Being an Erasmus : student mobility and common European identity

(1)

Being an Erasmus: Student Mobility and

Common European Identity

Daniel Isler

Master Thesis

ID: 10583912

Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science

University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Dr. Linda Bos

18.6.2014

(2)

Abstract

This research sets out to observe the influence of a study abroad experience in Europe through the Erasmus program – on the formation of European identity. The paper covers the history of the Erasmus program; the policies that were and are implemented in the field of European student mobility; the goals of the Erasmus program when it comes to European identity; and former research in the field. The paper goes on to present the research question: does a participation in the Erasmus program generate a higher sense of European identity? It attempts to answer this by conducting a survey among German and Greek students, Erasmus and non-Erasmus. The survey measures their attitudes towards the EU and the level of European identity. When analyzed, the results of the survey showed that there is indeed a significant connection between participating in the Erasmus program, and feeling more European.

Key words: Student Mobility, European identity, EU Attitudes.

(3)

Introduction

The Erasmus (European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) program operates under the European Union, and it is allowing over 200,000 students to study outside of their home country each year. The total sum of participants gives an astonishing number of 3 million (European Commission, 2013).

The program was first initiated and implemented in the academic year of 1986/87. It came to serve, alongside other policies – the interest of the European Commission in creating and supporting a new European identity among young citizens. In the time of the launch of the Erasmus program, this goal was not hidden or concealed, but rather blunt and straight forward – the need to build a new kind of European citizens was mentioned in several points of the process: “…to strengthen the interaction between citizens in different Member States with a view to consolidating the concept of a People’s Europe” (Council of Ministers, 1987, p. 21)

More indication of the goals and the perceived success of the Erasmus program in achieving them, can be found in official EC documents, that points the relations between increscent of mobility and freedom of movement, and the creation of European consciousness and awareness of others (European Commission, 1996). These kind of programs are directed by the EU to improve “…the level of knowledge about other Member States of the Community and of information on Europe’s history and culture so as to promote a European awareness” (European Council, 1983, p. 28).

In retro perspective and looking into the future, the EU sees the Erasmus program as one that “contributes to enriching students’ academic knowledge and professional competences, supports their personal development, forges a European identity and helps to make the mobility of people during all their lifetime – which is a central part of the European project –

(4)

a reality” (European Union 2012, p. 6). It is widely accepted that building support for the EU is central to the Erasmus program’s objectives (Férnandez, 2005; Papatsiba, 2005; Sigalas, 2010; Wilson 2011), a goal that is considered to be achieved - official research from the EU recommends higher mobility in the future: “Ideally cross-European international dialogues among young people and periods of supported temporary mobility would be more consistently integrated into national educational systems across Europe.” (European Commission, 2007)

The success of the program is being celebrated, and it is often referred to as “…the most successful student exchange scheme in the world.” (European Commisssion, 2012, p. 3). It is also growing each year, and being budgeted accordingly. The students and alumni of the program are often being called “the Erasmus generation” (Wilson, 2011), and hopes for better European leadership are hanged upon them (Makowski, 2012).

As an indication for the perceived success of the Erasmus program by the European Commission, it is valuable to view the growth of the reach of the program over the years. Since the first class of the program in 1986/87, and until the academic year of 2008/09 (including), approximately two million students and young professionals has benefited from participating in one or more Erasmus study abroad experiences. Between this landmark of two million students in 2009, and until the academic year of 2012/13 – one million more students have gotten the chance to participate in an Erasmus program, making the total sum of participants above 3 million in 26 years (European Commission, 2013; see table 1 ).

Another important set of figures to be looked at when attempting to estimate the perceived success of the program is the constantly growing budget for Erasmus, given by the European Commission. Throughout its history, the Erasmus program is funded periodically by the European Commission. Between the academic year of 1987/88 and the one of 1994/95

(5)

(combining two funding periods), the program received an amount of 393.5 million Euros for its operation (European Commission, 2013). On the one hand, the increasing of the budget makes sense when considering the enlargement of the program itself to cover more and more mobilization of an increasing number of students. On the other hand, it is fair to argue that the more the program is funded, the more it is able to provide this increscent in mobility – and by maintaining a growth on the budgetary level, the Commission practically demonstrating its support for the program, insinuating its success in achieving its goals.

In the academic year of 2014/15, the program will change its name (not for the first time) to Erasmus+, and will enter a new budgetary period, an appropriate time to reflect on the success of the program, and to put it into test. This “success” can be measured from the market perspective – meaning, for example, how student mobility affects job finding after graduation.

Since forging common European identity is a clear goal of the program, this research will focus on the normative side – how does the Erasmus experience affect European identity among participants? As I show in this paper, previews research on the topic has been made. Most of the knowledge on the topic comes from large scale surveys of Erasmus students across Europe (Van Mol, 2011; Sigalas, 2010; Wilson, 2011; King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Mitchell, 2012), or from in depth interviews with Erasmus participants (Papatsiba, 2005; Ambrosi, 2013).

In no research, however, an emphasis was given to the role of the home country of the participants on the strength of the connection between mobility and European identity. The survey based research mostly attempts to survey as many students as possible, from as many EU countries as possible.

(6)

I observe a gap in the literature and research on the subject, in the sense that the origin country and its connection to the relations between nobility and identity are being overlooked. Therefore, I decided to specify the examined population by country of origin. I chose to pick two nationalities, one that is bound to be pro-European – Germany, and one that is bound to be Eurosceptic – Greece.

I chose the two nationalities according to their rates of European identity, reflected in the Eurobarometer surveys. For example, see the answers from the general population of each EU country, when asked for their level of agreement to the statement: “You feel you are a citizen of the EU”. The German population surveyed shows 41% support for this statement and 54% opposition. On the other side, Greek population surveyed shows 13% support for this statement and 86% opposition (Eurobarometer, 2013, see table 2).

I will begin with conceptualizing the idea of European identity. I then move on to observe the social on the topic of mobility, and review the existing literature on the subject. In the next part I present my research design, hypotheses and research question, followed by the methodology of the research and its results. I finish with a conclusion and discussion.

