessions 1 11:00 - 11:30 Parallel sessions 2 11:30 - 12:00 Coffee/Tea break, Building C - Entresol 12:00 - 12:30 Parallel sessions 3 12:45 - 13:15 Parallel sessions 4 12:00 - 13:00 Extra meeting EAIR EC + Forum Chair & Co-Chair—Room 5B 13:30 - 14:15 Concluding Plenary, Building A – Aula A 14:30 Farewell lunch, Building C – Entresol Posters can be put up on Saturday 27 August 12:00 - 19:00 on the designated Poster boards located in Building C in the corridor of the third floor close to Room 3B. The official welcome and opening plenary and daily plenary keynote addresses and EAIR Annual General Meeting and con-cluding plenary are being held in Building A - Aula A. All other activities like the SIG meetings and parallel sessions and lunches and coffee/tea breaks will take place in Building C.

8

Be aware of the fact that it will take a 15 min. walk going from Building A to Building C. As the Final Programme is subject to late revision, you will find an updated timetable in your Forum bag. Forum Information and Registration Desk Location: Building C – Room 3C For registration, information on practical issues concerning the Forum or local information you can contact the Forum Information and Registration Desk. The Desk will be open at the following times:

Saturday 27 August 16:00 - 20:00 Sunday 28 August 08:00 - 19:00 Monday 29 August 08:00 - 18:00 Tuesday 30 August 08:00 - 18:00 Wednesday 31 August 08:00 - 13:00

EAIR Forum Office Location: Building C – Room 3C Phone: +31 618 69 46 25 (this number will only be available during the Forum). For information on the Forum programme, EAIR membership and general information on the Forum or EAIR, please contact the EAIR Forum Office. For opening hours, see the timetable. The EAIR Forum Office will be open at the same times as the Forum Information and Registration Desk (except on Saturday, closed). Name Badges You will find your (and your companion) name badges in the Forum bag which will be given to you at the Forum registration table. Please note you will need to show your name badge in order to gain access to the Forum venue, all sessions, the pre-Forum activities, the lunches and the social events. You are therefore kindly requested to wear it visibly throughout the Forum. To cut down on wastage and to help protect the environment, please return your plastic badge sleeve at the end of the Forum so it can be re-used. White name badges for all participants To facilitate networking and making contact easier, colleagues who attend the Forum for the first time will find ‘newcomer’ on the bottom of their name badge. Other participants are encouraged to welcome these new Forum attendees and make them feel at home. Green name badges for EAIR Warsaw Forum Presenters All EAIR Warsaw Forum presenters are recognisable by their green coloured name badges. Blue name badges for EAIR and SGH Forum Organisation Yellow name badges for SGH students and SGH senior staff They are available to answer any questions on the Forum venue and facilities.

9

Members of the EAIR Executive Committee, EAIR distin-guished members, EAIR president and past EAIR presidents, the EAIR Chair and past EAIR Chairs, the Forum Chair and past Forum Chairs and Forum Co-Chair can be recognised by their special EAIR name badge. They will be very happy to answer all your questions about EAIR or the Forum. Make use of this opportunity to make sure you know what EAIR is about. Lunches, Coffee and Tea Breaks All refreshments are included in the Forum registration fee.

Location for the lunches: Building C – Entresol. All lunches during the ‘academic’ days of the Forum are included in the registration fee. Location for the coffee and tea breaks: Building C - Entresol. During lunches, please note that there will be a separate buf-fet for people that have registered for a special diet. Message Boards Location: Building C – Ground Floor in the Main Hall opposite the reception/registration area. Exhibitors Location: Building C – Ground Floor in the Main Hall opposite the reception/registration area. You will find the following exhibitors present:

Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Group, United Kingdom Rainer Hampp Verlag, Germany Palgrave Macmillan Limited, United Kingdom McGraw Hill Publishing, USA

Do visit them and talk to them about their latest publications and their work. Computer Facilities Location: Building C – Room 4D A wireless network connection will be available for everyone only in the Conference Building C. First you have to check your browser settings and change the proxy server to number w3cache.sgh.waw.pl and port num-ber 8080 Other Facilities If you need to have something photocopied or to send a fax, please do ask the staff at the Registration Desk or the EAIR Forum Office. Maybe a small fee will be charged. Language of the Forum The official language of the Forum is English.

10

SOCIAL EVENTS Those participants who have registered for the Forum social activities will find tickets for these events in their personal envelope upon registration. You need to show your tickets when entering the venues. If you have not registered and would like to participate after all, you can still register for these activities (depending on availability) through the EAIR Forum Office. We regret not being able to refund tickets once issued. You can use the message board to ‘sell’ your tick-ets. Welcome Reception Sunday 28 August 19:00 - 21:00 The Welcome and Opening Plenary is fol-lowed by a Welcome Reception, hosted by Warsaw School of Economics. The Welcome Reception is free for both Forum delegates and ‘registered’ accompanying persons. Location: Club Park – Building nr. 10 on Campus Map EAIR Newcomers’ Welcome Lunch Monday 29 August 12:45 - 14:15 Admission to the Newcomers’ Welcome Lunch is free, but by invitation only. Location: Building C – Corridor 2nd Floor If you are participating in the Forum for the first time, and you want to know more about EAIR and at the same time meet your fellow ‘newcomers’, this is the place to have lunch on Thursday. You will meet members of the Executive Committee, the track chairs, and all those involved in EAIR activities. Forum Social Dinner Monday 29 August 20:30 The Social Dinner is included in the Forum registration fee. Accompanying guests pay € 55 Location: Restaurant Qchnia Artystyczna, ul. Jazdow2 – Ujazdowski Castle www.qchnia.pl The restaurant was created 18 years ago at the Center of Contemporary Art in Ujazdowski Castle in Warsaw. The restaurant has one of the most beautiful summer terraces in Warsaw with breathtaking views. It is a popular meeting place for Warsaw residents and visitors from around the world.

11

The restaurant is located in the prestigious part of Warsaw, near the Agricola and Royal Baths Park. The restaurant follows the latest culinary trends. Food in the restaurant is modern, healthy and beautifully served. The interior is constantly changing, with simple forms and bright colors. Forum Banquet Tuesday 30 August 20:30 The Forum Banquet is not included in the Forum registration fee and needs to be paid for separately. The cost is € 60 per person Location: Sabat Theatre, ul. Foksal, Warsaw www.teatr-sabat.pl

The Sabat Theatre of Malgorzata Potocka is the first and only place in Poland, where you can enjoy outstanding shows, similar to Paris revue theatres, with excellent cui-sine and with great fun and music. Only here, at Sabat theatre, the stage turns into a dance floor for our guests. The founder and the owner of the Theatre is Malgorzata Potocka – outstanding dancer, choreographer and direc-tor, founder of the Sabat ballet team and the author of revue, stage and TV shows – very well known in Poland and abroad. Sabat Theatre provides you with a special atmosphere of the impressive art nouveau interiors, reminding you of the Toulouse – Lautrec paintings and pre-war Paris cabaret scene. SABAT is full of chic elegance and it is connecting the present time with the beauty of the crazy 1930s. People who registered a special diet will find a coloured card in their personal envelope. Please place this card next to your plate during the Forum Banquet. The card will help the waiters to identify people having requested a special diet.

What do you need to know of the Polish language to get around in Poland? Greetings of courtesy Good morning Dzien dobry Good evening Dobry wieczor Hello Czesc How are you Jak sie masz Goodbye Do widzenia See you later Do zobaczenia Thank you. Thanks Dziêkujê. Dziêki Thank you very much Bardzo dziêkujê I'm sorry Przepraszam No Nie Yes Tak Excuse me Przepraszam

12

Getting around Where is (the)? Gdzie jest? Bus stop Przystanek autobusowy Railway station Dworzec kolejowy Airport Lotnisko Train Pociag Bus Autobus Tram Tramwaj Hotel Hotel Street Ulica City Miasto City centre Centrum miasta Old town Stare miasto Old town square Rynek Square Plac How do I get to...? Jak sie dostac do...? Turn right W prawo Turn left W lewo Straight ahead Isc prosto Where is the...? Gdzie jest…? 1 ticket to... Jeden bilet do.. ACADEMIC FORUM PROGRAMME Bridging cultures, promoting diversity: higher education in search of an equilibrium Pre-Forum Activities If you have not (pre)registered and would like to participate after all, contact the EAIR Forum Office for availability. Pre-Forum meeting Special Interest Group on ‘The Student Experience’ Sunday 28 August 10:00 - 12:30 Location: Building C – Room 2B Chairs: James Williams and Lynn Fulford Birmingham City University Birmingham – United Kingdom Transformative learning and teaching in HE This meeting of the EAIR Special Interest Group: The Student Experience explores different experiences of how students engage with higher education. In particular, it focuses on how students’ make transitions through higher education and how to make the student experience a genuinely ‘transformative’ process. This meeting topic follows on from last year’s discussion of the ways in which students engage with the governance of higher education. That discussion was itself inspired by the work of several members that analyses the ways in which students are in-volved in higher education governance across Europe. This session is aimed at providing an opportunity to share experiences and practical examples and the groups will report back during a plenary session. Pre-Forum meeting Special Interest Group on ‘Quality in Higher Education’ Sunday 28 August 10:00 - 12:30 Location: Building C – Room 2A Chair: Paul Gorman Aston University Birmingham – United Kingdom The SIG workshop is designed to provide a relaxed, informal opportunity to make and renew contacts, and to share experiences, approaches, and questions about the current scene in quality assurance and enhancement. The emphasis is on encouraging dia-logue and discussion, and helping participants to gain an overview of what is going on in the international scene.

13

Pre-Forum meeting Special Interest Group on ‘Exploiting Data Repositories’ Sunday 28 August 10:00 - 12:30 Location: Building C – Room 3A Chairs: Vic Borden Indiana University USA and Urs Hugento-bler ETH Zürich Switzerland This year's session will feature a presentation by Elise Miller, program director for postsecondary institutional studies, at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education regarding the federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Ms. Miller will describe the history and context of this system, demonstrate some of the tools made available to policy makers and re-searchers for using the resulting data repository and discuss the potential for using IPEDS data for international compari-sons. Ensuing group discussion will consider the potential for further alignment between IPEDS, European, and other inter-national higher education data repositories. Pre-Forum session on ‘How to get published’ Sunday 28 August 15:00 - 16:30 Location: Building C – Room 1B Presenter: Helen Orton Managing Editor Education – Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Group United Kingdom In this interactive session you will hear about all the ins and outs on ‘How to get published’. You are welcome to ask ques-tions and to tell about your own experiences. Welcome and Opening Plenary Sunday 28 August 17:30 - 18:00 The Opening Ceremony is free for all delegates and guests Location: Building A – Aula A On Sunday 28 August the Warsaw School of Economics and EAIR together with the honorable Professor Barbara Kudry-cka, the Polish Minister of Science and Higher Education shall welcome all the participants of the 33rd Annual EAIR Forum during the Opening Plenary. This Opening Ceremony will be followed by the Opening Plenary Keynote and the Welcome Reception.

14

Opening Plenary Keynote Address Sunday 28 August 18:00 - 19:00 Location: Building A – Aula A

Prof. Piotr SZTOMPKA

Keynote address title: “Trust and trustworthiness: The core value of science and

education”.

Professor Piotr Sztompka was born in Warsaw, March 2, 1944. Studied sociology and law at the Jagiellonian University at Krakow where he received doctoral degree in 1970 and the title of the professor in 1980. He did his post-doctoral studies at Berkeley and Harvard. His master was Robert K.Merton, about whom he published an intellectual biography in 1986 and a collection of his work in 1996. Permanently attached to the Jagiellonian University at Krakow, he served numerous times as a visiting professor at major universities at four conti-nents, mostly in the US: Columbia New York, UCLA, Ann Arbor Michigan and Stanford. His work focuses on sociological the-ory with particular emphasis on social change and intangible factors of social life: social bonds of trust, social moods and cultural traumas. He also wrote about post-communist soci-ety. Elected as a member of Academia Europaea (London), Ameri-can Academy of Arts and Sciences (Cambridge, Mass.), Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), Polish Academy of Arts (PAU). He is an honorary doctor of Russian State University of the Social Sciences at Moscow, and honorary faculty member of the Uni-versidad de Museo Social Argentina at Buenos Aires. In 1995 he received "The New Europe Prize", in 2005 "Pitirim Sorokin Prize" and in 2006 the highest scientific award in Poland known as the Polish Nobel. He also received the highest hon-our of his own university, Medal Merentibus.

Keynote Address Monday 29 August 09:00 - 09:45 Location: Building A – Aula A

Prof. Dr. Henriëtte MAASSEN VAN DEN BRINK

Prof. Dr. Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink will give the Monday

morning Forum keynote ad-dress. The title of her keynote is:

“The wider benefits of educa-tion”.

Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink is an eminent scholar, a pro-ductive and much-cited researcher in the field of the relation between education, the labour market and economic devel-opments, and an influential member of a great number of boards and advisory committees such as the Dutch national Advisory Council for Education and the Netherlands Organisa-tion for Scientific Research (NWO). Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink, who studied social psychol-ogy and economics, was the first female professor of Econom-ics in the Netherlands and the first professor of Evidence Based Education in the Netherlands. In 2010, for the second time, she was declared the most influential woman in the country in the field of Education and Research by the Dutch feminist monthly Opzij. Her work is focused on themes such as the efficacy and (cost-) effectiveness of educational interventions and she is well-known for sharing her insights with policy-makers and practi-tioners in education.

15

Keynote Address Tuesday 30 August 09:00 - 09:45 Location: Building A – Aula A

Prof. Witold M. ORLOWSKI

Prof. Witold M. Orlowski is the third keynote speaker in Warsaw and his

keynote address is entitled: “Knowledge in the changing world”.

Prof. Witold M. Orlowski is a macroeconomist working mainly on the economics of transition and the European integration of Central and East European countries. Currently he is the Director of the Warsaw University of Technology Business School. He is a Member of the Prime Minister's Economic Council - Chief Economic Advisor to PricewaterhouseCoopers and also scientific director of the Research Centre for Statisti-cal and Economic Studies (CSO and Academy of Sciences) in Warsaw. In the period 1993-1997 he worked at the World Bank. He is one of the founders of NOBE (Independent Center for Eco-nomic Studies) and from 2002-2005 he was Chief Economic Advisor to the President of Poland. He is the author of 5 books and over 100 scientific articles published in Poland, UK, France, Germany, Austria and USA. His book "The Road to Europe" gained the 1998 prize of Bank Handlowy for the best book in the theory of economics and finance.

