1. Flensburg and Roskilde Uni’s  Beatrix Niemeyer-Jensen, Finn Sommer, Henrik Hersom, Christine Revsbech  First impression: Common interest in educational research (adults, youth, community learning and entrepreneurship, vocational schools) What are our activities in the project?

2. Intercult. exchange Job/ education.. Target group Interest points in text

3. Research interest  The interesting and challenging distinction: cross-border activities: the exchange of students and staff and the nature of common activities they engage in transcends the narrow concept of employability: allows for a broader set of work, learning and living experiences.  From the researchers point of view the most interesting aspects would focus around the issue of intercultural experiences, exchange activities and youth and staff mobility, learning- and identity-processes

4. Why ‘exchanges’? (in a learning perspective)  It's mainly drawing on experiences, and the ProNet experiences are strongly underlining it, that going to another country, leaving the familiar context can dramatically influence processes of personal development and contribute to strengthen self confidence and social competences.  At the same time being thrown into or exposed to an unfamiliar cultural context calls for agency: you have to find your way if you don't want to get lost and develop personal support strategies.  Skills (vocational, laguage, social) – training and acknowledgement  Questions of relevance would be (amongst others): How can disadvantaged young people be motivated to participate in cross-border activities? What kind of support do they need? What are individual reasons for mobility or immobility? In relation to gender or migration?

5. Exchanges as entrepreneurial learning  Research perspectives would be: Potential – ideas – action? Innovation as learning processes/innovative competence and behavior. The individual-opportunity nexus! The entrepreneur’s sense of nous, ability to create solutions and meet societal needs -> potentially (social) businesses -> opportunity to reckognize what profession and professionalization is within a trade.

6. ‘Exchanges’ as research take  The educational potential within intercultural experiences has rarely been explicated so far and the implications of transnational mobility, as well as the reasons for immobility are still underresearched. While mobility programs of any kind, e. g. Erasmus, aim at encouraging work and learning mobility they rather treat mobility as an object to be achieved, which can be measured by counting the days travelled, borders crossed, age and number of persons engaged. The social processes which are embedding the related activities (hospitality as well as legislation or the achnowledgement of qualification), the transformation of social relations as well as the individual learning and personal development are out of consideration, although being of great importance when considered from a wider social and educational perspective.  Globalization – interregional competence; demands of greater qualification.

7.  Working WITH and not FOR the participants  Develop the findings WITH the participants  Universities responsible for systemization and sharing results for broader audience: teachers, administrators, politicians, and academics.  Tentative response regarding the process works as a further education and qualification of e.g. teachers as well as developing the project. Action research

8. Questions  Mobility? (Basic education research/ethnography)  Learning through exchanges? – ProFuture experiences (more practice oriented, higher degree of researchers’ involvement)  Staff development and professionalism in exchange activities? (Action research)  Universities facilitating intercultural capacity building.

9. Matching expectations  What will be possible for each of the [university] partners to contribute to the project, what will be possible to do, what are the individual expectations connected with the project?  What is expected from the other project participants?  What, which kind of contributions will be needed in order to fulfill the own plans and research the envisaged aims?

10. Practical questions e.g.  Practical issues: What kind of activities will be planned and how will they be put into practice, i. e. What is actually going to happen?  Project management: How will the steering of the project be organised and arranged?  Role and competences of participating organisations?  Who 'owns' the project? Whose project is it? E. g. are universities considering themselves as partners, as critical friends, as consultants, as evaluators, as observers?  Risk management: What kind of risks might be expected and how could they be managed?  Last but not least: Budget questions

11. P1 ‘Innovation’ – focal points  Research and development  Product development and network collaboration  Technology transfer and health innovation (sustainability?)

12. SWOT 2012: Innovation  Strengths: Collaboration between universities  Weaknesses: Connection to companies  Opportunities: Bridging economy and research; organizations and fora. Health aspect.  Threats: cross-border collaboration is hindered by political administration;