The Concept of European Identity

When speaking of European identity in the context of current literature on the subject, research often emphasize the role of ‘multiple identities’ of individuals, identities that relate to each and every group the individual is part of (Herman and Brewer, 2004; Risse, 2004; Risse 2010). Multiple identities can be described in several different ways. One of them is describing the identities as ‘nested’ identities – identity within identity. For example, an individual’s national identity is ‘nested’ in his/her transnational identity. Another kind of

(7)

multiple identities is ‘Cross Cutting’ ones. In this case, an individual in one identity group holds at the same time another group’s identity. For example – being Jewish-American and being Jewish-French – is sharing the Jewish (ethnic) identity, while not sharing the national identity. Another kind is the ‘separate’ multiple identities – two or more identities within an individual that do not overlap one another – completely distinct (Herman and Brewer, 2004). Another model of multiple identities is less solid and more flexible. It is the ‘marble cake’ model that says the different elements of an individual’s identity are not easy to categorize to one identity or another. Instead, the various identities influence each other and blend into each other (Risse, 2004; Risse 2010).

When exploring European identity, it is valuable to understand its origins. Europe is comprised of several national identities. National identity as such, can be handled in two different forms of definition – civic and ethnic (Kohn, 1944; Brubaker, 1992; Eisenstadt and Geisen, 1995) and it has been shown that these dichotomies do exist in several communities, each community based on one of them or a mix of the two to some extent (Reeskens and Hooghe, 2010; Bail, 2009). The first is the civic form of national identity, that “tend[s] to focus on citizenship as a legal status obtainable by anyone willing to accept a particular legal, political, and social system.” (Fligstein, Polyakova & Sandholtz, 2011) In this sense, the identity is inherently connected to documents, and it is assumed that the holders of the same legal status in a territory are holding the identical identity that derives from their official belonging to the same group.

Looking from this perspective, the EU can be seen as one community that distributes identity among its citizens through official rules and documents shared throughout the community. The other form of national identity is the ethnic one. This form “…require[s] that people adhere to national culture by virtue of having been born into it. Ethnic nationalism focuses on

(8)

how common religion, language, national traditions, ancestry, and membership in a dominant ethnic or racial group are the bases for national membership.” (Fligstein, Polyakova & Sandholtz, 2011). The same identity can be held by two different individuals – each picking it from either the civic perspective or the ethnic one. It is also the case that specific countries hold specific kind of national identity. But current theory on the subject suggest that this separation is obsolete in contemporary times, as it is hard to distinguish these two forms of identity from one another (Reeskens & Hooghe, 2010).

While the conception of identity differs in a community from individual to individual – two members of the same community can believe simultaneously that the form of identity in their community is either ethnic or civic – in the European context, it is shown that the dominant form is the civic one. That is to say, those who hold a European identity are more likely to be open-minded, tolerant and in favor of equality and human rights – and thus less likely to view the issue of identity in general and European identity specifically as ethnic based. (Green, 2007; Kufer, 2009; Risse, 2010).

European identity has some, if not a lot, to do with attitudes towards the European Union as a political and economic idea. The connection between the identity one holds as a European and the manufacturing of attitudes towards the EU has been discussed and shown repeatedly (Hooghe and Marks 2004, 2005, de Vries and van Kersbergen, 2007). Scholars claim that the shaping of an attitude, be support or repulse, towards the EU is highly dependent on the collective European identity one holds – if self interest is the primary source of attitudes, it is argued that the connection or disconnection to other cultures plays an important role as well (McLaren, 2002). European citizens that see their national identity as solid and exclusive to others tend to be more Eurosceptic, while those who precise their identity as fluid and flexible

(9)

to include a European aspect and other cultures, tend to be more pro-European (Hooghe and Marks, 2005).

Taking On a European Identity

It is theorized and suggested, that social connection and interaction is the source and creator of a collective identity, when it is a positive experience for the ones taking part in it. The positive interaction creates a sense of community that allows the sense of ‘commonness’ (Deutsch, 1953). This theoretical idea is being ‘imported’ into the European contemporary context. If positive interactions create a collective identity, and the better educated, better paid and well traveled Europeans are having this identity, there is a connection

The origins of acquiring a European identity are an important topic when handling the concept. An excessive research revolving around the common backgrounds that those of high European identity share, come up with quite definitive results. It shows that the more one identifies with Europe (when compared with national identity) the more he/she are likely to be better educated, work in regular white collar jobs, have higher income level and be younger, and often male (Fligstein, 2009).

This connection is shown clearly within the research conducted by Fligstein (2009). He researches data of transnational organizations and associations in Europe, and show the extensive interaction in which businessmen, entrepreneur, merchants and other Europeans take part in as a result of the European political and economic integration. These interactions are positive in general, which correlates to Deutsch’s theory of positive interaction that creates identity, or in Fligstein’s own words:

“People who are educated or are owners, managers, professionals, or white collar workers have had opportunities to meet and interact with their counterparts in other countries because

(10)

of the EU’s market and political integration project. For these people, this interaction has produced a positive European identity and support for the EU project.” (Fligstein, 2009, p. 155)

Student Mobility

The idea of moving young individuals around the continent with the aim of creating firsthand experiences by creating a ground for such meetings – correlates to Fligstein’s and others’ ideas regarding identity, group identity and their process of creation. If, as suggested (Fligstein, 2009; Deutsch, 1953), positive experiences that are taking place together with others create a common identity – then a program of student exchange might be the perfect hub for creating a European one.

Student mobility, student exchange or cross-boarders higher education – is being seen often and repeatedly as an effective tool in the creation of understanding between two distinguished social groups. Social communication theory supports the idea that interaction across borders should foster transnational identities (Lijphart, 1964; Deutsch et al., 1966). This process is described by Karl Deutsch et al. (1966) as “social mobilization”. He emphasize the entrance of groups into new communication networks as a change that creates new horizons among the group, bringing it into touch with other groups without mediation through these networks (Deutsch et al., 1966, Deutsch, 1961). This interaction is expected to create a sense of ‘commoness’, and the creation of a common identity (Deutsch, 1953). Bringing theory into reality, the Erasmus program is the perfect ‘lab’ to apply and check Deutsch’s ideas.

Specifically connected to student mobility, the concept of “social mobilization” – the interaction between groups that create a common identity – was discussed broadly by Arend

(11)

Lijphart (1964). He claimed that the effect of such interaction is stronger and more significant politically when accruing among mobilized students than among, for example, economic migrants, being mobilized for the purpose of work (Lijphart, 1964).