Keynote Address Wednesday 31 August 09:00 - 09:45 Location: Building A – Aula A

Dr. Clifford ADELMAN

On the last day of the Forum, Dr. Clifford Adelman will give his keynote address entitled: “From

Bologna qualification frame-works to the degree qualifica-tions profile. Where does it all

goes next?”

Clifford Adelman is a senior associate with IHEP since 2006 and he plays a senior role in the organization’s expansive na-tional and international portfolio of research projects focusing on assessment, higher education access, and student mobility. He also expands upon subjects that have been a focus throughout much of his career including degree completion rates, standardized testing, transfer patterns, and the role of community colleges. Prior to coming to IHEP, Adelman served nearly 30 years as a senior research analyst at the U.S. Department of Education. Adelman contributed to key background studies of the high school curriculum to the landmark, A Nation at Risk (1983) report; and designed the higher education follow-up to that report, Involvement in Learning (1984), which served as a platform for the assessment movement in higher education over the following decade. During his tenure at the Depart-ment of Education, he authored several studies that served as benchmarks in education and set agendas for policymakers. An IHEP expert on various higher education issues.

16

Concluding Plenary Wednesday 31 August 13:15 - 14:00 Location: Building A – Aula A In the last plenary session of the Forum Janina Józwiak, Forum Chair will sum-marise the theme of the Forum.

EAIR Best Paper Award and EAIR Best Poster Award During the concluding plenary meeting on Wednesday 31 August the winners of the EAIR Best Paper Award and EAIR Best Poster Award will be announced. EAIR initiated the Best Paper Award to stimu-late young (35 and younger) colleagues to join discussions and speak at the Forum. EAIR initiated the Best Poster Award to give more recognition and visibility to Poster presenters. The winners will re-ceive a free subscription from the Routledge education list for one year.

PARALLEL SESSIONS The EAIR Forum in Warsaw will be nearly three days of information exchange, net-working, and listening to each other. The Forum is constructed around a daily ple-nary and parallel sessions organised in seven tracks with over a hundred of pres-entations and ten poster presentations, all connected to the main theme of the Forum. All sessions will take place in Building C of the Warsaw School of Eco-nomics.

17

TRACK 1 Navigating (in) diversity. Policies, govern-ance, institutional strategies

Track Chair: Jeroen Huisman – University of Bath – United Kingdom All sessions in Track 1 are in Room 1A (first floor) – Building C Diversity is often seen as an "inherent good" in higher education. Countries need a certain variety of higher education insti-tutions to cater for various types of stu-dents and to attend to different socio-economic needs. Governments have pol-icy instruments at their disposal (regulations, funding) to create diversity. Market mechanisms may also be helpful to guide higher education institutions to find their competitive advantage and niches in the market. And, higher educa-tion institutions themselves generally have some leeway to make strategic choices regarding their position in the higher education landscape. We do have some understanding of diversity in higher education and its underlying mechanisms, but we need better answers to the ques-tion of how to create and maintain diver-sity. The track is looking for contributions that pick up questions emerging from the above. We are particularly interested in papers that challenge the common-sense understanding of the dynamics of diver-sity.

TRACK 2 Higher education in the global knowl-edge economy

Track Chair: Bernard Longden – Liverpool Hope University – United Kingdom All sessions in Track 2 are in Room 2A (second floor) – Building C The challenge facing institutions is sur-vival in an increasingly competitive higher education market which is no longer limited by regional or national boundaries but is increasingly global. The emergence of the global knowledge economy has put a premium on learning throughout the world. Ideas and know-how as sources of economic growth and development, along with the applica-tion of new technologies, have impor-tant implications for how people learn and apply knowledge throughout their lives. The romantic image of university life is under threat from: asynchronous learn-ing, distance teaching, 'bite-sized' learn-ing units, personalised curriculum and a price sensitive provision, a consumer looking to match expectations against promises. Survival in this emerging mar-ket demands the development of more market oriented activities coupled to an implementation of new standards and practices.

This track explores concepts such as: globalisation and the quality of educa-tion; implementation of internationali-sation policies; management of change; global education experiences and the issues of recognition of standards and qualifications. TRACK 3 had to be cancelled

18

TRACK 4 Seeding and harvesting. Students in mass higher education

Track Chair: Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen – NIFU Oslo – Norway

Co-Track Chair: Elisabeth Hovdhaugen – NIFU Oslo - Norway All sessions in Track 4 are in Room 2B (second floor) – Building C This track is about students and their ex-periences, and the relation between back-ground variables, learning experiences and outcomes. Widening access to higher education has brought new groups of stu-dents - with different backgrounds and expectations - into higher education. Many countries have implemented re-forms in higher education to meet these challenges. Changes in the number and composition of students may have conse-quences not only for the institutions, but also for the learning environment of stu-dents as well as the labour market oppor-tunities of graduates.

TRACK 5 Quality management or management for quality?

Track Chair: Stig Selmer-Anderssen – Uni-versity of Stavanger – Norway All sessions in Track 5 are in Room 3A (third floor) – Building C Can quality in higher education be seen as a balancing act in search of an equi-librium? This will easily be the case within the multiple authority perspec-tive that is increasingly being applied to higher education. In this perspective, three authorities are usually identified; A political/societal, an administrative/organisational, and an academic author-ity. In many countries, each of the three can point to de jure as well as de facto foundations for their authority. Students often find themselves torn in the middle between these. So do quality professionals, continuously striving to-ward some kind of equilibrium between three dynamic and often seemingly op-posing forces, desperately seeking out constructive interactions between them while avoiding the destructive ones. This year’s Forum theme invites an ex-ploration of the role of quality and qual-ity management in a slightly more stra-tegic direction. Should quality and qual-ity management really be anchored in institutional management (as is usually

the case)? To what degree are quality and quality management used as tacti-cal leverages in institutional game play? Can quality practitioners succeed by simply focusing on doing the job on quality, ignoring all the strategic and political huffing and chuffing? TRACK 6 Linking academic and corporate cultures

Track Chair: Peter West – University of Strathclyde Glasgow – United Kingdom All sessions in Track 6 are in Room 3B (third floor) – Building C When faced with demands to be more business-like in their affairs, the tradi-tional response from within the academy has been to protest that universities are not like businesses and cannot be run in that way. Yet the expansion of Higher Education has created substantial under-takings, responsible for large amounts of public money, which must be efficiently run and new partnerships with business are an attractive option for making good shortfalls in public funding. In this track, we will look at how univer-sities can benefit from corporate experi-ence and networks without losing their core values. Areas to be examined will include

19

The changing role of external governors and their engagement with manage-ment teams; examples of the successful application of business ideas in for ex-ample marketing, risk management; how to improve the interface with busi-ness to encourage better inter -action. TRACK 7 had to be cancelled TRACK 8 Measuring performance and outcomes

Track Chair: Malgorzata Rószkiewicz – Warsaw School of Economics – Poland All sessions in Track 8 are in Room 4A (fourth floor) – Building C In recent years a growing need has been observed for approaches to measuring of social and economic performance and outcomes of higher education systems as well as modelling relations between up-grading this system and improving social wellbeing and economic growth. Atten-tion is focused on changes in level of intel-lectual capital and its components, meas-uring effectiveness of investments in hu-man and structural capital development and setting crucial indicators of human and structural capital referring to higher education systems. Thus the role of sur-vey methods and the importance of im-proving survey procedures from theoreti-cal and practical perspective is defined. The track will give an opportunity to pre-sent latest developments in this and re-

lated fields and to exchange experience of practical applications. TRACK 9 Institutional Research: working for the academic community

Track Chair: Peter Hoekstra – University of Amsterdam – Netherlands All sessions in Track 9 are in Room 4B (fourth floor) – Building C Institutional Research (IR), the activity that gave EAIR its name, came into exis-tence in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the USA. It is the activity of gathering, analyzing, and reporting data in order to support policy information and decision making in Higher Educa-tion. As European HEIs become more autono-mous and accountable, there is a grow-ing need for reliable and timely informa-tion. IR meets this need by analyzing institutional performances, by produc-ing reports, surveys and forecasts, and by disseminating information through data warehouses. In doing so, IR is gradually raising its profile within the European HE community. This track addresses not only strategies for gathering, analyzing and distributing information but also deals with chal-lenges and opportunities for IR. It thereby offers institutional researchers,

policy makers and other members of the academic community the opportu-nity to exchange ideas on critical infor-mation needs in HE and on strategies and resources for improving the profes-sion. Monday 29 August: 10:15 – 10:30 Introduction of all Tracks by each Track Chair Track 1: Jeroen Huisman – Building C, Room 1A (first floor) Track 2: Bernard Longden – Building C, Room 2A (second floor) Track 4: Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen & Elisa-beth Hovdhaugen – Building C, Room 2B (second floor) Track 5: Stig Selmer-Anderssen – Building C, Room 3A (third floor) Track 6: Peter West – Building C, Room 3B (third floor) Track 8: Malgorzata Rószkiewicz – Building C, Room 4A (fourth floor) Track 9: Peter Hoekstra – Building C, Room 4B (fourth floor)

20

21

MONDAY 29 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 1 FROM 10:30 – 11:00 Responding to external pressure: Organisational change in HEIs Lars Geschwind & Göran Melin – Technopolis Group (Sweden) Track 1 – Room 1A European universities face various aspects of external pressure, e.g. an increasingly globalised market of higher education, and demands for quality assurance from national authorities. One way of meeting such pressure is to undertake organisational reforms. This study investigates two examples of university reorganisation: 1) the merger of two HEIs into one; 2) the merger of departments and introduction of a school organisa-tion. These examples represent two diametrically different ways of implementing organisational change: a rapid one with-out much anchoring among staff, and a slow one with deep involvement from the whole faculty. From brain drain and gain to brain circulation? Barbara Kehm – University of Kassel (Germany) Track 2 – Room 2A The paper will present new ways of thinking about brain drain and brain gain in the emerging knowledge-based societies and in the face of globalisation. The dynamics of mobility and skilled migration will be conceptualised within a framework of policy options that have the potential to turn the zero sum game into a win-sin-situation (e.g. retention, return, circulation and dias-pora). Furthermore, options for policy action will be presented. A quiet revolution? Students and their institutional experi-ence, 1989–2009 James Williams & David Kane – Birmingham City University (United Kingdom) Track 4 – Room 2B This paper explores the lived experiences of students over the last two decades, a period of immense change in higher educa-tion, through an analysis of data collected as part of an institu-

tion’s continuous quality improvement process. The analysis identifies some of the key concerns of students in this period and explores what has changed and what has remained the same. Course related items tend to be regarded as most impor-tant and largely satisfactory; library provision is largely re-garded as satisfactory; non-course items tend to be regarded as much less satisfactory and appear to be harder to resolve. Posturing, positioning, and performing: what serves quality best? George Gordon – University of Strathclyde (United Kingdom) & Jeanette Baird – Australian Universities Quality Agency (Australia) Track 5 – Room 3A Higher education institutions are known as sites of contestation among differing institutional logics, particularly academic and organisational logics. In this paper, we explore the implications of recent research on competing institutional logics for internal quality assurance (IQA) in higher education, in order to broaden conceptual understandings of the ways in which IQA can be successfully implemented. We identify and analyse three main ways in which institutional actors respond to competing logics in higher education: ‘posturing’, ‘positioning’ and ‘performing’. We present specific approaches that assist institutions to man-age the implementation of IQA, while avoiding the ‘dark side’ of these three responses. Poster Presentation for the EAIR Best Poster Award

22

Student's business incubator at the University of Zagreb as a form of entrepreneurial education Marko Kolakovic & Boris Sisek & Bojan Moric Milovanovic – University of Zagreb (Croatia) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 1 The purpose of this paper is to show that a student's business incubator is an enterprise development strategy, aimed at ac-celerating the process of formation, development and growth of new enterprises. This strategy is focused on undergraduate students. This is a way to create an entrepreneurial university, which is defined as one which involves the creation of new business ventures by university professors and students through the university's innovation centres. It will be explained the functioning of student's business incubator at University of Zagreb. This study will report the findings of a survey conducted among programme participants. International recognition of qualifications and outcomes based education Ines Sutic & Marija Jurcevic – University of Zagreb (Croatia) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 2 The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential of al-ready existing set of measurable outcomes for each level of education and especially the implementation of the National Qualification Framework. The paper summarizes the main chal-lenges that the Croatian higher education will be facing during the years to come, in terms of its international recognition and competitiveness. In addition, the article explores differences between national qualification frameworks and its compliance with the European qualification framework. Challenges on the academic profession development posed by management for quality Luminita Moraru – University Dunarea de Jos of Galati (Roumenia) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 3 This paper explores how the academic profession in Romania perceives, interprets and interacts with changes in the socio-economic environment and in the organisational structure of

higher education systems and higher education institutions. The analysis is based on data gathered to accomplish a cross study on the influence of the European governance in the coun-tries involved in the EuroHESC project EUROAC The Academic Profession in Europe: responses to societal challenges (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland, Romania, Croatia, Finland and Poland). The data are based on the results from an online questionnaire which was conducted in Romania between November 2009 and June 2010. Double loop learning in outcomes assessment Trudy Banta – Purdue University Indiana (USA) & Charles Blaich – Wabash College (USA) Track 8 – Room 4A Why aren’t outcomes assessment findings used more fre-quently to improve teaching and learning? Academic staff re-sist external mandates for assessment; assessment leaders leave and novices replace them; assessment takes time, but academics are impatient for results. Double loop learning—reflecting not only upon the effectiveness of current practice, but also on the very assumptions and goals on which that prac-tice is based—may offer a route to alleviating the difficulties that keep academics from engaging in outcomes assessment and using its findings to guide warranted improvements. Out-comes assessment initiatives should be assessed continuously using double loop learning. ‘Good enough?’ Some practical considerations relating to the analysis of existing datasets Mantz Yorke – Lancaster University (United Kingdom) Track 9 – Room 4B The secondary analysis of existing datasets almost always de-mands compromise, since what the analyst wants to do is not necessarily a good fit with the purposes underlying the original data collection. It can also require considerable reshaping of the dataset. This presentation will illustrate some of the com-promises and practical issues that arise in secondary data analy-sis.

