1 Sahizer JIS+Article+Template+-+21+December+2023

Article

386

Journal of International Students

Volume 14, Issue 1 (2024), pp. 386-402

ISSN: 2162-3104 (Print), 2166-3750 (Online)

jistudents.org

Highly Skilled Italians’ Experience with

Erasmus Mobility: Opportunities vs. Challenges

Şahizer Samuk and Sandra Burchi

IMRC Wilfried Laurier University, Canada; University of Pisa, Italy

ABSTRACT

How did the highly skilled Italians who chose to live abroad benefit from

participation in the Erasmus program? How did they define and describe their

experience with Erasmus, especially advantages and disadvantages? After

conducting 51 semistructured and in-depth online interviews with highly skilled,

spatially mobile, emigrant Italians, we used Atlas.ti to analyze each phrase, word,

and context in which “Erasmus” appeared. More than two thirds of the

interviewees had experienced the program, a substantial number of whom wanted

to work in international environments and achieved their goals. A few returned to

the city or country of their first Erasmus mobility experience. We argue that the

mobility component of the Erasmus program provided the confidence required to

be independent and the insight needed to make international comparisons. It also

perpetuates the desire to travel abroad (to become spatially mobile) as

participants sought additional international environments after the first Erasmus

mobility experience, gaining additional self-confidence as a result.

Keywords: Erasmus, highly skilled, higher education, return, youth (spatial)

mobility

In this paper, we aimed to examine the responses given in 51 interviews conducted

online with highly skilled Italians abroad between November 2020 and March

2021. We defined “highly skilled Italians” as graduates at higher education

institutions(s) in Italy, specifically four universities: University of Pisa,

University of Siena, University of Florence, University for Foreigners of Siena

(the four grand, old universities of Tuscany).

We aimed to shed light on the

motivation behind engagement in Erasmus mobility as well as its consequences

Journal of International Students 14(1)

387

as reflected in the words of the highly skilled Italians living and working (or

studying) abroad.

Two thirds of our participants had engaged in Erasmus programs for

training or higher education or had used Erasmus funds to complete master’s

theses. Our research question is as follows: How did the highly skilled Italians

(among the interviewees) who chose to live abroad benefit from participation in

the Erasmus program? How did they define and describe their experience with

Erasmus, especially advantages and disadvantages?

We aimed to highlight the evolution of the Erasmus program and the

fruitful results of having developed international networks as young people

returned to the cities of their initial Erasmus experience during their higher

education in Italy. Return to the Erasmus cities provided them with the possibility

of work opportunities within their grasp because they had already lived in those

places and were accustomed to the culture, language, and environment. We also

found that all interviewees spoke of their Erasmus context differently, making

conscious comparisons between (a) Italy and other countries, (b) Italian higher

education institutions and those of other European countries, and (c) their past and

current selves. The results also demonstrate that what they experienced as they

completed their Erasmus mobility abroad was rooted in nonhomogeneous,

historically, and philosophically diverse methods of teaching and learning.

In this context we also argue that highly skilled Italians live and work

abroad not only because Erasmus leads the way to such a lifestyle but also because

they are discontented with the undergraduate system at their home universities.

Even if they were satisfied with the higher education system in Italy, they still

wanted to combine the strong theoretical background they gained while pursuing

undergraduate degrees with more practical and varied pedagogical approaches

outside Italy. A commonality among those who had gone abroad with Erasmus

and those who had not was that most of them indicated the following during the

interviews: “I have always wanted to go abroad.”

Hence, Erasmus seemed to

serve as a motivator for “going abroad” but not necessarily the main cause or

main mode of spatial mobility per se. We argue, therefore, that Erasmus was a

stimulus, but not a reason to move abroad for a long period, one combined with

other contextual factors: (a) discontent with universities and the structure of the

labor market, (b) a view of Italian higher education as outdated, perhaps still

efficient but failing to offer myriad innovative possibilities.

We first focus on the literature on Erasmus; second, we explain our

methodology; third, we analyze the results, and finally, we explore our

contribution to the literature, emphasizing the original parts of the paper and

offering further suggestions for research as well as policy implications.

This was an answer that was often given when we asked participants, “How did you

decide to go abroad?” They typically indicated not one reason but a mix of reasons, one of

which was “wanting to go abroad” from a young age.

Samuk and Burchi

388

THE ERASMUS EFFECT

Italy joined the Erasmus program in 1987. By 2019, incoming students and

trainees numbered 29,516, and the number of trainees and students sent abroad

from Italy was 41,235, of whom a total of 30,786 were students and 9,929 were

trainees (European Commission, 2020). The Italian university sending the most

Erasmus students abroad is the University of Bologna, followed by the University

of Padova and Roma La Sapienza. Of all the projects related to Erasmus mobility,

“in 2019, [a total of] 86,469 participants in 1,066 Italian projects benefited from

mobility in higher education, vocational education and training” (European

Commission, 2020, p. 1). EU countries have been categorized according to the

Erasmus mobility flows: Italy along with Spain, France, and Germany (the top

three participating countries) are good receivers and good senders. In other words,

they attract students, and they balance the outflow of students in the Erasmus

mobility programme with high inbound mobility (Breznik & Skrbinjek, 2020).

