Moving toward a European identity? : the case of project PEPtalk

(1)

Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen

Afdeling Politicologie

Moving toward a European identity?

The Case of Project PEPtalk

Daan de Mink

(Daan_demink@hotmail.com)

BA Political Science

Governance & Policy

Student ID number: 5877091

Course: Citizens in Europe (Bachelor Thesis)

Semester/Year: First Semester, 2013/2014

Supervisor: Rosa Sanchez Salgado

Second Reader: Julien Jeandesboz

Date: January 31st, 2014 (Final version)

Word count: 9589 (Excluding footnotes, references and appendices)

(2)

Foreword

At the start of 2010 I was introduced to the European Union‟s Youth in Action programme, which aims to help young people make the transition from adolescence to adulthood by improving their competences and promoting active participation within their respective societies. The Youth in Action programme is effectuated through specific projects, which fall under one of the different actions within the programme itself. After being introduced to the concept of YiA I subsequently became heavily involved in a multitude of YiA-projects. These projects took me to places I had never visited before, such as Malta, Slovenia and Wales, and proved to be invaluable learning experiences that have made a lasting impression on me as a person.

I realized early on when the time came to decide upon a topic for my bachelor thesis that I wanted to incorporate my own experiences into my research. As a consequence hereof I have selected a Youth in Action project in which I have participated on Malta in November of 2010, Project PEPtalk, to function as the focal point of my research regarding the extent to which a YiA-project can serve as a stepping stone toward the development of a European identity. This specific case will help me illustrate the inner workings of a YiA-projects, and can serve as a prism through which the underlying YiA-framework, with its various mechanisms and objectives, can be analyzed and deconstructed, in an attempt to undercover the effect that YiA-projects can have with regard to moving toward the emergence of a European identity. Any study of the YiA-framework is inherently going to be an intricate and rather technical affair. As with any other multidimensional policy initiative, the subject does not lend itself to simplified explanations and requires background knowledge in order to be fully comprehended. However, I still firmly believe that a study taking such a technical approach can yield valuable results and insights relating to the YiA-framework and any potential road toward the development of a European identity.

I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to thank the people who helped me during the process of writing this Bachelor thesis. First of all, Duncan Muscat, for providing me with the documentation pertaining to all the relevant facets of project PEPtalk. I would also like to thank Roy Dijkshoorn, for helping me create the tables and models that can be found within this thesis and for his work on the final lay-out. Finally, I would like to thank Thom Groten, Maarten van der Poel and Jaap Steenkamer, who all spent countless hours proofreading my work and above all provided me with useful and constructive criticism.

(3)

(4)

On November 15th 2006, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted the so-called Decision No. 1719/2006/EC. In doing so, they established the Youth in Action (YiA) programme for the duration of the budgetary period running from the beginning of 2007 until the end of 2013 (European Commission, 2006). The general aim of the Youth in Action programme is to make an important contribution to the acquisition of competences by young people through non-formal learning activities and through the promotion of active citizenship within the European society (European Commission, 2013: 3-4). Further Youth in Action objectives, set forth in Decision No. 1719/2006/EC, are intertwined with various European ideals, such as the promotion of tolerance and European citizenship and the fostering of mutual understanding and social cohesion (European Commission, 2013: 4). These objectives also function as the evaluative success criteria for individual projects.

Youth Democracy projects, which fall under action 1.3 of the Youth in Action programme, are geared towards improving the participation of young people in democratic life (European Commission, 2013: 43; TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 1-2).1 These Youth Democracy projects often combine the general YiA-objectives with the attempted development of a European identity among the young Europeans participating in such projects (European Commission, 2013: 43-46). This thesis will focus on one such Youth Democracy project, namely project PEPtalk, in an attempt to answer the following question: “To what extent can a YiA-project like project PEPtalk serve as a stepping stone toward the development of a European identity among young European citizens?

When one examines the documents relating to the YiA-programme, it quickly becomes apparent that the objectives of the programme are all based on a singular sociological theory, the contact hypothesis (European Commission, 2013).2 This hypothesis will function as the theoretical backdrop against which this study is set. The underlying theory also provides us with four prerequisite conditions that need to be met if the causal mechanism contained within the contact hypothesis is to affect significant positive attitudinal change. Affecting positive attitudinal change among participants in YiA-projects is essential if such YiA-projects are to meet the European Union‟s evaluative criteria for success mentioned in the first paragraph. In turn, the extent to which YiA-projects meet these evaluative criteria determines, at least to a large degree, whether or not YiA-projects can serve as a stepping

1

See Appendix B for an overview of the various actions of the Youth in Action framework

2

(7)

2 stone toward the development of a European identity among young Europeans, for a majority of European policymakers see the core elements contained in these evaluative criteria as indispensable components of a European identity (European Commission, 2013).

Over the years, an incredible amount of scholarly work has been written and published on the subject of the contact hypothesis. However, case studies in which this theoretical phenomenon is scrutinized are rare, especially in a European context. Most studies pertaining to the contact hypothesis within a European context focus on the Erasmus programme. The vast majority of these studies are of a quantitative nature. I have opted for somewhat of a novel approach, by using qualitative research methods and by focusing on the Youth in Action programme instead of the Erasmus programme, in the hope of filling a gap in the existing literature with regard to the contact hypothesis and its workings in a European context.

Another important aspect of this research is the distinctive social dimension attached to its subject. We will examine the effectiveness of a project based on a large and expensive European policy initiative that aims to both promote tolerance and European citizenship and foster mutual understanding and social cohesion among young Europeans, in the hope of eventually moving them toward a shared European identity (European Commission, 2013: 3-4 & 43-46).

The outcome of this thesis will provide new insights into the effectiveness of the YiA-policy initiative and into the feasibility of the development of a shared European identity in the decades to come. Especially this last element will play a pivotal role in European politics in the years ahead, as the development of a shared European identity is closely related to the overall success of the overarching European integration process as a whole. It shall therefore, by extension, affect the lives of the roughly 505 million inhabitants of the European Union‟s 28 member states (Website Eurostat). Moreover, the development of a shared European identity among a majority of Europeans could also help bridge the often perceived democratic deficit within the European Union, which would confer greater legitimacy upon the entire integration process (Moravcsik, 2008: 331-340).