23

MONDAY 29 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 2 FROM 11:30 – 12:00 Navigating diversity: the institutional challenge and strategy of the University of Duisburg-Essen Christian Ganseuer – University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany) Track 1 – Room 1A The University of Duisburg-Essen is located in the centre of the biggest European industrial area, the area of Ruhrgebiet. Through the years of far-reaching structural change, a new challenge formed for the biggest university in this area. 53% of the students have no academical background, 25% face a famil-iar history of migration. In 2010 a large student survey disclosed the special need of an integrated institutional strategy of navi-gating diversity in the field of learning and teaching. This paper explicates an analysis of the data and the strategic programmes which were conceptualized in the course of managing this chal-lenging situation. Albanian higher education and Brain Gain: how politics affect qualitative human resources Arta Musaraj – University Pavaresia Albania (Albania) Track 2 – Room 2A The “Brain Drain” phenomenon symbolizing the loss of qualified people for their countries economy makes developing countries deal with negative effects concerning the recovery and the sus-tainable growth of their economies. This paper is focusing on the so called “brain gain” projects in Albania aiming to give an insight on this phenomenon and introduce the attempts of Al-bania to regain the “Brain” that migrated in developed coun-tries. Lately the usage of the term “Brain Gain” changes with “Brain Circulation”. Universities in the Albania have to contrib-ute in preventing the “Brain Drain” phenomenon by increasing “Brain Circulation” respectively “Brain Gain” projects. University dropouts in Russia: level and causes (case of HSE) Elena Kolotova & Natalie Maloshonok & Ivan Gruzdev – Higher School of Economics Moscow (Russia) Track 4 – Room 2B

The paper touches upon the reasons of student non-completion in a particular Russian university. Although dropout rates in Russia are not so high, comparing e.g. with the United States, the issue of student failure becomes widely discussed because of the negative effects students suffer while dropping out. The study, based on data of individual student records for the pe-riod from 2005 to 2010, revealed that academic failure is most frequent in the first two years. Factors with the greatest influ-ence on student persistence are: pre-university schooling, de-partment, first year experience. The impact of the QAUE on the evaluated HEIs in China Shuiyun Liu - Institute of Education University of London (United Kingdom) Track 5 – Room 3A This research analyzes a higher education policy issued in China at 2002: the Quality Assessment of Undergraduate Education (QAUE) project. It aims to find out how the QAUE impacted university change. In order to do so, case studies were con-ducted in three universities with different statuses. The empiri-cal results show that, as an external force, the QAUE has stimu-lated university change in China, but not as much as expected. The extent of change is a result of the interaction between the designs of the quality assessment scheme and the characteris-tics of the evaluated institutions. Poster Presentation for the EAIR Best Poster Award The outcomes of evaluation of three vocational degree pro-grammes in Norway - a comparison Astrid Børsheim – Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) (Norway) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 1 This study focuses on how and to what degree some central recommendations given in three broad programme evaluations which the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Educa-tion (NOKUT) conducted in the years 2004 – 2010, have been followed up. As the evaluations were all commissioned by The Ministry of Education, the main interest is on changes initiated on governmental level in the years after the evaluations were

24

completed, and how these changes eventually are related to the evaluation findings and recommendations. Global cities, global citizenship: implementing a theme-based mobility project Kathi Ketcheson – Portland State University (USA) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 2 An Excellence in Mobility project, funded by the European Un-ion-United States Atlantis Program, strives to create a shared curriculum among four partner institutions focused on the study of social and natural transformations of urban areas in Europe and in the United States. The project involves ex-changes of students and scholars from across disciplines. Or-ganized under five urban themes--demographic, socioeco-nomic, spatial, ecological, and aesthetic--the project goes be-yond traditional exchange programs to foster broader inter-institutional and interdisciplinary learning and community en-gagement. Challenges and benefits of a structured, theme-based mobility project will be discussed, including recommen-dations for improvement and sustainability. Evaluation of higher education programmes for increasing quality and competitiveness: experience of the Baltic States Baiba Rivza – Latvian Council of Higher Education (Latvia) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 3 Studies program and increased professionalism of academic staff is very important aspect for raising the quality of higher education professionals and promoting the competitiveness of Latvian higher education. In order to guarantee these aspects, evaluation of higher edu-cation programmes is taking place in Latvia. The aim of the pa-per is to characterise higher education evaluation system in Latvia, in comparison to the evaluation system in Estonia and Lithuania.

A citation based research ranking of business departments in Germany Harry Müller & Alexander Dilger – University of Münster (Germany) Track 8 – Room 4A Research rankings of universities or faculties respectively are increasingly popular, in particular in business administration. The most prominent example in Germany is the Handelsblatt-BWL-Ranking. Its method, however, has been criticised. Thus this paper presents a different approach. The data is derived from a citation analysis on the basis of Google Scholar. To ac-count for different sizes of faculties, we propose three alterna-tive indicators: cumulated citations, average citations and cita-tions of the Top 5 scholars of each faculty. After presenting the results, influencing factors are identified and empirically tested. Finally, the performances of the German federal states are compared. The forgotten year: using mixed method institutional research to tackle the second-year slump Clare Milsom & Martyn Stewart & Elena Zaitseva – Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom) Track 9 – Room 4B Research into the student experience in higher education has overwhelmingly focused on the first year and emphasised the importance of front-loaded support. Empirical research in the USA has identified the phenomenon of a performance dip in year two, termed the ‘Sophomore Slump’. Analysis of institu-tion-wide student performance data at Liverpool John Moores University mirrors these findings. To uncover ‘slump’ origins, a mixed method design is used that illuminates patterns in the data with insight from second year students and teaching staff. Results confirm the multiplicity of factors contributing to under-performance. This research will inform institutional policy for learner support.

25

MONDAY 29 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 3 FROM 12:15 – 12:45 Strategic agency and environmental determination. Under-standing system diversity through institutional positioning Tatiana Fumasoli – University of Lugano (Switzerland) Track 1 – Room 1A Strategy is considered the result both of deliberateness and emergence, the first entailing managerial purposiveness, the second environmental influence. This paper aims at analysing the relation between intentionality and environmental determi-nation by developing the notion of institutional positioning, characterised as a process through which universities try to locate themselves in specific niches within the organisational field. While higher education institutions display different de-grees of agency to construct their niche, they are also affected by external dynamics at population and organizational field levels. The proposed conceptualisation aims at understanding system diversity by emphasising organisational endeavour within a multilevel framework. Financing higher education policies: a comparative perspec-tive Portugal and Brazil Luisa Cerdeira & Tómas Patrocinio & Belmiro Cabrito – Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal) and Sonia Fonseca – Ponteficia Universidade Católica de Sao Paulo (Brazil) Track 2 – Room 2A Due to the Higher Education (HE) diversity, we must perspec-tive a comparative analysis, by enhancing the dominant situa-tion in Portugal and Brazil, as tuition fees, loans programs and social support is concerned. In this paper we will discuss the relationship of these policy variables to the accessibility and affordability of HE: What are the HE funding policies followed over the last two decades? What are the results of the policies of tuition fee application in HE accessibility? What are the support mechanisms available to students in need and how efficient are they? What funding pol-icy will mostly increase accessibility?

Recruiting and retaining: students from migrant families or with low educational background Ursula Müller – Universität Duisburg-Essen (Germany) Track 4 – Room 2B Within its efforts of institutional research and “Diversity Man-agement” the University of Duisburg-Essen asked all their stu-dents about diversity aspects and the determinant factors of study success. Certain results concerning students from migrant families and families with a low educational background will be presented. It is argued that the critical phases of persisting educational ine-quality is in the early phases of the educational pathway. There-fore the problems do not lie so much in the “harvesting” phase but more in the “seeding” phase, thus in getting students ready for accessing higher education and the socialization within the first few semesters. What do academics think of quality assessment? A discussion using cultural theory Amélia Veiga & Alberta Amaral & Maria João Pires da Rosa - CIPES (Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies) (Portugal) and Sónia Cardoso - Higher Education Assessment and Accreditation Agency (Portugal) Track 5 – Room 3A The paper discusses Portuguese academics perceptions on quality assessment of higher education in the light of Cultural Theory. The research question addresses the extent to which different ways of life - fatalist, individualist, hierarchical and egalitarian - along with the disciplinary affiliation of academics embed those perceptions. The analysis is based on a survey run in 2010 that gathered perceptions of academics on quality as-sessment. With the aim of discussing the balance between quality and quality management the analysis of the data will contribute to grasp which factors may bring about the empha-sis on those approaches.

26

Track 6 – Room 3B: Poster Presentation for the EAIR Best Poster Award Small universities of applied sciences in shrinking and remote areas: a resource dependence perspective Veit Larmann – University of Flensburg (Germany) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 1 Research Question: What kind of strategies do small Universi-ties of Applied Sciences in shrinking and remote areas employ to access resources they need at a time of increased competi-tion? Which factors promote proactive or passive behavior? Several reforms introduced since the early 1990s have ren-dered the German higher education system increasingly com-petitive (Kehm & Lanzendorf 2006). In a competitive higher education system, resources like qualified applicants, a suppor-tive regional economy, excellent professors and a sufficient public budget are pre-conditions for success in competition. The geographic location of a university affects the ability to obtain these resources and the external environment thus be-comes increasingly important for institutional management. This PhD thesis aims to observe and understand the effects of increasing external resource constraints on the management and the strategies employed to gain the needed resources. Students leaving higher education: individual and institutional perspectives Elisabeth Hovdhaugen – NIFU (Norway) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 2 The poster will be based on the theme for my thesis – students leaving higher education. The thesis consists of articles focusing on different aspects of student departure and a summary that draws on all the articles. Student departure comes in different forms and the thesis focuses on two different types: transfer (students leaving their institution to move to another institu-tion) and dropout (students that leave higher education before degree completion).

Quality management in Greek higher education: a challenging issue Antigoni Papadimitriou – Aristotle University Thessaloniki Greece (Greece) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 3 This study focuses on change and stability in Greek higher edu-cation as regards the introduction of quality management (QM) in universities. This study examines a period (2005-2007) during which quality assurance, evaluation, and QM have a heavily debated meaning for the universities in Greece. It sought to map the state of adoption of QM in Greek public universities and to look for underlying forces for change and stability by using neo-institutional theory and university characteristics. The study involved mixing qualitative and quantitative ap-proaches at three levels (macro, meso, and micro). Measurement of students’ employability - The example of cross-curricular problem solving Nicole Heigl & Joachim Thomas – Catholic University of Eich-stätt-Ingolstadt (Germany) Track 6 – Room 3B: Presentation 4 Due to the focus on students’ development towards employ-ability, the reform on higher education sees the development of ‘generic skills’ as an important task: Graduates expect and are expected not only to have a specific knowledge but also to be able to apply this knowledge to efficiently solve problems. However, they should be able to solve not only content specific problems, but also – to a certain extent – cross-curricular prob-lems. The study presented here intends to clarify the concept of cross-curricular problem solving in higher education and pre-sents a model to measure student’s development in this impor-tant aspect of employability.

27

Age before beauty: performance measurement in 1899 vs. Intellectual Capital Report 2009 Christine Fahringer – University of Innsbruck (Austria) Track 8 – Room 4A The paper compares the core indicators (teaching body, stu-dents) and their interpretation from two university reports on the University of Innsbruck, Austria. One is an honorary publica-tion for Emperor Franz Joseph I in 1899 for the years 1848-1898. The other is the Intellectual Capital Report (ICR) 2009 for the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research for the years 2007-2009. The goal of this paper is to question the progress of performance reporting based on these reports. Although the indicators have remained familiar, the reason for collecting them has become less clear. Data warehouse sharing and the changing role of institutional research Fleur Veraart – University of Amsterdam (UvA) (Netherlands) Track 9 – Room 4B Designing and building a data warehouse is a serious technical challenge. Creating the right conditions for its actual use in the organization is a very different but no less important factor in effectively implementing one. The Institutional Research office can play a pivotal part in this process, but is likely to see its role in the university change as a result. A data warehouse will make it possible and desirable to promote a more data-driven work-ing culture in the institution. At the same time, IR may be able to take on a more proactive role in evidence-based decision-making.

28

MONDAY 29 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 4 FROM 14:15 – 14:45 Quality, managerialism, market orientation and other mat-ters: exploring strategizing in universities Michele Girotto – Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña (Spain) Track 1 – Room 1A This paper deploys the concept of strategy as practice to intro-duce a theoretical and empirical reflection upon university strategizing. This main objective is explored in two parts: theo-retically we draw on reflections about the connection of con-cepts such as managerialism, governance and market orienta-tion with the actual practice of the strategy in the public higher education institutions and their impact on the Spanish higher education system. Empirically, we make use of a case study in a Spanish public university in order to reflect on existing practices in developing strategy and the perceptions of the involved ac-tors about the process. Matching higher education to "new jobs": what are they talk-ing about? Clifford Adelman – Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) (USA) Track 2 – Room 2A What are the jobs of the future? What new knowledge and skills will they require? What levels of higher education sys-tems around the world are best suited to provide students with the knowledge and skills to match those projections? This pa-per reviews data, sources, and estimates from the EC, Cedefop, and the U.S. ONET system that have been used by a variety of research projects to address these questions, and then turns to the role of “Tuning” processes to determine how the content of higher education is likely to change in response to occupational demands, and at what program levels.

