Effects of Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme on Scholars’ Development and Perception of the EU

(1)

MASTER'S THESIS

Effects of Jean Monnet

Scholarship Programme on

Scholars’ Development and

Perception of the EU

Gizem Kaya

June 11, 2019

Submitted by: Gizem Kaya / s1744410

Submitted to: Dr. Maarja Beerkens

Second Reader: Dr. Rik de Ruiter

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Department of Public Administration

Economics and Governance Track

(2)

Acknowledgements

The insights provided in this work would not have been possible without the support of several individuals to which I wish to show my gratitude in this section. Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to the Jean Monnet Scholarship Committee for providing me the opportunity and funding to study in this master programme. A special thanks should be given to Dr. Maarja Beerkens for her guidance and valuable insights in the lengthy process of writing a thesis. I also want to thank Ms. Suzi Erdogan, head of the Jean Monnet Alumni Association, and the members of the Jean Monnet Scholarship Committee for willing to cooperate with me to conduct a quantitative survey with the alumni of the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme.

(3)

Abstract

The objectives of this paper were first to examine the effects of Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme on its scholars’ the personal, academic, and professional development and changes in scholars’ perception of the European Union and its values, and second, to find out any plausible relation between scholars’ level of satisfaction with the programme and their area of development. A questionnaire survey was conducted with the scholars of the 2007-2008 and 2015-2016 academic years. The findings supported that the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme has had a positive effect on scholars’ level of personal, academic, and professional development. Also, due to the programme, scholars understanding of the European Union and level of familiarity with its values increased. Scholars’ level of satisfaction with the programme seemed to be statistically significant and positively related to their development in intercultural awareness and familiarity with the EU.

(4)

Appendix 4 - PCA for the group of 2015-2016 with varimax rotation 55

(5)

Introduction

“One really needs to visit a county to understand it.”

Schuster, Zimmerman, Schertzer &Beamish (1998, p.30) Education is a key factor for spreading knowledge, ideas, and values that have accumulated over the course of history. It is perceived as “a key social institution that can affect the values and behaviours of individuals, shaping the citizens and workforce of the future, and therefore impacting on national development” (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2014, p.86) In contemporary, highly globalised world, people often engage in communication with people from other cultures. To maintain a healthy relationship among people, companies, and countries, one must need to acquire knowledge about the other. This need resulted in an effort to educate people to become knowledgeable enough to engage in dialogues with others ranging from a personal level to a high level. Countries and international institutions have started to encourage young students and professionals to pursue at least a part of their education in another country. This has resulted in so-called ‘globalisation’ of higher education which has not only produced ‘spatial practices’ such as international mobility but also changed the cultural representation of the university education (Findlay et al., 2012). Thus, studying abroad is highly valuable to gain intercultural proficiency by virtue of the need to gain “concrete experiences” with other cultures to truly embrace the complex and multicultural global environment (Clarke, Flaherty, Wright & McMillen, 2009).

The European Union (the EU) was founded on the values of peace, democracy, and human rights (Treaty on European Union, 1992). Spreading these values throughout the continent and the rest of the world has become one of the biggest aims of the Union. The role of education in this process should be remunerated. Universities occupy significant importance for the European Union. Study abroad programmes, which each year give thousands of students a chance to study abroad, serve the core aims of the European Union in a substantial way by promoting the EU values and identity and making young professionals develop new skills, values and norms in line with those of the EU. These kinds of programmes do not only target the students of member states to help their countries’ integration processes but also those of the candidate countries to promote the EU values among them. Erasmus + programme, for instance, can be considered as one of the most prominent of these programmes, provides study abroad opportunities to the students of member states as well as the students from candidate countries such as the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of North Macedonia (“Erasmus +”, n.d.).

(6)

of study. However, there is one scholarship called Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme (JMSP) that directly aims to increase the knowledge and understanding of the Turkish professionals related to the EU acquis chapters, therefore, aims to support Turkey with its integration process. Thus, this programme has been an important source to increase Turkey’s human resources capacity in EU acquis related fields and broaden the perspectives of the young Turkish professionals about the European Union.

The aim of this research study is to examine the level of effectiveness of the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme on enhancing the human resources capacity of Turkey and on changes in the students’ perceptions of the EU. Moreover, this research tries to reveal any plausible linkages and relations between the scholars’ satisfaction level of the programme and the skills and knowledge (personal, professional or academic) they have developed or improved due to the programme.

(7)

Background Information

Turkey-EU Relations

The relationship between Turkey and the European Union dates back even before the establishments of the country and the Union; the relationship between these two communities has started with back-then the Ottoman Empire and the European states. By virtue of their geographical proximity, they often had to engage in political, economic and social activities. The European Union had been founded with the aim of creating a sense of union to end the bloody wars of the Second World War and to create a long-lasting peace throughout the continent. Although the EU officially has been created in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty, it has originally served as an extension of European Coal and Steel Community which was created with Paris Treaty in 1951 (“The History of the European Union”, 2019).

Turkey, founded in 1923, has taken Europe as a model for its new secular structure and has become an important member of the western community by becoming a founding member of United Nations, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and an associate member of the Western European Union (Scherpereel & Zierler, 2011). The main element of Turkey’s request for full membership to the EU has its roots from one of Turkey’s core founding republican/Kemalist goals which drives towards “Westernisation-cum-modernisation” (Ugur & Canefe, 2004, p.4). Although several domestic issues happened to slow down the process of westernisation, such as the 1980 military coup, Turkey’s Europeanisation project still continues until this day.

The first step taken on the road to Turkey’s membership to the EU was the establishment of the customs union in 1963. Twenty four years after this establishment, in 1987, Turkey applied for the full membership. The related decision of the European Commission was, on the one hand, underlining Turkey’s eligibility as a candidate country, however, on the other hand, deferring its final decision to a more favourable time. The designated reason of this deferring was enucleated by the European Commission as both an effect of the internal conditions of the EU on the eve of creating a single market and having a necessity to conduct a more in-depth analysis of Turkey’s application (“History of Turkey-EU Relations”, 2017). It was not until 1999, the Helsinki Summit, that a decision is made, Turkey has been accepted as eligible to become a candidate country. It took another six years, until the last quarter of 2005, to start the accession negotiation between Turkey and the EU (“History of Turkey-EU Relations”, 2017). In order to make the negotiation process more vigorous and productive, the EU created a list, called as the EU acquis, incorporating the common rights and obligations that are binding for

(8)

2004, p.4). They are created for both securing the original structure of the EU, which encompasses certain political compromises including transferring partial or full national sovereignty in selected areas of policymaking or limitations of some common legal frameworks, after the enlargement, and assisting candidate countries to fully integrate their political and socio-economic frames into those of the EU (Ugur & Canefe, 2004). In this respect, it is safe to define the purpose of the acquis as to aid candidate countries with their convergence towards Western European norms of governance and rules of conduct (Ugur & Canefe, 2004)1_.

