Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:03 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
22 SES 11 B: Student Mobility
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Understanding the Mobility Gap in European Higher Education: Institutional Factors Shaping Inclusive International Student Mobility 1: Eötvös Loránd University; 2: Tempus Public Foundation Presenting Author:International student mobility has long been positioned as a strategic tool for strengthening European integration, enhancing employability, and fostering intercultural understanding (Carrozza et al., 2017; European Commission, 2021). Within the framework of the European Higher Education Area, student mobility is promoted not only as an individual learning opportunity but also as a mechanism for economic competitiveness and social cohesion (Carrozza et al., 2017; Kmiotek-Meier et al., 2019; Launikari et al., 2020). Nevertheless, extensive empirical research demonstrates that access to international mobility remains highly unequal, reflecting persistent socio-economic, institutional, and structural disparities across Europe (Netz, 2015; Netz, 2021; Roy et al, 2022). The research objective is to examine how higher education institutions in Europe shape participation in international student mobility and contribute to the reproduction or mitigation of the mobility gap. While previous studies have predominantly focused on individual-level determinants, such as students’ socio-economic background or motivation, this study focuses on the institutional dimension, conceptualising universities as active agents in mobility governance rather than passive policy implementers. The research is guided by two questions: (1) What macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors contribute to unequal participation in international student mobility in Europe? (2) Which institutional practices and organisational features support or hinder inclusive access to mobility opportunities? The conceptual framework adopts a multi-level perspective integrating macro-level policy environments, meso-level institutional dynamics, and micro-level student-related factors (Renn & Smith, 2023). At the macro level, the study draws on scholarship on European integration and the internationalisation of higher education, highlighting how supranational policy objectives influence national and institutional agendas (Knight, 2008; Launikari et al., 2020). At the meso level, institutional theory and higher education research inform the analysis of organisational practices, including internationalisation strategies, administrative procedures, selection criteria, funding mechanisms, curricular integration, and support services (Van Mol, 2017; Schnepf et al., 2020; Schnepf et al., 2022). Prior studies demonstrate that merit-based selection systems, limited funding, and weak curricular integration may inadvertently reinforce socio-economic inequalities. At the micro level, the study acknowledges well-documented individual barriers such as financial constraints, social ties, and psychological factors (Cairns et al., 2018; Morley & Cunningham, 2021), while emphasising that institutional environments can significantly amplify or counterbalance these disadvantages. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a mixed-methods design combining a systematic scoping review and a cross-national survey to explore institutional and student-level factors influencing participation in international student mobility. The scoping review followed the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and synthesised European and international literature published between 2015 and 2024. The objective of a scoping review is to extract as much relevant data as possible from the existing literature. This implies that the information collated encompasses not only the results of the studies reviewed, but also the methodology and variables employed (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). A further objective of a scoping review is to provide an overview of the subject area and a comprehensive account of the research and analysis that have been conducted on the issue. The empirical phase consisted of an online survey conducted in 2024 among higher education staff involved in mobility programmes and internationalisation strategies. Purposive sampling was applied to capture expert perspectives from practitioners with operational and strategic responsibilities (Kasza et al., 2024). The questionnaire addressed institutional characteristics, organisational practices, perceived barriers to mobility, and data management approaches. After data cleaning, 103 valid responses from 16 European countries were analysed using descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis, enabling the identification of key institutional dimensions influencing inclusive mobility participation (Schnepf et al., 2022). By integrating systematic literature review findings (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) with empirical evidence from a cross-national survey of university staff (Kasza et al., 2024), the study aims to contribute to scholarly debates on equity and internationalisation while offering practical insights for institutional leaders and policymakers. The third phase of the research involves conducting semi-structured interviews with university staff members responsible for international student mobility at five European universities. The objective of this phase is to gain a deeper understanding of institutional practices and organisational characteristics that shape participation in international mobility. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings confirm that unequal participation in international student mobility cannot be attributed solely to individual student characteristics but is deeply embedded in institutional structures and practices (Schnepf & Colagrossi, 2020; Schnepf et al., 2022). Transparent administrative procedures, early and continuous promotion of mobility, comprehensive preparation, and diversified mobility portfolios emerge as critical enablers of inclusive participation (Souto-Otero et al., 2023). According this study, university staff consistently identified insufficient funding, cost-related concerns, and risks related to employment or income loss as key obstacles, strengthening prior research based on student perspectives (Kasza et al., 2024). The analysis also reveals substantial differences between universities in how they address the mobility gap, largely driven by the presence or absence of a clear strategic approach. Institutions with explicit goals are more likely to recognise student diversity, ensure inclusive access across socio-economic backgrounds, and adapt their strategies in response to external challenges. Overall, the findings underscore that strategic commitment, effective data management, and inclusive institutional practices are key determinants of how successfully universities can address inequalities in international student mobility. The study contributes to European-level debates on inclusion and internationalisation by demonstrating that embedding inclusivity into institutional strategies is essential for ensuring that international student mobility functions as a tool for social cohesion and educational equity rather than elite reproduction. References Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. Cairns, D., Krzaklewska, E., Cuzzocrea, V., & Allaste, A.-A. (2018). Mobility, Education and Employability in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. Carrozza, C., Minerva, G. A., & Santangelo, G. D. (2017). Globalisation, higher education and student mobility. Higher Education, 73(1), 1–17. European Commission. (2021). Erasmus+ Annual Report 2021. Publications Office of the European Union. Kasza, G., Erdei, L. A., Szulovszky, M., Laczik, D., & Dorner, H. (2024). Understanding and Addressing the Mobility Gap in Higher Education: Insights from the EGAP Survey 2024. Eötvös Loránd University. Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Sense Publishers. Kmiotek-Meier, E., Karl, U., & Powell, J. J. W. (2019). The role of higher education institutions in student mobility. European Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 215–235. Launikari, M., Knight, J., & Kälvemark, T. (2020). Internationalisation of higher education: Global trends and European responses. Higher Education Policy, 33(1), 1–15. Morley, L., & Cunningham, R. (2021). International Student Mobility, Equity and Inclusion. University of Sussex. Netz, N. (2015). What deters students from studying abroad? Evidence from Germany. Higher Education, 69(1), 97–115. Schnepf, S. V., & Colagrossi, M. (2020). Is unequal uptake of Erasmus mobility really only due to students’ background? European Educational Research Journal, 19(6), 1–21. Schnepf, S. V., Di Pietro, G., & Colagrossi, M. (2022). University characteristics and social inequalities in international mobility. Higher Education, 84(1), 1–23. Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., de Wit, H., & Vujic, S. (2023). Barriers to international mobility in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 48(3), 1–16. Van Mol, C. (2017). Do Erasmus students constitute a European elite? European Journal of Education, 52(4), 1–14. 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Online as Second Best - Conceptions of International Student Mobility in Internationalization Strategies of German Higher Education Institutions 1: FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany; 2: METU Ankara, Turkey Presenting Author:International student mobility has traditionally played a central role within higher education institutions’ (HEI) strategic internationalization. Positively impacting students (Mittelmeier et al., 2024), supporting domestic students’ outgoing mobility (Marinoni & Pina Cardona, 2024), and acquisition of intercultural competence (Meridha, 2025) have long emerged as institutional aims considered worth pursuing. Physically cross-border mobility has thus become one of the most visible and established dimensions of internationalization. However, the advent of digitization and its uptake within higher education teaching and learning have challenged these established notions of mobility: Pedagogical designs including virtual exchanges (O’Dowd, 2021), collaborative online international learning (Rubin & Guth, 2015) or open virtual mobility (Rajagopal et al., 2020) now enable students’ participation in international exchange and allow for international academic experiences—without physical cross-border mobility. Mobilities combining virtual and on-site elements (O’Dowd & Werner, 2024) further constitute a hybrid approach that complements extended mobility with shorter, targeted initiatives. Not only do these formats offer a new and distinct form of mobility, they also challenge and extend existing understandings of internationalization at large (for example, Bruhn-Zass, 2020; Mittelmeier et al., 2021). In light of the digital transformation, HEI’s strategic internationalization has included diversified mobilities as part of teaching and learning (Ferreira Santos, 2024). Digitization now constitutes a distinctive dimension in internationalization plans (Marinoni & Pina Cardona, 2024), with digitization strategies likewise including internationalization as a field of action (Getto & Buntins, 2021). As an institution’s strategy serves as a point of reference and shared understanding of the aims and means of internationalization (Childress, 2009), strategic documents also make explicit the institutional understanding and aims associated with