It is widely accepted that beyond the financial and educational dimension of the notion of easy-access student mobility such as the Erasmus program, there is an identity and citizenship issue: "Since 1988, the development of the ‘European dimension’ in education in order to reinforce the European identity/citizenship, to increase awareness of common socio-political issues and to enhance knowledge of the historical and cultural aspects of Europe has become an EU leitmotiv." (Papatsiba, 2005, p. 176. See also:Férnandez, 2005; Sigalas, 2010; Wilson 2011). Programs of student mobility are being used as an ‘instrument’ for policy by governmental bodies (Merritt, 1972). Specifically the Erasmus program is guided by the desire to bring European students to meet and ‘discover’ their shared European identity (Sigalas, 2010).

In my research, the sample was taken from two populations: Greek students or former students, and German students or former students. The choice of these two groups was made in an attempt to deal with the issue of the direction of influence. From existing research, the question of what comes first, high level of European identity or the exchange experience arises (see: Wilson, 2011). Out of constraints of time and budget, I could not conduct a longitudinal research due to constraints of time – and even such a research does not promise an answer regarding the direction of influence. Instead, I attempted to deal with this issue by sampling two national groups that are inclined to hold very different feelings about the EU and European identity. A similar thing has been done by the European Commission (2005) with its research on youth and identity, “pairing” two different geographical areas to allow comparison. It was also suggested by Wilson (2011) in the conclusion of his research on

(12)

mobility: “there might be greater impact if the students moved between eastern and western Europe, or between particularly Europhile and Eurosceptic countries, and it would be interesting to see the research repeated with samples from different nationalities.” (Wilson, 2011, p. 1135)

Literature Review – Student Mobility and European Identity

Previous research exits on the topic of student mobility in Europe. On the matter of education and European integration in general, Ronald Inglehart (1970) concludes that "rising levels of exposure to formal education and mass communications tend to favor integration at the European level." (Inglehart, 1970).

Continuing this line and applying it specifically to student mobility, Christof Van Mol (2011) surveyed mobile students and non-mobile students from across Europe, and examined their attachment to Europe. In short, he found that the more mobile a student is, the more they are attached to Europe. On the matter of the influence of student mobility on migration aspirations, he showed that this kind of aspirations usually already exists in future Erasmus students, prior to the study abroad experience (Van Mol, 2011).

Emmanuel Sigalas (2010) also conducted a survey based research among mobilized students, but found different outcomes. He concluded that while the experience for itself was perceived as highly enjoyable, it failed to create a connection between guest and local students. Because of this little contact, the European identity among respondents did not strengthen due to the Erasmus experience. He observed that more socialization with local students did foster European identity, but in modest impact (Sigalas, 2010)

(13)

Continuing this line, Gioia Ambrosi (2013) also attempted to trace the sources from which European identity arises during the Erasmus experience. She emphasized the fact that mobilized students often hold multiple identities and fluid ones, and that the personal ties during the Erasmus exchange are the place where common European identity is being created (Ambrosi, 2013).

Looking for deeper explanation to the connection between identity and mobility, Vassiliki Papatsiba (2005) sleeked to examine the connection between student mobility and European identity through qualitative interviews with mobilized students. She showed that the elements of identity building are secondary to the professional market oriented ones in the Erasmus experience. The economic and professional sides are reviled to be more present than the political/identity ones – opposed to official EU documents and policies (Papatsiba, 2005).

Ian Wilson (2011) has conducted a research that included distributing identical questionnaires – concerning European identity and attitudes towards the EU – to 99 Erasmus and 145 non-Erasmus students, before and after their exchange experience. He observed that while mobilized students are more pro-European than non-mobilized ones, the Erasmus experience did not cause this difference. Rather, mobilized students are more likely to hold stronger European identity even before the exchange itself. He mentions the difficulty to point the direction of influence in this case, and concludes that his results: “…provide no support for the hypothesis that taking part in the Erasmus programme leads to revolutionary changes in students’ political views in the short term.” (Wilson, 2011).

Although a large number of findings suggest that the Erasmus experience do not directly affect the European identity of participants, other research suggest the opposite. Russell King and Enric Ruiz-Gelices (2003) surveyed 475 British students, inquiring the effect of their year abroad in Europe over their professional abilities, their identity and their migratory

(14)

aspirations. They find that the exchange students are not only more likely to find a job or migrate to a European country – they also more likely to hold a European identity, at least partly, to be more in favor of European integration, and to see themselves as ‘belonging to a European cultural space’ (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003). Once again, the question of causality could not be answered.

Kristine Mitchell (2012) surveyed over 2000 respondents from 25 European countries, looking for the civic aspect of the Erasmus program. She found that “Erasmus students engage in significant contact with other Europeans, become more interested in Europe and other Europeans as a result, and self-identify as European”. The data collected indicated that most Erasmus students do see the time of exchange as an intercultural and transnational experience (Mitchell, 2012)

Research Design

Based on this pool of academic research, and following the repeated logic of the European Commission reflected in official documents, legislation and budgeting – it is fair to state that the primary goal of the Erasmus program is to enable easy mobility within Europe, in order to support intercultural exchange, and eventually – form a common [European] identity among participants.

The question remains: is this goal, primary or secondary, is being achieved? In other words – is the Erasmus program a hub for the creation of higher feelings of European identity, and positive attitudes towards European integration? As we have seen, literature on the subject does not give a clear final answer. Some show the ineffectiveness of the program when it comes to the formation of European identity (Sigalas, 2010; Wilson, 2011). Others point the

(15)

opposite, saying that participating in an Erasmus program does indeed encourage intercultural exchange and the formation of a common identity (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Mitchell, 2012).

To this we must add the high trust that the European Union gives to the program and its success, reflected in the rise of size and budget – but not only. Jacques Delors, the former President of the European Commission that held office when Erasmus was first initiated, said in a booklet produced for the latest phase of funding for the program:

“The undeniable success of the Erasmus programme has made a crucial contribution to creating the ‘Europe of citizens’ we strive for – and for which so much remains to be done”. (European Union 2012, p. 5).

Taking all of this into account, I have formulated three hypotheses that are aimed to further investigate the connection of the Erasmus program with European identity. I focus on two distinct national groups, one that is bound to be pro-European – Germany, and one that is bound to be Eurosceptic – Greece. I chose the two nationalities according to their rates of European identity, reflected in the Eurobarometer surveys (Eurobarometer, 2013):

H1: German students that participate in the Erasmus program hold stronger feelings of European identity than non-Erasmus German students.

H2: Greek students that participate in the Erasmus program hold stronger feelings of European identitythan non-Erasmus Greek students.