To actualise its core aims, spreading the idea of unity and peace and promoting the EU values, the EU has gone into an enlargement process. The first enlargement took place in 1973 towards the northern and western countries, including Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. By the end of 1995, southern countries including Spain, Portugal, and Greece, as well as Finland, Sweden and Austria have become members of the Union. The largest enlargement of the Union was in 2004, with the central and eastern European countries2_{(“From 6 to 28 members”, 2017).}

However, even though Turkey has applied for the membership in 1987, even today it still maintains its candidate status. Officially, according to the Copenhagen admission criteria, there are three significant criteria a country has to comply with to become a member. These criteria can be named as political, economic and cultural criteria. Although starting accession negotiations is an averment of completion of the Copenhagen criteria, the candidate country still needs to fulfil all the acquis requirements, however, the European Commission has frozen eight of the acquis chapters with Turkey due to the deadlocked Cyprus issue. This issue is considered now as one of the biggest obstacles to Turkey’s full membership. Nonetheless, some scholars argued that this long-lasting candidature is not only about political obstacles but also cultural. They, referring to the definition of European identity, pointing out that Turk has been seen as a key ‘Other’ in that definition, and thus, the status of Turkey has been perceived as ‘being in but not of Europe’ (Rumelili, 2011, p.236). As being the one of the few institutions remained in the European regional international society which has not granted Turkey the membership that it has sought, the European Union has started a programme, called the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme to overcome these cultural, political, and technical differences between Turkey and the EU both in individuals’ personal perception and their area of expertise.

1 See Turkey and the European Integration - Accession Prospects and Issues edited by Mehmet Ugur and Nergis Canefe for an in-depth analysis of the EU acquis, history of Turkey-EU relations and accession process.

Also, see Barriers to Socialization: Turkey and the International Organisation for a comprehensive summary of Turkey’s relations with various international organisations including the European Union.

(9)

The Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme

The Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme has been formed under an agreement between the EU and Turkey in 1989. It constitutes great importance for Turkey-EU relations by utilising the creation of that ‘favourable environment’ for the EU and by providing Turkish professionals with first-hand experience of a European environment. Its specific agenda towards the EU acquis chapters negotiated between Turkey and the EU creates a tremendous human resource in the field.

The scholarship programme has been funded by the European Union and offered to Turkish professionals who either work in a public sector, private sector, or is registered as a student in a university in Turkey, and also, who succeeds in the exam which is conducted by the JMSP committee consisting of questions with regard to the history of the EU, the extent of the EU

acquis, the current issues in the EU agenda, and the current discussions between Turkey and

EU. The programme allows people to study in a postgraduate programme or conduct research in a European university for a period of 3 to 12 months and covers all the related cost such as tuition fee and living expenses. The main purpose of this programme, as stated in its 2014-2020 action plan, is; (European Commission, 2016, p.1)

Developing Turkey’s human resources capacity in the EU Acquis related fields by granting scholarships for academic studies in EU member countries. In this manner, young professionals’ perspective about the European integration process will be broaden, their perceptions of the EU will be changed positively and the dialogue between young Turkish professionals and their EU counterparts will be enhanced.

With this purpose in mind, around 2000 Turkish professionals have benefited from the scholarship programme since 1990. According to Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) report on Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme, more than 50% of these professionals have been employed an EU acquis related jobs upon their returns (European Commission, 2016) (See Appendix 2).

Furthermore, the JMSP comprises three different phases. The first phase took place between 1990 and 2001. With the main goal to expand the knowledge about the EU in mind, 441 scholars have benefitted from the programme during this phase. During the second phase between the years 2002 and 2006, the main objective of the programme evolved to intensifying the EU acquis specific knowledge in Turkey. This evolution was a result of Turkey’s acceptance as a candidate country to the European Union during the 1999 Helsinki summit. In the scope of this phase around 500 Turkish professionals have benefitted from the programme (European Commission, 2018).

(10)

programme has also been included in this assistance after 2007, with the launching of its third phase. IPA has two specific objectives that comprise the aim of Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme; “support for political reforms” and “strengthening the ability of beneficiaries to

fulfil the (future) obligations stemming from EU membership by supporting progressive alignment with the EU Acquis” (European Commission, 2016, p.4). With this regard, it is

expected from the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme to provide “horizontal support” to these objectives of the IPA. Under the IPA phase, the amount of EUR 73.808.423 has been provided for the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme by the European Union. So far, this amount constitutes 28% of the total IPA budget for Turkey (“Turkey Financial Assistance Under IPA II”, 2019). Since 2007, 950 scholars have completed their postgraduate programmes and 180 scholars are currently benefiting from the programme (European Commission, 2018). There were several problems faced with during the previous actions of the programme. One of the most acute problems was insufficient using of the public sector quota by the employees of the public sector. To overcome this problem, several information campaigns have been carried out by the scholarship committee, resulting in an increased number of public sector participants to the programme. The second challenged faced during the previous actions of the programme was the strong preference for a single EU country (e.g. the UK) by the scholars. As a solution, a ‘country ceiling’ procedure has implemented 2015 onwards. This brought about an accomplishment of placement statistics where a single country does not exceed 31% (European Commission, 2018).