In order to answer the research question at the core of this thesis we will first review the existing literature on the contact hypothesis. Our next step will be to construct a theoretical framework that can serve as the foundation for this thesis, while simultaneously helping us to structure the research process. In turn, this will be followed by a discussion of the general methodology and the data collection methods that lie at the core of this body of work. This will lead us to the actual analysis, in which we shall determine whether or not

(8)

3 project PEPtalk met both the contact hypothesis‟ prerequisite conditions as well as the European Union‟s evaluative criteria.

In the concluding paragraphs we will weigh the evidence and present a definitive answer with regard to the extent that a YiA-project, like project PEPtalk, can serve as a stepping stone toward the development of a European Identity among young European citizens. The final part of this study will also give us the opportunity to make certain policy recommendations, based on our case, that could help future YiA-projects meet both the prerequisite conditions as well as the European Union‟s evaluative criteria for success.3

3

(9)

4

2. Literature review

2.1 The contact hypothesis

One of the most important theories regarding attitudinal change within the scientific field is the so-called contact hypothesis (Stangor et al., 1996; Stephan, 1985). The contact hypothesis, often also referred to as intergroup contact theory, began its rise to prominence in 1954, after Gordon W. Allport wrote and published a book called The Nature of Prejudice. According to Allport, an individual‟s attitudes toward, and stereotypes of, social groups (for instance inhabitants of a specific country) are to a large extent determined by the experiences these individuals have with members of such groups (Allport, 1954; Stangor et al., 1996: 664; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 752). This conceptualization later became known as the contact hypothesis.

The contact hypothesis further states that contact between individual members of different social groups will, under certain conditions, lead to a positive change in intergroup attitudes amongst the individuals involved (Allport, 1954; Stangor et al., 1996: 664-665). The specific conditions that need to be met in order for such attitudinal change to occur have been well-documented in a wide variety of scholarly articles over the course of the last decades (Cook, 1984; Harrington & Miller, 1992; Jackson, 1993; Patchen, 1999; Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000 & 2006; Rothbart & John, 1985; Stephan, 1985) Therefore it is now widely accepted that contact between members of different social groups can lead to a positive change in intergroup attitudes when such contact adheres to the following four conditions (Allport, 1954; Stangor et al., 1996: 664-665; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 752-757):

 Participants from the involved groups have equal status

 The members of the outgroup have characteristics that disconfirm previously held stereotypes held by members of the ingroup

 The specific contact situation provides individuals with the opportunity to get to know each other (often supported and/or facilitated by experts, authorities & legislation)

 The specific contact situation encourages cooperation between members of different social groups in support of common goals.

(10)

5 Further on in this thesis we will examine whether our selected case, project PEPtalk, adheres to these prerequisite conditions that allow for the occurrence of positive change in intergroup attitudes.

A meta-analysis of intergroup contact theory conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006: 751), based on 713 independent samples from 515 studies, finds that “Intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice and stereotype. Multiple tests indicate that this finding appears not to result from either participant selection or publication biases and the more rigorous studies yield larger mean effects. These contact-effects typically generalize to the entire outgroup, and they emerge across a broad range of outgroup targets and contact settings. Similar patterns also emerge for samples with racial or ethnic targets and samples with other targets. This result suggests that contact theory, devised originally for racial and ethnic encounters, can be extended to other groups.” Their meta-analysis further leads Pettigrew and Tropp (2006: 751) to conclude that the four prerequisite contact conditions should be seen as interrelated components rather than as wholly independent conditional factors. Whenever intergroup contact adheres to all these interrelated conditions there will typically be a positive change in intergroup attitudes.

However, there are also scholars that have come to somewhat more mixed conclusions with regards to the effectiveness of the contact hypothesis. Forbes (1997), for instance, argues that a clear distinction should be made between prejudice at the individual level and prejudice at the group level. According to Forbes (1997) intergroup contact significantly lowers prejudice at the individual level of analysis while it simultaneously fails to do so at the group level. This leads him to conclude that intergroup contact can cure individual cases of prejudice and thus help resolve individual conflicts between members of different social groups. These findings however do not hold true for group prejudice and group conflict. Amir (1969, 1976) finds that, under optimal conditions, contact indeed tends to reduce prejudice among individual members of different social groups. However, he further emphasizes that these individual reductions in prejudice through contact may not necessarily move past the individual level of analysis to include entire outgroups. Amir (1976) also makes a point of noting that contact under generally unfavorable conditions may increase intergroup prejudice and conflict.

Further evaluative research on the effects of contact on intergroup attitudes has yielded even more critical outcomes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 752-753). Ford (1986) concludes that support for the contact hypothesis in its current form is rather premature and that further

(11)

6 research is needed, while McClendon (1974) laments the lack of rigor and sophistication in the field of research pertaining to the contact hypothesis.

The varying, and oftentimes conflicting, views on the validity of the contact hypothesis have caused some scholars to discard and abandon the intergroup contact theory altogether (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 752). Hopkins, Reicher and Levine (1997: 306) even go as far as to state that: “the initial hopes of contact theorists have failed to materialize.“ Pettigrew and Tropp (2006, 752-754), in an attempt to end the ongoing debate surrounding the contact hypothesis, point out three major shortcomings in the previous literature reviews on the contact hypothesis that go a long way to explaining the differing outcomes of these studies. According to Pettigrew and Tropp (2006: 752-754), previous research into the contact hypothesis has suffered from the incomplete data samples used in the relevant papers, the absence of strict inclusion rules pertaining to case selection and the persistent use of non-quantative approaches for the assessment of the effects of intergroup contact theory.

Consequently, they made the decision to incorporate the lessons stemming from these previous shortcomings into their meta-analytic research, in the hope of unearthing conclusive evidence pertaining to the effectiveness and potential of the contact hypothesis (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 752-757). Their rigorous meta-analysis, as has been stated before, indeed provides us with strong evidence that the contact hypothesis does hold true, and should be seen as a valuable tool in the field of social research (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 757-765). This is exactly how we will conceptualize and use the contact hypothesis in the remainder of this study, beginning with the theoretical framework that will guide our research.