The idea behind choosing these two groups is to use this division later, and use the predisposition of the students when comparing them to non-Erasmus students, or to the general population.

(16)

But the picture is not full, if we do not ask the “big” question, the one that assumes the success of the program as a whole, when it comes to identity formation, and thus:

H3: European students that participate in the Erasmus program hold stronger feelings of European identitythan non-Erasmus students.

These hypotheses will be tested through a survey among Erasmus students as a primary group, and non-Erasmus students as a control group, as described in the next section. The research question that derives from these hypotheses would be:

RQ: Is participation in the Erasmus program has a connection to a high sense of European identity?

Methodology

The research was conducted in the form of a widespread online survey. The sampling process was mainly conducted via social media tools. I have personally disturbed the online survey link in different groups on different social media channels. These groups were mainly university groups (Greek and German), students’ groups, expat communities groups, common interest groups and so on. By maintaining high exposure to the link, I was able to collect 327 clicks to the survey over a period of 11 days, between the 6th of May 2014 and the 17th of May 2014. Since not all clicks lead to completion of the full survey, 99 of the responses were later deemed uncompleted and were excluded from the final analysis of the results.

Therefore, the final number of valid participants in the survey is N=228. Out of this total number, 125 of the respondents are or were German students in Europe. 103 of the respondents are or were Greek students in Europe. Out of the total number of 228

(17)

respondents, 133 respondents have engaged in any form of student exchange, studied abroad or participated in an Erasmus program. 95 out of the total number of 228 have never engaged in any form of student exchange. The groups of respondents can be divided further more: out of the total number of 125 German respondents, 73 (58,4%) have studied abroad in Europe and 52 (41,6%) have not. Out of the total number of 103 Greek respondents, 60 (58,3%) have studied abroad in Europe and 43 (41,7%) have not.

The survey questions were taken and composed according to several sources: previous research in the field of student mobility and identity (Wilson, 2011), questions that are presented to respondents in the large scale survey of the European Union, the Eurobarometer (Eurobarometer, 2013) and questions composed by the author.

The online survey was composed of a total of 31 questions, each question presented on a different page, and the respondent could not have skipped any of them. The ones that identified themselves as Erasmus students received extra questions regarding their study-abroad experience.

Dependent Variable – Attitudes Towards the EU

Among the questions asked in the survey, a bloc of five questions was presented, with the intention of exploring attitudes towards the EU among respondents. I will now present these questions, each followed by its mean and standard deviation for all respondents (N=228). The possible answers for these questions were scaled from “1- Completely disagree” to “7- Completely agree”. With an “I don’t know” option, that was later excluded from the results.

“Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements”

1. The European Union is a good institution for European citizens (M=4.99,

SD=1.62).

(18)

2. The European Union has failed to connect Europe into one entity, and should

cease to exist (M=3.99, SD=1.92) (results’ order was turned around, to keep the positive/negative direction).

3. The people of my home country are benefiting from the country's membership in the European Union (M=4.54, SD=1.95).

4. It is important to be updated with European Union news in the media (M=5.49,

SD=1.46).

5. My voice counts in the EU (M=3.31, SD=1.81).

The answers for these questions were computed into one index, to create the dependent variable: “Attitudes towards EU” (M=4.43, SD=.749, α=.81).

Dependent Variable – European Identity

To measure European identity, I used a single question that was taken directly from the Eurobarometer (Eurobarometer, 2013). The question is: “Please indicate to what extent the

following statement corresponds or not to your own opinion: You feel you are a citizen of the EU” and the possible answers were as follows:

1. Yes, Definitely 2. Yes, to some extent 3. No, not really 4. No, definitely not

When analyzing the results, the order of the scale was flipped in order to get a higher score for higher European identity. This dependent variable will be called “European Identity”

(M=4.21, SD=.805).

(19)

Results of the Survey

H1: German Students

In order to test hypothesis number 1, I collected the average scores on “Attitudes towards EU” from German respondents of the survey (N=125). I compared the total mean of these answers by German Erasmus students (n=73) to the total mean of German non-Erasmus students (n=52). The idea is to look for a difference between the means – and the significance of the difference. I do so by conducting a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). First we look at the means of the two groups, when measuring their attitudes towards the EU (see table 3).

In the German case, subjects that have engaged in an Erasmus program appear to hold more positive attitudes towards the European Union, European integration and the European Union as a political entity (M=4.60, SD=.655), than the ones that have never took part in such a program (M=4.48, SD=.712). So far, the higher mean for Erasmus students among German participants reinforce H1 as expected. The question of the significance of the findings remains open, and I will attend to it now.

The ANOVA test that I have used reveals the meaning of the difference between the Erasmus and non-Erasmus students (see table 4). First, the assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene's F(1,123)=0.004, p=.953. There was not a significant connection of the independent variable of participation in an Erasmus program on the dependent variable of “Attitudes towards EU” at the p<.05 [F(1, 123) = 1.051, p = .307, η2 =.008]. In other words, among German respondents, Erasmus participation had no significant connection to the respondents’ attitudes towards the EU. To complete the picture, and to attend to the assumption of H1, there is a need to explore the identity prospect of the German respondents.

(20)

Examining the matter of identity as it is reflected in the results of the survey, I look at the average of the scores of the German respondents on the “European Identity” variable. An ANOVA test was conducted in order to determine the differences in means between German Erasmus students (n=73) and German non-Erasmus students (n=52). Looking at the means (see table 5) of the German respondents, we can observe a difference – Erasmus students are averaging higher (M=3.52, SD=.603) – they feel more like they are citizens of the EU than the non-Erasmus German respondents (M=3.28, SD=.723).

Moving on to the full ANOVA test (see table 6), the assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene's F(1,123)=0.802, p=.372. There was not a significant connection of the independent variable of participation in an Erasmus program with the dependent variable of “European identity” the p<.05 [F(1, 123) = 3.804, p = .053, η2 =.030]. Once again, there is no significant relation between participating in an Erasmus program and European identity within the German respondents. Looking at the two results together, it is fair to evaluate that H1 was refuted – German Erasmus students do not appear to hold higher levels of European identity when compared with non-Erasmus German students.

