Return to Article Details The Fulbright Impact Study in the Academic Fields of Arts, Social Sciences and Natural Sciences in Hungary Between 1984 and 2011

I. The Fulbright Impact on Arts and Social Sciences in Hungary

Introduction

In this study I intend to analyze the effects of the Fulbright mobility on the competences of the participants and the internationalization of Higher Education Institutions in Hungary, in the period of 1984-2011. First, I analyze the effects of Fulbright mobility on individual skills. Seondly, I examine the impact of the Fulbright Program on the internationalization of Higher Education Institutions in Hungary. In order to analyze the impact of the Fulbright mobility on skills development and the internationalization of higher education institutions, I reviewed related literature, designed the methodology and decided to conduct an online survey. The Hungarian Fulbright Association provided me with the necessary database containing email addresses of former Hungarian Fulbrighters. To answer the research questions, I carried out a quantitative survey. An online questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 150 Fulbright Alumni, from the period between 1984 and 2011, thanks to the access to the database of the Hungarian Fulbright Association in Budapest. There were two target groups among the Fulbrighters, according to their academic disciplines: The first one consisted of former grantees, whose fields were mostly connected to social sciences. In the second target group were Fulbright scholars, whose fields were connected mostly to natural sciences. The questions of the online questionnaire were mostly related to soft skills, such as knowledge of other countries, adaptability, ability to interact and work with individuals from different countries, foreign language proficiency, communication skills and teamwork skills. The specialized fields of the Fulbrighters involved in this survey are: Literary studies; American studies; Plant genetics; Philosophy; Applied linguistics; Management and business administration; Media studies; International management; Law; Nanoscience; Modern and contemporary history; Sociology of education; Biochemistry; Geology; Cultural diplomacy; Cell biology; Food microbiology; Behavioral Economics; Biotechnology; Environmental economics; Music; Piano Pedagogy; Library and information science; US-Hungarian relations; Onco-radiodiagnostics; Paleontology; Translation of US folk-poetry.

As a primary source, were used the results of the Erasmus impact study, about the effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students and the internationalization of higher education institutions, document prepared by a research team of the European Commission in September, 2014. Another important primary source I used, was The Economic and Political Impact of Study Abroad by Gerald W. Fry, published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International Education Society. According to Gerald W. Fry, the migration of scholars can be considered as a universal phenomenon, characteristic of most societies with the exception of nations with isolationist policies. The study also states, that overseas experience can be a major stimulant fostering social change. Experience in another political, cultural, social, and economic environment can be a powerful motivating force. The study in the University of Chicago Press, relates some positive effects of study abroad, such as:

On the other hand, there might be some possible negative effects of study abroad, such as:

The Erasmus program in general, and the student mobility programs for studies and placements, in particular, have three different aims: they wish to offer individuals personal experience, but in addition they have an economic and an academic impact. International experience is seen as a means of improving skills that are important for employees as well as employers and increase the internationalization of the higher education institutions.

Key Findings of the Erasmus Impact Study

The analysis started by exploring the reasons that students gave for going abroad, as well as the main reasons for deciding against a mobility experience. Over 90% of the mobile students wanted to experience living abroad, to develop skills such adaptability, and to improve their language abilities. All of these aspects played a major role when analyzing the skills and the career development of mobile students. In the case of the Erasmus Impact Study, more than 90% of the students reported an improvement in their soft skills, such as knowledge of other countries, their ability to interact and work with individuals from different cultures, adaptability, foreign language proficiency and communication skills. In addition, 99% of the Higher Education Institutions saw a substantial improvement in their students’ confidence and adaptability. Employability and competences of students greatly benefit from mobility, often more than what they had expected, but sometimes less than they might have thought.

The Erasmus Impact Study also observed the effects of mobility on other skills related to employability that could only be analyzed based on the statements of respondents. More than 90% of the students reported an improvement in their soft skills, such as knowledge of other countries, their ability to interact and work with individuals from different cultures, adaptability, foreign language proficiency and communication skills. In addition, 99% of the Higher Education Institutions saw a substantial improvement in their students’ confidence and adaptability.

