In what ways can SYLFF institutions participate in the FMP-sending and receiving SYLFF fellows to and from other SYLFF institutions? What are the positive aspects of this proposed new program? What difficulties are anticipated?

　

In its contacts with SYLFF fellows, the Scholarship Division has often received inquiries about and requests for a program that would offer fellows opportunities to study or conduct research abroad. To date, the only such follow-up program available was the Visit Japan Program, where SYLFF fellows could apply to Japan for a specific academic purpose, such as conducting research and field work. The proposed SYLFF Fellows Mobility Program (FMP) is an attempt to enlarge the scope of the Visit Japan Program and to more effectively meet fellows' academic needs.

　

Purpose. FMP is envisaged to contribute to and enrich the academic and cultural learning of SYLFF fellows by providing fellowships for non-degree study and research at another SYLFF institution that is directly related to the master's and doctoral degree work at the home institution. In addition, FMP is expected to strengthen linkages among SYLFF institutions and SYLFF fellows.

　

May 2003: announcement of the program by mailing and through the website, and call for nominations.

　

The second cycle will take place in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Towards the end of the second cycle, in the second half of FY2007 (October 1, 2007〜March 31, 2008), the Scholarship Division plans to conduct a program assessment in order to plan the next phase of the FMP.

　

Following an introduction of the University of Sussex-one of the first "new" universities in the United Kingdom under an onerous quality assurance regime, and likely to undergo structural change in the near future-the presenter explained that SYLFF fellowships at Sussex are awarded to students enrolled in one-year, intensive, taught master's programs in three areas: (1)Science, Economic and Environmental Policy, (2)Internationalism, and (3)Gender Roles in Modern Society. Fellowships are usually combined with fee waivers/reductions, and offered annually to two to three students from Central and Eastern Europe, Mexico, and UK.

　

Sussex wishes to work towards establishing a sustainable, mutually beneficial exchange system, and would be pleased to accept PhD SYLFF fellows as visiting researchers or those wishing to take part in a master's program. However, the following challenges can be anticipated:

　

1. Administration. The short period of study (one year) of SYLFF fellows at Sussex will make it difficult for them to apply for FMP in time. In addition, the UK quality assurance system would require detailed agreement/information about the offer at the receiving institution to enable credit recognition at Sussex. An agreed-upon methodology and timetable for the feedback of assessment to the home institution. Accommodation might also present a problem for incoming students.

　

2. Support provision. Since the majority of SYLFF fellows at Sussex are international students, they may encounter difficulties in changing academic and cultural environments in the course of the same year. In the case of PhD students, Sussex would require assurances of the research support and supervision from the host institution.

　

3. Other issues. At the master's level, there would have to be a high degree of compatibility between programs at Sussex and at the counterpart institution. Also, reciprocity needs to be achieved so that the exchange would not be disadvantageous for the receiving institution.

　

Bearing the above in mind, several suggestions were put forward:

　

1. Consider opening FMP to students other than current SYLFF fellows; this can be arranged between each SYLFF institution and the Scholarship Division (e.g. allow non-taught master's students at Sussex to apply)

2. Reconsider the requirement that fellows taking part in FMP return to their home institution to complete their degree (e.g. allow master's students to participate in FMP after the completion of their degree).

3. Reconsider the requirement that the receiving institution be a SYLFF institution (but retain the international requirement). Apart from increasing the number of participants, this would have the added benefit of increasing the profile of the SYLFF Program beyond the SYLFF family.

4. Establish a financial/administrative framework to cope with cases when reciprocity between institutions cannot be achieved.

　

The requirements for implementing the FMP were outlined as follows:

　

(1)Not all SYLFF institutions will want to participate in the Program. Therefore, a call for applicants (i.e. interested institutions) needs to be made and detailed letters of endorsement exchanged between the institutions taking part in the Program.

(2)In order to develop mutual trust between the institutions, information about FMP needs to be distributed to potential counterpart institutions, students, and the staff in the form of a "SYLFF Guide."　

(3)Information in this publication should include: name and address of the institution, academic calendar, contact information of the SYLFF Coordinator, general description of the university, and registration/admission procedures. Institutions should also include logistical information such as: geographical location, getting there, living costs, accommodation, health and insurance, and study facilities.

(4)Information about the department/faculty should be available to applicants: the course structure, course units, grading scale, research projects, and assessment.

(5)Bilateral agreements between the participating institutions should include: numbers of exchange students, period of study, fee waiver details, and signatures of legal representatives of both institutions.