These countries are regarded as “long-term runners,” that is, early joiners to the

Erasmus program, the first signers of the Bologna Declaration, which established

the networks and links necessary to be able to send the students abroad as well as

receive them.

The literature on the mobility component of the Erasmus program

(reasons and consequences) is abundant. The history of Erasmus indicates that it

was once an elite program but eventually transformed into one for the masses

(Teichler, 2002). At the time of this writing, Erasmus+, as it is now known, had

“an estimated budget of 26.2 billion euros, and 70 per cent of the budget supports

mobility opportunities in a lifelong learning perspective” (European Commission,

2022). International student mobility schemes have been an important part of EU

higher education policies (Ferencz & Wächter, 2012), and Erasmus has been one

of the most significant parts of these policies. Currently, Erasmus+ involves three

types of key actions: (a) learning mobility for individuals, (b) cooperation for

innovation and the exchange of good practices, and (c) support for policy reform

(Breznik & Skrbinjek, 2020).

The benefits of Erasmus mobility projects vary. Learning languages

(Fombona et al., 2013; Kolb, 2014; Senci et al., 2018) is just one of them;

however, not all participants have benefited from language acquisition to the same

degree. In Italy students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have typically

benefited more from studying abroad in terms of language acquisition (Sorrenti,

2017). In addition, Erasmus social networks have been quite important in the lives

of young people because they have extended beyond the Erasmus period (Van der

Mol & Michielsen, 2015). The positive side also included internationalization

(Samuk et al., 2021) and the opportunity for self-growth (Cuzzocrea & Mandich,

2016; Mutlu, 2011) as well as the “Erasmusization” process that has remained

with the individuals long after they have completed their Erasmus programs.

Developing interpersonal and intrapersonal competence was a part of this process,

in which students learned how to communicate better in cultural contexts different

from their own (Flander & Korada, 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2021).

Many factors have influences participation in study abroad (Netz, 2021).

Not everyone has benefited from the Erasmus experience, considering the

Journal of International Students 14(1)

389

macroeconomic context (Cairns, 2017; Van der Mol & Timmerman, 2013) and

the sociodemographic characteristics of the students (Netz et al., 2020).

Furthermore, the lack of family assistance, the lack of economic means (Schnepf,

2018; Souto-Otero, 2008; Van der Mol, 2014), and other structural barriers

(Kmiotek-Meier et al., 2019; Teichler, 2004) could prevent young people from

considering the mobility component of the Erasmus program as an option. Those

who benefited from Erasmus mobility have found the grant insufficient, and most

of those who have participated in the Erasmus program had parents who had

graduated from higher education institutions (Souto-Otero, 2008); hence, family

background mattered (Krzaklewska 2008). In fact, at the time of this writing, only

1% of all students in Europe were spatially mobile (Breznik & Skrbinjek, 2018).

As a result of Erasmus mobility opportunities, the chances of finding a

job increased (Bracht et al., 2006; Bryla, 2015; Standley, 2015; European

Commission, 2018) when seeking employment abroad (Parey & Waldinger,

2011). Therefore, Erasmus+ added considerably to participants’ personal and

professional development (Cairns, 2014; Cairns et al., 2017, 2018) in line with

the motivation of the students who chose to engage in an Erasmus program

(Cuzzocrea and Krzaklewska 2022; Duffy et al. 2003; Keogh & Russel-Roberts,

2009; Lesjak et al., 2015).

The positive influence of studying abroad decreased between the 1980s

and 2005 despite the high participation during this period (Teichler & Janson,

2007). Hence, the value of studying abroad could change over time depending on

the participation levels and changes in the globalized labor market (Netz, 2021).

When seeking employment, not all were affected positively by the study-abroad

experience. For instance, those who studied business administration benefited

more from the study abroad than those pursuing other majors (Wiers-Jenssen &

Støren, 2020). Furthermore, if the country of origin had a strong labor market and

a strong higher education system, graduates’ potential to improve their careers in

the labor market could be limited even if they studied abroad; in fact,

“international prestige hierarchies” could lead to the stratification of results for

those who studied abroad (Van Mol et al., 2020). These facts aligned with research

showing that higher-income countries received the most mobile students from

low-income countries (Macrander, 2017). For instance, labor market returns were

higher in Italy than in the UK (d’Hombres & Schnepf, 2021); besides, employers

valued internships over studying abroad (Van der Mol, 2017).

According to specific works on salary and employability, international

student mobility (ISM) could affect employability and salaries positively (Aina &

Casalone, 2020; Aina & Pastore, 2020). Participating in a study abroad

programme does not delay students’ time to graduation, which is particularly

relevant for the Italian context, where the duration of studies is among the highest

in Europe. Whether better graduation marks of Erasmus participants reflect a

higher accumulation of human capital or are rather driven by other mechanisms

related, for example, to differences in exams and grading standards among home

and host institutions, remains an open question (Granato et al., 2020, p. 19). More

research comparing the home and host institutions’ effects on graduation success

is needed.