International placements enhance the personal and academic development of Widening Participation students: “Is it Tho-mas Cook or Lonely Planet: educational tourism or personal learning? Lee Hurrell – University of Plymouth-Petroc (United Kingdom) Track 4 – Room 2B The case study presents the findings of an international work experience programme for students from a rural college in the South West of England. The college in Partnership with an HEI offers two undergraduate years for a range of degrees. Many of the students are classified as coming from the Widening Partici-pation agenda proposed by HEFCE. Initial evaluation of the placement programme indicates significant personal gain for the participants alongside a critical appraisal of their own abili-ties within a different culture and pedagogic model. The experi-ence is deemed to be of value in terms of academic, profes-sional and personal understandings. A quality assurance model in academic programs for perpetu-ally changing professional markets Michael Harnischmacher – University of Trier (Germany) Track 5 – Room 3A This paper will identify the key issues which program develop-ment in higher education for rapidly changing job-markets faces by proposing a model based on institutional theory. It will argue that the concept of legitimacy from two constituencies, the academic and the professional sphere, is a key for quality assur-ance for successful programs. It will then discuss central practi-cal questions of program development, drawing, as a case study, upon the results of an extensive survey of academic jour-nalism programs and the media sector in Germany and the United States (Harnischmacher 2010).

29

The entrepreneurial university – a globally applicable con-cept? Jürgen Deeg – University of Hagen (Germany) and Georg Over-beck - University of Oldenburg (Germany) Track 6 – Room 3B The entrepreneurial university has become kind of a buzzword in literature and practice. However, when closely scrutinized, the term does not provide a feasible concept. In order to attain a more integrative approach, the paper defines the entrepre-neurial university by focussing upon the three dimensions autonomy, market, and innovation output. These dimensions allow the classification of different subtypes that lie in between the entrepreneurial university and mere university entrepre-neurship. Finally, a brief case study of a Latin-American exam-ple illustrates that the concept can indeed generate added value when being thoughtfully adapted to the respective socio-economic and political context. Managing performance in higher education institutions: a comparative study between entrepreneurial universities Ana Isabel Melo – University of Aveiro (Portugal) and Cláudia Sarrico – CIPES (Centre for Research in Higher Education Poli-cies) (Portugal) and Zoe Radnor – University of Warwick (United Kingdom) Track 8 – Room 4A The aim of this paper is to understand the way performance is managed in higher education institutions in relation to the ex-isting governance structures. Results from two high performing universities (one British and one Portuguese) show that, in spite of an increase in the meas-urement of performance in most areas, there seems to be a lack of action, especially regarding individual performance. In terms of governance, the existent structures and the lack of communication seem to prevent decisions from being made faster, thus promoting ossification, and not favouring the meas-urement and management of performance.

The role of institutional research in a new millennium univer-sity: Mount Royal University transition Peter Seto – Mount Royal University Calgary (Canada) Track 9 – Room 4B The creation of a 4-year university is a formidable task that re-quires a ground swell of institutional resources and energy. It is the role of institutional research that is examined in this paper with particular attention paid to the perspectives, evidence and process in an institutional research office that contribute to the creation of a university. Some of the important relationships that the institutional research office needs to forge and critical partnerships are considered. Finally, a discussion of institutional research structures, processes and output for sustaining institu-tional transition or for establishing a high performing IR func-tion that will service any institution change.

30

MONDAY 29 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 5 FROM 15:00 – 15:30 British Higher Education “Exceptionalism” and the “Bologna” Process Rosalind Pritchard – University of Ulster (United Kingdom) Track 1 – Room 1A Current British policy is that “UK universities should implement all Bologna Process reforms and brand themselves internation-ally as ‘Bologna-compatible’ and at the forefront of the Euro-pean Higher Education Area.” The paper will discuss the extent of UK compliance with “Bologna” and will reflect upon reasons for UK distance from it; it will discuss how the Bologna aspira-tion towards harmonisation of European higher education re-lates to British "exceptionalism" and to the disjunction in change management within British HE compared to that in some other EU countries. Does your university want to enroll American students? Tara Scholder & Linda Cox Maguire – Maguire Associates (USA) Track 2 – Room 2A As boundaries blur across countries and higher education is increasingly a global commodity, many universities worldwide find they are competing for the same pool of students. Interna-tional students bring important tuition dollars and diversity to universities. The good news is that universities outside the U.S. are an increasingly desirable alternative for American students. We will provide insights and strategies to attract more Ameri-can students to non-U.S. universities that are informed by the results of a national survey of American students’ educational priorities as well as knowledge from decades of experience in the student recruitment market in the United States.

Selective admission to foster excellence and diversity: Amster-dam University College Christoffel Reumer – Amsterdam University College (Netherlands) Track 4 – Room 2B In 2009, Amsterdam University College (AUC) was founded in order to foster excellence and diversity. In the present study, the predictive value of selection methods and criteria used at AUC, including secondary school GPA and interviews, are evalu-ated against the study progress and performance of AUC stu-dents. It was found that prior academic performance (secondary school GPA) was the best predictor of study results at AUC, and therefore seems suitable as a basis for selective admission. The role of interviews in selective admission is discussed, as the predictive value lags behind and validity and reliability of such measures are vulnerable. Quality assurance of stakeholder interaction in higher educa-tion institutions Anu Lyytinen & Seppo Hölttä & Jussi Kivistö & Vuokko Kohtamäki & Elias Pekkola – University of Tampere (Finland) Track 5 – Room 3A This paper will present a literature review of the higher educa-tion institution–stakeholder co-operation and its quality assur-ance. The review outlines and conceptually describes the stake-holder groups of higher education institutions, the forms and scopes of stakeholder co-operation and the goals set for the co-operation. Audits of the quality assurance systems of Finnish higher education institutions will be used as the empirical ma-terial in analysing the quality assurance of social interaction, impact and regional development work which are some of the focus areas of auditing the quality assurance systems of higher education institutions.

31

Competition and quality orientation in the American, English and German university systems Claudius Gellert – University of Urbino (Italy) Track 6 – Room 3B Starting from the thesis of Joseph Ben-David that the paradig-matic character of the German universities in the 19th century was largely determined by the strong competition within that system of higher education, in the paper, firstly, the historical development of the American, English and German universities will be laid out, and secondly, the present-day situation of those models will be accounted for. In the historical overview the functional differences in the university traditions of England and Germany will be analysed, and consequently the internal differentiation of the American research universities will be explained in relation to those traditions. Against this back-ground, the above-mentioned thesis of Ben-David will be sub-jected to a critical evaluation, in particular the validity of his assumption that the presumed competition originated in the decentralisation of the German university system. In the follow-ing, the present deficiencies of the German universities, which are frequently explained by the absence of competitive mecha-nisms, are analysed in comparison to England and the US and in relation to their historical developments. Organisational scale in research and higher education: the critical mass concept Agnete Vabø & Elisabeth Hovdhaugen & Fredrik Piro & Gunnar Sivertsen – NIFU (Norway) Track 8 – Room 4A The concept that research and education organisations in the higher education sector need a certain critical mass to ensure quality and efficiency is well-established in national and inter-national policy, despite little evidence. This paper addresses this issue empirically, using bibliometric data, data on research outputs and study credits, to analyse the relationship between institutional size, quality and productivity. It focuses on four Norwegian case studies and four fields of study, providing initial evidence about the importance of organization size in general, and the particular fields and kinds of outputs (research or edu-cational) where a critical mass is most important.

Higher Education Professionals (HEPROs) as producers and users of institutional research Christian Schneijderberg & Barbara Kehm & Ulrich Teichler – University of Kassel (Germany) and Nadine Merkator – Univer-sity of Trier (Germany) Track 9 – Room 4B A recent study sheds light on higher education professionals (HEPROs) as an emerging group of experts in the field of higher education in Germany. HEPROs are not primarily active in re-search and teaching themselves but entrusted to prepare and support decisions of the management, establish services and actively shape the core activities of research, teaching and study. The analysis of HEPROs as producers and users of institu-tional research is a contribution addressing the professionaliza-tion of an expert group responsible for gathering, analysing and distributing information in support of university management to generate knowledge about the university in a systematic way.

32

MONDAY 29 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 6 FROM 16:00 – 16:30 Differentiated institutional strategies in Chinese higher educa-tion market: applying Bourdieuian lens Shuang-Ye Chen – The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Peoples Republic of China) Track 1 – Room 1A This paper addresses the issue of how market mechanism cre-ates and maintains differentiation among higher education in-stitutions in Chinese context. New academic programs are usu-ally taken as higher education commodity in the market. Based on a case study of two Chinese universities, contrasting institu-tional strategies for differentiation have been identified under market mechanisms. Inspired by Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘the market of symbolic goods’ and ‘cultural capital’ (Bourdieu, 1985; 1986), this study postulates that the different responses of universities to the market actually reflect their strategies of capital conversion that is realized in different fields of cultural production. Changes in Higher Education Institution’s governance: com-paring Portugal and Finland Sara Diogo – Universidade de Aveiro (Portugal) Track 2 – Room 2A The attention attributed to the Bologna process (BP) emerges from institutional reforms driven by national governments in the last decade, aiming at converging a common area of higher education (HE). By comparing Portugal and Finland, we aim at analysing the influence of the BP in governance and manage-ment of higher education institutions (HEIs), namely in changes within the organisational structure and their professionals’ composition. Other national and international trends, such as NPM and increasing internationalisation of the sector are also considered influent variables. A central purpose is to enhance theoretical, methodological and empirical understanding of HE governance in these countries.

Managing cultural diversity in an international university Brian Lawrence – Assumption University of Thailand (Thailand) Track 4 – Room 2B This is an empirical study of the problems caused by the differ-ing cultures of students (and teachers) in a large international university in Thailand. Rather than using the opportunity to learn and understand different cultures, hostile attitudes are formed which adversely affect academic learning and social relationships, and can have adverse career consequences. It is proposed that the university should recognise the problem and proactively manage the cultural issues of awareness, sensitivity and synergy, so as to encourage the realisation of the potential multicultural benefits of this learning institution. The search for good quality assurance audits Timo Aarrevaara – University of Helsinki (Finland) and Marja-Liisa Saarilammi - Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (Finland) Track 5 – Room 3A The ideology for Finnish higher education quality assurance is based largely on enhancement-led principles. This means that in Finland, quality auditors understand that their role is to assist higher education institutions in their development work. This system is based on the acceptance by higher education institu-tions of clearly recorded audit criteria as well as audits imple-mented by FINHEEC, the national quality assurance body. In this presentation we will share our quality audit experiences from Finland, and more precisely we will try to define a good quality assurance system.

33

Strategic management and shaping cultural transformation processes at German universities: Transfer and implementa-tion of a cohesion approach of culture Nora Krzywinski – Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (Germany) Track 6 – Room 3B University culture is seen as one main obstacle to maintain the process of HEI strategic development successfully. Existing or-ganizational approaches of changing processes give theoretical inside, but do not consider the how of successful change as well as a cultural perspective. The article explores which cultural phenomena occur during the changing process and how they lead to the achievement of HEI strategic development. It uses grounded theory and refers to the cohesion oriented approach. Furthermore, it provides approaches applicable to practice in order to implement internal cultural changing processes at Ger-man universities. “Matthew effects” or governance effects? An analysis of per-formance-based funding in German university medicine Rene Krempkow & Uta Landrock – Institute for Research Infor-mation & Quality Assurance (IFQ) (Germany) Track 8 – Room 4A In recent years, performance based funding (PBF) has been central among competitive elements in universities. Faculties across Germany have also been adapting to PBF, but empirical findings thus far provide no well-defined answers about its im-pact. This ambivalence often leads to citing “Matthew effects” as unintended consequences of how third party funding is gov-erned. Conversely, the volume of third party funding from insti-tutions is seen as evidence of successful governance. We em-ploy results of a multivariate analysis in hopes to find the ex-tent to which the scale of faculties and characteristics of gov-ernance relate to the volume of third party funding.

Institutional research, working for the academic community ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION FROM 16:00 – 17:15 Dawn Terkla – Tufts University (USA) and Margaret Cohen – George Washington University (USA) and Peter Hoekstra – Uni-versity of Amsterdam (UvA) (Netherlands) Track 9 – Room 4B This interactive session will focus on the on the development and practice of institutional research in different national higher education contexts. Case studies will be offered with particular emphasis given to tasks; skills and competencies; and products and outputs. There will be opportunities for participants to share their own experiences and questions. It is anticipated that there are valu-able lessons to be learnt from the different approaches and contexts and that issues and challenges identified are not nec-essarily exclusive to any one context and will resonate with IR practitioners across institutional/national/pan-national bounda-ries.