2.2 A European perspective

The contact hypothesis also plays an important role within the overarching European context. Hence it is a suitable causal mechanism to be utilized in our attempt to ascertain the extent to which a YiA-project can serve as a stepping stone toward the development of a European identity. One of the underlying arguments of integration theory is that increased mobility within the European Union, which facilitates contact between members of different social groups, will lead to greater social inclusion and the emergence of a so-called „we-feeling‟ among the citizens of Europe (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Sanchez Salgado, 2011; Stangor et al., 1996).

(12)

7 Social inclusion and the emergence of a „we-feeling‟ are oftentimes seen as prerequisite conditions, both for the development of a European identity and for a successful European integration process (Deutsch et al., 1957; Sanchez Salgado, 2011: 4-5) Mobility, due to inevitable contact between members of various social groups that it facilitates, can thus be seen as an important mechanism through which a European identity can be developed (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003). Moreover, it can consequently be argued that mobility and, by extension, extensive contact between members of different European social groups are key components of the European integration policy.

Even though the notion pertaining to the potential for European mobility to promote a European identity, and consequently European integration, has been around for decades, it has very rarely been tested empirically (Sigalas, 2010). Nearly half a decade ago Arend Lijphart was already urging scholars and researchers to collect and analyze relevant data, in order to establish whether European student mobility contributed to European integration as a whole (Lijphart, 1964: 252-253). This has only happened intermittently. Furthermore, the few existing empirical studies that incorporate elements such as mobility, intergroup contact, attitudinal change, European identity and European integration have reached varying conclusions.

Some studies argue that there is indeed a clear link between mobility and contacts on the one hand, and attitudinal change and the development of a European Identity on the other hand (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Krämer-Byrne, 2002; Stangor et al., 1996). However, other studies argue. while once again focusing on student mobility and student exchange programs, that mobility does not foster a European (self-)identity or a sense of European pride (Sigalas, 2010; Wilson, 2011). Although mobility enhancement programmes for students, such as the Erasmus and Youth in Action programmes, provide participants with valuable experiences, we cannot expect these programmes to create Europhile „Erasmus‟ generations (Wilson, 2011: 1136-1137).

There have also been some EU-funded studies with a focus on the link(s) between mobility, contact, positive attitudinal change and European identity and understanding. These studies were either conducted by external consultants or were based on self-assessment by one of the European Union‟s own agencies (Sanchez Salgado, 2011: 4). The outcome of these studies was largely positive, thus providing supporting evidence for one of the main notions underlying the European Union‟s integration policy: that increased mobility and intergroup contact facilitate the development of a European identity. This, in part, explains the emphasis placed by the European Union on programmes such as Erasmus and Youth in Action. It also

(13)

8 provides us with the jump-off point for this study, in which we shall use a single YiA-related case to explore the inner workings of the contact hypothesis and to ascertain the extent to which a YiA-project, which is based on the principles of mobility and intergroup contact, can serve as a stepping stone toward the development of a European identity among young Europeans.

(14)

9

3. Theoretical framework

There are a number of key concepts that need to be outlined before we can start our analysis regarding the extent to which a YiA-project can serve as a stepping stone toward the development of a European identity among young European citizens. First of all, we shall conceptualize YiA-projects as those projects developed, organized and funded through the framework of the Youth in Action programme (European Commission, 2013: 4-20). Our focus will lie on so-called Youth Democracy projects under action 1.3 of the Youth in Action programme, as our chosen case, project PEPtalk, falls under this category (European Commission, 2013: 43-51; TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 1-2).

We will define Youth Democracy projects as those specific projects developed, organized and funded through the Youth in Action framework that are developed within the confines of a European partnership, allowing for the pooling of ideas, experiences and methodologies from projects or activities at local, regional, national and European level(s), in order to improve young people‟s participation in democracy (European Commission, 2013: 43). A Youth Democracy project normally has three separate phases: (1) a planning and preparation phase, (2) an implementation phase, and (3) an evaluation phase (European Commission, 2013: 43-51). The main focus of this study will be on the implementation phase of project PEPtalk, as the actual intergroup contact took place during this phase.

For the purpose of this study it is also important to concisely conceptualize the term stepping stone. A stepping stone should be seen as a means of progress or advancement en route to an overarching and usually predetermined goal, in our particular case the development of a European identity among young European citizens. Matters become considerably more complicated when we attempt to give a concise definition of the term European identity, as there is a staggering lack of consensus on what a European identity entails (Delanty, 2003).

In order to prevent us from becoming ensnared in an ongoing scholarly debate with no end in sight, we shall refrain from fully defining the term European identity. Rather, we shall identify a number of components of a European identity on which there does seem to be a consensus among experts. These common denominators of a European identity also lie at the core of the evaluative success criteria used by European Union‟s bureaucrats to determine whether or not a particular YiA-project was successful (European Commission, 2013: 4-5).

(15)

10 For the remainder of this study we shall use four common denominators pertaining to a European identity when we discuss the potential of YiA-projects, and more specifically project PEPtalk, to serve as a stepping stone toward the development of such a European identity. These common denominators have been italicized in the section below, in which they are presented within the context of the European Union‟s evaluative criteria to determine the success of YiA-projects (European Commission, 2013: 4-5).

First of all, YiA-projects should promote tolerance among participating European citizens. We conceptualize tolerance as a fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion and nationality differ from one‟s own.

Secondly, YiA-projects should also promote European citizenship among participating European citizens Within this context European citizenship focuses on making young people aware that they are in fact European citizens. Through the concept of European citizenship young people are encouraged to reflect upon European topics, while they are simultaneously involved in discussions on the construction and the future of the European Union. European citizenship pertains to a specific European dimension in the political and societal thinking of Europeans. It also helps stimulate further reflection on the emerging European society and its values (European Commission, 2013: 4).

Thirdly, YiA-projects should foster mutual understanding between members of different social groups. Mutual understanding can best be understood as a state of sympathy of each person for the other and his/her opinions, practices and background (European Commission, 2013: 4-5).