Samuk and Burchi

390

Last but not least, Erasmus students could be considered “consumers,

tourists, and learners” (Cairns, 2017); hence, the economic benefit for the

receiving countries is undeniable (Kondakçı et al., 2018) because International

Student Mobility (ISM) is highly influenced by the economic interests of the

countries that both sent and received. Sometimes this economic dilemma, which

involved more consumerist and touristic aims in the host societies, could lead to

an incorrect perception of Erasmus+, where learning should come first and the

scholarships should be sufficient to think of the program with a broader vision

instead of only the materialistic one (Cairns 2017). This is an important point

because participants in Erasmus have been disproportionately more privileged if

socioeconomic classes were considered (Ballatore & Ferede, 2013).

Our contribution to the literature at this point is related to the links and

ties with the Erasmus networks that paved the way for finding jobs abroad (Bryla

2018) as well as internationalization via Erasmus mobility (Samuk et al. 2021).

Moreover, we also observed a tendency to return to Erasmus cities because the

young people had learned the languages and knew more about those cities where

they had once been Erasmus trainees or exchange students: Now they came to

work.

In the next section we discuss our methodology, and the analysis follows

three main themes: decisions to go (or not go) abroad, advantages and

disadvantages of Erasmus mobility, and return to the Erasmus cities with a

professional outlook.

METHOD

Data were collected from semi structured, in-depth interviews. A total of 51

interviews were conducted in Italian with highly skilled Italians abroad.

Participants, who were chosen via a form prepared by the researchers in Google

documents, were graduates of four Tuscan Universities: The University of Pisa,

the University of Siena, the University of Florence, and the University of Siena

for Foreigners

. Of the 87 people who responded on the Google form, 77% were

women, and 23% were men.

LinkedIn Premium was used to reach individual participants to be able

to represent the graduates of these four universities in Tuscany. LinkedIn served

as a purposeful tool when imbalances occurred in the sample between the

graduates of diverse universities and gender-related differentials, for example,

men answering more than women or vice versa. Finally, the research participants

were required to sign a consent form before the meeting, and their permission to

record their voices was asked just before the interview. The whole research

process was approved by the ethical board of the university where the main

researchers were situated.

The interviews took place online between November 2020 and April

2021 and lasted on average 70 minutes. During the interviews open-ended

questions were asked to elicit information about the participants’ background and

experiences with study- and work-related mobility. Participants were also asked

Journal of International Students 14(1)

391

about their first experience abroad and whether or not they had participated in the

Erasmus programme.

Because the questions were open-ended and semistructured, they

allowed sufficient space for the research participants to expand their answers. The

interviews, therefore, had a character somewhere between semistructured and

nonstructured.

The interviews were transcribed in Italian by the authors but not

verbatim. Before the analysis, direct identifiers such as names, place names, and

workplace information were removed from the data. The direct quotations

included in this paper were translated into English by the first author.

Data were coded according to thematic analysis. We found three themes

among the reasons stated for studying abroad: (a) decisions to go abroad or not

(personal and financial reasons) with Erasmus mobility, (b) advantages and

disadvantages of Erasmus (learning vs. cost, comparison of diverse higher

educational systems, independence in transition to adulthood vs. dependence on

the family for funds), and finally, (c) return to the Erasmus city (the element of

familiarity).

RESULTS

DECISIONS ABOUT PARTICIPATING IN AN ERASMUS MOBILITY

EXPERIENCE

Despite rare examples in the literature, some young people were prevented from

participating in Erasmus+ for personal reasons. Elena, a female graduate student

in the UK, who worked in Germany, said, “I was planning to go on an Erasmus

trip, but I was just getting over a break-up with my first boyfriend.” Participating

in Erasmus might also have meant that couples could be split up or sent to live in

diverse situations. If one partner chose to participate in Erasmus and the other did

not, both might have chosen not to participate. If one partner went abroad and the

other did not, the situation put a strain on the relationship. Although this is just

one example, it shows that the relationships (e.g. friendships, family, partners)

that one has in the home country, affect to a certain extent the decision to

participate in Erasmus or not. This result is in line with the survey findings

interpreted in Souto-Otero et al. (2013, 7) which demonstrate that “those who did

not consider taking part in the program are much more likely not to speak a foreign

language and feel that personal relationships are a barrier to participation more

often than

those who considered participation in the program.”

Some avoided the Erasmus program because they did not want to change

their university program schedules (including graduation deadlines). An Italian

female PhD student in Finland, Sandra said: “I wanted to do Erasmus, but I didn’t.

. . . I didn’t want to get behind with my exams. I didn’t want to waste time with

Erasmus, . . . so I did a summer internship instead.” Sandra’s statement showed

that not all Erasmus experiences (despite years of Erasmus integration in EU

higher education systems) were compatible with people’s plans and university

programs. In fact, some believed that Erasmus was a waste of time if the programs

Samuk and Burchi

392

did not sufficiently coincide or if participating in Erasmus prolonged bachelor’s

and master’s studies. Not all courses taken abroad counted; sometimes the number

of courses students could take in a semester was limited. When participants

returned from the Erasmus program, some found that they must take another

semester’s worth of coursework to qualify for graduation.