international student mobility – be it physical cross-border, online or hybrid mobility. Within German higher education, the current sectoral internationalization strategy explicitly includes the potential that digitization holds for mobility within teaching and learning (BMBF & KMK, 2024); affirming earlier educational policy recommendations (Wissenschaftsrat, 2018). However, despite educational policy making on the hand, and extensive research on the international course level on the other, we know little about how HEI positions themselves as institutions towards international student mobility impacted by digitization. In order to address this perceived research gap, we used the concept of virtual internationalization (Bruhn-Zass, 2020)—“the process of introducing an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the delivery, purpose or functions of higher education with the help of information and communications technology (ICT)“ (p. 49, italics in original)”—to investigate how international student mobility is considered across internationalization strategies of German higher education institutions against the backdrop of digitization. Focusing on the dimension “student mobility”, we therefore posited the following research questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In order to answer the research questions, we conducted a qualitative content analysis (Stamann et al., 2016) of internationalization strategies of German higher education institutions that explicitly mention digitization in the realm of teaching and learning. Our sample was derived from a web search of openly available internationalization documents in February 2024, issued by publicly financed German higher education institutions conferring doctoral degrees. Within the initial corpus of 137 HEI matching these criteria (HRK, n.d.), we then manually searched for the internationalization strategies, inserting “Name of the institution AND Internationalisierungsstrategie” into the search engine. In case this search did not yield results, we searched “Internationalisierungsstrategie” on the respective HEI’s webpage. Subsequently, we found internationalization strategies for 69 HEIs. Screening them for references to digitization in relation to internationalization of teaching and learning, we identified 41 documents. In our analysis, we proceeded through an explorative and a focused coding phase. In the first phase, two of us inductively coded the passages referring to international student mobility and digitization, paraphrased extracted passages. Following individual familiarization with the material, in the second phase, we subsumed codes into larger themes, also applying deductive codes provided as part “of “student mobility” in Bruhn-Zass (2020). Both of us reviewed all coded passages and we established consensus in each case through discussion. In support of adherence to credibility and trustworthiness as indicators of quality in qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), we placed importance on discussion and clearly defined steps of analysis. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Out of 41 strategies in the corpus, 36 made reference to an aspect of international student mobility in relation to digitization at least once. The coded passages are subsumed under five core categories directly related to our research questions, and including topics such as “alternative to physical mobility” or “bridge to physical mobility”. However, we also identified the themes “digitization of administration” and “support services” as adjacent topics of interest. In reference to research question one, we preliminarily found that international student mobility is conceived across the strategies as occurring physical, blended or online - thus being more fluid and multifaceted than prior to the wave of digitization. It was noticeable that blended and online mobility were strongly linked to pedagogical design, exemplified in the “virtual classroom”, whereas physical mobility was less associated with pedagogy but rather with the overall experience of being abroad and established ideas of international competences and personal growth. For research question two, across numerous strategies a line of argument emerged that posited physical mobility as the overarching aim, with online mobility being relegated to an addition, an alternative in case of impossibility to participate in physical exchange, or as an enabler and bridge to physical mobility. Online mobility was more strongly associated with students with care responsibilities, special needs or affected by financial constraints or health issues. Thus, despite this social stance, it was perceived only as a second-best option for international experiences. Mobilities blending physical and online formats were addressed in support of sustaining mobilities, but making them more inclusive and aligning with questions of sustainability. Our presentation will depart from these findings, locating them within the broader discourse on the changing patterns of international student mobility and discussing possible repercussions in the realm of research and practice on internationalization strategies of higher education institutions. References Bruhn-Zass, E. (2020). Virtual Internationalization in Higher Education. wbv. Childress, L. K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 289-309. Ferreira Santos, L. (2024). Internationalisation in the digital transformation: A scoping review. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(3), 807-824. Getto, B., & Buntins, K. (2021). Zur Bedeutung von Strategien der Digitalisierung von Studium und Lehre für die Hochschulentwicklung an deutschen Hochschulen: Nur Papiere?. In C. Bohndick, M. Bülow-Schramm, D. Paul, & G. Reinmann (Hrsg.), Hochschullehre im Spannungsfeld zwischen individueller und institutioneller Verantwortung: Tagungsband der 15. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Hochschulforschung (S. 63-81). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marinoni, G., & Pina Cardona, S. B. (2024). Internationalization of higher education: Current trends and future scenarios. International Association of Universities (IAU). Meridha, J. M. (2025). Internationalization of higher education: trends, opportunities, and challenges. SN Social Sciences, 5(11), 1-26. Mittelmeier, J., Lomer, S., Al-Furqani, S., & Huang, D. (2024a). Developing meaningful internationalisation that impacts students’ outcomes in higher education: A scoping review of the literature 2011–2022. Journal of Studies in International Education, 28(4), 503-525. Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2021). Conceptualizing internationalization at a distance: A “third category” of university internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(3), 266-282. O’Dowd, R., & Werner, S. (2024). The first steps of blended mobility in European higher education: A survey of Blended Intensive Programmes. Journal of Studies in International Education, 28(5), 798-817. O’Dowd, R. (2021). What do students learn in virtual exchange? A qualitative content analysis of learning outcomes across multiple exchanges. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101804. Rajagopal, K., Firssova, O., Op de Beeck, I., Van der Stappen, E., Stoyanov, S., Henderikx, P., & Buchem, I. (2020). Learner Skills in Open Virtual Mobility. Research in Learning Technology, 28. Rubin, J., & Guth, S. (2015). Collaborative online international learning: An emerging format for internationalizing curricula. In A. Schultheis Moore & S. Simon (eds.), Globally networked teaching in the humanities. Theories and practices (pp. 27-39). Routledge. Stamann, C., Janssen, M., & Schreier, M. (2016). Searching for the Core: Defining Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(3). Wissenschaftsrat (2018). Empfehlungen zur Internationalisierung von Hochschulen. Geschäftsstelle des Wissenschaftsrates. Abgerufen von https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/7118-18.html 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Broken Desire: Chinese Students’ Abandonment of Overseas Study Amidst the Changing Global Landscape and Geopolitical Tensions Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, People's Republic of Presenting Author:This study investigates the shifting dynamics of International Student Mobility (ISM) in a turbulent global era characterised by the dual shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and escalating geopolitical tensions. While ISM has historically been viewed as an upward trajectory of global integration, this research focuses on a critical counter-trend: the transition from mobility to immobility. Specifically, it examines the "broken desire" of students from top Chinese research universities who have abandoned their plans to study abroad. As China remains the largest exporter of international students, understanding this shift is vital for the global higher education community, particularly for European and international institutions navigating the uncertainties of post-pandemic recruitment and academic exchange. The primary research question guiding this study asks how the changing global landscape—marked by geopolitical rivalries, securitisation of higher education, and public health crises—has shaken and reshaped the desire for mobility among prospective international students. The objective is to move beyond the simplistic binary of "going vs. staying" to unpack the complex decision-making processes, demonstrating how the "global imaginings" of international education (Collins, 2013) are being deconstructed and how students recalibrate their strategies when the global higher education field becomes increasingly fragmented by political interference and rising anti-Asian sentiment (Mok et al., 2024). To analyse the nuanced and dynamic process of mobility desire, this paper employs a robust, multi-scalar theoretical framework grounded in the sociology of desire and Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field. We conceptualise "desire" not merely as a personal wish but as a strategic, temporal process of capital assembly. This lens allows us to interpret the abandonment of study abroad not as a passive failure, but as an active, "calculative" adaptation where students’ dispositions (habitus) restructure themselves in response to a changing global higher education landscape (field) increasingly shaped by geopolitical power struggles (Bourdieu, 1986). Furthermore, we unpack mobility desire across three spatial scales: the macro-level of geopolitical tensions and the erosion of "Western supremacy" myths; the meso-level of mobility infrastructures and institutional networks which are increasingly constrained by geopolitical pressures (Marginson, 2025); and the micro-level shift towards a "calculative self," where the symbolic value of an overseas degree is weighed strictly against economic returns and safety concerns. By grounding the analysis in this comprehensive framework, the study offers a critical international dimension, arguing that the phenomenon of "immobility" reflects a broader crisis in the neoliberal model of global higher education where ISM has transformed into a more security-oriented mechanism (Robertson, 2022). The findings provide essential insights for international stakeholders to understand how geopolitical friction is dismantling traditional mobility bridges and necessitating new models of global academic engagement. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a qualitative research design to provide an in-depth understanding of the shifting dynamics of student mobility and the lived experiences of "immobility." The research draws upon empirical data collected from 31 students enrolled in top research universities in China. The participant selection utilised a purposive sampling strategy, specifically targeting a unique cohort: students who had previously possessed a strong desire and concrete plans to pursue overseas education but ultimately decided to abandon these trajectories due to the impact of the pandemic and escalating global geopolitical tensions. This specific inclusion criterion is critical to the study's objective, as it allows for a direct examination of "broken desire" and the active recalibration of life strategies in response to external crises. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which served as the primary research instrument. This method was chosen to capture the "intricate experiences and perceptions" of the participants, allowing them to articulate the complex interplay between their personal aspirations and the turbulent global environment. The interview protocol was designed to explore how students navigated the uncertainty of the post-pandemic era, their perceptions of changing international relations (such as US-China rivalry), and the specific "tipping points" that led to their decision to opt out of global mobility. For data analysis, the study adopted a multi-scalar thematic analysis framework. The qualitative data were systematically coded and categorised into three distinct levels: the macro-level (international political tensions and economic recessions), the meso-level (alterations in mobility infrastructure and institutional barriers), and the micro-level (individual reassessments of the symbolic value of international study). By synthesising these multi-layered narratives, the methodology rigorously reconstructs how the "calculative self" emerges as a coping mechanism, shifting the focus from the romanticised cultural value of study abroad to a more pragmatic evaluation of economic returns and safety. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings of this study reveal a profound transformation in the logic of international student mobility, demonstrating how geopolitical instability has fundamentally disrupted the "collective imagination" of global higher education. Through a multi-scalar analysis, we identify that participants have actively recalibrated their strategies in response to a hostile global landscape. At the macro level, students perceive international political tensions and economic recessions not merely as background noise but as direct threats to the viability of their educational investments. At the meso level, the deterioration of mobility infrastructure—manifested in visa uncertainties and travel restrictions—has dismantled the practical bridges for overseas study. Most significantly, at the micro level, our analysis uncovers a shift towards a "calculative self." Participants have moved away from viewing study abroad as a journey of cultural exploration and symbolic capital accumulation. Instead, they now adopt a one-dimensional, pragmatic lens, rigorously weighing the economic returns against the heightened risks of health and safety. The symbolic value of a Western degree has diminished, replaced by a preference for stability and predictability within the domestic sphere. Consequently, this study concludes that amid lasting turbulence, the discourse on international student mobility (ISM) must pivot to address the reality of "immobility." The previously shared global imaginings have fractured, marking a departure from the era of unfettered mobility to a new normality where geopolitical friction dictates educational choices, leading to a structural misalignment between student desires and the traditional offerings of the international education market. References Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2022). Student migrants and contemporary educational mobilities. Palgrave Macmillan. Cheng, Y., Koh, S. Y., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2024). International student mobility and the geopolitics of higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 22(1), 1–15. Collins, F. L. (2013). Regional pathways: Transnational imaginaries, infrastructures and spatialities of Asia-Pacific migration. Transnational Social Review, 3(2), 161–176. Huang, F. (2025). Geopolitics and the reshaping of international higher education: A Chinese perspective. Higher Education Policy, 38(1), 45–62. Lee, J. J., & Waters, J. L. (2023). Geopolitics and the internationalisation of higher education: A new research agenda. Higher Education, 86, 1233–1250. Marginson, S. (2025). The new geopolitics of higher education: Global cooperation in a fractured world. Studies in Higher Education, 50(2), 210–225. Mok, K. H., Xiong, W., & Ke, G. (2024). Geopolitics and international student mobility: The case of Chinese students’ study abroad plans. Journal of Studies in International Education, 28(1), 3–22. Robertson, S. L. (2022). Provincializing the West in the global higher education market. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(4), 421–434. Smith, C., & Walsh, T. (2023). Securitisation of science: National security and the changing landscape of international research collaboration. Science and Public Policy, 50(3), 412–425. 