Lastly, YiA-projects should also foster social cohesion between members of different social groups. Within the context of our research, social cohesion can best be conceptualized as the bonds or glue that bring, and hold, people together within a society with a lot of cultural and social diversity, such as the European Union (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 6-17; TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-C). These four mutual elements of both a European identity and the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria will play an essential role in the analysis chapter of this study. They will help us to answer one of our sub-questions, namely: To what extent did project PEPtalk meet the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria for YiA-projects?

It is also important to define what we mean exactly when we talk about young European citizens. Our definition of young European citizens adheres to the participation criteria set out in the Youth in Action programme guide. Consequently, this means that all inhabitants of the European Union between the ages of thirteen and thirty are considered to be young European citizens within the scope of this thesis (European Commission, 2013: 16).

(16)

11 We must also outline and conceptualize the four prerequisite conditions relating to the contact hypothesis. For they too play a central role in the analysis chapter of this study. (Allport, 1954; Stangor et al., 1996: 664-665; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 752-757). The first of these conditions states that the participants from the groups involved in the contact situation should have equal status. We define equal status as having the same privileges, rights and/or value as all others involved in intergroup contact. Equal status means that there is a level playing field, which greatly facilitates effective intergroup contact.

The second prerequisite condition of the contact hypothesis states that the members of the outgroup should have characteristics that disconfirm previously held stereotypes by members of the ingroup. The outgroup should here be conceptualized as the social group to which the individual in question does not belong, whereas the ingroup is the social group of which the individual in question is a part. We define stereotypes as commonly held, formulaic and oversimplified conceptions, opinions or images pertaining to certain characteristics of the members of a specific social group.

The third prerequisite condition outlines that a specific contact situation should provide individuals with the opportunity to get to know each other. This often requires support and facilitation by experts, authorities and policy initiative or legislation. Experts such as trainers, social workers or diplomats can provide guidance and expertise, while helping to break down barriers that stand in the way of effective intergroup contact. Authorities, through policy initiatives or legislation, can create a framework that helps facilitate contact. They can also provide the funds that are needed to establish specific contact situations, such as YiA-projects, that would otherwise in all likelihood fail to materialize (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 7-16).

The last prerequisite condition states that specific contact situations should encourage cooperation between members of different social groups in support of common goals. We define cooperation as the act of working together for a common purpose or benefit. Such joint action often takes place in pursuit of common goals, which we define as the shared purpose toward which an endeavor is directed. Cooperation in the pursuit of common goals tends to bring individuals, and by extension social groups, closer together, which further facilitates contact and understanding (European Commission, 2013: 4; TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 7-16). The four prerequisite conditions outlined in the paragraphs above will help us to answer another sub-question of this study, namely: To what extent did project PEPtalk meet the contact hypothesis‟ prerequisite conditions?

(17)

12 We would expect our case to meet both the contact hypothesis‟ prerequisite conditions as well as the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria, to a significant extent. In doing so, our case could prove that YiA-projects that meet certain criteria and conditions can indeed serve as a stepping stone toward the development of a European identity.

Now that our theoretical framework is complete we will turn our attention to the research methodology that has shaped and structured this thesis. This will be discussed in the next chapter.

(18)

13

4. Methodology

In this chapter we shall address all the relevant issues pertaining to the methodology used during the course of the research that was conducted for this thesis. The purpose of this thesis is to ascertain the extent to which a YiA-project can serve as a stepping stone toward the development of a European identity among young European citizens. We shall do this using a qualitative case study based on one specific Youth Democracy project that falls under the Youth in Action framework, project PEPtalk (European Commission, 2013: 43-51).

The research design of this study is thus structured around a single unit of analysis. Our unit of analysis should be conceptualized as a most-likely case. Research designs based on a most-likely case can be useful for the purpose of testing certain types of theoretical arguments, especially when there is an underlying theory that provides a relatively precise set of expectations (Levy, 2008: 12-14). In our case this is the intergroup contact theory and the expectation that contact will contribute toward positive attitudinal change and the development of a European identity.

A case study provides us with the opportunity to obtain both an in-depth understanding and a complete overview of our chosen unit of analysis (Bryman, 2008: 53-58). These attributes make a case study especially suited to the analysis of the effectiveness of a policy initiative in pursuit of specific goals. When in-depth understanding of a unit of analysis is coupled with a complete overview of the same unit of analysis, the findings of a study attain a higher level of accuracy and validity, while simultaneously allowing for the scope of the research to remain manageable in both time and effort (Stake, 1995).

Project PEPtalk, a Youth Democracy project under action 1.3 of the Youth in Action framework, ran from April 2010 until January 2001 (European Commission, 2013: 43-51). It was organized and led by the Maltese chapter of the Terra Di Mezzo 2000 (TDM 2000) organization The so-called seminar (or main) phase of the project that this study focuses on was held on the island of Malta from 12th until the 21st of November, 2010 TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 20). 4 It was during this phase that the actual intergroup contact took place. Delegations from 6 European countries participated in the project, supervised by the Maltese organizers from Terra Di Mezzo 2000. These delegations came from France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Malta and The Netherlands. The French, Italian, Latvian and Dutch delegations consisted of 10 members each, while the Maltese and Greek delegations consisted of 11 and 9

4

(19)

14 participants respectively. In total, 60 people participated in project PEPtalk (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 8, 20). Of these 60 participants eighty percent fell into the 18-25 year old age group (N=48). The other twenty percent (N=12) of the participants fell into the 26-30 year old age group.5 33 of the participants were female (55%), while the other 27 were male (45%) (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 8). All of the participants qualified as young European citizens under the criteria of the Youth in Action framework (European Commission, 2013: 16). Among each delegation two individuals were designated as delegation leaders. During the course of Project PEPtalk I acted as one of the delegation leaders for the Dutch delegation.

The fact that I was personally involved in project PEPtalk, both as a participant and as a delegation leader, greatly facilitated the data collection process for this study. Firstly, my involvement in project PEPtalk caused me to take a serious interest in the entire Youth in Action framework.