Among the reasons to go abroad with Erasmus, curiosity in different

cultures and dissimilar higher education systems was a very strong element that

emerged in the interviews. Participants’ curiosity was directed not only at cultures

different from their own but also at intercultural experiences per se. The research

participants stated their desire to see how higher education systems operated

abroad. For instance, in the case of a chemical engineering student, seeing other

ways of conducting research was important for her, so she decided to participate

in the Erasmus program. A female PhD graduate in France, Angela said:

My first experience abroad took place a while ago. When I did Erasmus

in 2013‒2014, one type of placement allowed me to do a lab experience.

I left home to experience life first and then to understand what was going

on outside Italy and what I could gain from it. During the second year of

my master’s degree, I took part in the Erasmus placement and did my

internship, after which I wrote my thesis. I graduated from biology.

This interview shows a response to a first experience abroad with an Erasmus

mobility program.

The Erasmus experience also allowed young people to participate in a

range of higher education systems, work in a variety of types of labs, or engage

in internships that could contribute insights when they write their theses. Science

students benefited substantially from observing a multiplicity in scientific

institutions. As noted above, the intrinsic desire for (spatial) mobility and the

opportunity to discover what “going outside Italy can offer” young people was

also quite an important motivator to study abroad in addition to curiosity about

other cultures (including a possibility for intercultural communication and less

exam-driven higher education); therefore, the element of curiosity requires further

study with all the cultural, social, and professional meanings that it entails.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ERASMUS

When reviewing the literature, we considered several sides of Erasmus as well as

the advantages and disadvantages of the program. Our findings aligned with the

relevant literature in both results and analysis.

One of the major advantages of an Erasmus program was learning

languages (Brecht et al., 1993; Fombona et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2020; Kolb,

2014; Magnan & Back, 2007; Senci et al., 2018). A male graduate student in

Spain, who had earlier completed an Erasmus program there, Marco said:

I knew the language because I had done an Erasmus right here in Spain

in 2016. During my first experience I didn’t know the language, but I

learned it when my program extended to one full academic year. I hope

to get a Spanish language certificate soon while also improving my

English, thanks to the international context I am in.

Learning a language and returning to the city provided a sense of continuity and

a motivation to continue to excel in the language as in the case of our research

Journal of International Students 14(1)

393

participant. In addition, learning English in an international environment added

value according to highly skilled Italians. Marco wanted to add to the language

skills that he had acquired during his first Erasmus internship abroad, eventually

earning a language certificate.

For the research participants another advantage related to acculturation

into the Erasmus sites, which entailed learning the language, knowing the city,

meeting people, and acquiring insider knowledge about the local culture. To do

his master’s work, Marco returned to Spain, content with the culture and

liveability of the city he chose. He said:

The first experience was an internship, thanks to the Erasmus traineeship

project. I got on very well. We did many activities together, and I was

always invited by them [employers] to discover secret places in the city

and to get to know the city even better and to widen my circle of

relationships. During the experience they helped me a lot. Thanks also to

the living arrangement I had with one of the managers, I had the

opportunity to compare work experiences and benefit from suggestions

that helped me grow as a person. Every comparison for me was

synonymous with ideas or analysis of a different perspective.

New horizons were indeed a part of this experience, and those who

wanted to experience life abroad were also open to learning about new cultures

and new worlds. Serena, a female master’s student in Brussels, said:

Erasmus opened the world to me. In fact, I recommend it to everybody.

Unfortunately, in my class, we had 150 students, and only five were

willing to leave Italy! . . . I feel more confident because I learned to speak

English, which opens many doors. . . . I liked the higher educational

system in Italy, but it was much more theoretical. I did exams in Italy,

studying from books with as many as a thousand pages. Here we don’t

have books, only slides.

According to this Erasmus master’s student the courses abroad were considerably

lighter when compared to offerings in the Italian higher education system.

Serena noted that during her master’s program with Erasmus in Belgium,

she was very content to have been a part of a different world but that the higher

education system there was quite different from that of Italy, where students were

expected to read many pages and work harder. She found the graduate courses in

Belgium more practical (hence, less theoretical) and easier. Although this

experience may have been uncommon in all EU countries and their master’s

programs, this assessment was a point of emphasis during her entire interview.

Regarding economic difficulties associated with participation in Erasmus

programs, some students underscored the necessity of their family’s economic

support, without which they would have been unable to study abroad. For

instance, Antonella, a female PhD student in the UK, said: “Among other things,

the postgraduate Erasmus is a completely inadequate grant, offering enough to

pay only two thirds of my rent. I was fortunate to have parents willing to make

sacrifices to help me.” Antonella referred both to the difficulties of participating

in the Erasmus program without economic support from parents and the

advantages she gained from it, specifically self-growth and learning how to

Samuk and Burchi

394

“endure” abroad. Learning how to be independent abroad was important to the

participants in general. Antonella’s case was not an exception.

