The ERASMUS experience and its capacitating potential: Analysis of adaptive capabilities

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.01.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Proposal for analysing the Erasmus programme from the capabilities approach.

  • Erasmus produces greater individual empowerment and an increase in freedoms.

  • The capacitating effect of adaptation increases with the Erasmus programme.

Abstract

This analysis takes as its focus the Erasmus experience and seeks to obtain information about how it contributes to human development in accordance with the capabilities approach of Amartya Sen and Marta Nussbaum. By way of a qualitative research proposal, and with the support of NVIVO 10 software, evidence is found of the “capacitating potential” of the aforementioned European Union mobility programme. This evidence is detailed through qualitative data–in this case regarding “adaptive capabilities”, representing one of six areas of study pursued in this investigation.

Introduction

This article presents a section of the results that have been obtained from an investigation into the Erasmus study scheme in Spain.2 This initiative is based on a document review from the origins of the programme up to the present day, considering documentation from the area of influence and the agencies involved, and looking at the future prospects of this proposal for mobility; making it possible to approach the object of study in question.

Following on from the above, a theoretical foundation has been developed, which has culminated in a specific conceptual map of human development based on capabilities. This map includes its own proposal of six major areas of capabilities, integrating the theories of authors such as Sen, 1980, Sen, 1995, Sen, 1997, Sen, 1999a, Sen, 1999b, Sen, 2003, Sen, 2006, Sen, 2011, Nussbaum, 1997, Nussbaum, 1998, Nussbaum, 2000, Nussbaum, 2011, Nussbaum, 2015 and both (1993). However, our map attempts to establish itself as a more mixed, multidisciplinary and multidimensional vision. To this end, we have reviewed a variety of initiatives which represent, simultaneously, different paths towards the application of said theory to specific research experiences in the area of education (Boni et al., 2010, Boni and Walker, 2013, Cejudo, 2006, DeCesare, 2014, Deneulin and Townsend, 2006, Flores, 2002, Mutanga, 2014, Sastre et al., 2012, Vaughan and Walker, 2012).

Proceeding from the aforementioned map, a specific category system has been developed and is now in the research phase. This system responds to the need for a tool which enables an assessment of the expansion of capabilities as a consequence of the Erasmus experience, and it establishes a qualitative research design for obtaining the relevant information. Based on this assessment, development itself can be measured (Sen, 1999b). Faced with the question “Is the Erasmus programme favourable to human development?” an affirmative answer will be subject to the expansion of freedoms by way of the capabilities and functionings3 that those involved associate with said experience.

The Erasmus programme has become the most significant programme for European cooperation in Higher Education (and the promotion of mobility). It promises to play an ever-greater role in the future, thus continuing its trend of growth and liberalization. Due to this upward trend, some had anticipated its record-breaking figure of 3 million students during the period 2012–2013. Spain stands out for its leading role both as a contributor and a receiver of students (Valle and Garrido, 2014). This fact has been confirmed recently by the European Commission (2014) in a report about the global impact of the programme.

Moreover, the economic crisis is reinforcing European interest in education. Education, particularly higher education, is seen as being one of the most important areas of cooperation in seeking a way out of the economic crisis (European Commission, 2010, European Council, 2013, EURYDICE, 2012).4 This trend reinforces the role of the Erasmus programme and boosts its aforementioned growth.

In addition, based on the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council (2010), in which the horizon set for 2010 was centred on converting the European brand into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, there begins a predisposition to focus attention on the economic interests attributed to the effects of the programme, pushing social objectives into the background (Valle, 2004). The evolution of these economic interests by Erasmus promotors has determined the latest regulations and this, in turn, has determined the focus of attention as regards the evaluation of the programme’s benefits.

Through certain studies it can also be concluded that the Erasmus programme has a positive impact on the capabilities and skills of participants. In particular, we can speak of capabilities and benefits related to an increase in employability (European Commission, 2014) as well as benefits related to the acquisition of skills and to personal growth (Aguaded and Pozo, 2009, Alfranseder et al., 2012, Fernández, 2010, Fernández et al., 2009, Pineda et al., 2007, Pozo, 2011).

Finally, we find other elements which centre on the debate about a public initiative such as this one. For example, some studies show evidence of inequality as regards the participants’ capacity for choice in scholarships–a fact that correlates with the asymmetry detected with regards to groups of participants and the destinations chosen for mobility (Valle and Garrido, 2009).

In conclusion, it follows that we find ourselves before an educational initiative that is not being analysed in terms of capabilities. However, from the analyses and from current discussions about the initiative, it is possible to locate signs of constraint and potential from a perspective of human development. This fact has led to a focus of attention on Erasmus with the aim of obtaining evidence about the benefits of the programme from another point of view: its contribution to the expansion of capabilities.

In the current context it is possible to locate consolidated criticisms of the belief that the growth of GDP (Gross Domestic Product)5 of nations alone represents their development. Factors such as human development set themselves up as alternatives to this reductionist vision–in this case placing the main focus of attention on the results of global policies regarding the lives of people (all people). From the perspective of Sen and Nussbaum as regards the focus of capabilities, the issue of the representativeness of GDP in development would have to be asked the following question: But are the freedoms of citizens (all citizens) really increasing in terms of real possibilities (capabilities) for their own life projects?