34

MONDAY 29 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 7 FROM 16:45 – 17:15 An exploration of internal diversity and its institutional impli-cations Martin Oosthuizen – North West University (South Africa) Track 1 – Room 1A Internal diversity has received relatively little attention in the debate on differentiation and diversity. However, diversity within institutions constitutes an important mechanism for ad-dressing heterogeneous needs at a system level, and also holds important organisational implications in terms of strategic and academic planning, policy development and management. To explore this argument, the paper describes an emerging frame-work for understanding internal diversity at the Nelson Man-dela Metropolitan University. The framework consists of six dimensions, namely enrolment profile, programme orientation, teaching and learning, research, engagement and staff, which are presented in the form of contrasting faculty and intra-faculty profiles. Leadership styles in a merged higher education institution Dong Li & Vuokko Kohtamäki—University of Tampere (Finland) Track 2 – Room 2A This paper empirically analyses the leadership styles and orien-tations in a Chinese higher education institution (HEI) and in a Finnish HEI in the context of mergers of HEIs in these two coun-tries. The aim is to illuminate how leaders orient to their roles as leaders and managers when keeping the implantation of change processes on track and as a result build a new institu-tion. Recognition of prior learning in Polish higher education Marek Frankowicz – Jagiellonian University (Poland) Track 4 – Room 2B In Poland HE legislation refers to transfer and recognition of learning outcomes acquired only in the framework of higher education sector. We investigated on good practices and the readiness of academic community to recognize LO acquired outside HE. The main conclusions are that HEIs should intro-

duce pilot RPL systems, possibly connected with admission of-fices, accompanied by suitable training for staff involved in RPL and adequate appeal procedures. Flexible approach to admis-sion for 2nd cycle shall be promoted. LO acquired beyond a parent unit (also in non-formal and informal way) should be entered explicitly into the Diploma Supplement. External quality assurance: a meta-theoretical analysis Dhaya Naidoo – Tshwane University of Technology (South Af-rica) Track 5 – Room 3A The paucity of theory building and lack of meta-theoretical frameworks has undermined efforts at understanding the con-troversies surrounding external quality assurance (EQA) in higher education globally. A multi-perspective analytical frame-work was deployed to compare and contrast its philosophical and conceptual orientations to facilitate a cogent understand-ing its implications for higher education. External quality assur-ance was found to be a multifaceted construct that yields eso-teric interpretations that go beyond its premised public good foundation. Therefore simplistic notions of its potential to ad-vance higher education may need to be replaced by more prag-matic approaches to promote authentic attempts at transfor-mative higher education practice. Academic capitalism. Fact, fiction, wishful thinking or bug-bear? Jan Erik Karlsen & Aslaug Mikkelsen – University of Stavanger (Norway) and Hanne Karlsen - BI Norwegian School of Manage-ment (Norway) and Erik F. Øverland – Norwegian Ministry of Education & Research (Norway) Track 6 – Room 3B This paper aims to describe the involvement of universities in market-like behaviours such as commercialisation of research through patents, spin-off companies, and other competitive behaviours to attract faculty and students such as focusing on residential amenities and national rankings, i.e. Academic capi-talism (AC). With a contextual reference to the Nordic countries we focus on how the alleged academic capitalism flavours our understanding of higher education (HE) and what plausible im-

35

plications for students, faculty, and the creation and dissemina-tion of knowledge this may reflect. What makes academics happy? Factors for academic job satis-faction – an international comparison Ester Hoehle & Ulrich Teichler – University of Kassel (Germany) Track 8 – Room 4A Satisfaction through one’s professional life can contribute to professional success and personal well-being and is one of the key factors to make a profession attractive. The academic profession (professors, researchers and lecturers) has been vividly discussed in terms of its working conditions such as time budgeting, contract duration, acknowledgement and perspectives for career planning. The results of the study EUROAC of 13 countries will be pre-sented, showing which factors contribute to overall job satisfac-tion. The international comparison shows: Though all academ-ics surveyed are satisfied in a national average, there are large international differences. Institutional research, working for the academic community ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION FROM 16:00 – 17:15 Dawn Terkla – Tufts University (USA) and Margaret Cohen – George Washington University (USA) and Peter Hoekstra – Uni-versity of Amsterdam (UvA) (Netherlands) Track 9 – Room 4B This interactive session will focus on the on the development and practice of institutional research in different national higher education contexts. Case studies will be offered with particular emphasis given to tasks; skills and competencies; and products and outputs. There will be opportunities for participants to share their own experiences and questions. It is anticipated that there are valu-able lessons to be learnt from the different approaches and contexts and that issues and challenges identified are not nec-essarily exclusive to any one context and will resonate with IR practitioners across institutional/national/pan-national bounda-ries.

MONDAY 29 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 8 FROM 17:30 – 18:00 Positioning as a sales and service orientated higher education institution Johanna Vuori – Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences (Finland) Track 1 – Room 1A This case study discusses how HAAGA HELIA University of Ap-plied Sciences attempts to position itself in the Finnish higher education market by building sales and service management competence in all its undergraduate programs. The research questions are: how does the institution assure that the compe-tence analysis is future oriented, how does the institution as-sure that the competence analysis is carried out in a dialogue with working life and how does the institution assure that the selected analysis method yields results that are appropriate to discuss sales and service skills of undergraduate level educa-tion. Track 2 – Room 2A: NO PARALLEL SESSION Track 4 – Room 2B: NO PARALLEL SESSION Track 5 – Room 3A: NO PARALLEL SESSION Track 6 – Room 3B: NO PARALLEL SESSION Track 8 – Room 4A: NO PARALLEL SESSION Track 9 – Room 4B: NO PARALLEL SESSION

36

37

TUESDAY 30 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSION 1 FROM 10:15 – 10:45 Critical mass and critical diversity – the meanings of 'critical' in balancing mass and diversity in higher education Turo Virtanen – University of Helsinki (Finland) Track 1 – Room 1A For years, it has been a common chant that we need critical mass to create scientific knowledge with excellent quality – or make production of knowledge and education more efficient. This principle is obviously behind the current policies of merg-ing HEIs and profiling research and education in general. At the same time, diversity is emphasized and considered inherently good. The paper seeks to find different meanings of ‘critical’ that are in play – for example, critical to what, where, how and whom – to make sense when mass may overcome diversity and other way round in the context of higher education. Reconciling accountability and quality improvement Victor Borden – Indiana University (USA) Track 2 – Room 2A Public interest in higher education has increased around the world as a college education has become essential to prepare citizens for productive careers and fulfilling lifestyles. With in-creased participation, the focus of accountability shifts from members of the academy to the individuals being served and their representatives. External accountability pressures simul-taneously stimulate and undermine efforts to engage in assess-ment because of fundamental differences between the “outside in” perspectives of policy makers and the “inside out” perspective of academic staff. This paper presents a framework for understanding and dealing effectively with the paradoxical relationship between accountability and quality improvement.

In transition: Bavarian bachelor curricula and how teachers and students see them Johanna Witte & Lydia Hartwig & Sandra Mittag & Gabriele Sandfuchs – Bavarian State Institute for HE Research & Planning (Germany) Track 4 – Room 2B This paper presents the results of an in-depth analysis of 20 Bavarian Bachelor programmes. Based on a thorough docu-ment analysis of the curricula, six main challenges were identi-fied: improving the transparency of the new degrees for stu-dents, sensible modularisation, examination design and density, learner-centred formulation of learning outcomes, recognition of credits gained elsewhere and catering for part-time students. Through two surveys, the views of programme leaders and stu-dent representatives of the 20 programmes on these six chal-lenges were elevated. The study is the first of its kind in Ger-many and, covering both main types of higher education insti-tutions and the main fields of study, allows for telling conclu-sions. Critical points of communication on quality issues in academic world Aimo Virtanen – University of Helsinki (Finland) Track 5 – Room 3A In academic world it is more a rule than an exception to notice the communication between academic and Quality Assurance staff working unsatisfactorily. Common understanding requires struggles both on the side of experts and academics. It pre-sumes a desire to hear and understand both to notice the use of the content of the message. Quality experts should translate their special language into a common and understandable lan-guage. Academics should notice that they live inside the soci-ety, not only inside their own academic world. It means that they should listen also a language used outside the HEIs.

38

Income diversification in Portuguese universities: organiza-tional transformations, successes and failures Tatyana Koryakina Antunes & Cláudia Sarrico & Pedro Teixeira – CIPES (Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies) (Portugal) Track 6 – Room 3B Recent trends in funding of higher education in Europe and the increased competition between higher education institutions have pushed the latter to be more business-like, presenting an opportunity for a potential dialogue between the corporate and academic cultures, but also creating a ground for a conflict. In this paper we examine the interaction of universities with busi-ness environment through income diversification practices in two Portuguese universities. We also analyze what organiza-tional changes have occurred due to this increasing overlap between university and business ethos and examine some of the challenges and resistances faced by universities from a more business-like behavior. Assessing the learning of diverse students: issues of standards, equity and fairness Chi Baik – University of Melbourne (Australia) Track 8 – Room 4A The increased diversity of the student cohort in the past decade has necessitated a rethinking of curriculum design and assess-ment practice in higher education. The paper aims to stimulate discussion on university assessment practices, particularly on notions of equity and fairness within the context of growing attention on standards in higher education. The paper discusses a mixed-method study that examined the assessment practices of 106 academics from various disciplines at a large research-intensive university in Australia. The paper calls for innovation and reform in university assessment practices through policy development at both the institutional and departmental levels.

Life cycle scientific production management Juan Pedro Belchi Gil – SIGMA Gestion Universitaria AIE (Spain) Track 9 – Room 4B The Scientific Production Life Cycle” can be understood in dif-ferent ways. Currently, the vast majority of universities are struggling for keeping the whole scientific production gener-ated by the researchers stored properly and updated at all times. The cycle management and how this scientific produc-tion can be shown differ on several ways, even within the same universities. Finding an easy way to accomplish cycle manage-ment and give Scientific Production visibility as soon as possible to the rest of the environment, society or the world, should be the main goal. In order to return the investment, reduce gap time between scientific production creation and publication will bring more investment to the starting point. Focusing into the Life Cycle, there are four goals, and four solutions are going to be shown in order to help day by day tasks. Those four goals are: 1.- Scientific Production Input, 2.- Scientific Production Output 3.- University Research Annual Report 4.- CV Genera-tion && CV Standardisation.

39

TUESDAY 30 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 2 FROM 11:15 – 11:45

The role of languages within HEIs: a controversial debate Lil Reif – Danube University Krems (Austria) Track 1 – Room 1A As to language practice and language policy in HE, we can find an increase in scientific and public debate during the last two decades, close to political developments at a supranational level (enlargements of the European Union, emergence of the Bologna process). Drawing on material from political debates and language practice in HE, we can develop an understanding about positions and beliefs involved, i.e. about the role of HEIs in society, how science (supposedly) works, to mention some. In this contribution, I will concentrate on the concepts of com-petition and internationalization and their impact on linguistic diversity in HE in Latvia. Quality as transformation: educational metamorphosis Ming Cheng – University of Brighton (United Kingdom) Track 2 – Room 2A This project is intended to increase our understanding of quality as transformation. It will explore how doctoral supervisors and doctoral students in two universities in the UK understand the concepts of quality and transformation. Reflecting on the life stories of students¡¯ learning journeys, this project will identify how transformative learning experience occurs and reveal the key characteristics and factors that encourage that. By doing so, the research will seek out a new way of interpreting quality as transformation, and provide an insight into how doctoral stu-dents could effectively acquire knowledge and skills and take greater ownership of the learning process.

Students in the governance of mass higher education: interna-tional comparisons and trends Petr Pabian – University Pardubice (Czech Republic) and Lenka Minksová – Centre for Higher Education Studies (Czech Repub-lic) Track 4 – Room 2B During the last few decades, massification profoundly trans-formed student participation in higher education; at the same time, higher education governance has been deeply trans-formed as well. What have been the consequences of this dual transformation for student roles in the governance of higher education? We will report comparative conclusions from the study of student participation in governance if Czechia, Italy, Norway, Portugal and United Kingdom, identifying broader trends, differences between the countries as well as the com-mon challenges that all countries face in this area. The struggle for quality management in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Louis van der Westhuizen – University of Free State (South Af-rica) Track 5 – Room 3A In many African countries, higher education had witnessed a long period of relative neglect and stagnation which resulted in a gross decline in the quality of the education. As a conse-quence, the South African Development Community (SADC) higher education community, and other stakeholders, sought new mechanisms to improve quality to counter the perceived decline and the variances in the quality of the higher education sectors. Much has already been done to assure the quality for the provision in the region and to address the different chal-lenges facing the sector, but much still needs to be done to improve the systemic quality assurance.

40

Academic leadership training - for line managers and young research group leaders Nina Mevold & Synnøve Myhre – University of Bergen (Norway) Track 6 – Room 3B The theme of this proposal is the need for leadership training in universities, both at faculty, departmental and research group level. Due to research evaluation reports advising Norwegian univer-sities to make stronger emphasis on leadership, the faculty Board included leadership training as one of the strategic goals in the strategic plan. Leadership training programs for management at faculty and departmental level as well as for younger research group lead-ers were carried out. The first leadership program for younger research group lead-ers (1 year program) is conducted and is now under evaluation. Line management program is planned and has started. Measuring adult learner outcomes for the 21st century Audrey Penner – Holland College (Canada) Track 8 – Room 4A Atlantic Canada has low education and literacy rates. Eighteen percent of the working population do not have a high school diploma, 42% have low literacy levels. Outcomes need to be measured and monitored to assure access to and success in postsecondary education. Research using administrative and performance data identified youth with a high school diploma are under performing. Males under the age of 25 are at highest risk for poor performance. Policy changes to support these learners are important to assure an Atlantic Canadian highly skilled labour force for the 21st Century.

Surviving continuous accreditation activities without de-motivating academic staff Nynke Jo Smit – Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands) Track 9 – Room 4B As accreditations become ever more important for educational programmes, not only to certify the quality of the programme, but also for marketing reasons (sharpening the profile of the programme), a growing number of Faculties has to deal with more than one accreditation every 4-6 years. Although the aca-demic staff is responsible for the programme, support staff can be very important in facilitating the burden. I want to share my best practices on how to deal with specific requirements for separate accreditations at the same time. My contribution is not based on research, but on work experience.

41

TUESDAY 30 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 3 FROM 14:30 – 15:00 National evaluation of Bologna implementation in Finland – procedures and outcomes Sakari Ahola – University of Turku (Finland) Track 1 – Room 1A Finland has performed, as one of the first Bologna-countries, a national evaluation of the outcomes of the implementation of the Bologna process. The evaluation was organised by the Fin-nish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) and per-formed by an independent expert group during 2010. In my presentation I will share some information, as a member of the expert group, on the background and procedures of the evalua-tion, and discuss the main results and conclusions for Finnish higher education policy and the continuing Bologna process. What is the value of arts & humanities research? – Beyond intrinsic value towards useful independence (or independent utility) - ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION FROM 14:30 – 15:45 Paul Benneworth – University of Twente (Netherlands) and Ellen Hazelkorn & Elaine Ward – Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland) and Markus Bugge & Magnus Gulbrandsen – NIFU (Norway) Track 2 – Room 2A In this panel session we consider the persistent failure amongst government, universities, learned societies, and societal stake-holders to develop performance measures which can quantify or capture the impacts that arts and humanities research (A&HR) has upon society. We argue that this failure to achieve an explicit agreement is underlain by a dissonance in the im-plicit ways in which these groups regard the value of arts & hu-manities. Starting from these implicit valuations, we explore 'what matters' to different groups about arts & humanities re-search, and whether there is common ground around which a consensus of this value lies. It will be a panel session that consists of 4 presentations. The first three presentations focus each on how a group of stake-holders (universities, government, and civil society) value A&HR, whereas the 4th presentation brings these three re-search lines together to reflect on both the theoretical and pol-

icy implications of our work. The presentations will be 10 min-utes each, followed by one 20 minute discussion. Student success: moving across the theory/practice divide from conceptual to predictive modelling of risk to inform ef-fective interventions – the case of the University of South Af-rica Hanlie Liebenberg & George Subotzky & Dion van Zyl – Univer-sity of South Africa (South Africa) Track 4 – Room 2B Improving HE student success remains a key quest globally. Whilst theoretical models have contributed substantially to-wards understanding the complex factors impacting on success, formulating effective interventions remains daunting. The Uni-versity of Southern Africa, a distance education mega-university, has developed a framework to address the chal-lenge. The first step was building a contextually-relevant con-ceptual model. From this, detailed student profiling and a pre-dictive model of risks – based on relevant, measurable variables – are being derived to inform effective interventions. This pres-entation critically focuses on the challenges of moving across the theory/practice divide from a conceptual to a predictive, actionable model of success. Quality assurance in an international higher education area: a case-study approach and comparative analysis of six national higher education systems Andrea Bernhard – University of Graz (Austria) Track 5 – Room 3A Transparency and comparability of higher education especially in terms of their academic programmes are important issues for today’s working environment. This paper is an overview of my doctoral thesis which outlines examples of selected OECD coun-tries (Austria, Germany, Finland, United Kingdom, United States and Canada) with their different ways to implement a quality assurance system. Descriptive country reports of these national case-studies together with expert interviews will show the key objectives to transform and improve their quality assurance systems. The focus is laid on the development of such a system and on the different challenges these countries are currently facing.