Moreover, it led to me studying the Youth in Action programme guide and a host of other documents pertaining to this specific policy initiative and its underlying causal mechanism. As a result of this I was already in possession of almost all the relevant reports, articles and policy documents relating to the Youth in Action framework, prior to conducting this study.

Secondly, due to my contacts within the Maltese chapter of the Terra Di Mezzo 2000 I was able to secure all their internal reports and documents concerning project PEPtalk. All the aspects of project PEPtalk that are relevant to this study are addressed at length in these reports and documents. The internal documents turned out to contain a treasure throve of raw data. The raw data made it possible for me to answer several of the questions that lie at the heart of this study.

Thirdly, my personal contacts with a number of the Maltese organizers made it possible for me to ask them questions via email or Skype whenever I required clarification on certain elements of project PEPtalk that come to the fore in this study. All in all, my personal involvement and contacts contributed to an effective and unproblematic data collection process that has yielded a large volume of high quality data for our case study.

A criticism frequently leveled at case study research is that its results are typically not generalizable and therefore fail to contribute to furthering scientific research (Bryman, 2008: 54-56). Even though we must concede that a single case cannot be used to represent are entire

5

Participants had to be no older than thirty at the start of Project PEPtalk in April 2010. Hence it was possible for participants to be thirty-one years of age by the time the seminar phase of the project commenced. Under the Youth in Action guidelines these persons were however still considered to be young European citizens within the confines of the specific project they were participating in.

(20)

15 class of objects or items, we can still infer valuable and valid findings through case study research (Bryman, 2008: 55-56). Moreover, evidence suggests that the manner in which projects within the Youth in Action framework are implemented and executed is remarkably similar throughout Europe (Van Loenen, 2013: 10, 38-40). This would enhance the external validity of our findings and would make our case representative for other YiA-projects. It also implies that the results of this study might very well be generalizable to most YiA-projects, and specifically Youth Democracy projects.

At this point it is also necessary for us to address the proverbial elephant in the room with regard to the objectivity of the researcher. The principle of objectivity dictates that, as far as possible, researchers should keep their distance from the object of their study in order to ensure that findings are based on the nature of the studied objects instead of on the personal believes and values of the researcher (Ratner, 2002). It is abundantly clear that in this case I have not adhered to the dictates of the objectivity principle. I have actively participated in the project that is now the focus of my research. Therefore I cannot claim to be wholly objective (Bryman, 2008: 369).

This fact, however, does not invalidate the results of the study. From the start of this research process I have been acutely aware that my active participation in project PEPtalk might cause a potential bias in the results of this study. This acute awareness of the potential risk of bias ensured that I labored strenuously to prevent my personal involvement and opinions from interfering with the analysis of the data and the interpretation of the results. Consequently I am of the opinion that the objectivity of the study was sufficiently safeguarded.

Through my participation in this particular project I have also been able to attain useful insights that would have been impossible to attain for those researchers fully adhering to the strictest interpretation of the objectivity principle. Therefore we could argue that a trade-off was made between a small degree of objectivity and the possibility to collect valuable primary data from the core of a particular YiA-project, while simultaneously being acutely aware of the potential risk of researcher bias (Bryman, 2008: 369, 377-380).

Now that we have discussed the issues pertaining to the overall research methodology and data collection, it is time for us to present our analysis. The analysis will focus on answering the two sub-questions posed in this study, namely:

(21)

16 1) To what extent did project PEPtalk meet the contact hypothesis‟ prerequisite

conditions?

2) To what extent did project PEPtalk meet the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria for YiA-projects?

We will attempt to answer these questions by systematically discussing the four respective conditions and criteria attached to them, as outlined in the theoretical framework of this study. In turn, the answers to these sub-questions should allow us, after a thorough analysis, to formulate an answer to the central research question of this study.

(22)

17

5. Analysis: the contact hypothesis’ prerequisite conditions

In this chapter of our study we will try to find an answer to the first of our two sub-questions: To what extent did project PEPtalk meet the contact hypothesis‟ prerequisite conditions? We will attempt to answer this question by systematically analyzing if, and how, project PEPtalk met the four prerequisite conditions of the contact hypothesis.

5.1 Prerequisite condition number one: equal status

The first prerequisite condition of the contact hypothesis states that the participants from the groups involved in the contact situation in question should have equal status, which is taken to mean that all participants should have the same privileges and rights and that all participants should be valued the same.

There were numerous ways in which the organizers from the Maltese chapter of TDM 2000 tried to ensure that all the delegations and, by extension, all the participants in project PEPtalk had equal status. Firstly, every delegation had the same budget that it could allocate for plane tickets, project preparations and other necessary expenses (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-D). Secondly, every delegation was expected to prepare similar activities. All respective delegations had to present their countries to the other participants at a specially organized inter-cultural night. The focus during this night was on the respective histories, political systems, traditions and music of the participating countries. Every delegation was also expected to bring local food and beverages for the other delegations to sample (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 11-17).

Similarly, every delegation was expected to prepare a workshop on a topic related to European politics. Moreover, all delegations were also expected to participate in the same activities, which included meetings with various national and European politicians, debates and discussions, role-playing exercises, seminars on European institutions and politics, visits to the historic city of Valletta and the island of Gozo, sports activities and a simulated session of the European Parliament (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 11-17).

Furthermore, all six delegations were provided with identical apartments at the Sprachcafe language school in St. Julian‟s, while they were also served the same meals and had access to the same sports facilities and swimming pool (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 7-16). As mentioned before, there were two designated delegation leaders within each delegation.

(23)

18 This position did however not lead to a significantly enhanced status for the delegation leaders. The delegation leaders functioned primarily as intermediaries between the organizers and the various delegations, in an attempt to ensure effective communication. With the exception of this specific task, the delegation leaders were treated no different than the other individuals participating in project PEPtalk (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 5).

When we thoroughly examine the dynamics of project PEPtalk it becomes apparent that there was one particular issue that posed a threat to the much-desired equality among the participants, though this issue lay beyond the scope of control of the Maltese organizers. It became apparent soon after project PEPtalk had begun that there were significant differences in the abilities of the various participants to express themselves in the English language (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 18-19). The Dutch and Maltese delegations, and to a lesser extent the Latvian and Greek delegations, were all able to communicate with one another, and thus participate in all the project‟s activities, in English. The same could not be said for most members of the French and Italian delegations.