Mobility Strongly influences One’s Career as Well as Social Life

In addition to skills, the Erasmus Impact Study also analyzed the impact of mobility on working life and career. Job placements seem to have a specifically direct effect in that more than one in three students who did an Erasmus work placement was offered a job by their host company and they also seem to foster entrepreneurship: almost 1 in 10 students on a job placement started their own company, and more than 3 out of 4 plan to or can envisage doing so. Mobility also affects employment rates. Former mobile students are half as likely to experience long-term unemployment compared with those not going abroad. Even five years after graduation, the unemployment rate of mobile students was 23% lower than for non-mobile students. Of the employers questioned, 64% report that graduates with an international background are given greater professional responsibilities more frequently, a proportion that has increased by 51% since 2006. Of the Erasmus alumni surveyed, 77% held positions with leadership components ten years after graduation, and Erasmus alumni were 44% more likely to hold managerial positions than non-mobile alumni ten years after graduation (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320267535_The_Erasmus_Impact_Study_Effects_of_mobility_on_the_skills_and_employability_of_students_and_the_internationalisation_of_higher_education_institutions).

The Internationalization of Hungarian Higher Education Institutions Benefits Substantially from Mobility, but Services and Recognition Can Still Be Improved.

Apart from the effects on individual students, EIS also analyzed the possible impact of mobility on the HEI itself, its staff, teaching and curriculum, its cooperation, its services and the strategic aspects of internationalization. In general, a majority of higher education institutions consider Erasmus to be the most relevant strategic asset of any educational program offered to students. Of the various Erasmus actions, study mobility is considered the most important in relation to internationalization by 83% of higher education institutions and for their international profile46% of Erasmus students have a non-academic family background, the same proportion as other mobility programs; 62% of those that are non-mobile come from a non-academic background. The main barriers to an experience abroad are a lack of financial resources to compensate for the additional costs and personal relationships background, the same proportion as other mobility programs; 62% of those that are non-mobile come from a non-academic background. The main barriers to an experience abroad are a lack of financial resources to compensate for the additional costs and personal relationships.

Key Findings of the Fulbright Impact Study

In this study quantitative research methods were used, and some of the outcomes can be compared with the results of the Erasmus Impact Study. In my research study, as basic primary source I used data from the Almanach of the Hungarian Fulbright Association between 1992 and 2012. I was especially focusing on the period of 1984-2011. First, I prepared a list containing the names and data of 230 former Fulbrighters from the above period (See Attachment), and then I tried to divide the grantees according to academic disciplines. According to this approach, I prepared two separate online questionnaires, one for Social sciences and the other one for Natural sciences.

The Aims of the Survey

Through analysis of the online questionnaires with former Hungarian Fulbrighters, who went to the United States as Fulbright researchers, lecturers, students, high school teachers and other participants of the Program, through their personal experience, I would like to highlight the process of reciprocal learning from each other in a foreign country, in an informal way, which stands beyond the professional development. The participants of the questionnaires are both men and women, from different fields of arts and sciences, taking part in the Program in the period of 1984-2011, as grantees.

My aim in this study is to prove, that the significance of this program is evident: as grantees, through the network can communicate, share further experiences, plan new activities, and involve other people to join the international group. They may change the world and a specific way of thinking. The program can serve as a road sign. It can be a form of intercultural education, according to the original spirit of the program and according to the American way of thinking.

Research Methods Employed

In order to answer the research questions, two quantitative surveys were conducted. One of the questionnaires focused on fields related to social sciences; the other focused on fields related to natural sciences. In total, the sample for the study comprises 54 individual responses. The dates of the survey were:1st -22nd June, 2019. The questions of the online questionnaire were related to:

Two questionnaires had been prepared, one containing fields related to social science:

The second online questionnaire was sent to former Fulbrighters from the period of: 1984-2011, in the field of natural sciences, such as:

Detailed Evaluation of the Fulbright Questionnaires Related to Arts and Social Sciences

The questionnaire was sent to 100 Fulbright alumni. Because of technical problems (full mailboxes, invalid email addresses), the questionnaire reached 50 people. Out of these, 35 from the field of social sciences filled out the form, among these, 51,5% males and 48,5% females in total. The focus group consisted of 17 male and 16 female former Fulbrighters, from the field of social sciences, who had accepted my invitation to take part in the research. The first question was connected to gender, as I was interested to know the rate of participation in the program of men and women.


I have found, that the rate among males and females participating in Fulbright mobilities, is almost the same.


I was interested in the family background, because in the Erasmus impact study, turned out, that it can have a minor influence on mobility. In my study, the participation of Fulbrighters with academic background is 11% higher.


According to the results, the participation in Fulbright mobilities of grantees is much higher between the ages of 20-49.


48, 5% among the participants had the field of study: Humanities and 15,2% Law.


According to the results, the top motivations for 97% of the Fulbrighters was professional development, and only for 3% institutional benefits.


The reasons for the study abroad were very complex and varied. For the majority (78,8%), the main reason was opportunity to develop their own competences in their field. The second reason was benefits for their future career development in their home country.