H2: Greek Students

In order to test hypothesis number 2, I preformed the exact same process for the Greek respondents of my survey (N=103). First, by comparing the means of “Attitudes towards EU” results between Greek Erasmus students (n=60) and Greek non-Erasmus students (n=43). By looking at the means themselves (see table 3), we observe that subjects that have engaged in an Erasmus program appear to hold more positive attitudes towards the European Union, European integration and the European Union as a political entity (M=4.23, SD=.808), than the ones that have never took part in such a program (M=3.88, SD=.799).

(21)

The ANOVA test continues with examining the significance of this difference of means between the two groups (see table 7). The assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene's F(1,101)=0.097, p=.756. A significant connection was observed, of the independent variable of participation in an Erasmus program on the dependent variable of “Attitudes towards EU” at the p<.05 [F(1, 101) = 4.548, p = .035, η2 =.0043]. And so we can observe that among Greek respondents, Erasmus participation had a significant connection to the respondents’ attitudes towards the EU. This is an important finding, and it will be discussed further in the conclusions section. It should be noted that in this case, post-hoc tests are not necessary, as there are only two possible conditions.

The second phase of the inquiry will be to perform an ANOVA test for Greek respondents on the average score for the “European identity” question. Within Greek respondents, the means tell a similar story as in the German case. Once again, An ANOVA test was conducted in order to determine the differences in means between Greek Erasmus students (n=60) and German non-Erasmus students (n=43). Looking at the means of the Greek respondents (see table 5), we can observe a difference – Erasmus students are averaging higher (M=3.18, SD=.812) – they feel more like they are citizens of the EU than the non-Erasmus German respondents (M=2.90, SD=.894).

The next step is to examine the difference between the means of the two groups (see table 8). The assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene's F(1,101)=0.653, p=.421. In this case, there was no significant connection of the independent variable of participation in an Erasmus program on the dependent variable of “European identity” at the p<.05 [F(1, 101) = 2.661, p = .106, η2 =.026]. Greek Erasmus students do not significantly feel more citizens of the EU than Greek non-Erasmus students. Thus, H2 was

(22)

partially refuted by the results – the meaning of this will be discussed in the conclusions section.

H3: All Students

The final and more meaningful hypothesis number 3 will be tested by the same process. This time, all students (N=228) are included in the ANOVA test, regardless of their nationality. On the matter of attitude towards the EU, we see that the mean of Erasmus students on “Attitudes towards EU” (M=4.43, SD=.749) is, as expected, higher than the mean of the non-Erasmus students (M=4.21, SD=.805) (see table 9). The next step would be to examine the significance of the difference.

The assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene's F(1,226)=0.968, p=.326. In the case of all students surveyed regardless of their nationality, a significant connection of the independent variable of participation in an Erasmus program on the dependent variable of “Attitudes towards EU” of the European Union was observed at the p<.05 [F(1, 226) = 4.965, p = .031, η2 =.020] (see table 10). The significance here is important, and will be discussed in the conclusions section.

After reviling a significance on “Attitudes towards EU”, I continue to check the “European identity” variable on all respondents (N=228). First, looking at the means of Erasmus (M=3.36, SD=.722) and non-Erasmus (M=3.11, SD=.823), we see a difference between the means, implying that Erasmus students feel more citizens of the EU than non-Erasmus students (see table 11).

The final ANOVA test will conclude the results, and it aims to examine the difference between the means of the two groups. The assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene's F(1,226)=0.173, p=.678. When comparing the means of the

(23)

“European identity” variable of Erasmus and non-Erasmus students (see table 12), a significant connection was found. The connection is between the independent variable of participation in an Erasmus program and the dependent variable of “European identity” at the p<.05 [F(1, 226) = 6.025, p = .015, η2 =.026]. In other words, there is a significant connection between being and Erasmus student, and holding higher levels of European identity.

Conclusion and Discussion

This research project has set out to find and explore indications to the success or failure of the student exchange program of the European Commission – the Erasmus program. The question of success was to be measured according to official expectations that the European Union has expressed, explicitly or through policy and budgeting. Specifically, this research attempted to trace the ability of the Erasmus program in creating among its participants a European identity – a sense of common identity with other Europeans and shared feelings towards European Union citizenship.

I attempted to do so by asking the question is participation in the Erasmus program has a connection to a high sense of European identity? To the extent the survey I have composed and distributed can answer this question – the answer will be mostly yes, but only when looking at Erasmus students and ignoring their country of origin.

As seen in the results section, each of the questions asked regarding attitudes towards the European Union or the European identity of respondents always came up with similar results when looking at the average rate of the responses. No matter which group was examined, Germans, Greeks or the two combined - the gap between the average results showed the same: Erasmus students and former Erasmus students are always scoring higher with more

(24)

positive attitudes towards the European Union, and higher levels of European identity. Non-Erasmus students hold weaker European identity and less positive view of the European Union.

When getting to the bottom of the results, we have seen some differentiation in significance when examining the attitude and identity factors over different groups. The German Erasmus students did score higher than the non-Erasmus ones on attitudes towards the EU, and then again on European identity1 - but in both cases this difference was not significant. Looking at the results of both Germans and Greeks, it is clear that the German respondents in general tend to be more pro-European and hold a higher sense of European identity. It correlates to results from the Eurobarometer (Eurobarometer, 2013) and it also might explain the insignificance I have observed: if Germans tend to feel more European regardless of an Erasmus experience – then it is fair to assume that the difference connected to this experience will be smaller, and thus insignificant. In this regard, the first hypothesis was refuted completely; hence German Erasmus students do not feel more European than non-Erasmus feel, and it continues the line of findings that observed the Erasmus experience as having little to none influence on the participants’ European identity (Papatsiba, 2005; Sigalas, 2010; Wilson 2011).

We begin to see more significant results when examining hypothesis number 2. Greek Erasmus students scored higher in positive attitudes towards the EU in significant levels. They did not, however, show significance difference from their non-Erasmus peers, when it concerned their European identify.

1_{It is worth noting at this point that the p-value on this variable stood on 0.053 which is officially not}

significant, but is very close to being. It might have become significant after checking for outliers or by following a higher p-value for the landmark of significance (p<1.00). I do believe that later on, this came to show when I examined the p-value for the same question on all the respondents: the p-value was the lowest in the whole research. In any case, I did regard this p-value as insignificant.

24

(25)

The difference in results when looking at the two national groups selected – the difference in the outcomes is important. Germany is, generally speaking, a pro-European nation state. In line with that fact, the German respondents di show higher levels of “Europeaness” in their results than the Greek ones. But when checking the connection to Erasmus, only the Greek students showed real connection. What does it tell us?