(11)

Literature Review

There are numerous amounts of studies who study the causes and effects of the study abroad programmes both on receiving countries and their cultures and on students who participate in these programmes. A considerable amount of these studies has found evidence supporting that students who study abroad for at least a semester show considerable improvements in their capacity building processes, i.e. personal, professional, and intellectual developments, as well as their socialisation processes, i.e. getting familiar with the cultures, values and the norms of host institutions, understanding of global affairs, and intercultural proficiencies (Immetman &Schneider, 1998; Kitsantas, 2004; Greenfield, Davis &Fedor, 2013; King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Beerkens et al., 2016). On the other hand, some scholars found little evidence supporting the fact that study abroad programmes, for instance, have an effect on strengthening European identity (Kuhn, 2012), and some were more sceptical about the substantivity of the effects of such programmes on students in the long-run (Teichler &Steube, 1991). Even though those scholars claim that in the long-run study abroad programmes are not much effective on students’ intercultural proficiency, the effect is still visible in the short-run. Considering that accepting or abandoning an idea, norm, or value is not a switch on/off process but requires time, and perhaps, a chance in social settings in which students exist, there is a possibility that their experiences with the study abroad programmes might have long term effects on their personal values or ideas.

The rest of this chapter will provide a brief overview of studies that analysed the possible changes in students’ skills and abilities due to the study abroad programmes. These changes can be summarized under five headings: Intellectual awareness which includes changes in understanding of other cultures and getting familiar with social norms of other cultures as well as changes in understanding one’s own home country and culture; personal growth which comprises the changes in students’ self-efficacy, self-confidence, and maturity due to their experiences with the study abroad programmes; Intellectual growth encompasses elements such as increasing foreign language proficiency and academic performance as a result of study abroad programmes; professional development includes changes in career paths and level of employability of the students after their study abroad programmes; and lastly, getting familiar with European values and identity.

Intercultural Awareness

Intercultural proficiency is defined as “the knowledge, skills, and attitudes/beliefs that enable people to work well with, respond effectively to, and be supportive of people in cross-cultural settings” (Clarke et al., 2009, p.174). Therefore, it is highly related to global awareness, intercultural communication, and being open to diversity. People who study abroad tend to

(12)

cultural ways and learn new ones. Finally, these people have a higher chance to adapt easily to culturally diverse environments than people with no or little experience with other cultures (Clarke et al., 2009).

Global-mindedness is related to being able to work in multicultural environments and accepting viewpoints that differ from one’ own ethnic, religious or national perspectives. Interrelatedly, intercultural communication and openness to diversity require a global mindset. Intercultural communication can be defined as the ability to have successful interactions in different cultures. Openness to diversity may improve “one’s ability to embrace people from every economic status, ethnicity, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability, or social background” (Clarke et al., 2009, p.175). Although some scholars such as Stephenson (1999) argued that these elements are firmly entrenched in individuals and might not be easily shaped by a study abroad experiences, Clarke et al. found evidence that study abroad programmes help students to become more global-minded individuals by conducting a survey that includes questions from ‘global-mindedness scale’ of Hett with two groups of students, of which one group (N=87) completed a semester abroad and the other group (N=70) completed the same semester in their home institution. Moreover, they have also included an ‘openness to diversity scale’ in their research. According to their findings, strongly related to global mindedness, study abroad students also develop a better understanding of the concept of culture and how it affects the worldviews and behaviour of people (Clarke et al., 2009). Besides developing an intercultural awareness regarding other cultures, some studies investigated if study abroad programmes also affect students’ understanding of or level of attachment to their home countries. King and Ruiz Gelices (2003) inquired whether students developed new perspectives on their home country due to their study abroad experiences. The findings showed that students are undecided about whether their study abroad experience caused a change in their level of attachment to their home country or not. One in three respondents of their study claimed that the experience abroad had made them more aware of the cultural similarities between their home and host country, however, nearly four in ten responses disagree with that statement.

Personal Growth

Self-efficacy, self-confidence and maturity are the main elements of personal development. Studies show evidence that study abroad programmes help students to improve their personal characteristics. Self-efficacy can be defined as “the capability to organise and execute the sequence of actions necessary to produce results” (Jacobone & Moro, 2015, p.311). It is not, however, only controlling the actions but also self-regulation of the psychological state and motivation. It is believed that efficacy is a product of cognitive learning and observation, therefore, it is highly related to persons’ experiences (Bandura, 1981). Thus, an intense experience such as studying abroad is highly influential in improving students’ self-efficacy, especially when they are satisfied with their experience (Jacobone & Moro, 2015). Also,

(13)

self-efficacy, by increasing one’ ability to cope with difficult tasks and confront challenges with innovative ideas, helps to increase the self-confidence of the students as well as increasing their level of maturity (Petersdotter, Niehoff, &Freund, 2017).

Jacobone and Moro (2015) conducted research to examine the impacts of study abroad programmes on students. They have conducted a survey with 505 students enrolled during the 2011-2012 academic year at the University of Bari in Italy. They conducted pre and post surveys to measure the effects of Erasmus + Programme on students who have participated in the programme in that academic year (N=248) and who have continued their studies in their home country (N=257). They have used the general self-efficacy scale from Schwarzer and Jerusalem to measure the impact of the Erasmus + Programme on students’ personal development. Their result has confirmed their hypothesis that “new and challenging experiences [with the study abroad programme] create a wider belief in their capacity for control in terms of higher self-efficacy and higher assurance in their abilities among mobile students” (p.319). Moreover, Petersdotter, Niehoff, and Freund (2017) conducted similar research by using the same general self-efficacy scale with Jacobone and More on 370 students (of whom 155 went abroad and 215 stayed at the home institution) of Leuphana University Lüneburg. Their results also showed that experience of study abroad produces more self-sufficient youth. Additionally, the level of interactions of students with people from other cultures is positively correlated with the level of personal development of the student.

Intellectual Growth

Developing foreign language proficiency and improving academic skills and knowledge are seen as some of the results of the study abroad programmes. Acquisition of a second language helps people to develop new relationships and increase their cultural understandings (Jacobone & Moro, 2015).

Ingraham and Peterson (2004) conducted a survey study on the students who have participated in a study abroad programme between 1999 and 2002. They used Likert scale ranging from 1(negative) to 5(positive) and the survey included questions such as “as a result of my study abroad experience my ability to speak a foreign language has improved” and “My study abroad experience has led to an improvement of my academic performance”. Their findings present that the mean for improving language skills was reported as 4 and the mean for academic performance was 3,53 for students who studied abroad for an academic year. Thus, this adduces evidence that studying abroad has a significantly positive impact on both foreign language proficiency of the students and their academic performance, however, students perceived that their study abroad experiences was somewhat more beneficial for their language skills than their academic skills.