Faced with the above question, and taking the aforementioned approach, a capabilities model based on this vision of development should concern itself both with the expansion of the freedoms of citizens as a means of achieving the life they desire, and with increasing freedoms generally because of the value they provide the citizenship, regardless of their instrumental character. In response to this demand, Sen (1999a) proposes that we focus our attention–in terms of evaluating development (attributed in this case to the Erasmus experience)–on the expansion of capabilities (essentially), but also (although in a secondary form) on functionings. Sen defines and qualifies these concepts as follows:

Functionings represent parts of the state of a person–in particular the various things that he or she manages to do, or be, in life. The capability of a person reflects the alternative combinations of functionings the person can achieve, and from which he or she can choose one collection” (Sen and Nussbaum, 1993, p. 55).

The reason for focussing attention on the expansion of capabilities is connected to the leading role of freedom within this approach (Clark and Fennell, 2014, Nebel et al., 2014). It is about increasing the opportunities for people to progress down the paths that they decide to take, without predefining functionings as indicators of development itself (Ibrahim and Tiwari, 2014). This idea leads to the consideration that functionings must be unpredictable since they depend on the decisions of the people who develop them. But even so, the value that functionings can have as indicators should not be overlooked, even if they play a secondary role as evidence of said choices. In fact, capabilities will manifest themselves as an increase in real opportunities in different fields, thus representing the widening of options that a person has at his or her disposal when faced with decisions involving the different functionings (Hans-Uwe and Schäfer, 2014, Walker, 2012).

From this point onwards, as anticipated, a theoretical model of human development was created for the investigation. This model has six major areas which, in turn, integrate a variety of specific capabilities (Fig. 1). Said model is presented as an open and unfinished proposal that is nevertheless useful in the task of fixing specific indicators of observation. For the creation of this model we returned to the most fundamental concepts of Sen (1999b), translating said contributions, together with other key and contemporary concepts in education, like the concept of collective intelligence (Marina, 2008, Marina, 2010) or the contributions of mirror neurons (Iacoboni, 2009). In essence, a comprehensive proposal of areas of capabilities was developed (something not found in the contributions of Sen). This took inspiration from lists such as Nussbaum’s Central Capabilities, but without claiming the shared (universal) minimums proposed by that author, instead putting together a strategy for locating areas to be observed, based on the central idea shared by both authors: to focus attention on the expansion of people’s capabilities in order to observe authentic development.

In Fig. 1 you can see the areas of general capabilities which represent the initial classification–areas that are later developed in accordance with the framework in which the model lies.

With respect to the contribution that is made here to the discussion within the framework of the capabilities approach, three fundamental features can be highlighted. Firstly, there is an intention to organize a specific proposal by recovering the main theoretical contributions of Sen, while providing a complimentary vision which permits the integration of many other theoretical initiatives. Secondly, concepts are incorporated which, a priori, are not typical in discussions of this approach, with the aim of providing a multidimensional view to the proposal from a pedagogical perspective. Thirdly, this proposal of areas aims to overcome fundamental criticisms of the approach, such as its lack of flexibility (attributed occasionally to the contributions which set specific capabilities); its lack of precision as regards indicators (attributed to Sen, for example); and the excessive individualism of the approach itself (which neglects the dimension of the person as a social being).6

On another level of precision, and following on from the previous proposal, a categorical system is developed for gathering information. This system is based on both a deductive approach (centring attention principally on the pre-established capabilities as defined by theoretical approaches and the model itself) and an inductive approach, given that new capabilities emerge (including some functionings) from the analysis of the information itself, contributing to the map of developments attributed to the Erasmus programme.

Displayed in this article are results relating to one of six areas of capabilities which have been constructed by means of the initial theoretical process described in previous paragraphs. The area examined is that of “capabilities of adaptation” (Fig. 2).

Section snippets

Design and methodology of the investigation

As indicated, the intention has been to obtain evidence about the benefits and effects of the Erasmus programme via the perceptions of those who have participated in the programme as students or been involved in it in some way. In order to design an investigation that would adapt as much to these intentions as to the units of analysis that were intended to be addressed and to the content analysis technique, a wide variety of investigations and authors have served as useful guides: Alonso et al.

Results and discussion

In order to display the results, new categories drawn from the analysis of collected information (sample) will be presented.

In Fig. 4, new capabilities arising from the information itself and framed in each of our initial capabilities from the “adaptive capabilities” area are collected. As can be seen, the new categories are those which appear in a lighter colour, representing a higher level of specification as regards the initial map.

These new capabilities appear in the text with different

Final conclusions. The capacitating power of Erasmus for human development

As anticipated, evidence of a great capacitating power associated with the Erasmus programme has been found. It can be stated that there is a widespread perception shared by a variety of agents that this programme promotes the development of capabilities as regards adaptation of participants to different environments, the development of skills suited to the labour market, the increase in opportunities for employment and a broadening in the range of options for life projects. Evidence has been

References (63)

  • M. Walker

    A capital or capabilities education narrative in a world of staggering inequalities?