It might be that theories of “social mobilization” (Lijphart, 1964; Deutsch, 1961) should be checked again in the specific context of the European Union. The students surveyed in my research hold a predisposed national identity, but they are also expected to hold, at the same time, a European identity. It seems like the mobility experience has a connection to different rates of identity, only if the group engaging in mobility has low levels of the common identity to begin with. The situation of having a predisposed common identity (prior to any contact with other groups) – is unique to the contemporary European Union, and thus student mobility should be examined under this understanding.

On the policy level, the difference in the levels of mobility-identity connection between the two national groups might indicate a need in policy change on student mobility for the EU. As I have shown in the introduction for this paper, it is an official goal of the Erasmus program to create and support European citizenship and identity. When this is the case, the results of my research bring up the question – who benefits of the Erasmus program, and who should? Participation in Erasmus might be more meaningful in terms of identity for participants that do not come from pro-European environment, and that the benefits of being an EU citizen are not quit clear to them.

Currently, 1.1% of all German students engage in Erasmus, while only 0.5% of all Greek students do, and the overall EU average is 0.9% (European Commission, 2013). This means that the ones that might be a better “crowd” for changes in identity towards a European one,

(26)

meaning students that come from Eurosceptic countries – are being less engaged in Erasmus. If enhancing European identity for all Europeans is the goal of the EU, it might need to consider promoting higher levels of student mobility among Eurosceptic countries.

Another point arising from the nationally separated results is the difference in tendencies among Greek students, when comparing attitudes towards the EU and European identity. This might indicate an interesting point: Greek Erasmus students do see the benefits of political European integration. They recognize it more than non-Erasmus Greek students on a significant level. But this does not appear to reach their sense of identity when compared to non-Erasmus students – both groups show practically the same levels of European identity.

It would be interesting to investigate this gap, specifically on Greek student population, and try to examine where this gap originates. Understanding where the Erasmus student fail in creating a common European identity, even within a group of students that hold positive views over the European Union – might help the EU and the European Commission in formulating advanced policies that can attend this issue. In this regard, it is hard to determine whether hypothesis number 2 has been refuted or approved. Further investigation into the Greek student population is needed.

The results for the final hypothesis, which also have the heaviest weight when answering the research question – show a clearer picture. When ignoring the country of origin within the respondents, it is clear with very high levels of significance – Erasmus students hold more positive views of the European Union, and a higher sense of European identity than non-Erasmus students. This clear finding contradicts a great deal of research that has been done on the subject of Erasmus, and that found that the Erasmus experience had little to none connection to the participants’ European identity (Papatsiba, 2005; Sigalas, 2010; Wilson 2011). On the other hand, it continues the line of knowledge that observed the Erasmus

(27)

experience as an important one when it came to European identity (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Mitchell, 2012). Hypothesis number 3 was fully supported by the results of my research.

On the broader picture, it reinforces some basic assumptions made by canonic social science communication research. The results on the third hypothesis relate directly to the idea that interaction across borders should foster transnational identities (Lijphart, 1964). The connection between the Erasmus experience and European identify also relate to Deutsch et al.’s (1966) idea of “social mobilization”, a meeting between two distinct identity groups – that results in the creation of a sense of ‘commoness’, and as a result, the creation of a common identity (Deutsch, 1953).

Shortcomings on the Direction of Influence

The results of the research show a conclusive outcome. As much as I have trying to keep the process of sampling, surveying, and interpreting the results in high standards – the research does have some shortcomings. I will discuss them now.

As in many previews research on the topic of Erasmus and the formation of European identity, this research also fall short on the matter of indicating the direction of influence that accurse between the study abroad experience and the higher level of “Euroepaness”. The existence of the connection is clear – Erasmus and former Erasmus students are more positive regarding the European Union and hold higher levels of European identity – but what came first?

It is unclear from the results whether the experience itself made the two groups (Erasmus and non-Erasmus) differ from one another on European topics – or the other possible direction of influence – that students with higher levels of European identity choose to take on an Erasmus

(28)

program in great numbers, which leads to the difference between the two groups. This issue has been raised by other scholars (Papatsiba, 2005; Sigalas, 2010; Mitchell, 2012) and was made very clear by Wilson (2011): "…it does not follow that Erasmus is responsible. […] The alternative possibility is that Erasmus students are more pro-European simply because more pro-European students choose to take part" (Wilson, 2011, p. 1114).

This issue is hard to be dealt with, especially in a non- longitudinal research. A possibility for measuring the direction of the effect is to measure identity and attitudes among students before and after the experience. An even more likely model to show a direction would be to survey high school before any decision regarding higher education has been made, then survey the same group after several years. Hopefully, a significant part of the group will take on an Erasmus program, and then the comparison between the two sets of results might indicate the change that have gone through as a result of the Erasmus experience.

In the scope of this research, it is indeed hard to determine a direction of influence. It is possible, however, to provide an interesting insight that might shed a bit of light on the context of the results. This tool would be briefly looking at the similarities and differences of my results when compared with Eurobarometer data.

German general population answers the identity question - of agreement to the statement: “You feel you are a citizen of the EU” with 41% total support and 54% total opposition. In my research, however, the German respondents, regardless of them being Ersamus students or not – scored 92% total support, and only 8% opposition. The numbers are very different, and the same goes for the Greek students surveyed.

(29)

Greek general population Eurobarometer results show 13% support for this statement and 86% opposition (Eurobarometer, 2013, see table 2). The results for the exact same question in my survey are almost flipped: 80.6% show support, and 19.4%.

These figure correspond to the notion that more educated people tend to be more pro-European and hold a higher sense of pro-European identity (Fligstein, 2009), but the gap between my results and the ones from the Eurobarometer - is a very big gap, doubted to be explained merely by level of education. It is hard to assess the meaning of this big gap in results on the topic of identity between the general population and the students surveyed in this research. It might have to do with the sampling process of “snowball” sampling through social media. It might be connected to the context in which the question is asked (general survey as opposed to a specific survey on student mobility). Or it might be that this gap exists, when comparing students and alumni to general population – and then the topic deserves a further investigation. In any case, any research on the topic would have to take these questions into consideration when looking for the direction of influence.

(30)

References

Ambrosi, G. (2013) ‘The Influence of the ERASMUS Programme on Strengthening a European Identity: Case Studies of Spanish and British Exchange Students’ In Feyen, B. and Krzaklewska, E. (eds.) ‘The ERASMUS Phenomenon - Symbol of a New European Generation?’, 143-162.