(14)

Professional Development

High proficiency in a second language might lead to a higher probability of employment. Apart from the improved language skills, study abroad just as an experience itself might result in an increased chance of employability. There is evidence supporting the fact that studying abroad helps people to cope with increasing international dimensions in their working environment and to enhance their career opportunities (Rodriquez Gonzales, Bustillo Mesanza, & Mariel, 2011). Further, Ingraham and Peterson (2004) define professional development in the sense of career choice, development of awareness regarding certain professions and how they are perceived in different cultures and development of cross-cultural skills to help people to become a more effective professional. They have provided evidence that studying abroad has significant effects, especially on the students’ career choice. Moreover, they have stated that study abroad programmes help students to better understand their foreign career opportunities, increase their confidence in technical matters, and handle themselves better in a professional setting. Additionally, these programmes increase students’ applied knowledge in their field of studies which might increase their level of attractiveness as employees.

Jacobone and More (2015) also found evidence that comparison to students’ survey results before departing for their study abroad programmes, the post-survey result showed a significant increase in students’ perceived level of increase in their experiences, employability, and career development. They have stated that this might be due to the fact that living abroad might expose students to new career opportunities and help them to get to know themselves better.

European Identity and Values

Besides its impact on personal and professional development, study abroad programmes facilitate spreading the cultural values and norms of a community in which they take place. Studies conducted with the students who completed their study abroad programmes in European institutions show evidence that students get more familiar with the European culture and develop new understandings of European identity due to their study abroad experiences (Jacobone & Moro, 2015).

The most frequently promoted objectives of European study abroad programmes include an aim to “create a more positive attitude towards people of other European nations and to enhance sense of ‘belonging to Europe’” (King and Ruiz-Gelices, 2003, p.238). They argued that for economic and social integration of the European Union to succeed, a more mobile labour force who is educated in an international setting and able to communicate across cultures and languages is crucial. Then, they discussed that student mobility is the prime institutional mechanism to create such labour force.

King and Ruiz-Gelices (2003) did research that involves three questionnaire surveys with students and graduates of the University of Sussex during the 2000-2001 academic year. The main questionnaire survey was conducted with graduate students who spent a year abroad in

(15)

Europe during their time of study (N=261), the second survey was to a control group of graduate students who did not participate in a study abroad programme during their studies (N=106), and the last survey was with the second year students who were about to depart for their study abroad programmes in Europe (N=108). The questionnaire examined the changes in student’s opinion regarding “self-assessed knowledge and interest in European affairs and EU integration [and] self-assessment of European identity” (p.235) as well as their employment and migration situation since graduation.

Their findings demonstrated that people who participated in study abroad programmes in Europe are more pro-European than the people who did not. Although it is not entirely clear how students who participated study abroad programmes acquired an enhanced sense of ‘belonging to Europe’, the results presented that they have a greater interest in and knowledge of European affairs and they are more supportive for European integration. King and Ruiz-Gelices also found evidence that student who had migratory experiences after graduation developed higher levels of attachment to their (study abroad) host country, whereas students who had not migrated since graduation showed higher levels of attachment to their home country (King and Ruiz-Gelices, 2003).

(16)

Theoretical Framework

To actualise its aims of spreading peace, justice, prosperity and values such as rule of law and equality, the European Union utilises several means such as providing expert knowledge and necessary funding for development programmes and promoting mobility of students and young professionals among higher education institutions. Student mobility programmes have distinctive importance among these means; only Erasmus + Programme itself provides more than two hundred thousand students with a chance to study abroad in Europe for a semester or a year (European Commission, 2015). Additionally, there are several more student mobility programmes such as Erasmus Mundus Joint Master’s Degree Programme, Eiffel Scholarship Programme, Chevening Scholarship Programme, and Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme. The European Union promotes student mobility to foster European identity among the new member states and candidate states. The promoters of the EU integration emphasise the importance of student mobility on facilitating cultural encounters helping to promote the EU values (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003). European Commission (2009), also emphasising the importance of mobility among the higher education students on students’ employability and international openness, states;

Mobility is important for personal development and employability, it fosters respect for diversity and a capacity to deal with other cultures. It encourages linguistic pluralism, thus underpinning the multilingual tradition of the European Higher Education Area and it increases cooperation and competition between higher education institutions. Therefore, mobility shall be the hallmark of the European Higher Education Area.

In this respect, the European Union has been highly supportive to study abroad programmes not only among its member states to facilitate their integration processes but also among its candidate countries to help them to accelerate their accession processes. There is evidence that study abroad programmes bring students from different countries and cultures together and foster European identity and increase their level of attachment to the host country and the European Union (Jacobone & Moro, 2015; King and Ruiz-Gelices, 2003). Therefore, these programmes are seen as a beneficial tool to facilitate the social constructive mission of the EU which includes socialisation and capacity building actions to construct a common European identity.

For the past few decades, social constructivism has become a trendy field to study among international relations (IR) scholars (Checkel, 2004). As being focused on the role of norms and reconstructing the state/agent identity based on these changing norms, constructivism has criticised and challenged by the rationalist scholars. Rationalism-constructivism debate has

(17)

even been declared as the central dividing line in the discipline of IR3_{(Katzenstein, Keohane}

& Krasner, 1998).

Constructivist theory predicates that “significant aspects of international relations are socially constructed, that is, historically contingent rather than necessary consequences of the nature of international politics” (Jackson & Nexon, 2002, p.1). It analyses actors’ behaviour by using different elements than rationalists; norms, identity, knowledge, and culture (Katzenstein, Keohane & Krasner, 1998).

Socialisation

International socialisation, or socialisation, is considered as a sub-theory of constructivism. Socialisation is a theory that is highly related to the social environment of an individual. The interaction of individuals with other people is highly effective in shaping one’s behaviours, traits, norms, and values according to the values of the environment they are interacting in. Xiaoyu (2012) defines socialisation as a process which allows one to make sense of the nature and process of international change. It includes various elements such as adopting new roles or internalising norms and values (Checkel, 2005). Socialisation is defined as “a process of inducting actors into the norms and rules of a given community” (Zürn & Checkel, 2005). Checkel (2005) explains that socialisation implies a switch from a ‘logic of consequences’ to a

‘logic of appropriateness’. This switch happens in two distinct ways; Type I and Type II

socialisation, as he calls. Type I socialisation emphases the agent’s ability of instrumental calculation, thus, their ability to learn what is socially acceptable in a community and act accordingly. Type II, on the other hand, is more related to internalising the rules and norms of a community. According to this type, agents are accepting the values and rules of the community as the ‘right thing to do’. Therefore, according to Checkel, in Type II socialisation, the instrumental calculation has been replaced by “taken-for-grantedness” (Checkel, 2005, p.804). Checkel also argues that for socialisation to happen there are three steps to be considered, the triggering process, which happens by the socialising institution, the mechanism that influences actors for a shift from the logic of consequence to the logic of appropriateness, and the final effect of these steps which is socialisation itself.