Their deficient grasp of the English language placed the French and Italian participants at a disadvantage, which minimized their input during certain activities. At times this made communicating with them a tedious task, much to their own chagrin. The organizers invested extra time and effort into communicating with these delegations, to ensure that the French and the Italians could have their input and consequently would be able to participate in the various activities.

All in all, we can conclude that the organizers from TDM 2000 did everything in their power to ensure equal status for all participants within the confines of project PEPtalk. They succeeded in sufficiently meeting the first prerequisite condition of the contact hypothesis, even though they had to cope with communication problems that lay outside of their control.6

5.2 Prerequisite condition number two: disconfirming previously held stereotypes

According to the second prerequisite condition of the contact hypothesis, members of the outgroup should have characteristics that disconfirm previously held stereotypes by members of the ingroup, if contact is to lead to positive attitudinal change. We define stereotypes as

6

(24)

19 commonly held, formulaic and oversimplified conceptions, opinions or images pertaining to certain characteristics of the members of a specific social group.

The organizers of project PEPtalk tried to address the issue of stereotypes head on. They had prepared a so-called „My Culture vs. Your Culture‟ workshop for the second day of the seminar phase of the project (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 11). Participants were encouraged to talk about issues that they felt were part of their own culture, or part of the cultures of the other nations participating in the project. This process led to the emergence of lists of perceived national stereotypes for each country involved in project PEPtalk.

During the next phase of the workshop the organizers asked the various delegations to address the stereotypes that had been attributed to their respective countries. This process led to active and interesting discussions. Some stereotypes were framed within a broader context, sometimes even a European one. Other stereotypes were refuted, while some were wholeheartedly embraced by members of the various delegations. During the evaluation after the workshop there seemed to be a clear consensus among the participants that the majority of national stereotypes should be discounted, as it appears that they are often not based on facts (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 11-14).

Stereotypes were further disconfirmed by the actions and characteristics of individual participants within the project. Members of the French delegation surprised other participants by stating that French people are often arrogant and snobbish, and that they suffer from a superiority complex when it comes to French culture. The Italian and Maltese delegations were rather surprised when it turned out that the majority of the Dutch delegation had never used drugs and had no intention of doing so in the future. The Greek delegation was decidedly pro-European, while many participants expected them to be anti-European as a result of the harsh austerity measures that the EU had forced upon Greece in order to restore fiscal stability. Moreover, extensive contact between the participants from different countries during the seminar phase of the project led many of them to realize that there are in fact far more similarities between young European citizens than there are differences. This widely shared realization also greatly facilitated the breakdown of stereotypes (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B).

The results of our study show that project PEPtalk was very successful in disconfirming the previously held stereotypes of individuals that took part in the project. The „My Culture vs. Your Culture‟ workshop, created and led by the organizers, made an important contribution to the breakdown of stereotypes and moreover ensured that stereotypes remained a subject of conversation between individual participants for the duration of project PEPtalk. The abovementioned actions and characteristics of individual participants further

(25)

20 helped to dislodge previously held stereotypes. All these elements combined make the way in which project PEPtalk addressed stereotypes stand out as one of the strongest aspects of the project as a whole. The language barrier was a complicating factor in the process of breaking down stereotypes, but seems not to have adversely affected the results of the efforts in the long run.

5.3 Prerequisite condition number three: getting to know each other

The third prerequisite condition of the contact hypothesis outlines that a specific contact situation should provide individuals with the opportunity to get to know each other. Project PEPtalk was planned and implemented in a way that ensured the individual participants had an excellent opportunity to get to know each other during the 9-day seminar phase of the project. In fact, it would not be a stretch to say that this entire Youth Democracy project was developed around the core notion of getting to know people from other European nations to achieve a greater understanding of European politics in unison (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 7-16). This was made possible by the extensive funding of project PEPtalk through the Youth in Action framework (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-D).

From the 12th until the 21st of November of 2010, the participants from France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Malta and The Netherlands interacted with each other in a multitude of different settings. On a daily basis they participated in workshops, games, debates and discussions together, went on excursions together, enjoyed their meals together, went out drinking together and enhanced their knowledge of European politics together. During the course of all these activities all participants had ample opportunity to get to know each other, especially when one takes into account the amount of time allocated for unspecified leisure activities in the project‟s programme (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 7-16; TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 21-24). The organizers also constantly encouraged people from different nationalities to get acquainted.7

The programme of project PEPtalk also contained various activities that were carried out in relatively small groups of mixed nationality, in order to create small-scale personal contact situations to help open up a dialogue between individuals with different backgrounds

7

The organizers obviously also facilitated the „getting to know each other‟ process through the activities they put on the programme of the project.

(26)

21 and nationalities (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 7-16; TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 21-24).8 Our research shows that the actual process of „getting to know‟ participants from other delegations mostly took place during the more informal activities of the programme, or during the time allocated for personal leisure activities. These findings add emphasis to the importance of incorporating informal and leisure activities into the programme of a YiA-project, as they positively influence the attempts of participants to get to know each other. The positive effects of „knowing each other‟ carry over into the more formal aspects of the programme, as they allow for better cooperation and mutual respect (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 7-16; TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 27-29).

After taking all the data into account we can conclude that project PEPtalk met the third prerequisite condition of the contact hypothesis. In fact, most of the project was centered on getting to know people in an intergroup contact situation. However, this does not mean that getting to know each other did not cause the participants any problems. Once again the language barrier complicated matters to some extent, causing the process of getting to know one another to sometimes take longer than anticipated.

It would be wise for organizers of future YiA-projects to take the constantly reoccurring problem of a language barrier into account, to ensure that participants will always be able to get to know each other within the confines of a project. When this is not the case, a project could fail to accomplish its goals.