Bail, C. (2008) ‘The Configuration of Symbolic Boundaries against Immigrants in Europe’. American Sociological Review, Vol. 73, pp. 37-59.

Brubaker, R. (1992) Nationalism Reframed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Commission Europeenne (1991) Mémorandum sur l’enseignement supérieur dans la Communauté européenne. Communication de la Commission au Conseil du 5 novembre 1991 (Bruxelles, COM(91) 349 final).

Council of Ministers (1987) ‘Council Decision of 15 June 1987 Adopting the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS)’, Official Journal of the European Communities 166: 20–24.

de Vries C. and van Kersbergende K. (2007) ‘Interests, Identity and Political Allegiance in the European Union’, ActaPolitica, 42, 307–328.

Deutsch, K. (1953), ‘Nationalism and Social Communication: An inquiry into the foundations of Nationality’, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Deutsch, K., Burrell, S., Kann, R. and Lee, M. (1967). ‘Political Community and the North Atlantic Area’, New York: Greenwood Press.

Deutsch, K. (1961) ’Social Mobilization and Political Development’, American Political Science Review, 55(3), 493-514.

Eisenstadt, S. and Geisen, B. (1995) ‘The Construction of Collective Identity’. European Journal of Sociology, 36, 72-106.

Eurobarometer (2013) ‘Standrad Eurobarometer 80’, European Commission. Retrieved from: <http://goo.gl/C4om9u>

European Commission (1996) ‘Green Paper of 2 October 1996: Education - Training - Research: the obstacles to transnational mobility’. Retrieved from:

<http://goo.gl/TVBevo>

European Commission (2013) ‘On the way to ERASMUS+ A Statistical Overview of the ERASMUS Programme in 2011-12’, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from:

<http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/erasmus1112_en.pdf>

(31)

European Commission (2012) ‘Erasmus – Facts, Figures & Trends . The European Union support for student and staff exchanges and university cooperation in 2010-11’,

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

European Commission (2007) ‘Orientations of Young Men and Women to Citizenship and European Identity – Final Report’, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

European Council (1983) ‘Solemn declaration on European Union’. Bulletin of the European Communities, no. 6/1983.

European Union (2012) ‘Erasmus – changing lives, opening minds for 25 years’, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from: <http://goo.gl/MgY8tK>

Fernandez, O. (2005). ‘Towards European Citizenship through Higher Education?’ European Journal of Education, 40(1), 59-68.

Fligstein, N. (2009)’Who Are the Europeans and How Does This Matter for Politics.’ In Jeffrey T. Checkel and Peter J. Katzenstein (eds), ‘European Identity’. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP. 132-66.

Fligstein, N., Alina P. and Wayne S. (2012) ‘European Integration, Nationalism and European Identity.’ Journal of Common Market Studies, 50, 106-22.

Green, D. (2007) ‘The Europeans: Political Identity in an Emerging Polity’ Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Herrmann R. and Brewer M. (2004) ‘Identities and Institutions: Becoming European in the EU’, in Herrmann R., Risse T. and Brewer M. (eds) Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. 1-22. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield

Hooghe, E. and G. Marks. (2005) ‘Calculation, Community, and Clues: Public Opinion and European Integration’. European Union Politics, 6, 419-43.

Inglehart, R. (1970) ‘Cognitive Mobilization and European Identity’, Comparative Politics, 3(1), 45-70.

King, R. and Ruiz-Gelices, E. (2003). ‘International Student Migration and the European ‘Year Abroad’: Effects on European Identity and Subsequent Migration Behaviour’, International Journal of Population Geography, 9(3), 229-252.

Kohn, H. (1944) The Idea of Nationalism, London: MacMillan.

Kufer, A. (2009) ‘Images of Europe-the meaning and perception of Europe by citizens of EU member states’. In Fuchs, D., Magni-Berton, R., and Roger, A. (eds) ‘Euroscepticism: Images of Europe amongst Mass Publics and Political Elites’, Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

(32)

Lijphart, A. (1964). ‘Tourist Traffic and Integration Potential’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 2(3), 251-261.

Makowski, J. (2012) ‘Erasmus generation, you’re Europe’s last hope’, VOXeurop – The Talk of the Continent, Retrieved from: < http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/article/2933441-erasmus-generation-you-re-europe-s-last-hope>

McLaren L. (2002) ‘Public Support for the European Union: Cost/Benefit Analysis or Perceived Cultural Threat?’,The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 551-566.

Merritt R. (1972) ‘Effects of international students exchange’, in Merritt R (ed.) ‘Communication in International Politics’, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 65–94. Mitchell, K. (2012) ‘Student mobility and European Identity: Erasmus Study as a civic

experience?’, Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8(4), 490-518.

Papatsiba, V. (2005) ‘Political and Individual Rationales of Student Mobility’. European Journal of Education, 40(2), 173–188.

Reeskens, T. and Hooghe, m. (2010) ‘Beyond the civic–ethnic dichotomy: investigating the structure of citizenship concepts across thirty-three countries’, Nations and Nationalism, 16(4), 579–597.

Sigalas, E. (2010) ‘Cross-border Mobility and European Identity: The Effectiveness of Intergroup Contact During the ERASMUS Year Abroad’, European Union Politics, 11(2), 241-265.

T. Risse (2010) A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres (Itaca, NY: Cornell University Press)

T. Risse (2004) ‘European Institutions and Identity Change: What Have We Learned’ in Herrmann R., Risse T. and Brewer M. (eds) Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. 247-271. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield

Van Mol, C. (2011). ‘The Influence of European Student Mobility on European Identity and Subsequent Migration Behaviour’, in F. Dervin (ed.). ‘Analysing the consequences of academic mobility and migration’, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 29-50. Wilson, I. (2011). ‘What should We Expect of 'Erasmus Generation'?’ Journal of Common

Market Studies, 49(5), 1113-1140.