Furthermore, while the research participants sought opportunities to

learn other languages and discover “their true selves,” they were also able to

compare aspects of higher education at home and abroad, finding that

requirements in Italy were much more demanding in terms of exams and readings,

albeit quite theoretical and perhaps less practical. In many of the interviews, this

distinction between the practical and the theoretical, the dichotomy between

foreign and Italian higher educational system was confirmed. Nevertheless, for

many reasons, Valentina, who worked in Belgium at the time of this writing, did

not regret her decision to participate in the Erasmus program abroad. She

suggested that doing so was a good experience for her, and she drew comparisons

between the French and the Italian higher education systems:

I went to Science Po Lille, which is an important center in Europe. My

thesis was in French, and . . . beside doing research for my thesis, I took

four more exams than what my curriculum required; but I was pleased.

Academically, it didn’t help me that much. It helped me more from a

cultural standpoint. The exams were much easier. I had little to do, and

I'm sorry to say it, but in Italy the professors want much more.

Almost all experiences with foreign higher education were considered

positive by the research participants, but they thought the Italian system was much

more difficult; the courses they took abroad did not meet the standards they

expected from an academic point of view.

Interpersonal, intrapersonal, and self-developmental changes are

inevitable in the experiences of highly skilled young Italians who participate in

Erasmus programs. Valentina said that before Erasmus she never thought of going

abroad, but her perspective on life outside Italy changed completely following this

experience. She said:

Erasmus changed my perspective on life. Before participating, I would

never have wanted to go abroad, but then I realized that confronting other

cultures is fundamental for my personal growth. Once away from home,

I realized that Italy is still very much behind in this respect. In Rome,

even though we have the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO) or other important [international] institutions, we

have no truly international context. We also have the economic factor,

but I wouldn’t call it the main one. If I had wanted to stay in Italy, I could

have done so, and I would have found a job. Being economically

independent was important to me.

She also stated that Italy had organizations that are supposedly international, but

when she compared them to her experience with the Erasmus program, she

concluded that they are not sufficiently internationalized. She stated:

What has stayed with me the most from Erasmus has been the

relationships, the culture, the language. And then I found the guy I am

still with. I used to know French, but I studied it in secondary school.

Now I manage to get by at work with the French I learned during my

Erasmus experience. It’s my third language, and I speak quite well.

Journal of International Students 14(1)

395

The advantages to studying abroad always outweighed the disadvantages, as the

interviews suggested. The disadvantages merely involved (a) having to depend on

family for financial support because the grant was insufficient and (b) the

perception of less rigorous academic programs abroad. Nevertheless, all Italian

Erasmus participants admitted that they gained many advantages in terms of

language skills and internationalization.

RETURN TO THE ERASMUS SITE WITH A PROFESSIONAL

PURPOSE

Sometimes an affinity with a place and a culture and an urge to engage in serious

work life was the impetus to return to a particular city. We saw that few

participants returned to the same city, but many went abroad again (for

professional reasons or studies). Only two of our 51 research participants returned

to the same city: They loved these cities, they learned the language during their

Erasmus programs, and they wanted to return to experience professional life there.

Moreover, the previous acculturation into the place made the return that much

easier.

Marco said that he was already familiar with the city and to return there

was not a major burden for him: “I was already familiar with the reality of

Valencia, so I decided to go back, convinced that I wanted to continue my studies

in a foreign country.” He was an example of those who were satisfied with the

Erasmus training experience, making return to the same city.

Another interviewee, Maria, a female manager in a multinational

company, found a job via her Erasmus networks; having learned the language and

having loved the city, she returned to work in a multinational company: “I liked

the city [Prague], so I returned after having found a job when a friend

recommended a multinational company. I already spoke Czech.”

In these two cases, loving the cities, knowing the culture via the first

Erasmus mobility experience, creating a network with international and local

friends abroad, and wondering how a professional life in the city of their initial

Erasmus experience would be like were sufficient reasons for the research

participants to return and enter the labor market or pursue more professional

study. Last but not least, “love for the city,” which reflected their positive

experiences there, familiarity with its layout, knowledge of popular spots and

locations where the Italian diaspora and social life could be found, made

readapting and reintegrating all more convenient for them.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we aimed to examine the past and present experiences of highly

skilled Italians abroad. As noted above, we defined “highly skilled Italians” as

graduates of higher education institutions. Our research questions were as follows:

(a) How did the highly skilled Italians (among the interviewees) who chose to live

abroad benefit from participation in the Erasmus program? (b) How did they

define and describe their experience with Erasmus, especially advantages and

Samuk and Burchi

396

disadvantages? To answer these questions, we conducted 51 semistructured

interviews online. Various themes were examined, among which was the theme

of Erasmus and the first mobility experience abroad. Erasmus-related quotations

were thematized via Atlas.ti, and the predominant themes emerged from the data:

(a) decisions to go abroad or not (personal vs. financial considerations) with

Erasmus mobility, (b) advantages and disadvantages of Erasmus (learning vs.

cost, comparison of diverse higher educational systems, independence in

transition to adulthood vs. dependence on the family for funds), and finally, (c)

return to the Erasmus city (the element of familiarity).

Some of the findings resonate with previous research. For instance, the

lack of family assistance and the lack of economic means (Schnepf, 2018; Soutu-

Otero, 2008; Van der Mol, 2014) remained a reason for not participating in

Erasmus programs; in fact, most of our research participants indicated that they

received help from their families (Krzaklewska, 2008). Not losing time, and going

through relationship difficulties were added to the reasons of non-participation.