(6)The application form should contain the following items: academic year, field of study, sending institution data, student's personal data, language competence, previous/current study, learning agreement, deadline, receiving institution, and signatures of SYLFF and graduate program coordinators.

(7)In planning the logistics of the FMP, experiences of other exchange programs such as ERASMUS WORLD and ASEAN-EU University Network programs should also be taken into account.

　

Filomena Marques de Carvalho concluded by saying that both the University of Coimbra and its SYLFF Steering Committee fully support FMP.

　

The presenter lauded the Scholarship Division for phasing out programs that did not perform as envisioned, and for taking the initiative to start new programs in their place. She stressed that the experiences from previous and ongoing programs ought to be taken into consideration when planning new ones, and then turned to the questionnaire that was distributed to SYLFF institutions prior to the meeting. The responses of the Oregon University System (OUS) were colored by their context. That is, institutions within the OUS award SYLFF fellowships to PhD students or students in the later phase of their graduate work. Therefore, OUS fellows would not be interested in course work at other institutions, but rather in short-term research trips. Issues that require attention when planning FMP include:

　

1. Details of the exchange agreements need to be worked out beforehand.

2. Experience of other exchange programs would be relevant (ERASMUS, ASEAN-EU, Fulbright, US Great 11)

　

Rather than addressing problems related to FMP, the presenter focused on two points.

1. Language issue. According to the questionnaire responses, English is the first language of instruction at 20 SYLFF institutions; the second language of instruction at 28 institutions; 17 other institutions did not state English as language of instruction. In the responses, only two institutions-Institute of Political Education "Pedro Arrupe" and Vietnam National University, Hochiminh City-stated language as a possible obstacle in implementing FMP. Ankara University did not state language as a problem, but indicated that knowledge of Turkish is required for admission. The language of instruction needs to be defined and, especially in cases of second or third language of instruction, clarification is required. In cases where applicants are proficient in the language of the host institution, problems are not anticipated, but FMP needs to take into account cases where this is not the case.

　

2. Geographical imbalance. It is only natural that some institutions will attract more applicants than others. Thus, it will be difficult to achieve reciprocity between the institutions; this issue needs to be addressed.

　

Renata Dobrowolska: FMP will limit the SYLFF Program at Jagiellonian University, as the current program is devised to provide fellows with opportunities to study abroad. If FMP is implemented, the SYLFF Program at Jagiellonian must be redefined.

Ramli Abdullah: Inquired about the possibility of loosening the eligibility of the FMP.

Mahendra Reddy: Many of the financial obstacles universities face regarding international student exchange will be resolved by the FMP.

Bengt Gustafsson: Uppsala University awards SYLFF fellowships only to postdoctoral students, which would automatically exclude them from participating in FMP.

Constantine Evangelides: The problem of compatibility of courses offered at different institutions, and the need to establish mutual recognition systems were pointed out.

Flora Botton: Rather than looking at differences, FMP should begin with institutions interested in participating, without agreements (as they take too much time), and work out the details along the way.

Kauko Laitinen: Although the University of Helsinki is interested in taking part in FMP, the SYLFF Steering Committee comprises administrators such as the President and Vice President, who will be unable to commit time to facilitating the Program.

Teresa Iriarte: The University of Chile already has candidates who fulfill the requirements, and the university is willing to join the program from its very beginning and work on the details along the way.

Quang Duoc Truong: The Vietnam National University, Hochiminh City, does not issue transcripts to international students; this might hinder students' participation.

Patricia Murphy: Visiting students at the University of California at Berkeley do not receive credits, but the University will be willing to issue certificates stating courses that the students attended and leave recognition up to the sending institution.

Daniel Warner: Suggested that general rules be stipulated by FMP in the form of a general convention, but that the participating institutions be given flexibility to work out detailed matters.

Alexander Fedotoff: FMP will embody the networking issue that has been discussed throughout the meeting.

Surabela Fabian: Princeton University fellows will be more interested in internship programs rather than academic exchange because of the limitations at Princeton regarding accepting/sending students.

Ellen Mashiko: FMP has been presented as a proposal. The Scholarship Division will review all comments and prepare a general convention that will be sent with a questionnaire regarding the convention. Eligibility for FMP is limited to graduate-level students, including perhaps post-master's and post-doctoral students. FMP was restricted to SYLFF fellows primarily for financial reasons. With regard to institutional eligibility, Scholarship Division wishes to begin with SYLFF institutions, and review progress before expanding it to non-SYLFF institutions. An assessment of the Program will be scheduled. As currentlyconceived, the Scholarship Division will provide certificates of participation in FMP and the receiving institutions will issue transcripts or some other form of written proof of attendance.