In this scope, the European Union, as a socialising institution, utilises study abroad programmes as mechanisms to influence actor behaviour and sees students as actors of the socialisation. The aim is to foster the switch from a ‘logic of consequences’ to a ‘logic of

appropriateness’ among students regarding the EU values and norms. The Type I socialisation

(18)

ultimate goal is to actualise the Type II socialisation among the students who are seen as the future professionals and experts of their countries.

To have a better understanding of how socialisation occurs, it is necessary to study the causal mechanisms that cause a switch from a logic of consequence to a logic of appropriateness. Although there are various definitions for causal mechanisms in IR literature, in this article this term will refer to “the immediate processes along which international institutions may lead actors toward accepting norms, rules and modes of behaviour of a given community” (Zürn & Checkel, 2005, p.1049). In other words, this article will take the term of the causal mechanism as the link between specified initial conditions and a specific outcome. There are three causal mechanisms in socialisation literature; strategic calculation, role playing, and normative suasion (Zürn & Checkel, 2005).

The first mechanism, named as strategic calculation, explains the change in behaviour of the actors that are being socialised by their utility maximising incentives. Actors will adopt new conditions of a given community by calculating their costs and benefits of doing so. If they expect the promised reward to be bigger than their cost of compliance, actors will act in accordance with the expected rules and norms of the community. However, it is important to note that, strategic calculations can be solely about utility maximisation, not socialisation. Yet, according to Checkel (2005), behavioural adoption of these rules and norms may be followed by compliance and strong internalisation, hence preference changing due to various cognitive and institutional lock-in effects.

The second mechanism is role playing. As strategic calculation depends on the calculative behavioural adoption, role playing involves a degree of non-calculative behavioural adoption stating that it is not possible for actors to calculate every single detail. According to the role playing mechanism, actors have bounded rationality, in other words, their cognitive capacity to make decisions is limited. On the other hand, actors, because of their cognitive limitations, are prone to adopt the rules and norms which displayed by the related international organisation. According to Checkel (2005), the longer the period an actor spends in an organisation, the more it is likely that socialisation to the rules and norms of that organisation will occur.

These first two mechanisms are more in line with rationalist theory, in which actors calculate their positions, costs, and benefits and act accordingly, and Type I socialisation. The last mechanism, however, is more from a constructivist point of view and Type II socialisation. This mechanism is called as normative suasion. It emphasises the role of discourse and communication between actors. When normative suasion takes place, it leads an active and reflective internalising process of the new understandings (Checkel, 2005). This process will be triggered the best if an actor is in an unknown environment and eager to analyse new information, as well as if an actor has few prior beliefs that are inconsistent with the socialising institution’s rules and norms.

(19)

The conditions under which institutions trigger mechanism that lead to socialisation are called as scope conditions. The list of conditions that trigger the socialisation mechanisms for the actors who are being socialised is quite extensive. To list a few, Lewis (2005) talks about the importance of isolation from domestic politics; Hooghe (2005) articulates the level of strength of prior beliefs; Beyers and Hooghe (2005) set forth of the duration of participation to the institutions; Beyer, Lewis, Gheciu (2005) stress the importance of the intensity of the contract between actors and institutions; Gheciu (2005) states the effects of a teacher-student relationship between socialising and socialised actors; and lastly, Schimmelfenning (2005) talks about the effects of the level of strength of the domestic opposition (Zürn & Checkel, 2005). When one or more of these conditions occur, mechanisms will be triggered by the socialising actor/institution, and the Type I or Type II socialisation will take place.

Scholars of socialisation theory in IR literature stress the importance of the creation of a community, with common norms and rules, for socialisation to be possible (Zürn & Checkel, 2005). Some suggest that the indicators of socialisation, which are changes in values and preferences, transpire most probably under "institutionally thick environments” (Zürn & Checkel, 2005, p.1065). In this respect, considering that Europe has developed an intense form of regionalism in the post-war area and created a dense network of regional organisations, it is considered as one of the thickest institutional environments. Moreover, although some scholars found supporting evidence for the hypothesis which suggests Europe as “the most likely case for socialisation dynamics”, others’ research show little supportive evidence to it (Zürn & Checkel, 2005, p.1065). Study abroad programmes in Europe exemplify environments in which socialisation mechanisms can occur. By incorporating most of the triggering scope conditions listed above such as creating a teacher-student relationship and detracting students from their domestic issues of the home country to some degree study abroad programmes provide good environments for socialisation to happen. It exposes students to the norms and rules of a new environment where students feel the need to adopt either by using strategically calculating their actions or role playing. Students who find themselves in a new environment that they are trying to adapt with are likely to mimic the socially acceptable actions of that culture, even though those actions differ from the ones of their own culture. In this respect, Type I socialisation is highly likely to occur among those students. Type II socialisation, then, might also occur among the students who actively involves into the social settings in their host countries and communicates with people from other cultures not only during their studies but also later in their personal and professional lives.

Capacity Building

(20)

to get a clear understanding of what ‘capacity building' is actually referring to. In fact, capacity building literature is highly diverse among scholars who either would like to define the term by the activities it requires or by the results it seeks (Honadle, 1981).

The various definitions of capacity building link the concept with some characteristics such as its survival abilities stating that the capacity building activity should increase the life-span of the organisation (Honadle, 1981). Moreover, some take a service point of view by focusing on the ability of capacity building actions to improve the service system of the other parts of the organisation (Honadle, 1981). A more significant distinction for our discussion is, however, about politics versus rationality distinction while defining the ‘capacity building’ term in the literature. The politics view defines the term as an improvement in the ability of public officials to make an informed decision (Honadle, 1981). The rational view, on the other hand, uses the term to define an improvement in the “ability to make decisions and allocate resources more rationally by learning to use certain techniques and models” (Honadle, 1981, p.576). Another controversy in the literature related to capacity building is whether it is about improving the way things are done (means) or the results achieved (results). In this respect, some scholars define the term as a way of improving governments’ or public offices’ potential to do a better job; others more focus on the institutional capacities of these organisation such as their ways to formulate and carry out plans and policies (Honadle, 1981).