Second, Erasmus networks extended beyond the Erasmus period (Van der Mol &

Michielsen, 2015) to the extent that via these networks finding jobs and

convenient residential options are always a part of the picture if one returned to

the Erasmus city. Third, the research results also confirm the benefits gained from

the Erasmus experience, which include integration into international labor

markets (Bracht et al., 2006; Bryla, 2015; European Commission, 2018; Parey &

Waldinger, 2011; Standley, 2015) and learning languages (Brecht et al., 1993;

Fombona et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2020; Kolb, 2014; Magnan & Back, 2007;

Senci et al., 2018) while developing intercultural skills and gaining self-

confidence (Cuzzocrea & Mandich, 2016; Mutlu, 2011). Our results regarding

decisions to go abroad resembled those of Granato et al. (2021), who suggested

that participating in a study abroad programme does not delay students’

graduation plans; yet, we found that those who did not participate in Erasmus

programs considered their graduation dates and schedules when they determined

that the time abroad could be time “wasted”.

As indicated above in the analytical part of the paper, the

internationalization of the Italian universities with Erasmus+ was inevitable

(Rugge, 2019); therefore, we cannot discuss only brain drain in the case of highly

skilled Italians. We must underscore the tremendous change in higher education

in Italy during the last two decades with its face turned towards EU countries,

Erasmus programs, and the circular migration of scientists and international

networks of professors (Alberio & Berti, 2020). Thus, universities have been

influenced positively by internationalization. Even if skilled young Italians want

to go abroad and experience research or other training or work experiences there,

they are also positively motivated by the networks that universities and professors

have established. Consequently, Italians had opportunities to make comparisons

between diverse higher education systems and decided that Italian higher

education offers good quality with its emphasis on theoretical premises; whereas,

abroad they had more opportunities to practice and experiment with independence

and autonomy. The research results demonstrate that they saw these two

understandings of higher education systems as complementary. At the same time,

Journal of International Students 14(1)

397

they found the bachelor’s and master’s courses abroad less burdensome because

they are less theoretical and academically less challenging. Those who were

involved in Erasmus, underlined that they were impressed with how practical and

multi-dimensional the Erasmus programs compared to the Italian higher

education system where the theory and books reign in learning and grading. It

would not be wrong to say that they appreciated the benefits of both systems, and

they liked the idea of combining theory with practice when they were abroad.

In conclusion, the social and cultural capital (including learning

languages) that highly skilled Italians gained during their Erasmus experiences

abroad helped them acquire economic capital later; therefore, the return to the

familiarity of their Erasmus sites assisted them in using their previously earned

social and cultural capital to obtain more economic capital (jobs or scholarships).

Moreover, we presented reasons for not engaging in an Erasmus program, such as

relationships, personal lives, and reluctance to interrupt studies if not all the

courses taken abroad were accepted for credit at the home institution, credits they

would need if they wanted to graduate at the end of their journey.

The limitations of this paper are the lack of gender analysis and analysis

of differences between countries visited for Erasmus. However, our sample

having a female majority, is not representative of the whole Italian context for

outgoing Erasmus students. Additionally, the paper’s findings are limited to those

who graduated from four major Tuscan universities. Different countries visited

during Erasmus, were not described during the interviews, as the context of these

(e.g. Czech Republic, France, Spain) countries were not a part of the semi-

structured interviews. However, these limitations show also the gaps in our

research that can be filled by future scholarly papers.

Future scholars can focus on how perceptions and expectations of the

mobility component of Erasmus youth programs have evolved and how the social,

cultural, and economic capital that accompanies the Erasmus experience has

changed in comparison with that of previous generations of Erasmus participants.

Future researchers may take a deeper look into the reasons other than economic

ones for avoiding Erasmus, such as relationships, youth transitions, differences in

higher education systems, fear of losing a year or credits, among others. Finally,

the meaning of curiosity from an intercultural perspective before, during and after

Erasmus (Dolce et al. 2023) requires further exploration with all its sociological

dimensions as our research results reveal.

Note

Appendices for this article can be found on the JIS website at

https://www.ojed.org/index.php/jis

Samuk and Burchi

398

REFERENCES

!"#$%&'(%&)&'$*$+,#-%&.(&/01012(&3$4+5&+$6,74&8$49-:&,7:;,8-*&,<&7#"=-4*":5&

>4$?7$:-*@& A,-*& :"8- :,& ?->4--& 8$::-4B& Socio-Economic) Planning)

Sciences%)71%&CDCE(&&

!"#$%&'(%&)&F$*:,4-%& G(&/01012(&A-+$5-?&>4$?7$:",#&$#?& ,=-4-?7;$:",#&"#& H:$+5@&

!&:-*:&,<&:I- I78$#&;$J":$+&8,?-+&=-4*7*&:I-&*;4--#"#>&I5J,:I-*"*(&

Social)Indicators)Research%&152/02% KLLMKKL(&

Alberio, M., & Berti, F. (2020). Italiani che lasciano l’Italia [Italians leaving

Italy]. Mimesis Edizioni.