42

Strategic planning in Ireland's institutes of technology: align-ment or alienation? ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION FROM 14:30 – 15:45 Laurence Elwood – Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology (Ireland) Track 6 – Room 3B The transformational shifts experienced by Ireland’s Institute of Technology over the previous three decades have been pro-found: increased autonomy, new managerial paradigms, and demands for greater accountability. The legislative requirement to publish five-year strategic plans is seen by Ireland’s higher education policy makers as a critical planning mechanism; yet little empirical work exists on the resultant degree of alignment amongst academics and manager-academics. Through an explo-ration of the experiences of these stakeholders, this research reveals a dilemma for Ireland’s higher education policy makers; how can the practice of strategic planning become main-streamed in the unique workplace that is higher education. Qualifying the qualification Eirik Lien – Norwegian University of Science & Technology (Norway) Track 8 – Room 4A I discuss why it is necessary and meaningful to be consistent in keeping qualification description based on the qualification framework apart from description of quality criteria for the grading scale. The descriptions of learning outcomes in a quali-fication framework specify the qualification contents without description of assessment criteria. The grading scale tells the quality of the learning outcome and the student’s qualification, based on assessments of the student’s qualification perform-ance. The qualification framework must be based on a common description, but it must be functional to different grading scales.

The estimation of peer effects for research productivity in higher education Christian Opitz – Zeppelin University (Germany) and Heinke Röbken – University of Oldenburg (Germany) Track 9 – Room 4B The paper provides a theoretical and empirical analysis of possi-ble peer effects among researchers in Higher Education. Our dataset contains detailed information on professors and their affiliations in the field of educational research at German uni-versity departments who were appointed between 1990 and 2008. We provide evidence that besides individual and institu-tional factors the quality of colleagues plays a role in explaining the research output of professors. Implications for individual researchers, appointing faculties and policy makers are dis-cussed.

43

TUESDAY 30 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 4 FROM 15:15 – 15:45 Risking or respecting knowledge diversity? Regulating institu-tional up-grading Gro Hanne Aas & Anne Karine Sørskår - Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) (Norway) Track 1 – Room 1A The Norwegian quality assurance regime for higher education includes the possibility for institutions to be up-graded from one level to another, and consequently gain more powers de-ciding on their own provisions. The first part of such a process is an institutional accreditation carried out by the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance (NOKUT). From a diversity point of view there is a risk that those accreditation exercises could undermine a heterogeneous institutional landscape. Or will the possibility of accreditation rather support diversity? The paper will discuss experiences from actually formulating criteria with the intention of respecting diversity in the institutional land-scape. Measuring societal impacts of universities' research into the arts and the humanities ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION FROM 14:30 – 15:45 Paul Benneworth – University of Twente (Netherlands) and Ellen Hazelkorn & Elaine Ward – Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland) and Markus Bugge & Magnus Gulbrandsen – NIFU (Norway) Track 2 – Room 2A In this panel session we consider the persistent failure amongst government, universities, learned societies, and societal stake-holders to develop performance measures which can quantify or capture the impacts that arts and humanities research (A&HR) has upon society. We argue that this failure to achieve an explicit agreement is underlain by a dissonance in the im-plicit ways in which these groups regard the value of arts & hu-manities. Starting from these implicit valuations, we explore 'what matters' to different groups about arts & humanities re-search, and whether there is common ground around which a consensus of this value lies.

Enhancing student learning through reflection Susan Kahn – Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (USA) Track 4 – Room 2B Students too often experience university education as a frag-mented series of individual modules and requirements. Well-structured reflection can help students make sense of their learning experiences, strengthen engagement in learning, and support development of lifelong learning skills. This paper pro-poses that educators incorporate regular occasions for reflec-tion into degree programmes and discusses recent research on reflection, development in reflective thinking, and approaches to teaching students to reflect meaningfully. Quality management system at Adam Mickiewicz University in Podznao – a case study of practice Maria Ziolek & Agnieszka Kamisznikow – Adam Mickiewicz Uni-versity (Poland) Track 5 – Room 3A In view of the current European debate on the necessary link between creativity and quality in internal quality assurance, Adam Mickiewicz University (AMU) has created a system focus-ing on self-development of its 14 faculties rather than on in-specting them. This proposal deals with the description of the Quality Management System at AMU in terms of its principles, structure, procedures and methodology of quality assurance practices. The results of the first quality cycle are shown. The proposal also sketches the impact of the first evaluation on the future development and embedding of a quality culture in all areas of the university.

44

Strategic planning in Ireland's institutes of technology: align-ment or alienation? ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION FROM 14:30 – 15:45 Laurence Elwood – Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology (Ireland) Track 6 – Room 3B The transformational shifts experienced by Ireland’s Institute of Technology over the previous three decades have been pro-found: increased autonomy, new managerial paradigms, and demands for greater accountability. The legislative requirement to publish five-year strategic plans is seen by Ireland’s higher education policy makers as a critical planning mechanism; yet little empirical work exists on the resultant degree of alignment amongst academics and manager-academics. Through an explo-ration of the experiences of these stakeholders, this research reveals a dilemma for Ireland’s higher education policy makers; how can the practice of strategic planning become main-streamed in the unique workplace that is higher education. Track 8 – Room 4A: NO PARALLEL SESSION Corporate management for higher education: an application of the balanced scorecard Bilola Theresia Samfoga Doh – University of Turku (Finland) Track 9 – Room 4B Higher education objectives reflect factors like international organisations, global trends as well national and societal needs. In today’s higher education arena none of these factors seem to be constant and higher education is faced with the requirement to be constantly adapting to these influences while maintaining or continuously improving its performance level. Business or-ganisations are conversant with these and have developed ap-proaches addressing performance measurement, strategic posi-tioning and customer satisfaction which, despite relative strangeness to higher education are increasingly important. What can higher education learn from business in its attempt to manage and measure performance and continuously adapt to changes?

45

TUESDAY 30 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 5 FROM 16:15 – 16:45 Unfolding diversity - harvesting excellence Silvie Klein-Franke – Management Center Innsbruck (Austria) Track 1 – Room 1A Metastudies show that diversity contributes to the highest per-formance of teams and organizations – as well as to the lowest. The outcome essentially depends on leadership competencies (1, 5). Analysis of key-indicators regarding recent developments in German academic institutions with respect to different out-groups is presented. Examples focus on internationals and women’s inclusion. Quantitative and qualitative aspects are discussed from multidisciplinary viewpoints to reflect status quo and meaningful future developments. In-group/out-group dynamics are not acknowledged in German universities. Leadership abilities are not consciously used to create the inspiring and inclusive work-culture needed to re-main competitive in our global, self-accelerating knowledge society. Teaching in the ivory tower: what are the dimensions of job satisfaction Maria de Lourdes Machado-Taylor & Odilia Gouveia & Virgilio Meira Soares & Rui Brites – CIPES (Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies) (Portugal) Track 2 – Room 2A The purpose of this paper is to present and analyze the findings of a national study on satisfaction and motivation of academics, carried out at the Center for Research on Higher Education Poli-cies (CIPES). Under the scope of this study we aim to identify the determinants for recruitment and retention of academic staff, to attract academic talents and to assist Portuguese higher education institutions to manage their competitive posi-tion in a context of change related with the recent major re-forms of the Portuguese higher education.

Increasing completion rates in Norwegian doctoral training Svein Kyvik & Terje Bruen Olsen – NIFU (Norway) Track 4 – Room 2B This paper examines completion rates and time-to-degree in Norwegian doctoral training. During the years 1981-2009, a steadily increasing share of doctoral students holding a scholar-ship have completed their doctoral degree within ten years; from about 50 percent of those admitted in 1981 to an ex-pected 80 percent of those admitted in 2001. In many ways, this is a success story, and the reasons for the increasing effi-ciency in doctoral training will be analyzed. Still, an estimated 20 percent drop-out rate is substantial and needs to be ex-plained, and also the fact that average time-to-degree has not declined significantly. Customer satisfaction - a threat to quality? Bill Harvey – Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (United Kingdom) Track 5 – Room 3A Recent policy developments in England are driving HE towards a ‘customer satisfaction’ model of quality, in which funding for HE is provided largely through tuition fees. Student engage-ment is increasingly framed in terms of a purchase of services and the student experience is conceptualised in terms of value for money. In Scotland and Wales, there remains a greater role for state funding of HE, and consequently HE is seen as more of a public service. The implications of this divergence in transac-tional models for the UK HE system as a whole will be explored.

46

A countywide mentoring program for female academics and regional SME Nellie Wagner – University of Potsdam (Germany) Track 6 – Room 3B As a case study of practice the program ‘Mentoring for women – creating future together’ will be presented. In this program chosen female (PhD) students from multidisciplinary back-grounds are annually matched with female and male executives of small and medium sized enterprises in the Berlin-Brandenburg region and get a 10 months supporting and quali-fied training agenda. They benefit of a personal partnership, get insights in the workflows of their mentors and build up a net-work in the region including sciences, administrations and pri-vate enterprises. Who will be measuring outcomes? A survey on early career researchers and professionals in higher education Christian Schneijderberg & Anna Kosmützky – University of Kas-sel (Germany) and Nadine Merkator – University of Trier (Germany) and Isabel Steinhardt – University of Frankfurt (Germany) Track 8 – Room 4A Who will be measuring outcomes? This question will be ad-dressed with presenting the results of a survey (response rate 78.5%) among the members (176 people) of a network of early career researchers and professionals in higher education. Ques-tions addressed are: Which disciplinary roots, orientation and future perspectives regarding their research and professional development do they have? What is their institutional working context? How do they network within the national and interna-tional higher education research community as well as in their disciplinary fields? In answering this we depict the specificities of an important part of our academic tribe within its territory.

The utility of assessments as predictors of study success in master programmes Willem van Os & Marlies van Beek – VU University Amsterdam (Netherlands) Track 9 – Room 4B As a result of the introduction of the bachelor-master structure vocational bachelor students are allowed to follow a University master. However, because these students lack basic skills, espe-cially in the methodological statistical domain, in all Dutch uni-versities they first have to follow a bridging programme of about 60 EC's. In addition, at VU University Amsterdam these students participate in an assessment. In this article the predic-tive value of that assessment is shown, the study success, the pace of study and the achieved level of these students in the master phase, compared to ‘normal’ university bachelor stu-dents.

47

TUESDAY 30 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 6 FROM 17:00 – 17:30 Can too much diversity be a threat to identity? Leslie Wardley & Charles Bélanger & Anna Zhokova – Lauren-tian University (Canada) Track 1 – Room 1A Being pro-diversity is like being pro-multiculturalism, it is per-ceived as a life style choice. Proponents are construed as cultur-ally refined whereas opponents are alleged to be racist and uncultured. This paper will use Canada, a country of immi-grants, to show that on the one hand, ethnic diversity can be of critical value to a country and to an educational institution and on the other hand, can lead to a loss of national and institu-tional identity if policies do not recognize the danger. Track 2 – Room 2A: NO PARALLEL SESSION Your PhD and your supervisor - a success story, or not... Cornelius Fourie – University of Johannesburg (South Africa) Track 4 – Room 2B There is consensus in the academic community in South Africa that not enough PhDs are produced in relation to the develop-mental needs of the country. In this regard, the inadequate number of supervisors in the South African higher education system seems to be a constraint on the overall capacity to pro-duce the requisite number of doctoral degrees. The reported research gives reasons why some PhD students at the Univer-sity of Johannesburg (South Africa) take longer than expected to complete their studies and the influence of supervisory prac-tices on prolonged study periods. Track 5 – Room 3A: NO PARALLEL SESSION

Arts, humanities and social sciences research; nobody’s busi-ness, or is it? Paul Kilkenny – Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland) Track 6 – Room 3B There is a lot of debate in Ireland about measuring the eco-nomic and social value of research conducted in the arts, hu-manities and social sciences fields. This proposal aims to iden-tify methods, using personal experience of research data gath-ering, to supplement traditional evaluations of AHSS research, with particular emphasis on impact and quantifying how the research is utilised in the economy and society. Complemented by extensive literature review, an analysis of AHSS research alongside economic and social praxis will be conducted. The presentation will address core issues identified and suggest changes to institutional research data management. Track 8 – Room 4A: NO PARALLEL SESSION Variation and similarity in institutional research offices Robert Cowin – Douglas College (Canada) Track 9 – Room 4B In jointly assessing human resource challenges regarding the recruitment, retention and professional development of institu-tional researchers, fourteen directors began by considering the nature of institutional research and the range of functions it can encompass. With each of their offices performing different subsets of functions, they identified the most common empha-ses. A number of operational issues facing what were often small offices would seem generalisable to other jurisdictions. This session describes several considerations in conducting in-stitutional research within colleges and universities. It does not recommend a particular approach because effective institu-tional research depends on the institution’s history and con-text.