The next two, most important reasons according to the results of the questionnaire, are: quality of the host institution and opportunity to experience different learning practices and teaching methods. After that comes the opportunity to meet new people. The question is relevant, because it can highlight the institutional and individual benefits of the Fulbright Program.


The rate of participation of Hungarian researchers is the highest (33. 3%). After that comes the Hungarian Student Program with 18. 2%. The Scholar-in Residence (SIR) Program is the third most popular, having a rate of 15. 2%.


The members of the Fulbright focus group, visited in total 31 institutions of higher education in the U.S, among them the most famous universities in the U.S. Two of them visited Columbia Law School.


The next question was related to the goals of the Fulbright mobility. For 39. 4% of the participants, research, dissertation research for 21. 2% and study for 15. 2% were the main goals.



From the point of view of internationalization of own institution, outstanding skills are according to the results: ability to interact and work with individuals from different countries, knowledge of other countries, analytical and problemsolving skills.


In this study, 100% of the former Fulbrighters confirmed, that the Fulbright mobility had considerable effect on personal career and social life.

Conclusion

In my study, I was looking at the long-term impacts of the Fulbright Program on the participants in the field of social sciences. The participants of the Fulbright focus group were professors, lecturers, doctoral candidates from the period of 1984-2011, from different Hungarian higher education institutions. The Hungarian Institutions involved in my research, were:

After evaluating the results, I discovered, that 100% of the scholars, who completed the questionnaire, agree that the Fulbright Program has considerable impact on the participants’ career and social life. The most important skill considered by the participants, is the ability to interact and work with individuals from different countries. The Hungarian Fulbright scholars, who completed the questionnaire, visited 31 higher education institutions from the U.S. and could have insight into their best practices. The top motivation for taking part in the Program, was professional development. The benefits of the Program for future career development in the home country, according to the participants, is evident. The program gives equal opportunity both for men and women, with academic or non-academic background, and the aim is, to develop the participants’ own competences in their field. In this sense, Géza Jeszenszky, one of the early birds of the Hungarian Fulbright scholars stated on Fulbright Day in September 24, 2010 that the Fulbright Program contributed to good solutions in politics, economics, science and scholarship, by spreading the most advanced results in science, by overcoming ignorance, intolerance, old prejudices and opened the world for many people who can influence the thinking of new generations by building friendships. Graham Binns claimed in the 1st Newsletter of the British Fulbright Scholars Association in 1983 that “All of us who have enjoyed American hospitality look for positive ways in which to get to know, to help, to enjoy the company of the visiting Fulbright people — particularly those whose tastes and interests come close to our town.”

II. The Fulbright Impact on Natural Sciences in Hungary

The purpose of my study’s second part is, to compare and contrast the results of the Natural Sciences Fulbright Impact Study with the Fulbright Impact Study in the Academic Field of Social Sciences. Both of the surveys were conducted in the period of: 1-22 June, 2019, with the participation of 55 former Fulbright grantees altogether. The special fields of the Fulbrighters involved in this survey are, according to the Almanac of the Hungarian Fulbright Association: 1992-2012: Architecture, Plant genetics, Environmental and agricultural bioethics, Structure and function of metalloproteins, Microbial ecology of waterbodies, Nucleic acids structure and function, Reaction kinetics, Research and development of new pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals, Nanoscience, Plant physiology, Chemistry and spectroscopy of nanomaterials, Wetland ecology, Biochemistry, Road safety, European and national climate change policy and science, Speech technology, High energy particle and nuclear physics, Algorithms, applications of computers Cell biology, Endocrinology, Food microbiology, Ecology.

I used quantitative research method, inviting 50 former Fulbrighters from the target group, to complete an online questionnaire. By analyzing the results, I could compare and contrast the outcomes, with the results of my first study. The questions were the same as in the case of the first Google form, only the target group was different. In this study, the target group consisted of Hungarian Fulbright scholars, whose field was connected mostly to natural sciences, in the period of: 1984-2011. The online questionnaire was sent to 50 former Fulbright grantees, and it was completed by 23 scholars. The questions were exactly the same as in the case of the Social sciences questionnaire. The period of the survey was between 1st of June and 22nd of June, 2019. The questions of the online questionnaire were related to the following areas:

Detailed Evaluation of the Google Forms for Fulbrighters in Natural Sciences


In this survey, 95. 5% of the participants were male, and only 5% female.
In the “Social sciences” survey, the rate was: 48. 5% females and 51. 5% males.