Ballatore, M., & Ferede, M. K. (2013). The Erasmus programme in France, Italy,

and the United Kingdom: Student mobility as a signal of distinction and

privilege. European Educational Research Journal, 12(4), 525‒533.

Bracht, O., Engel, C., Janson, K., Over, A., Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006).

The professional value of ERASMUS mobility: Final report.

International Centre for Higher Education Research.

Bryła, P. (2019). International student mobility and subsequent migration: The

case of Poland. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1386-1399.

Brecht, R., Davidson, D., & Ginsberg, R. (1993). Predictors of foreign language

gain during study abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language

acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 37‒66). John Benjamins.

Breznik, K., & Skrbinjek, V. (2020). Erasmus student mobility flows. European

Journal of Education, 55(1), 105‒117.

Bryla P., (2015). Self-reported effects of and satisfaction with international

student mobility: A large-scale survey among Polish former Erasmus

students. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 191, 2074‒2028.

Cairns, D. (2014). Youth transitions, international student mobility and spatial

reflexivity: Being mobile? Palgrave Macmillan.

Cairns, D. (2017). The Erasmus undergraduate exchange programme: A highly

qualified success story? Children’s Geographies, 15(6), 728‒740.

Cairns, D., Cuzzocrea, V., Briggs, D., & Veloso, L. (2017). The consequences of

mobility. Palgrave Macmillan.

Cairns, D., Krzaklewska, E., Cuzzocrea, V., & Allaste, A. A. (2018). Mobility,

education and employability in the European Union: Inside Erasmus.

Palgrave Macmillan.

Cuzzocrea, V., & Mandich, G. (2016). Students’ narratives of the future:

Imagined mobilities as forms of youth agency? Journal of Youth Studies,

19(4), 552‒567.

Cuzzocrea, V., & Krzaklewska, E. (2022). Erasmus students’ motivations in

motion: understanding super-mobility in higher education. Higher

Education, 1-15.

d’Hombres, B., & Schnepf, S. V. (2021). International mobility of students in Italy

and the UK: Does it pay off and for whom? Higher Education, 82(6),

1173‒1194.

Dolce, V., Davoine, É., Wodociag, S., & Ghislieri, C. (2023). The road to an

international career: The “Erasmus effect” on resilience, intercultural

Journal of International Students 14(1)

399

interactions and cultural intelligence. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 92, 101741.

Duffy, M. E., Farmer, S., Ravert, P., & Huittinen, L. (2003). Institutional issues

in the implementation of an international student exchange program.

Journal of Nursing Education, 42(9), 399‒405.

European Commission. (2018). Erasmus+ programme guide. Author.

European Commission. (2020). Erasmus+ 2019 in numbers. Author.

https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/factsheets/pdf/it-erasmus-plus-2019-in-

numbers.pdf

European Commission. (2022). Erasmus+ 2021‒2027. Author.

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ff1edfdf-8bca-

11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

Ferencz, I., & Wächter, B. (Eds.). (2012). European and national policies for

academic mobility. Linking rhetoric, practice and mobility trends.

Lemmens.

Flander, A., & Korada, B. (2020). Do international traineeships have more impact

on the development of cognitive, interpersonal and intrapersonal

competencies than studying abroad? A case study of Slovene student

perceptions of their competence development through their Erasmus

mobility. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 19(2‒3), 155‒187.

Fombona, J., Rodríguez, C., & Sevillano, Á. P. (2013). The motivational factor of

Erasmus students at the university. International Education Studies,

6(4), 1‒9.

Granato, S., Havari, E., Mazzarella, G., & Schnepf, S. V. (2021). Study abroad

programmes and students’ academic performance: Evidence from

Erasmus applications (No. 14651). IZA Discussion Papers.

Jackson, J., Howard, M., & Schwieter (2020). Language proficiency:

Developmental perspectives and linguistic outcomes of education

abroad. In A. Ogden, B. Streitwieser, & C. Van Mol (Eds.), Education

abroad: Bridging scholarship and practice (pp. 92‒105). Routledge.

Keogh, J., & Russel-Roberts, E. (2009). Exchange programmes and student

mobility: Meeting students’ expectations or expensive holidays. Nurse

Education Today, 29(1), 108‒116.

Kmiotek-Meier, E., Skrobanek, J., Nienaber, B., Vysotskaya, V., Samuk, S.,

Ardic, T., Pavlova, I., Dabasi-Halázs, Z., Diaz, C., Bissinger, J.,

Schlimbach, T., & Horvath, K. (2019). Why is it so hard? And for

whom? Obstacles to intra-European mobility. Migration Letters, 16, (1),

31‒44.

Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning

and development. FT Press.

Kondakçı, Y., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018) Social network

analysis of international student mobility: Uncovering the rise of

regional hubs. Higher Education, 75(3), 517–535.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0154-9

Samuk and Burchi

400

Krzaklewska, E. (2008) Why study abroad? An analysis of Erasmus students’

motivations. In M.

Byram & F. Dervin (Eds.), Students, staff and academic mobility in

higher education (pp. 82‒98). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Lesjak, M., Juvan, E., Ineson, E. M., Yap, M. H., & Axelsson, E. P. (2015).