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Implementing Student Mobility through Policy Instruments: Institutional Adjustments and Inequalities Université Rennes 2, France Presenting Author:In this communication, we analyse the implementation of student mobility policies in Europe through an instrument-based approach to public policy. Drawing on the framework developed by Lascoumes and Le Galès (2005), student mobility schemes are understood not as neutral technical devices, but as instruments embedded with values, representations and power relations, structuring interactions between European institutions, national governments, higher education institutions and users. This perspective is complemented by Fallon’s work (2022), which highlights the analytical value of policy instruments for understanding institutional adjustment processes and the differentiated effects of public policies across local contexts. Our communication underlines how student mobility in Europe is shaped by two competing supranational frameworks: the European Commission (EC) and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Although their stated objectives appear to converge, their underlying logics differ. Acting within a supporting competence in education, the EC promotes mobility primarily as a lever for employability, competitiveness and European integration, notably through its central role as the main funder of mobility via the Erasmus+ programme. By contrast, the EHEA, originating in the Bologna Process, is based on an intergovernmental logic aimed mainly at academic harmonisation, degree recognition and intercultural competences (Ravinet, 2011). The coexistence of these frameworks generates partially conflicting objectives and tensions in governance modes: while the Commission relies on more prescriptive instruments (indicators, conditional funding), the EHEA operates through non-binding tools grounded in consensus. These tensions help to explain the persistent gap between European ambitions (whether from the EC or the EHEA) and actual mobility outcomes. The target set in the ministers’ Louvain communiqué (2009) for 20% of graduates to experience a mobility period has not been achieved: in 2020, the average mobility rate in the EHEA stood at 8.4%. Significant disparities exist between countries, institutions and students. At a national level, mobility rates vary widely according to economic, political and social contexts (Chankseliani and Hessel, 2016), the cost of living (Souto-Otero, 2008), financial support schemes (Eurydice, 2023) and the degree of institutionalisation of mobility policies (Garneau, 2007). At an institutional level, differences in international attractiveness (Garneau, 2007), mobility preparation and academic organisation contribute to marked inequalities (Lopez-Duarte et al., 2021). Students are also confronted with strong social inequalities in access to mobility, with those from disadvantaged backgrounds being under-represented among mobility participants due to cumulative financial, informational and cultural barriers ((Beerkens et al., 2015; Lopez-Duarte et al., 2021; Bréant et al., 2018). Based on a qualitative study conducted in two French universities, our work examines the local implementation of European mobility policies. Using an instrument-based analytical framework (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2005), we show that institutions appropriate European instruments gradually and selectively, according to their resources and strategic priorities. The Erasmus+ programme exerts a strong normative effect, standardising practices and procedures, yet its implementation reveals a gap between political ambitions and operational capacities. Recent innovations such as hybrid mobility, digitalisation of procedures and European University Alliances require organisational adjustments and increase the workload of international relations staff. They emerge as key actors in policy implementation, resembling the figure of the street-level bureaucrat (Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977), and serve as the interface between mobility’s various stakeholders. This positioning, supported by their training and seniority in the field of international exchanges, gives them an expertise they use to adapt the different requests and recommendations related to funding programs to local resources and constraints. This adjustment work is carried out at different levels, from the reception and follow-up of students applying for a mobility to coordination and information meetings with institutional partners. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study is based on a qualitative research design aimed at examining how European student mobility policies are implemented and reinterpreted at an institutional level. Our analysis focuses on the instruments through which mobility is governed and operationalised, in line with an instrument-based approach to public policy (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2005). We seek to understand how policy objectives are translated into practices, and how actors negotiate the constraints and opportunities associated with European mobility frameworks in their everyday work. Data was collected through a series of semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted in two public universities located in western France. These institutions were selected for their shared engagement in European mobility programmes and for their participation in European-level initiatives, while differing in size, disciplinary profile and organisational history. This comparative design allows for an exploration of both common implementation dynamics and locally specific adjustments, without claiming statistical representativeness. In our study we focus on credit mobility and include mobility schemes targeting academic and administrative staff. The interview sample comprises actors occupying different positions within the governance and implementation of international mobility. Participants include senior university leaders, international relations offices managers, mobility coordinators, and administrative staff involved in the day-to-day management of mobility schemes. Interviews were also conducted with beneficiaries of mobility programmes, in order to capture user perspectives on access conditions and support mechanisms. This multi-level sampling strategy makes it feasible to analyse how European policy instruments are perceived, appropriated and enacted across different organisational layers. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide covering several thematic dimensions: institutional strategies for internationalisation; the role of European instruments in shaping organisational practices; perceived constraints and resources associated with policy implementation; and the social and institutional factors influencing access to mobility. Interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes, were audio-recorded with participants’ consent, and fully transcribed. Data analysis followed a thematic qualitative approach combining deductive and inductive coding. Initial coding categories were informed by the theoretical framework on policy instruments and institutional adjustment (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007; Fallon, 2022), while allowing for the emergence of themes grounded in the empirical material. Particular attention was paid to actors’ narratives of adjustment, discretion and prioritisation, as well as to the effects of instruments on organisational routines and workloads. This analytical strategy enables an examination of how European mobility policies are locally enacted and how their implementation contributes to differentiated institutional practices and inequalities. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings By analysing student mobility through the lens of public action instruments, we aim to highlight a gap between European policy ambitions and the conditions of their implementation within higher education institutions. Grounded in an instrument-based approach to public policy (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2005), building on the work of Fallon (2022), this approach moves beyond a normative or evaluative reading of mobility policies to examine their organisational, social and unequal effects. Our findings show that the coexistence of two European frameworks – the European Commission (EC) and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) – generates partially conflicting injunctions, which translate into an increased complexity of mobility governance and into differentiated institutional adjustments. Far from being neutral, the instruments mobilised shape institutional priorities, structure professional practices and contribute to the production of inequalities in access to mobility across national, institutional and social contexts. Our study, based on interviews with actors involved in implementing mobility policies in two French universities, highlights the central role played by international relations staff and academic mobility coordinators. These actors, who can be likened to street-level bureaucrats (Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977), perform the essential work of translation, mediation and regulation between European frameworks, national constraints and local realities. This work, however, remains invisible within standardised and increasingly digitalised policy instruments, despite being a key condition for the sustainability of mobility schemes and their capacity to fulfil the inclusion objectives assigned to them. From this perspective, analysing student mobility through its instruments does not merely allow for an assessment of policy effectiveness, but calls for a rethinking of the social, organisational and professional conditions underpinning policy implementation. It points to the need to recognise the work of frontline actors and to reconsider governance and steering mechanisms, in order to reduce the gap between European ambitions and local practices. References Beerkens, M., Souto-Otero, M., de Wit, H., & Huisman, J. (2015). Similar students and different countries? An analysis of the barriers and drivers for Erasmus participation in seven countries. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(2), 184–204. Bréant, H., Chauvin, S. & Portilla, A. (2018). Les migrations internationales à l’épreuve du capital social. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 225, p. 8-13. Chankseliani, M. & Hessel, G. (2016). International student mobility from Russia, Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia to the UK: Trends, institutional rationales and strategies for student recruitment. The Centre for Comparative and International Education, University of Oxford. Fallon, C. (2022). Traduction des modèles et prescriptions internationales d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche : analyse comparée des communautés belges. Revue internationale de politique comparée, 2022/1(29), p. 99-125. Garneau, S. (2007). Les expériences migratoires différenciées d'étudiants français De l'institutionnalisation des mobilités étudiantes à la circulation des élites professionnelles ? Revue européenne des migrations internationales, 23(1), 139-161. Lascoumes, P. & Le Galès, P. (2005). Introduction : L'action publique saisie par ses instruments. Dans P. Lascoumes et P. Le Galès (dir.), Gouverner par les instruments (p. 11-44). Presses de Sciences Po. López-Duarte, C., Maley, J. F., & Vidal-Suárez, M. M. (2021). Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8957–8980. Ravinet, P. (2011). La coordination européenne « à la bolognaise ». Réflexions sur l’instrumentation de l’espace européen d’enseignement supérieur. Revue française de science politique, 61(1), p. 23-49. Souto-Otero M. (2008). The socio-economic background of Erasmus students: a trend towards wider inclusion ? International review of education, 54(2), 135-154. Weatherley R. & Lipsky M. (1977). Street-Level Bureaucrats and Institutional Innovation: Implementing Special-Education Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171-197. | ||