48

49

WEDNESDAY 31 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 1 FROM 10:15 – 10:45

Cultural capital, elite reproduction, and the role of European universities Claudius Gellert – University of Urbino (Italy) Track 1 – Room 1A The expansion and differentiation of the higher education sys-tem in the Western world over the last 40 years has increased the educational opportunities for large sections of formerly disadvantaged groups of society. At the same time, there are indications that the role of the upper classes in countries like Germany, France, Italy or Britain, has not much changed with regard to their structural potential for political, socio-economic and cultural influence, or in terms of their capacity for system-atic self-recruitment. Thus, elite higher education still occurs on different levels. On the one hand, it serves the qualification of technocratic, functional elites who are characterised both by globalised orientation and a utilitarian narrowness of outlook. On the other hand, it is still part of the overall structure of terti-ary education, and is realised (from Oxford, via the ENA, to Princeton) within systems of mass higher education, without apparently being restricted in its predominant function, viz. the reproduction of social elites. Mergers in higher education across Europe – institutional as-pects and effects in organisational development Attila Pausits – Danube University Krems (Austria) and Christian Ganseuer – University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany) Track 2 – Room 2A On studying higher education development issues across Europe, it becomes clear that the ultimate aim of the reconfig-uring of the system is to achieve a new competitive institutional landscape. Mergers occur fairly regularly in higher education and are going to become a common phenomenon in European Higher Education Area. Today many national higher education systems plan or already merge higher education institutions to create more effective and efficient organisations. This paper describes and discusses relevant aspects of this phenomenon from theory into practical implementation. The research analy-

ses three different case studies from Germany, Denmark and Finland. Quantitative data analysis before and after the institu-tions merge helps to understand the real effects as well as cru-cial aspects of mergers in higher education. Employability and transition to labour market in emerging economies: an Indian perspective on Higher education Ambili Gopalakrishnan – Christ Nagar College of Education (India) Track 4 – Room 2B Young people account for one fifth of the world’s population and according to the population projections of Planning Com-mission of India; they contribute to 22.8% of the Indian popula-tion. Majority of these young people constitute student popula-tion acquiring higher education who may contribute to future workforce of the country. Educational qualification levels of the people in the age group 15 to 29 are also expected to improve significantly in the next decade. Hence the paper seeks to study the higher education development in India and analyses em-ployability of higher education sector in India and its transition to labour market. The study shows that India with enormous population of 1.21 billion people and an expanding economy is in urgent demand for qualified work force. Finding reliable solu-tions for developing the higher education system to facilitate sustainable economic growth is the call which will require per-sistent policy, polity and political motivation in the right direc-tion from the stakeholders which lacks at the moment in the country.

50

Measuring student throughput, students float and drop out in HEI - ‘Standardisation of terminology’ Benedicte Løseth – Norwegian Social Science Data Services Track 5 – Room 3A What do we really mean by student throughput, student float and drop out? This paper aims to give a step-by-step approach to the process and importance of establishing a common un-derstanding of these terms in order to understand these mat-ters in a more general and objective way. ‘ The paper stresses and presents the necessary terminology for developing a public web based online tool for a more detailed understanding of student drop-out from higher education, but also to understand the sheer volume and frequency with which students changes academic orientation within their own institution or between institutions. University in the global market economy: university merger as means of organisational transformation Jouni Kekäle – University of Helsinki (Finland) Track 6 – Room 3B The University of Eastern Finland was established through a merger between the Universities of Joensuu and Kuopio. The merger has been one of the Government's spearhead projects connected to new university legislation in Finland in 2010. The university reform steers the university sector towards the global market economy: the independent universities increas-ingly compete for students and prestige. The leadership struc-tures of the universities were reformed, external business fund-ing has been gained, and university governments now have more external members than before. The presentation deals with the major reform and the lessons learned so far from this and similar organizational reforms (university mergers), espe-cially in European context.

Visualisation of the performance and outcome of organisa-tional university units: balance pie chart and efficiency radar diagram Gerald Gaberscik & Hans Michael Muhr & Franz Stelzer – Graz University of Technology (Austria) Track 8 – Room 4A To have a useful overview new tools are needed. They have to show the rather complex interdependencies in a summarizing way and should not exclude any particular boundary condition for the decisions needed. On the basis of these considerations Graz University of Technology has developed a Balance Pie Chart, a set of indicators to monitor the equilibrium between the academics’ teaching load, their administrative duties and their potential for scientific work. In addition an Efficiency Ra-dar Diagram was developed to show the output to input ratio. For this purpose significant output parameters have to be de-fined. Easy access to large datasets with pivot tables in excel & tab-leau TECHNICAL WORKSHOP/DISCUSSION FROM 10:15 – 13:15 (including coffee/tea break) Keith Fortowsky & Katherine McGovern – University of Regina (Canada) Track 9 – Room 4B "Pivot Tables" are a hugely powerful way for individual analysts to quickly create cross-tabulations and similar analysis of very large datasets. They are useful both for rapid "ad hoc" analysis and for building detailed reports that can be easily “filtered” to show only needed portions of a large dataset. Reports based upon pivot tables allow much "analytic reporting" to be moved from IT staff directly to analysts who know the actual business questions. This presentation demonstrates the use of pivot tables in both Microsoft Excel and a new product, Tableau. Examples focus on student diversity and retention analysis.

51

WEDNESDAY 31 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 2 FROM 11:00 – 11:30 Stakeholder board member experience. The Finnish university reform Maria Salmela-Mattila – University of Tampere (Finland) Track 1 – Room 1A My study is a follow-up to my paper presented at EAIR Forum in 2010. The aim of the present paper is to uncover the experi-ences of members of stakeholder boards in Finnish universities. The case study universities are Helsinki University, Tampere University of Technology and Aalto University. I will interview as many board members as possible. I will ask them 1) What have been the major challenges for the new board 2) To comment on some basic claims made upon stakeholder boards 3) About the major challenges in developing the inner workings of the board Foresighting knowledge policy for the next generation Jan Erik Karlsen – University of Stavanger (Norway) and Erik F. Øverland – Norwegian Ministry of Education & Research (Norway) Track 2 – Room 2A This paper describes the long term challenges of Norwegian educational and research policy framing the role of Higher Edu-cation Institutions (HEIs). Based on input from Nordic HEI policy experts a vision (acronym: SMARTT) for the next generation (25-30 years), encompassing Science, Mobility, Advancement, Re-search and Technology Transfer is developed. Applying the methodology of Foresights we distinguish between the cogni-tive and debating stages of a long term vision, and the more medium term strategic perspective connected to the next two legislature periods (8-10 years) in which the initial stages of shaping the futures have to be planned and implemented (Øverland 2010).

Overseas Finnish employers’ perceptions of international graduates from Finnish higher education Yuzhuo Cai – University of Tampere (Finland) Track 4 – Room 2B Using a qualitative approach mainly based on open-ended in-terviews of recruiters and employees of Finnish companies in China, this study explores the employment possibilities of Fin-nish educated Chinese graduates in these companies. The re-sults indicate that the Finnish companies in China generally incline to recruit Chinese students in spite of variations be-tween companies, work positions and employers. However, the reality is that less Finnish educated Chinese are employed there. Therefore, there is a need to promote the link between desired skills by Finnish employers in China and Finnish educa-tion experience of Chinese graduates. Positioning quality management within the university: de-mands, goals, forms and consequences Juergen Roth – University of Vienna (Austria) Track 5 – Room 3A The field of Quality Management in Higher Education has been changing continuously. Among the newer trends is the demand for institutional systems of quality assurance within universi-ties. Looking at recent developments in Germany (the move from program to systems accreditation) and Austria (an upcom-ing new law requiring institutional audits of universities’ QM-systems) I will look at the various areas and functions of QM and discuss different forms of institutionalising QM within uni-versities. The primary aim of this exercise is to provide decision making within universities with a clearer picture of how differ-ent organisational forms of QM relate to different demands and what internal consequences may come associated with them.

52

University boards: formal authority and accountability in five countries Zarko Dragsic & Barbara Kehm & Peter Martin Kretek – Univer-sity of Kassel (Germany) Track 6 – Room 3B This contribution focuses on university boards as institutional governance actors and the formal authorities assigned to them. It represents a comparative view based on empirical analysis of higher education laws in 5 European countries. The purpose of this contribution is to create a part of a framework for future research that will open up the ‘black box‘ of university govern-ance and bridge the gap between board expectations and board realities. The article shows the varieties of types of uni-versity boards and their authorities over specific tasks, as well as accountability patterns. The vicious circle of student (non-)involvement in quality as-sessment Lucie Hündlová & Karla Provázková – Centre for Higher Educa-tion Studies (Czech Republic) and Petr Pabian – University Par-dubice (Czech Republic) Track 8 – Room 4A It has been generally acknowledged that students should par-ticipate in university affairs; above all, that they should play an important part in quality assurance processes. In our in-depth qualitative study of student assessment of teaching at two Czech universities, participants talked about the “vicious circle” of student (non-)involvement. The vicious circle has two mutu-ally reinforcing aspects: students don’t participate in the assess-ment and teachers don’t take the results seriously. In our pa-per, we will look for a way to break such vicious circle.

Easy access to large datasets with pivot tables in excel & tab-leau TECHNICAL WORKSHOP/DISCUSSION FROM 10:15 – 13:15 (including coffee/tea break) Keith Fortowsky & Katherine McGovern – University of Regina (Canada) Track 9 – Room 4B "Pivot Tables" are a hugely powerful way for individual analysts to quickly create cross-tabulations and similar analysis of very large datasets. They are useful both for rapid "ad hoc" analysis and for building detailed reports that can be easily “filtered” to show only needed portions of a large dataset. Reports based upon pivot tables allow much "analytic reporting" to be moved from IT staff directly to analysts who know the actual business questions. This presentation demonstrates the use of pivot tables in both Microsoft Excel and a new product, Tableau. Examples focus on student diversity and retention analysis.

53

WEDNESDAY 31 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 3 FROM 12:00 – 12:30 Diversity and inertia at the university Orlando Albornoz – Universidad Central de Venezuela (Venezuela) Track 1 – Room 1A I would like to discuss in this paper the issue of diversity in higher education vis-á-vis inertia and its consequences in each instance, some of which I find negative, since by adopting or accepting inertia –involuntarily, perhaps, these countries be-come isolated from the contemporary mainstream and by de-fault damage the opportunities for development. In the name of social justice this disequilibrium reinforces inequality and makes for highly inefficient educational systems. This happens to be the case of some countries in Latin America and the Carib-bean, which I intent to analyses in this paper. Collaborative articulation programs: giving graduates a global advantage Bruce Calway – Swinburne University of Technology (Australia) Track 2 – Room 2A In an increasingly interdependent world, students in a mobile, transnational job market need competitive advantages that go beyond demonstrated competence within their own local set-ting (Kleindorfer, Wind and Gunter (2009). Collaborative Articu-lations Programs (CAPs) that see universities working together to provide students with international study experiences are one way of providing this competitive edge. CAPs as offered by Swinburne University of Technology and its partner universities offers students two degrees based on mu-tual two-way credit arrangements where each university part-ner offers units leading to a major/s. This enables students to take one specialisation from each institution. The model also allows seamlessly for the development of joint programs, teacher training, guest lectures to staff and students, subject development and delivery, collaborative research and student and staff exchange.

This paper discusses the CAPs approach as one model of global-ising learning and teaching and discusses the model in the light of the Swinburne University of Technology and Chinese partner experiences. Our presentation will provide an overview of the CAPs model; its workings, benefits and the enormous potential it has to give students and staff of collaborating institutions a global competitive edge. Who attends work-related training five years after gradua-tion? A comparison across European countries Liv Anne Støren – NIFU (Norway) Track 4 – Room 2B The paper focuses on which factors promote participating in training among higher education (HE) graduates in 13 European countries. Participation in LLL is here restricted to work-related training. Participation in work-related training varies across countries, between different fields of study from which the HE workers have graduated, and according to attained academic level. The paper aims at examining the mechanisms that cause this variation, by taken into account personal competency pro-files, preferences, motivation and effort, as well as social capital and workplace related characteristics. Survey data (the REFLEX study) referring to the situation five years after graduation will be employed. The role of peer reviewers in higher education quality assess-ment: a view from Argentina Monica Marquina – Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento (Argentina) Track 5 – Room 3A The paper aims to study the experience of fifteen years of peer review in the accreditation of undergraduate and graduate pro-grammes in Argentina, from the perspective of three main ac-tors: 1) managers and technicians of the national agency re-sponsible for the accreditation processes; b) academic peer reviewers and c) managers of programmes assessed. Based on data obtained from a survey to peer reviewers and in depth interviews with managers, the tensions surrounding the work of peer reviewers, its causes and how they are faced from the accrediting agency are examined.