The number of participants with academic and non-academic background in the case of the Natural Sciences Study, is exactly the same. In the Social Sciences Study, this rate was: 45. 5% with non-academic background, and 54. 5% with academic. According to the findings, people with academic or non-academic backgrounds have equal or almost equal chances to take part in the Fulbright Program.


According to the results, the majority (40. 9%) of the former Fulbrighters were between the age of 30-39, when they took part in the mobility. In the case of Social Sciences, the rate was almost exactly the same, 42. 4%. The conclusion is, that there is no, or very little difference between the results of the two surveys from this point of view.


Natural sciences (22. 7%) and medical sciences (18. 2%) were the most popular fields of study. In the case of the first Fulbright Impact Study study, 48. 5% was the highest rate, which is the field of Humanities.


81% of the questioned stated, that the opportunity to live abroad and to meet new people is the top motivation. In the Social studies survey, 97% of the questioned said, that professional development is the top motivation. The answers to this question are completely different in the two surveys.


77. 3% of the participants consider, that the opportunity to develop their own competences in their field, benefits for their future career development in their home country and the quality of the host institution are the most important reasons for applying for a Fulbright grant. In the case of the field of social studies, 78. 8% said, that opportunity to develop their own competences in their field, benefits for their future career development in their home country and opportunity to live abroad were the most important reasons for participation.


According to the results, 54. 5% of the participants took part in a Hungarian Researcher Program, and 18. 2% participated in the Scholar-in Residence (SIR) Program. The next most popular program was, the Fulbright Classroom Teacher Exchange Program, 13. 6%. In the first survey (The Fulbright Impact Study in the Academic Field of Social Sciences /1984-2011/), the rate of participation of Hungarian researchers is the highest at 33. 3%. After that comes The second most popular type of Fulbrigh mobility is the Hungarian Student Program at 18. 2%. The Scholar-in Residence (SIR) Program is the third most popular, having a rate of 15. 2%.


The results show, that the grantees of this focus group, visited 20 institutions of higher education in the U.S. In the Social Studies survey, the members of the Fulbright focus group, visited in total 31 institutions of higher education in the U.S., among them the most famous universities in the U.S. Two grantees visited Columbia Law School. In both surveys, the results show, that the grantees visited Rutgers University and Stanford University.


For 50% of the questioned grantees, the goal of the Fulbright mobility was dissertation research. In the case of the “Social Sciences Fulbright Survey” for 39. 4% of the participants, research, dissertation research for 21. 2% and study for 15. 2% were the main goals.


45. 5% of the Fulbright grantees were professors and lecturers and 31. 8% doctoral candidates. In the first survey, the proportion of professors and lecturers was 42. 4% while doctoral candidates participated in the proportion of 36. 4%.


According to the participants, the most important skills that developed during their stay abroad, are analytical and problem-solving skills (36. 4%) and ability to interact and work with individuals from different countries (31. 8%). If we compare the results with the “Social Sciences Survey”, we can find, that from the point of view of internationalization of own institution, outstanding skills are the ability to interact and work with individuals from different countries (36. 4%) knowledge of other countries (21. 2%), analytical and problem-solving skills (21. 2%).


I this study, 86. 4% of the participants agree, that the Fulbright mobility had a considerable
impact on their career and only 13. 6% of the grantees have a different opinion. In the “Social Studies Survey”, the participants share a different view, 100% of the former Fulbrighters confirmed that the Fulbright mobility had considerable effect on personal career and social life.

Conclusion

In this Fulbright impact study, my aim was, to compare and contrast the results of the Natural Sciences Fulbright Impact Study with the Fulbright Impact Study in the Academic Field of Arts and Social Sciences. Both of the surveys were conducted in the period of: 1-22 June, 2019, with the participation of 55 former Fulbright grantees altogether. According to the results, I found the following similarities:

Moreover, other results of my comparative survey showed the following results:

In the Natural Sciences Fulbright Impact Study study, 86. 4% of the participants agree, that the Fulbright mobility had a considerable impact on their career and only 13. 6% of the grantees have a different opinion. In the Social Studies Survey, 100% of the former Fulbrighters confirmed, that the Fulbright mobility had a considerable effect on personal career and social life.

The differences in the Results of the Two Surveys show that:

The final conclusion of the evaluation, about the effects of the Fulbright Program on personal career and social life, might be connected to gender and field of study of participants. In the Social Studies Survey, where the participation of male and female grantees is almost equal, 100% of the Fulbright alumni said, that the impact of the Program is considerable. In the Natural Sciences Fulbright Impact Study, only 86,4% of the asked share this view.

 

Works cited


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.