1. The Road not Taken - the role of higher education in bridging the gap between a student’s own world and that of global competence Anna Lindahl Director of International Affairs, School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University Sweden

2. The Minor Field Studies Scholarship Program

3. Our participation and rationale Early 90s as sub-unit within a university 2007- today annually Tool towards comprehensive internationalization Create access to entire OECD DAC-list Internationalization beyond a big city exchange

4. Focus and scope

5. Focus 2007-2015 Project plans sent in Choice of country and motivation why

6. Scope 81 project plans 141 applicants in total 81 available scholarships

7. Idea Do our students fully grasp the possibility? A program and geographical scope that is less like traditional exchange A less traditional student population Stretch of the imagination (too far?)

8. Q: Can an HEI in Sweden convince its students that understanding of the world beyond that which is known and ’safe’ is of relevance?

9. ’Hypothesis’ ”…if we can understand the rationale behind why a student would chose a certain country on the OECD DAC-list for their project, it could help us encourage others to follow in their footsteps.” ”…students are not necessarily hesitant about applying for funding for a field study project itself, [--] it is the connection between doing a field study project and where that presents the challenge in the case of the MFS program.”

10. Setting

11. Low-skilled region 50% regional students first generation academics 90% born in Sweden 90% under 30 years of age 50% women 50% single 99% without children 40% work alongside studies 80% use government loans and grants

12. Study

17. 5. Overview per year of countries chosen for the projects 2007-2015 2007Colombia, Cambodia, South Africa, Uganda 2008Georgia, India 2009Brazil, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand (2) 2010Ecuador, Gambia, India (2), Nepal, Philippines (2), Rwanda, South Africa, Thailand 2011China, Gambia, India (2), Philippines, South Africa 2012 Botswana, Brazil (2), China, Colombia, Cuba, Gambia, India (2), Jamaica, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Vietnam, Zambia 2013Brazil (2), China (4), Ethiopia, Indonesia (2), Mexico, Nicaragua, Tanzania 2014 Bangladesh, China (3), Cuba, India, Malaysia (2), Mexico (2), Philippines, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Vietnam 2015China (2), Cuba (2), Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, South Africa

18. Rationale and argumentation 10 projects do not state any reason 4 refer to exchange experience or other mobility as an influence for doing the study 18 projects argue connections to a company or organization (case studies) 14 projects argue personal contacts or experiences as their motivation (incl. exchange)

19. 1 project claimed influence from academic tutor locally 7 projects argued potential future professional careers in those countries 30 projects argued ’best country for the study’ 8 argued specific economic development in that country 4 argued ties between the country and Sweden or Swedish companies as the reason 4 argued a unique object or study or MFS-study

20. Conclusions

21. Contacts, personal or corporate/organizational + match between country and study  Contacts are the origin to the choice of project and country  Matching shows no clear rationale

22. Q: Can an HEI in Sweden convince its students that understanding of the world beyond that which is known and ’safe’ is of relevance? A: The program should fit the student group in time scope and funding. Should also be able to cater to a group who do not chose traditional exchange.

23. a)Promote and facilitate networking to create contacts for projects b) Do our lecturers integrate a global perspective into their classes?

24. A different study might be able to tell if the road not taken is the result of a world only half shown…