54

Track 6 – Room 3B: NO PARALLEL SESSION Higher education resource allocation in the context of new public management Sadri Tahar & Roman Bouteiller – Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) (Switzerland) Track 8 – Room 4A The New Public Management concept rationalized competitive funding as an effective and efficient coordination or govern-ance device for higher education systems. Existing studies, however, highlight that competitive funding has negative side effects. Furthermore comparative studies show, that many re-forms result in “soft” approaches of competitive funding. To provide a better understanding of how competition is used as coordination mechanism at the core funding level of higher education institutions we performed a case study of a funding reform project. Our case analysis also reflects how potential negative side effects can be circumvented through appropriate design of funding mechanisms. Easy access to large datasets with pivot tables in excel & tab-leau TECHNICAL WORKSHOP/DISCUSSION FROM 10:15 – 13:15 Keith Fortowsky & Katherine McGovern – University of Regina (Canada) Track 9 – Room 4B

55

WEDNESDAY 31 AUGUST: PARALLEL SESSIONS 4 FROM 12:45 – 13:15 Track 1 – Room 1A: NO PARALLEL SESSION Strategic policy drivers for trans-national education provisions of higher education institutions. The German case Nadine Fromm – Universität Flensburg (Germany) Track 2 – Room 2A The conference paper proposal focuses the trans-national edu-cation provisions by German universities as one policy action within the governmental framework for internationalisation of tertiary education. Over the last decade, political and economic interests driving international activities became more impor-tant than social or cultural rationales and are often manifested in ‘new’ forms of internationalisation, such as programme and institution mobility. The emphasis of such drivers indicates that, in contrast to other policies at this sector, the export engage-ment is more nation-bound even framed by national context and seems to develop into a top-down activity. Track 4 – Room 2B: NO PARALLEL SESSION Economies of scale in higher education: Does size make sense for universities? Matthias Klumpp – FOM University of Applied Sciences Essen (Germany) and Stephan Zelewski – University of Duisburg-Essen and Dilay Çelebi – Istanbul Technical University (Turkey) Track 5 – Room 3A The basic concept of economies of scale postulating decreasing production costs per production item with increasing overall production volume can be regarded as one of the cornerstones of modern business administration theory [1]. Furthermore this topic is also addressed in higher education research with sev-eral measurement methods as e.g. data envelopment analysis applied to university settings [2]. Track 6 – Room 3B: NO PARALLEL SESSION Track 8 – Room 4A: NO PARALLEL SESSION

Track 9 – Room 4B: Easy access to large datasets with pivot tables in excel & tableau TECHNICAL WORKSHOP/DISCUSSION FROM 10:15 – 13:15 Keith Fortowsky & Katherine McGovern – University of Regina (Canada)

56

PRACTICAL LOCAL INFORMATION Poland Poland is the largest of the East Euro-pean countries which joined the EU in May 2004. Poland is comparable in size to Italy or Germany (in USA larger than Mexico) and with a population of approximately 39 million (e.g. more than California) it ranks amongst the most influential and remarkable coun-tries in central and Eastern Europe. Poland is a stable democracy with a truly fascinating history, great cultural heritage and several areas of out-standing natural beauty. Many Polish tourist sights have already gained a worldwide reputation and are an absolute must to see if you con-sider a journey to this area: Kraków, Gdansk, Czestochowa, Auschwitz and the Tatra mountains. For more information about Poland http://www.poland.travel/en Warsaw Warsaw has always been a city of cul-ture. It has over 400 public cultural insti-tutions and an even greater, continually growing, number of private institutions. The most dominant are the ones of na-tional and international importance: The Grand Theatre - National Opera, Na-tional Philharmonic, the Royal Castle, National Museum and the three major institutions that exhibit and collect con-temporary art: National Art Gallery, Cen-tre for Contemporary Art and the Mu-seum of Modern Art. The city also re-members the great artists - from Freder-ick Chopin who, since 2010 has been

commemorated by the ultra-modern, multimedia Chopin Museum. For more formation about Warsaw: http://www.warsawtour.pl/en or http://www.um.warszawa.pl/en Language In Poland the official language is Pol-ish. In Warsaw and other major cities English is spoken especially by the younger generation. Currency The currency of Poland is the new Polish Zloty (PLN). The exchange rate of 1 PLN is approximately 0,25 Euro. Other cur-rencies cannot be accepted in payment for services or goods. Banks in town and also at the airport offer currency ex-change services. Cash-point machines are available throughout the city. The EAIR Forum Secretariat will ac-cept Euros only. Banks Normal banking hours are from 09:00 – 17:00 from Monday till Friday and Saturdays from 09:00 – 14:00. 24 hour ATM machines are available in all of Warsaw. Telephone To call international from Poland, dial + or 00, followed by the country code. Poland’s country code is +48. Shopping Hours Opening hours of shops are usually from 09:00 to 19:00 Monday till Sat-urday.

Tipping Tipping is expected but not compul-sory. If you feel well with the service, you can give a tip of 10% once you have received your change. Electricity Electricity supply in Poland is AC 220 Volts, 50 Hertz. Sockets meet European regulations and use the round pin sys-tem. However, most hotels have adap-tors for different plugs. Make sure that the electrical appliances you are going to use (computers, mobile phone chargers, shavers…) work at this voltage. Polish time The local time in Poland is Greenwich Mean Time + 1 hour. Transport Taxi services Merc Taxi: +48 22 677 77 77 MPT Radio Taxi: +48 19 191 Sawa Taxi: +48 22 644 44 44

If you are going somewhere and need to find directions and transportation, you can find more info in English at For Metro and Tram service: w w w . u r b a n r a i l . n e t / e u / w a r /warszawa.htm Don’t hesitate to ask to the Polish staff for directions and best ways to go.

57

Accommodation If you would like to contact a col-league staying in one of the Forum accommodations, you will find their hotel addresses below. For maps from the Warsaw School of Economics to the various hotels, please visit w w w . e a i r . n l / f o r u m / w a r s a w /hotelsandflights.asp Hotel 1*** MDM HOTEL – Pl. Konstytucji 1, Tel. + 48 22 33 91 600

Hotel 2**** POLONIA PALACE HOTEL – Al. Jerozolim-skie 45, Tel. +48 22 31 82 800 Hotel 3**** JAN III SOBIESKI HOTEL – Pl. Artura Zawiszy 1, Tel. +48 22 57 91 000 Hotel 4*** GOLDEN TULIP WARSAW CENTRE HOTEL – Ul. Towarowa 2, Tel. +48 22 58 27 500 Hotel 5 HOTEL SOKRATES (UNIVERSITY OF WAR-SAW STUDENT HOTEL) – Ul. Smyczkova 9, Tel. +48 22 55 33 500 Liability Neither EAIR nor the Warsaw School of Economics are liable for any losses, theft, accidents, or damage to per-sons or objects, regardless of the cause. Participants and accompanying persons attending the Forum and all related events do so at their own risk and responsibility.

58

EAIR INFORMATION EAIR Annual General Meeting Tuesday 30 August 2011 12:00 - 13:00 Location: Building A – Aula A Everyone interested in EAIR business is most welcome to attend. Although only EAIR members have the right to vote, non-members are also encouraged to express their ideas for new activities and to comment on existing ones. The agenda will include a financial report, an activity report and a discus-sion on future activities. There will be no handouts available at the Forum. The various enclosures will be projected on screen during the meeting. Forum Website All information concerning the Forum will remain available for some time after the Forum at the EAIR website: www.eair.nl/forum/warsaw EAIR Information For information on EAIR membership and general informa-tion on EAIR, please contact the EAIR Secretariat in Amster-dam. Contact details can be found at http://www.eair.nl/contact/ EAIR Committees EAIR Executive Committee 2010-2011 Prof Dr Stephan Laske University of Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria (Chair) Mr Jānis Stonis University of Latvia Riga Latvia (Co-Chair) Prof Dr Rosalind Pritchard University of Ulster Coleraine – N.I. United Kingdom (Secretary) Dr Joke Snippe The Hague the Netherlands (Treasurer) Prof Dr Jeroen Huisman University of Bath Bath United Kingdom Dr James Williams Birmingham City University Birmingham United Kingdom Dr Maria Joao Pires da Rosa CIPES (Centre for Research in HE Policies) Matosinhos Portugal Dr Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen NIFU STEP Oslo Norway

Dr Johanna Witte Bavarian State Institute for HE Research & Planning Munich Germany Ex-officio members Prof Dr Janina Jozwiak Warsaw School of Economics War-saw Poland (Forum Chair Warsaw 2011) Drs Peter Hoekstra University of Amsterdam the Nether-lands (UvA Liaison) President of EAIR Prof Mantz Yorke Lancaster University Manchester United Kingdom Forum Programme Committee 2010 - 2011 Prof Dr Janina Jozwiak Warsaw School of Economics War-saw Poland (Forum Chair) Dr Jakub Brdulak Warsaw School of Economics Warsaw Poland (Forum Co-Chair) Prof Dr Ewa Chmielecka Warsaw School of Economics War-saw Poland Prof Dr Jan Sadlak IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence Poland Prof Dr Tomasz Szapiro Warsaw School of Economics War-saw Poland Prof Dr Stephan Laske University of Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria Dr Maria Joao Pires da Rosa CIPES (Centre for Research in HE Policies) Matosinhos Portugal Forum (Local) Coordinators Karina Michalczyk-Bark Warsaw School of Economics War-saw Poland Gerlof Groenewoud and Lina Suratin EAIR Secretariat Am-sterdam the Netherlands

59

EAIR Executive Committee 2011-2012 Prof Dr Jeroen Huisman University of Bath Bath United Kingdom (Chair) Mr Jānis Stonis University of Latvia Riga Latvia (Co-Chair) Prof Dr Rosalind Pritchard University of Ulster Coleraine – N.I. United Kingdom (Secretary) Drs Peter Hoekstra University of Amsterdam the Nether-lands (Treasurer) Prof Dr Stephan Laske University of Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria Dr James Williams Birmingham City University Birmingham United Kingdom Dr Maria Joao Pires da Rosa CIPES (Centre for Research in HE Policies) Matosinhos Portugal Dr Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen NIFU STEP Oslo Norway Dr Attila Pausits Danube University Krems Krems Austria Prof Dr Jouni Kekäle University of Eastern Finland Joensuu Finland Ex-officio members Prof Dr Jan Erik Karlsen University of Stavanger Stavanger Norway (Forum Chair Stavanger 2012) President of EAIR Prof Mantz Yorke Lancaster University Manchester United Kingdom Forum Programme Committee 2011-2012 Prof Dr Jan Erik Karlsen University of Stavanger Stavanger Norway (Forum Chair) Dr Ingvild Marheim Larsen Norwegian Ministry of Education & Research Oslo Norway Mr Ole-Jacob Skodvin Norwegian Agency for Quality Assur-ance in Education Oslo Norway Prof Dag Aasland University of Agder Kristiansand Norway Mr Jānis Stonis University of Latvia Riga Latvia Prof Dr Rosalind Pritchard University of Ulster Coleraine – N.I. United Kingdom Dr Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen NIFU STEP Oslo Norway

Forum (Local) Coordinators Stig Selmer-Anderssen University of Stavanger Stavanger Norway Gerlof Groenewoud and Lina Suratin EAIR Secretariat Am-sterdam the Netherlands EAIR 34th Annual Forum Stavanger, Norway We are happy to announce that next year the EAIR 34th annual Forum will be held in Stavanger in Norway from 5 till 8 Septem-ber 2012. EAIR will organise this Forum in cooperation with the Univer-sity of Stavanger. The Forum theme is ‘The Social Contract of Higher Education’ and there will be seven tracks with different themes and topics. The EAIR Stavanger Forum organisation is looking forward to see you all next year in Stavanger, Norway.

60

INDEX OF TRACK CHAIRS, KEY NOTES AND (CO-) AUTHORS Aarrevaara 32 Aas 43 Adelman 15 & 28 Ahola 41 Albornoz 53 Amaral 25 Baik 38 Baird 21 Banta 22 Bélanger 47 Belchi Gil 38 Benneworth 41 & 43 Bernhard 41 Blaich 22 Borden 13 & 37 Børsheim 23 Bouteiller 54 Bugge 41 & 43 Cabrito 25 Cai 51 Calway 53 Cardoso 25 Celebi 55 Cerdeira 25 Chen 32 Cheng 39 Cohen 33 & 35 Cowin 47 Cox Maguire 30 Deeg 29 Dilger 24 Diogo 32 Dragsic 52 Elwood 42 & 44 Fahringer 27 Fonseca 25 Fortowsky 50

Fourie 47 Frankowicz 34 & 52 Fromm 55 Fulford 12 Fumasoli 25 Gaberscik 50 Ganseuer 23 & 49 Gellert 31 & 49 Geschwind 21 Girotto 28 Gopalakrishnan 49 Gordon 21 Gorman 12 Gouveia 45 Gruzdev 23 Gulbrandsen 41 & 43 Harnischmacher 28 Hartwig 37 Harvey 45 Hazelkorn 41 & 43 Heigl 26 Hoehle 35 Hoekstra 19, 33 & 35 Hovdhaugen 18, 26 & 31 Hölttä 30 Hugentobler 13 Huisman 17 Hündlova 52 Hurrell 28 João Pires da Rosa 25 Jurcevic 22 Kahn 43 Kamisznikow 43 Kane 21 Karlsen, Hanne 34 Karlsen, Jan Erik 34 & 51 Kehm 21, 31 & 52

Kekäle 50 Ketcheson 24 Kilkenny 47 Kivistö 30 Klein-Franke 45 Klumpp 55 Kohtamäki 30 & 34 Kolakovic 22 Kolotova 23 Koryakina Antunes 38 Kosmützky 46 Krempkow 33 Kretek 52 Krzywinski 33 Kyvik 45 Landrock 33 Larmann 26 Lawrence 32 Liebenberg 41 Liem 42 Li 34 Liu 23 Longden 17 Løseth 50 Lyytinen 30 Maassen van den Brink 14 Machado-Taylor 45 Maloshonok 23 Marquina 53 McGovern 50 & 52 Meira Soares 45 Melin 21 Melo 29 Merkator 31 & 46 Mevold 40 Mikkelsen 34 Miller 13

61

Milovanovic 22 Milsom 24 Minksová 39 Mittag 37 Moraru 22 Muhr 50 Müller, Harry 24 Müller, Ursula 25 Musaraj 23 Myhre 40 Naidoo 34 Olsen 45 Oosthuizen 34 Opitz 42 Orlowski 15 Orton 13 Overbeck 29 Øverland 34 & 51 Pabian 39 & 52 Papadimitriou 26 Patrocinio 25 Pausits 49 Pekkola 30 Penner 40 Piro 31 Pritchard 30 Provázková 52 Radnor 29 Reif 39 Reumer 30 Rivza 24 Röbken 42 Róskiewicz 19 Roth 51 Saarilammi 32 Salmela-Mattila 51 Samfoga Doh 44

Sandfuchs 37 Sarrico 29 & 38 Schneijderberg 31 & 46 Scholder 30 Selmer-Anderssen 18 Seto 29 Sisek 22 Sivertsen 31 Smit 40 Sørskår 43 Steinhardt 46 Stelzer 50 Stewart 24 Støren 53 Subotzky 41 Sutic 22 Stzompka 14 Tahar 54 Teichler 31 & 35 Teixeira 38 Terkla 33 & 35 Thomas 26 Vabø 31 Van Beek 46 Van der Westhuizen 39 Van Os 46 Van Zyl 41 Veiga 25 Veraart 27 Virtanen, Aimo 37 Virtanen, Turo 37 Vuori 35 Wagner 46 Ward 41 & 43 West 18 Wiers-Jenssen 18 Williams 12 & 21

Witte 37 Yorke 22 Zaitseva 24 Zelewski 55 Zhokova 47 Ziolek 43

62

© EAIR 2011