(33)

Table no. 1: Budget for the Erasmus Program by Year

(Source: European Commission (2013) ‘On the way to ERASMUS+ A Statistical Overview of the ERASMUS Programme in 2011-12’, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from:

<http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/erasmus1112_en.pdf>)

Table no. 2: Responses to the Question “Please indicate to what extent the following statement corresponds or not to your own opinion: You feel you are a citizen of the EU” by EU Member States (SourceEurobarometer (2013) ‘Standrad Eurobarometer 80’, European Commission. Retrieved from:

<http://goo.gl/C4om9u>)

(34)

Dependent Variable: Attitudes towards EU Divided by Nationality

German Students Mean Std. Deviation N

Erasmus 4,6066 ,65542 73

Non-Erasmus 4,4801 ,71276 52

Total 4,5540 ,67992 125

Greek Students Mean Std. Deviation N

Erasmus Non-Erasmus Total 4,2328 3,8899 4,0896 ,80844 ,79922 ,81850 60 43 103

Table no. 4: ANOVA Test Comparing Means of German Erasmus and German Non-Erasmus Students on the Dependent Variable: Attitudes towards EU

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model ,486a 1 ,486 1,051 ,307 ,008 Intercept 2507,456 1 2507,456 5426,174 ,000 ,978 Erasmus participation ,486 1 ,486 1,051 ,307 ,008 Error 56,839 123 ,462 Total 2649,689 125 Corrected Total 57,325 124

a. R Squared = ,008 (Adjusted R Squared = ,000)

Table no. 5: Means of Erasmus and Non-Erasmus Students on the Dependent Variable: You are a citizen of the EU Divided by Nationality

German Students Mean Std. Deviation N

Erasmus 3,5205 ,60345 73

Non-Erasmus 3,2885 ,72319 52

Total 3,4240 ,66313 125

Greek Students Mean Std. Deviation N

Erasmus Non-Erasmus Total 3,1833 2,9070 3,0680 ,81286 ,89480 ,85477 60 43 103 2

(35)

Source

Type III Sum of

Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 1,636a 1 1,636 3,804 ,053 ,030 Intercept 1407,940 1 1407,940 3274,139 ,000 ,964 Erasmus participation 1,636 1 1,636 3,804 ,053 ,030 Error 52,892 123 ,430 Total 1520,000 125 Corrected Total 54,528 124

Table no. 7: ANOVA Test Comparing Means of Greek Erasmus and Greek Non-Erasmus Students on the Dependent Variable: Attitudes towards EU

Source

Type III Sum of

Table no. 8: ANOVA Test Comparing Means of Greek Erasmus and Greek Non-Erasmus Students on the Dependent Variable: You are a citizen of the EU

Source

Type III Sum of

(36)

All respondents Mean Std. Deviation N

Erasmus 4,4380 ,74921 133

Non-Erasmus 4,2130 ,80514 95

Total 4,3442 ,77923 228

Table no. 10: ANOVA Test Comparing Means of Erasmus and Non-Erasmus Students on the Dependent Variable: Attitudes towards EU - All Respondents

Source

Type III Sum of

Table no. 11: Means of Erasmus and Non-Erasmus Students on the Dependent Variable: You are a citizen of the EU – All Respondents

All respondents Mean Std. Deviation N

Erasmus 3,3684 ,72272 133

Non-Erasmus 3,1158 ,82337 95

Total 3,2632 ,77463 228

(37)

Source

Type III Sum of

(38)

“Student Mobility and European Identity”

Q1 “Student Mobility and European Identity” Dear respondent, This is a short survey conducted by a Master student from the University of Amsterdam. The survey is aimed for German and Greek students or former students. If you are neither, we thank you for your time and kindly ask you to not take the survey. The survey is short and easy. Please read the questions carefully before answering. The next page will present an informed consent for participation, and after it the survey will begin. We thank you in advance for your time and participation, please click "NEXT".

Q2 Informed consent for participation in “Student Mobility and European Identity” project. I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the factsheet “Student Mobility and European Identity”. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the project at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my

anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission. If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Daniel Isler (06-85456780, danielisler1@gmail.com; Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam). Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl _________By clicking "NEXT" you are agreeing to the above, and the survey will begin.

Q3 Please specify your age.  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Older 1

(39)

 Female

Q5 What is your nationality?  German

 Greek

Q6 Where do you think of as "home" (please type the name of the town, region, country, etc.)?

Q7 Please specify your field of studies  Humanities

 Social and Behavioural Sciences  Economics and Business

 Science  Law  Medicine

 Other: ____________________

Q8 In which university or other higher education institution did you begin studies (excluding exchange and study abroad experiences)?

Q9 Have you ever engaged in any form of student exchange, studied abroad or participated in an Erasmus program (in Europe)?

 Yes, I have  No, I have not

(40)

 Belgium  Bulgaria  Croatia  Cyprus  Czech Republic  Denmark  Estonia  Finland  France  Germany  Greece  Hungary  Ireland  Italy  Latvia  Lithuania  Luxembourg  Malta  Netherlands  Poland  Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain  Sweden  United Kingdom

Q11 What was the length of your study abroad experience?  0-6 months

 7-12 months  Longer

(41)

1- Not at all Important 2 3 4 5 6 7 - Very Important Don't Know Your ethnic background         Your religious background         Where you were born         Being from your city         Being from your country         Being an EU citizen        

Q13 How interested in politics would you say you are?  1 - Not at all Interested

 2  3  4  5  6  7 - Very interested  Don't Know

Q14 If there was a General Election in your country next week, do you think you would vote?  Yes, I would vote

 No, I would not vote  Don't Know

(42)

1 - Not at all attached 2 3 4 5 6 7 - Very attached Don't know Your city/ town/ village (the one you were born and raised in)         Your country (the one you were born and raised in)         Europe         5

(43)

Completely disagree Completely agree know The European Union is a good institution for European citizens.         The European Union has failed to connect Europe into one entity, and should cease to exist.         The people of my home country are benefiting from the country's membership in the European Union.         It is important to be updated with European Union news in the media.         My voice counts in the EU        

Q17 In May 2014, the Parliament of the European Union will hold elections throughout Europe. Will you vote?

 Yes, I will vote  No, I will not vote

(44)

 2  3  4  5  6  7 - Very positive  Don't know

Q19 Please indicate to what extent the following statement corresponds or not to your own opinion: You feel you are a citizen of the EU

 Yes, Definitely  Yes, to some extent  No, not really  No, definitely not

Q20 Do you see yourself as...?  Greek only

 Greek and European  European and Greek  European only  None

Q21 Do you see yourself as...?  German only

 German and European  European and German  European only

 None

Q22 How often do you consume foreign news media through television, radio, newspapers and the Internet?

 Never  once a week  2-3 times a week  4-5 times a week  Daily 7

(45)

 2  3  4  5  6  7 - Very positive  Don't know 8