5.4 Prerequisite condition number four: Cooperation in support of common goals

The fourth and last prerequisite condition of the contact hypothesis states that specific contact situations should encourage cooperation between members of different social groups in support of common goals. During the course of project PEPtalk members of the six participating delegations were routinely asked, and thus naturally also encouraged, to cooperate with one another in pursuit of a variety of common goals, especially through workshops (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 7-16; TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 27-29). For instance, all delegations were assigned tasks in preparation for the simulated session of the European Parliament to be held at the end of the project. These preparatory tasks could only be carried out in close conjunction with the other delegations, as all the tasks were interrelated and thus required deliberation and consensus-building (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 13-14)

8

(27)

22 As part of the preparations for the simulated session of the European Parliament the participants were also divided into four different committees, and simultaneously into four different political parties. The committees were each charged with preparing a piece of legislation concerning a particular subject on the European Union‟s political agenda, such as civil liberties, nuclear energy, wildlife protection or terrorism (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 25). Input from committee members from the different political parties was important, as a bill needed the support of a majority of the participants during the simulated session of the European Parliament in order for it to be approved. The focus of the exercise lay on cooperation, lobbying and coalition-building.

Each committee spent countless hours drafting, and garnering support for, its bill. After a day full of arduous debate and amendments, the four bills were all approved during the simulated session of the European Parliament on the 20th of November. This whole process proved to many of the participants that it was indeed possible for individuals of different nationalities and belonging to different political to work together in support of common goals (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 25, 27-29).

Another example of cooperation in support of common goals was the way in which the strongest English speakers among the participants came together during the project. They decided that they could strengthen and improve the project as a whole if they could facilitate greater involvement in the project among the participants with a weaker grasp of the English language. For the remainder of the project, the strongest English speakers made sure they worked in close cooperation with the weaker English speakers. This enhanced the cohesion among all the participants, and allowed every participant to be actively involved in the project‟s activities (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 31-36).

Project PEPtalk was generally geared towards cooperation in support of common goals, and thus met the fourth prerequisite condition of the contact hypothesis. During the evaluation sessions participants often commented that they thought this to be this to be one of the strongest and most inspiring elements of the project (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-B: 25-29). The simulated session of the European Parliament, and all its related preparatory activities, especially gave participants the chance to work together in support of common goals. It also allowed them to see what such cooperation can achieve, even when a language barrier causes additional complications.

(28)

23

5.5 Conclusion sub-question one

After taking all the evidence into account we are now able to answer the question posed at the beginning of this chapter, namely: To what extent did project PEPtalk meet the contact hypothesis‟ prerequisite conditions? We have shown that project PEPtalk sufficiently met all of the contact hypothesis‟ prerequisite conditions, thus proving that the contact hypothesis can indeed function as the underlying causal mechanism for YiA-projects such as PEPtalk. Another conclusion that can be drawn from our study is that a persistent language barrier posed the only significant threat to the project‟s ability to meet the prerequisite criteria of the contact hypothesis. Organizers of similar projects should be aware of this potential threat and should attempt to develop strategies to counter it. We will now turn our attention to the second part of our analysis, in which we shall focus on the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria for YiA-projects such as PEPtalk.

(29)

24

6. Analysis: the European Union’s evaluative success criteria for Youth in Action projects

In this particular chapter of our study we will attempt to find an answer to our second sub-questions: To what extent did project PEPtalk meet the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria for YiA-projects? We will try to answer this question by once again making use of a point-by-point analysis, in which the European Union‟s four evaluative success criteria as relating to project PEPtalk will be discussed.

6.1 Evaluative success criterion number one: tolerance

The first of the European Union‟s four evaluative success criteria outlines that YiA-projects should promote tolerance among participating European citizens (European Commission, 2013: 4-5). We conceptualize tolerance as a fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion and nationality differ from one‟s own.

It is hard not to envision project PEPtalk as one all-encompassing exercise in tolerance, when we take into account that delegations from six different countries took part in this particular YiA-project. Intergroup contact between these delegations was continuous throughout the entire project. The members of the national delegations all had varying practices, opinions and religions. There were also participants from different races involved in the project (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A; TDM 200 Malta, 2011-B: 27-29).

Our results seem to indicate that most participants entered into the project with an open mind and a generally permissive attitude toward individuals whose opinions, practices, race, religion and nationality differed from their own. During the project no conflicts arose that were of a distinctive intercultural, interracial or international nature (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 28-34; TDM 200 Malta, 2011-B: 27-29).9

It is important to note that the organizers put emphasis on a framework that promoted unity through diversity whenever discussions were held on topics relating to practices, opinions and religion. This created an atmosphere in which most participants in project PEPtalk felt secure enough to lend voice to thought in order to share their views with the other

9

International conflict is conceptualized here as conflict between members from different delegations solely based on their nationalities (for instance rivalry between neighboring countries).

(30)

25 participating individuals (TDM 2000 Malta, 2011-A: 28-34; TDM 200 Malta, 2011-B: 27-29).

Although it is clear that the emphasis on unity through diversity greatly facilitated widespread tolerance and open-minded discussions, it does not mean that we can rule out the fact that the individuals participating in project PEPtalk perhaps already had a high level of tolerance and overall permissive attitudes toward the practices, opinions and religions associated with members of other European countries. As Wilson (2011, 1113-1114, 1136-1137) points out, young Europeans participating in European projects and exchange programmes may already be more pro-European from the outset. This does however not discredit the efforts by the organizers of project PEPtalk to ensure that the project was carried out in a tolerant and permissive atmosphere.

All in all, we can conclude that the promotion of tolerance was deeply ingrained in project PEPtalk as a whole. Therefore we can state that the project met the first criterion of the European Union‟s four evaluative success criteria for YiA-projects with flying colors.

6.2 Evaluative success criterion number two: European citizenship

The second of the European Union‟s four evaluative success criteria states that YiA-projects should also promote European citizenship among participating European citizens (European Commission, 2013: 4-5). European citizenship pertains to a specific European dimension in the political and societal thinking of Europeans. This distinctly European dimension of thought should allow for the discussion of and the reflection upon European topics in a European setting.