Vincent-Lancrin (2004) argues that the concept of capacity building “signals a shift from assistance to a less dependent “help yourself” attitude in the development community (p.4). He further defines five levels of capacity building; individual, organisational, sectoral, societal, and global, and stresses the importance of education to build capacity in each level. According to his definition, capacity building refers to the acquisition of new skills and knowledge through formal education at an individual level. At an organisational level, it becomes more about building infrastructure in organisations with the best usage of available recourses and achieving effective and quality management of existing infrastructure by improving the ability of the officials to make informed decisions. Anew, he accentuates the importance of higher education to achieve these goals of capacity building (Vincent-Lancrin, 2004).

At a sector level, capacity building aims to improve the consistency of the sectoral policies and the coordination among institutions. At a society level, capacity building is more focused on human institutions and humanitarian problems such as gender inequality, racial discrimination, corruption, lack of security and tries to transform attitudes and values from the ones that hinder development to the ones promoting it. In global level, it refers to multilateral agreements and international law. At this level, capacity building aims to improve countries participation in multilateral treaties, agreements, and organisations (Vincent-Lancrin, 2004).

The main notion of Vincent-Lancrin’s paper is that education has particular importance for any capacity building strategy, regardless of the level. Even though there are some skills and knowledge that can mostly be learned through learning-by-doing, developing countries

(21)

characterised by less efficient organizations of work might rely more on formal education and training to acquire those skills. He states that (2004, p.9);

Whatever the sector, capacity building relies on the strengthening of individual capacity through training and learning, in order to raise the domestic stock of human capital in a specific field. This can be done by setting up specific educational programmes in the formal education system or by other forms of learning.

All these various definitions of the term, ‘capacity building’, bring us back to the first definition we had at the beginning of this chapter. To sum up, it is, indeed, about “increasing the ability of people and institutions to do what is required of them” and increasing the efficiency of the human and organisational settings. Conclusively, different points of view exist in the capacity building literature. However, the basis of these views concerns with improving the ability of actors to learn and perform better in their institutions and making them able to take the necessary actions on their own by equipping them with necessary theoretical and technical knowledge.

(22)

Methodology

The purpose of this research is to identify the effects of the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme on the socialisation process of scholars and on enhancing their personal capacities. Therefore, the main question this research asks is to what extent has the JMSP been influential on the Turkish Professionals’ capacity building processes and their socialisation processes with the European Union. Later on, the aim is to find out any possible linkages between the scholars’ level of satisfaction with the programme and their perceived level of improved skill types. Moreover, the following questions guide this research article;

• To what extent were scholars satisfied with the programme? • Has scholars’ perception of the EU changed after the JMSP?

• Have people developed new skills or improved their skills due to the JMSP?

• Are there any plausible explanations and compelling linkages between scholars’ level of satisfaction with the programme and their perceived level of development?

Ideally, the best way to assess the impact of the programme is to collect data regarding scholars’ perception of the EU and their personal capacities, such as language proficiency or academic knowledge before, during and after the programme. Albeit some data has been collected by the Jean Monnet Scholarship committee before, during, and after each academic semester from the scholars, due to the restrictions of the Turkish privacy law, the author is not able to obtain such data (see limitations).

Therefore, under the scope of this research, a questionnaire survey was conducted in the first half of 2019 among Turkish professionals who joined the JMSP for the academic years of 2007-2008 and 2015-2016. The reason to limit the target audience with these years is both due to the time constraints to finalise this survey and to see whether (if yes, to what extent) any observable differences occur between the level of satisfaction of the groups from different years. Initially, the interval difference between the groups was planned as ten years. The last scholars who have completed their postgraduate programme with the JMSP had attended the programme for the academic year of the 2015-2016. Therefore, they were chosen as the ‘group I’. The ‘group II’ was planned to be the scholars who have obtained their postgraduate degrees in the 2005-2006 academic year. However, due to the missing contact information of the scholars from the pre-IPA period, it was not possible to reach to those scholars from the 2005-2006 academic year. Therefore, the ‘group II’ was formulated among the 2007-2008 academic year scholars which is the first academic period that the scholarship executed under IPA monitoring structure.

The online questionnaire was distributed through both the Jean Monnet Alumni Association and the Jean Monnet Scholarship Committee. Also, target scholars were encouraged to complete the questionnaire via social media platforms and e-mail. In total there were 326

(23)

scholars who have received the questionnaire; 106 of which were from the academic year 2007-2008, and 220 of which had attended the programme in the academic year of 2015-2016. The rate of return for the survey was around 30% with the total number of replies as 95 (N). The survey inquired about the students’ overall satisfaction with the programme and the perceived level of changes in their social, academic, professional skills as well as their perceptions regarding the EU and their home country. Eleven of the items inquired scholars’ perceived level of changes in their social, academic, professional skills and the remaining eight items inquired perceived level of changes in scholars’ values, interests, perception of life on a 5-point Likert scale, some ranging “not at all helpful” to “extremely helpful”, others from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

Likert scale is commonly used to assess demeanour by providing a selection of responses to a given inquiry or statement (Jamieson, 2004). The statistics literature includes contradictory approaches to analyse Likert scale data. Scholars such as Susan Jamieson (2004) states that Likert scales are considered as ordinary level of measurement and that is “the response categories have a rank order, but the intervals between values cannot be presumed equal” (p.1217) and suggests that with this kind of data, median or mode should be employed as a “measure of central tendency” instead of mean, and non-parametric tests such as chi-squared, Spearman’s Rho, or the Mann–Whitney U-test should be used to analyse the data. Moreover, William Kuzon articulates that parametric tests are not suitable for analysing ordinary data simply because the average of fair and good “is not fair and a half” (1996, p.266). On the other hand, scholars such as Labovitz argues that using non-parametric techniques when analysing the ordinary data might be closer to dictates of the data, however, they are less sensitive and less interpretable than parametric techniques. Therefore, he tenders two decision to make for the researchers; “choosing less powerful techniques that do not violate the assumption, or the more powerful techniques that are more sensitive and developed but are not entirely consistent with the assumption” (1967, p.158). Furthers he proves that the significant levels and the results are not much different from each other when parametric and non-parametric techniques applied to the same data. Likewise, Norman (2010) presents evidence that using parametric and non-parametric techniques on Likert scale data yields almost mathematically identical results. He argues that “while Likert questions or items may well be ordinal, Likert scales, consisting of sums across many items, will be interval. It is completely analogous to the everyday, and perfectly defensible, practice of treating the sum of correct answers on a multiple choice test, each of which is binary, as an interval scale” (Norman, 2010, p.629). The only element a researcher needs to carefully pay attention is the robustness, which is the “is the ability of a statistical test to maintain its logically deduced conclusion when one or more assumptions have been violated” (Labovitz, 1967, p.156), of the data at hand when using parametric techniques.