    Int. J. Educ. Dev.

    (2012)
  • Álvarez-Gayou J.L., 2003. Cómo hacer investigación cualitativa. Fundamentos y metodología. (How to do qualitative...
  • J.I. Aguaded et al.

    Los alumnos Erasmus en la Torre de Babel. El aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras basado en las competencias comunicativas y en el uso de las TIC. (Erasmus students in the Tower of Babel. Foreign language learning based on communicative competences and the use of ICT)

    Revista Electrónica Teoría de la Educación. Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información

    (2009)
  • J. Alfranseder et al.

    Exchange, Employment and Added Value. Research Report of the ESN Survey 2011

    (2012)
  • L.E. Alonso et al.

    El debate sobre las competencias. Una investigación cualitativa en torno a la educación superior y el mercado de trabajo en España. (The discussion about competences. A qualitative study on higher education and the job market in Spain)

    (2009)
  • Barbour, R., 2013. Los grupos de discusión en investigación cualitativa. (Focus groups in qualitative research)....
  • S. Barone et al.

    Acción educativa y desarrollo humano en la universidad de hoy. (Educational action and human development at university today)

    Revista Iberoamericana de Educación

    (2003)
  • A. Boni et al.

    Human Development and Capabilities

    (2013)
  • A. Boni et al.

    La Educación Superior desde el enfoque de capacidades. Una propuesta para el debate. (Higher Education from the capabilities' approach. A proposal for discussion)

    REIFOP

    (2010)
  • R. Cejudo

    Desarrollo humano y capacidades. Aplicaciones de la teoría de las capacidades de Amartya Sen a la educación. (Human development and capabilities. Applications of Amartya Sen's theory of capabilities to education)

    Revista Española de Pedagogía

    (2006)
  • D.A. Clark et al.

    Democratic freedoms, capabilities and public provision: a defence and some possible extensions

    J. Hum. Dev. Capabilities A Multi Discip. J. People Centered Dev.

    (2014)
  • T. DeCesare

    Theorizing democratic education from a senian perspective

    Stud. Philos. Educ.

    (2014)
  • P. Demerath

    The science of context: modes of response for qualitative researchers in education

    Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ.

    (2006)
  • S. Deneulin et al.

    Public goods, global public goods and de common good

    Int. J. Soc. Econ.

    (2006)
  • N.K. Denzin et al.

    Manual de investigación cualitativa. Volumen I. El campo de la investigación cualitativa. (Qualitative research manual. Volume I. The field of qualitative research)

    (2012)
  • A. Dubois

    El debate sobre el enfoque de las capacidades: las capacidades colectivas. (The discussion on the approaches to capabilities: collective capabilities)

    Araucaria

    (2008)
  • EURYDICE (2012). Cifras clave de la educación en Europa 2012. (Key numbers in European education 2012). Eurydice,...
  • European Commission, 2010. Communication from the Commission of 3 March 2010 − Europe 2020 A strategy for smart,...
  • European Commission, 2014. The Erasmus Impact Study. Effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students...
  • European Council

    The Lisbon Special European Council: towards a Europe of Innovation and Knowledge

    (2010)
  • European Council (2013). Council Conclusions on investing in education and training — a response to ‘Rethinking...
  • S. Fernández et al.

    Movilidad internacional de la Universidad Española: Análisis regional e institucional del programa Sócrates-Erasmus. (International mobility in Spanish universities: regional and institutional analysis of the Socrates-Erasmus programme)

    Revista de Estudios Regionales

    (2009)
  • M. Fernández

    La movilidad: sello distintivo del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. (Mobility: the hallmark of the European Higher Education Area)

    Revista de Formación e Innovación Educativa Universitaria

    (2010)
  • P. Flores

    La búsqueda de nuevas explicaciones sobre la relación entre educación y desigualdad. El caso de la Universidad Tecnológica de Nezahualc. (The research of new explanations for the relationship between education and inequality. The case of the Technological University of Nezahualc)

    Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa

    (2002)
  • O. Hans-Uwe et al.

    New Approaches Towards ‘The Good Life’: Applications and Transformations of the Capability Approach

    (2014)
  • G.L. Huber et al.

    Análisis de datos cualitativos con Aquad cinco para Windows. (Qualitative data analysis with Aquad 5 for Windows)

    (2001)
  • M. Iacoboni

    Las neuronas espejo. Empatía, neuropolítica, autismo, imitación, o de cómo entendemos a los otros

    (2009)
  • S. Ibrahim et al.

    The Capability Approach: From Theory to Practice

    (2014)
  • Kolenic, G.E., 2013. Introduction to NVivo 10. Center for Statistical Consultation and Research (CSCAR). Retrieved on...
  • J.A. Marina

    La inteligencia fracasada. Teoría y práctica de la estupidez. (Failed intelligence. Theory and practice of stupidity)

    (2008)
  • J.A. Marina

    Las culturas fracasadas. El talento y la estupidez de las sociedades. (Failed cultures. Societies' talent and stupidity)

    (2010)
  • Cited by (12)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Deceased.

    View full text