For Youth Democracy projects such as project PEPtalk, this second evaluative success criterion is perhaps the least difficult one to meet. The entire framework that guides Youth Democracy projects, under action 1.3 of the Youth in Action programme, is based on the aforementioned European dimension in political and societal thinking (European Commission, 2013: 43-50). Simply put, it would be impossible for any organization to get funding for a Youth Democracy project if its project proposal did not already contain elements that are geared towards the promotion of European citizenship (European Commission, 2013: 45-46). Judging by fact that the application for project PEPtalk was approved and that the project was consequently executed, we can already conclude that PEPtalk met the European Union‟s second evaluative success criterion.

(31)

26 The programme of the seminar phase of project PEPtalk was developed in order to improving the participation of young Europeans in democratic life. The organizers hoped to achieve this by educating the participants on European politics and the prevalent European political institutions. They also wanted to raise awareness of the importance of European elections and the influence of European politics on our daily lives, while promoting European citizenship in general (TDM 200 Malta, 2011-B: 4-5).

The organizers tried to achieve their goals by a variety of means. First of all, they gave a number of workshops on subject of European politics and European political institutions during the course of the project. Secondly, all participants in project PEPtalk got to meet with various local, national and European politicians. These meetings often revolved around discussions and/or debates pertaining to any number of issues on the European political agenda. Thirdly, the simulated session of the European parliament and all its associated preparations also proved to be an excellent way to promote European citizenship among the participants of project PEPtalk. All the above mentioned activities fit within the specific European dimension of political and societal thought that constitutes the core of European citizenship (TDM 200 Malta, 2011-A: 11-15).

Once again, the existing language barrier was a slight impediment to the promotion of European citizenship, as it slightly decreased the quality of discussions and made it harder for people to get their points across to all other participants. However, project PEPtalk still easily met the second of the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria.

6.3 Evaluative success criterion number three: mutual understanding

The third of the European Union‟s four evaluative success criteria prescribes that YiA-projects should foster mutual understanding between members of different social groups (European Commission, 2013: 4-5). Mutual understanding, as conceptualized here, is a state of sympathy of each person for the other and his/her opinions, practices and background. It can be seen as a step up from tolerance, as tolerance is only concerned with permissive attitudes while mutual understanding requires sympathy and a better grasp of the opinions, practices and backgrounds of other individuals.

The organizers of project PEPtalk tried to foster mutual understanding by creating an open-minded atmosphere in which participants felt able and willing to voice their opinions and discuss respective practices and backgrounds (TDM 200 Malta, 2011-B: 27-29). This atmosphere, for which the organizers deserve credit, can normally serve as an excellent

(32)

27 foundation for mutual understanding, especially when it is coupled with extensive facilitated cooperation among the participating individuals.10 However, in this particular case the promising foundation for mutual understanding did not fully live up to its expectations.

Acquiring an understanding of someone else‟s opinions, practices and background, while simultaneously developing a sympathetic attitude towards them, requires extensive and substantive communication. This level of communication proved impossible to attain, especially with the French and Italian delegations. Their limited English proficiency simply did not allow for substantive discussions of complicated political matters. Hence the language barrier prevented the occurrence of wholehearted mutual understanding between members of the French and Italian delegations and the other participants in the project (TDM 200 Malta, 2011-A: 23-26).

The Dutch, Greek, Latvian and Maltese delegations did possess the required grasp of the English language in order to foster mutual understanding between the respective delegation members. Therefore we cannot go as far as to state that project PEPtalk failed to foster mutual understanding altogether. However, it is clear that in the case of this Youth Democracy project its potential to foster genuine mutual understanding between all the participants was undermined by a language barrier that excluded two delegations from attaining this goal (TDM 200 Malta, 2011-A).

Project PEPtalk did meet the European Union‟s third evaluative success criterion, as the project fostered genuine mutual understanding among four of the six participating delegations. On the other hand, our analysis shows that project PEPtalk could have scored significantly higher on this criterion if the language barrier had not prevented both the French and the Italian delegation from participating in substantive discussions regarding the core political topics of the project. This leaves room for improvement for future Youth Democracy projects, especially if they succeed in overcoming potential language barriers.

6.4 Evaluative success criterion number four: social cohesion

The fourth and last of the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria outlines that YiA-projects should also foster social cohesion between members of different social groups (European Commission, 2013: 4-5). Within the context of our research, social cohesion can

10

(33)

28 best be conceptualized as the bonds or glue that bring, and hold, people together within a society with a lot of cultural and social diversity, such as the European Union.

Project PEPtalk succeeded in bringing together a large and unique, multinational group of individuals with diverse cultural and social backgrounds (TDM 200 Malta, 2011-B: 27-29). Over the course of the project a clear increase in social cohesion was noticeable. Whereas individual participants tended to stick to their own delegations at the start of project, they soon began to integrate with participants of other delegations. As a result of this a multinational community began to emerge at the heart of project PEPtalk (TDM 200 Malta, 2011-A: 23-26). During the second half of the so-called seminar phase of the project this community generally encompassed all the participants, with one or two noticeable exceptions. The social cohesion between the participants seemed to grow naturally, although the many activities that the organizers had put on the programme certainly helped to strengthen this process.

Questions can however be raised about the long term effects of fostering social cohesion within the scope of a particular YiA-project. It remains unclear to which extent social cohesion that has been fostered during a project, and thus in a very specific setting, can be translated into a general sense of social cohesion within our European society. Additional research, focusing on the spill-over effects of social cohesion, would certainly be useful in order to assess the long term effects of fostering social cohesion within the scope of a project.

Once again, the language barrier complicated the fostering of social cohesion, albeit not to any large extent. It mainly caused a delay in the development of bonds between the various participants, but it did not prevent these bonds from being established altogether. Project PEPtalk managed to foster social cohesion, and thus met the last evaluative success criteria. Uncertainty about the long term effects of social cohesion fostered through YiA-projects does mean that it is hard to assess the actual strength of PEPtalk with regard to this criterion. Hence, the project does not score as well here as it does in order areas.11

6.5 Conclusion sub-question two

After taking all the evidence into account we are now able to formulate an answer to our second sub-question namely: To what extent did project PEPtalk meet the European Union‟s evaluative success criteria for YiA-projects? Our analysis has shown that project PEPtalk

11

Moving toward a European identity? : the case of project PEPtalk