(24)

homogeneity, the author decided to use parametric techniques such as a linear regression to analyse the data at hand.

Furthermore, in order to gain a more comprehensive view and observe inter-item correlations, this article uses a factor analysis method to group the items by using principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. PCA aids us to form as few groups (components) as possible with the maximum number of the items included (Beerkens, Souto-Otero, de Wit & Huisman, 2016). This method helps us to make sense of the inter-item correlations in each group as well as allowing us to get clearer results from the regression analysis of the satisfaction level. In the first step, components with eigenvector above 1 were retained. In the second step, the retained components were incorporated as separate, new variables into the dataset. In the last step, a linear regression analysis conducted where the retained components were treated as independent variables while the level of satisfaction was treated as the dependent variable. To check the robustness of the clusters generated from the PCA, the PCA procedure was run for the second time for each group of scholars. While the results were consistent with the 2015-2016 group, the 2007-2008 group have somewhat less significant results with relatively less diverse clustering.

Although the results of this survey could hardly be generalised, they have been utilised by the author to improve her general comprehension of identification on a micro-level analysis (see limitation).

(25)

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The survey results were collected from 95 respondents. Chart 1 presents the descriptive statistics for these respondents and shows how many falls into each category. According to the descriptive data, 27.4 per cent of the total respondents have obtained the scholarship during the 2007-2008 academic year and the remaining 72.6 per cent of the respondents benefited from the JMSP for the academic year of 2015-2016. In addition to that, in total 41.1 per cent of the respondents joined the programme from the university sector, 37.9 per cent joined from the public sector and the remaining 21.1 per cent of the respondents have attended the programme from the private sector. Moreover, 59% of the total respondents were female, and 41% was male. Furthermore, as it can be observed from Table 1, the age of the respondents varies between 26 and 48 with the mean of 33,06 and standard deviation 5,508.

Chart 1. Descriptive statistics of gender, sector of participation, and academic year

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of age

Item Min. Max. Mean Standard

Deviation

Age 26 48 33,06 5,508

It is important to stress that this survey included questions regarding the scholars’ living abroad experiences prior to joining the programme and their working conditions after the programme. According to the results, 62.1 per cent of the respondents have lived abroad for at least three months prior to their JMSP experience, and only 35.8 per cent of them started working abroad following the completion of their programmes. The descriptive numbers of these questions can

12 2 1 3 6 2 26 15 10 11 21 11 1 69 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Female Male Female Male Female Male

University Public Private Total Sector

(26)

Chart 2. Descriptive statistics of abroad experience and occupation

respondents are employed on an EU related area, 3.3 of which were employed in an EU country.

Furthermore, most of the respondents have stated that they participated in the JMSP and completed their postgraduate studies in the UK. Followingly, France, Germany, and the Netherlands were the countries who received a relatively high number of students under the scope of the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme. Chart 3 presents the percentage of scholars that each country had received.

Chart 3. Distribution of the respondents according to their host countries

11 15 48 21 11 15 23 46 7 19 23 46 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Yes No Yes No 2007-2008 2015-2016

(27)

Level of Satisfaction with the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme

In the scope of the survey, the respondents were asked about their overall satisfaction with the JMSP. The question was asked in the form of 5-point Likert scale from “not at all satisfied” to “extremely satisfied”. The results have been presented in Table 2. According to the results, the mean of the satisfaction level was 4,68 with the standard deviation of 0,57. 95% of the responses to this question was positive; respondents satisfaction level was either ‘satisfied’ or

‘Extremely satisfied’, and 5 % was neutral. None of the scholars stated unsatisfaction with the

overall programme. The detailed presentation of the responses can be observed in Table 2. Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the satisfaction level

Level of Satisfaction Number of Respondents Percentage

Neutral 5 5,2

Satisfied 20 21,1

Extremely Satisfied 70 73,7

Total 95 100

Skills, Values, and Perception of the EU and Home Country

In the context of this research, students were asked about their perception of the level of improvement in their personal, social, academic, and professional skills and changes in their perception of the EU and home country due to the JMSP. The mean and the standard deviations for each item can be observed in Table 3. The results present that the scholars found the scholarship programme the most helpful for improving their familiarity with the other cultures and social norms as well as their academic knowledge such as foreign language proficiency and general academic and professional knowledge.

On the other hand, the scholarship programme seemed to be relatively less influential for students’ critical thinking of the EU. The question asking if the level of scholars’ sense of belonging to their home country increased due to the programme also had relatively fewer positive responses. Although the means of these items are relatively low (2,83 and 2,94 respectively), it is important to note that these items have a high standard deviation, 1,318 and 1,236 respectively. This demonstrates the fact that although the means fell into the negative end of the Likert scale, there was still a diversity among scholars’ perception of these items. In fact, 31% of the scholars were agreed that they have become more critical about the EU, on the other hand, 44% of them disagreed with this statement. Moreover, again 31% of the scholars agreed with the statement that their sense of belonging to their home countries increased due to the programme, however, 33% of them disagreed with this statement.

(28)

with the relatively low mean of 3,83. The responses to the question of a change in career path due to the JMSP also fell somewhat closer to the neutral part of the scale with the mean of 3,54 (S.D. 1,365). These means might not be considered as low, however, considering the fact that the mean values of the rest of the items were higher than 4, these two items stay at the relatively lower end of the Likert scale. The high standard deviation and lower mean allow us to observe that there were scholars who thought the programme was helpful to change their career paths and EU perspective as well as the scholars who completely disagreed that the JMSP had an effect on these items.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the questions regarding skills, values, and perception changes

Items Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.