Erasmus student motivation: Why and where to go? Higher Education,

70(5), 845‒865.

Macrander, A. (2017) Fractal inequality: A social network analysis of global and

regional international student mobility. Research in Comparative and

International Education, 12, (2), 243‒268.

Magnan, S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during

study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43‒61.

Mutlu, S. (2011). Development of European consciousness in Erasmus students.

The Journal of Education, Culture, and Society, 2(2), 87‒102.

Netz, N. (2021) Who benefits most from studying abroad? A conceptual and

empirical overview. Higher Education, 82(6), 1049‒1069.

Netz, N., Klasik, D., Entrich, S. R., & Barker, M. (2020). Socio-demographics: A

global overview of inequalities in education abroad participation. In

Education Abroad (pp. 28‒42). Routledge.

Parey, M., & Waldinger, F. (2011). Studying abroad and the effect on

international labour market mobility: Evidence from the introduction of

ERASMUS. The economic journal, 121(551), 194-222.

Rugge, F. (2019). L’internazionalizzazione della formazione superiore in Italia.

Le università [The internationalization of higher education in Italy: The

university; Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Alma Mater Studiorum

Università di Bologna.

Samuk, S., Nienaber, B., Kmiotek-Meier, E., Vysotskaya, V., Skrobanek, J.,

Ardic, T., Pavlova, I., Marinescu, D.E., & Muresan, L., 2021. Learning

in transition: Erasmus+ as an opportunity for internationalization. In D.

Cairns (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of youth mobility and educational

migration (pp. 173‒183). Palgrave Macmillan.

Schnepf, S. (2018). Unequal uptake of higher education mobility in the UK: The

importance of social segregation in universities and subject areas.

Publications Office of the European Union.

https://doi.org/10.2760/714309

Senci, V., Brayla, P., Uzelac, N., & Debevc, M. (2018). Erasmus mobility

decision-making process: Does website quality matter? Polytechnic and

Design, 6(3), 171‒182.

Sorrenti, G. (2017). The Spanish or the German apartment? Studying abroad and

the acquisition of permanent skills. Economics of Education Review, 60,

142‒158.

Souto-Otero, M. S. (2008). The socio-economic background of Erasmus students:

A trend towards wider inclusion? International Review of Education,

54(2), 135‒154.

Journal of International Students 14(1)

401

Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., De Wit, H., & Vujić, S. (2013).

Barriers to international student mobility: Evidence from the Erasmus

program. Educational researcher, 42(2), 70-77.

Standley, H. J. (2015). International mobility placements enable students and staff

in Higher Education to enhance transversal and employability-related

skills. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 362(19), 1‒5.

Teichler, U. (Ed.). (2002). Erasmus in the Socrates programme: Findings of an

evaluation study. Lemmens.

Teichler, U. (2004). Temporary study abroad: The life of Erasmus students.

European Journal of Education, 39(4), 395‒408.Teichler, U., & Janson,

K. (2007). The professional value of temporary study in another

European country: Employment and work of former ERASMUS

students. Journal of studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 486-

495.

Van der Mol, C. (2014). Intra-European student mobility in international higher

education circuits: Europe on the move. Springer.

Van der Mol, C. (2017) Do employers value international study and internships?

A comparative analysis of 31 Countries. Geoforum, 78, 52‒60.

Van der Mol, C., & Michielsen, J. (2015). The reconstruction of a social network

abroad. An analysis of the interaction patterns of Erasmus students.

Mobilities, 10(3), 423‒444.

Van der Mol, C., & Timmerman, C. (2014). Should I stay or should I go? An

analysis of the determinants of intra‐European student mobility.

Population, Space and Place, 20(5), 465‒479.

Wiers-Jenssen, J., & Støren, L. A. (2021). International student mobility and the

transition from higher education to work in Norway. Higher Education,

82(6), 1119‒1143.

Zimmermann, J., Greischel, H., & Jonkmann, K. (2021). The development of

multicultural effectiveness in international student mobility. Higher

Education, 82(6), 1071‒1092.

AUTHOR BIOS

SAHIZER SAMUK, PhD, is an affiliate researcher at IMRC at Wilfried Laurier

University, Canada. She did research at Koc University (Turkey), Pisa University

and IMT School for Advanced Studies (Italy), University of Sussex (UK),

University of Ottawa (Canada) and University of Luxembourg (Luxembourg).

Her major research interests lie in the area of temporary migration, youth (spatial)

mobilities, integration of migrants including refugees and inclusive cultural

policies. Email: [email protected]

SANDRA BURCHI, PhD, is an independent researcher, and she collaborates

with the Department of Political Science at the University of Pisa, Italy and

various nonprofit organizations. She works on social transformations and labor

changes, with a particular passion for feminist theories and studies. She has

Samuk and Burchi

402

published “Starting Over from Home”, “Work and Networks from Domestic

Space” (Franco Angeli, 2014), and “Like a Landscape”. She also published on

thoughts and practices between work and non-work (with T. Di Martino; Iacobelli

editore, 2013). Email: [email protected]

These four universities were chosen as they were the ones involved in the research project funded by Regione

Toscana and the project concentrated only on the graduates of these four universities from Tuscany region.