1. I have become more familiar with other cultures 95 4,64 0,667 2 5 2. Foreign language proficiency 94 4,63 0,656 1 5 3. I have become more familiar with the social norms of

…the host country 95 4,60 0,642 2 5

4. Maturity and personal development 94 4,56 0,632 3 5 5. I have developed new social skills 95 4,55 0,711 1 5 6. Understanding of other cultures 94 4,55 0,633 2 5 7. General academic and professional knowledge 94 4,54 0,667 2 5

8. Self-confidence 94 4,51 0,635 3 5

9. Self-Efficacy 94 4,49 0,699 2 5

10. I have broadened my social network 95 4,43 0,724 2 5 11. Knowledge about European Union 94 4,27 0,832 1 5 12. I have become more familiar with the European values

…..(e.g. …democracy, freedom, equality, rule oflaw, ….. …..respect for human rights)

95 4,22 0,913 1 5 13. Knowledge about related EU Acquis chapter 94 4,22 0,894 1 5 14. Understanding of home country 94 4,12 1,066 1 5 15. My sense of belonging to European cultural space has

…increased 95 4,01 1,005 1 5

16. My perception of the EU has changed positively 95 3,84 0,993 1 5 17. My career path has changed 95 3,54 1,359 1 5 18. My sense of belonging to my home country has

…...increased 95 2,94 1,236 1 5

19. I have become more critical about the EU 95 2,83 1,318 1 5

Principle Component Analysis

One of the aims of this research is first to analyse the areas that scholars improved themselves the most due to the JMSP and then to examine if there are any correlations between scholars’ level of satisfaction with the JMSP and their improved skills of areas. The descriptive table provides insights into the first part of the research. To assess the second part in a more detailed

(29)

and comprehensive way, a principal component analysis was conducted to a total number of these 19 items. There were 6 components created by PCA and varimax rotation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0,741, meaning that the data was suitable for factor analysis (Williams, Onsman, & Brown, 2010), and the result of the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant with the p-value of 0,000.

To check the robustness of the components, PCA was applied for the second time to both of the groups separately. The number of components has remained the same for both groups. However, the classification of the items seemed to slightly differ for the 2007-2008 group by, for example, including the initial personal growth items to the group of intercultural awareness or grouping together the items ‘becoming more critical about the EU’, ‘familiarity with the

European values’ and ‘sense of belonging to the European cultural space’. However, the KMO

measure of sampling adequacy was 0,444 which is lower than the threshold of 0,50 for a factor analysis suitable data (Williams, Onsman, & Brown, 2010). Thus, the PCA of the items for the academic year 2007-2008 did not provide us with a valid analysis. The data from the 2015-2016 group, on the other hand, had KMO measure of sampling adequacy at 0.715, and the classification of the items was almost identical with the total sample’s clustering of PCA (See Appendix 3 & 4).

The 6 main components created by PCA from 19 items were presented in Table 4. Each component represents a specific skill and knowledge.

The first component consists of the social and cultural elements of the scholarship experience. Therefore, it has been named as intercultural awareness. Scholars state that they have become more familiar with other cultures and the social norms of their home country. Also, this group of scholars noted that they have developed new social skills due to the JMSP and their sense of belonging to European cultural space has increased.

The second component brings together the items related to the personalities of the scholars. Therefore, it is called personal growth. It encompasses the items such as confidence, self-efficacy, and maturity and personal development.

The third component is intellectual growth. This component is related to the academic developments of the scholars. Scholars in this group indicated that the JMSP was influential on their foreign language proficiency development, and also the programme helped them to increase their knowledge about the EU and the EU acquis chapter from which they participated the programme.

(30)

Table 4. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation Items Component 1 (Intercultural Awareness) Component 2 (Personal Growth) Component 3 (Intellectual Growth) Component 4 (Familiarity with the EU)

Component 5 (Understanding of home) Component 6 (Professional Development) Final Component Assignment 1. I have become more familiar with other cultures 0,802 0,187 -0,106 0,047 0,016 0,178 1 2. I have become more familiar with the social

norms of the host country

0,688 0,020 1,131 0,286 0,139 -0,039 1

3. I have developed new social skills 0,784 0,372 0,029 -0,061 0,054 0,088 1 4. I have broadened my social network 0,215 0,215 0,134 0,197 0,130 0,702 6

5. My career path has changed 0,323 0,121 0,155 -0,096 -0,124 0,708 6

6. My perception of the EU has changed positively 0,201 0,100 0,154 0,795 0,066 0,161 4 7. I have become more critical about the EU 0,094 -0,107 0,150 -0,552 0,581 0,134 5 8. I have become more familiar with the European

…values (e.g. democracy, freedom, equality, rule of …law, respect for humanrights)

0,471 0,010 0,035 0,576 0,179 0,255 4

9. My sense of belonging to European cultural …space has increased

0,639 0,066 0,195 0,470 -0,043 0,032 1

10. My sense of belonging to my home country has …..increased

0,014 0,124 -0,193 0,054 0,838 0,175 5

11. Foreign language proficiency 0,028 0,478 0,608 0,024 0,139 -0,085 3 12. General academic and professional knowledge -0,058 0,174 0,136 0,285 0,115 0,446 6 13. Knowledge about European Union -0,065 0,003 0,774 0,241 0,020 0,217 3

(31)

Table 4. (Continued)Principal component analysis with varimax rotation Items Component 1 (Intercultural Awareness) Component 2 (Personal Growth) Component 3 (Intercultural Growth) Component 4 (Familiarity with the EU)

Component 5 (Understanding of home) Component 6 (Professional Development) Final Component Assignment

14. Knowledge about related EU Acquis chapter 0,093 0,072 0,793 -0,041 -0,022 0,183 3

15. Self-confidence 0,223 0,876 0,079 -0,049 0,081 0,181 2

16. Self-Efficacy 0,127 0,839 0,061 0,241 0,063 0,159 2

17. Maturity and personal development 0,333 0,758 0,120 0,047 0,080 0,175 2 18. Understanding of home country 0,146 0,176 0,283 0,169 0,714 -0,179 5 19. Understanding of other cultures 0,804 0,198 -0,048 0,020 0,047 0,235 1

Effects of Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme on Scholars’ Development and Perception of the EU