UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES English language and translation
Sanna Mari Pennanen
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONALISATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND:
A Study on International Students’ Experiences in Doctoral Degree Programmes on the Joensuu Campus
MA Thesis
May 2016
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Tiedekunta – Faculty Philosophical Faculty
Osasto – School School of Humanities Tekijät – Author
Sanna Mari Pennanen Työn nimi – Title
English language and internationalisation at the University of Eastern Finland: a study on international students’ experiences in doctoral degree programmes on the Joensuu campus
Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä – Date
Sivumäärä – Number of pages
English Language and Translation
Pro gradu -tutkielma x
30 May 2016 70 pages + Appendices Sivuainetutkielma
Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Tiivistelmä – Abstract
The aim of the study is to see if English is the only language used in international settings at the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) and whether there are aspects in the university’s language policy that are found impractical by the international doctoral degree students. The research is carried out by doing discourse analysis on selected parts of the English version of the website of the UEF and by interviewing foreign doctoral degree students by means of a focus group and a thematic interview.
Because of the status of the English language, the theoretical framework of this study first reviews English as a global language (e.g. Crystal 2003, Melchers and Shaw 2003) and English as lingua franca (e.g.
Mauranen 2012, Seidlhofer 2005). The main theoretical framework consists of internationality (e.g.
Foskett 2010, Wächter and Maiworm 2002) and language policy (e.g. Jenkins 2013, Saarinen and Nikula 2013). In addition, Joensuu and the UEF are presented for background information. Furthermore, some aspects of the Finnish legislation and the development of the European higher education are included to clarify the different factors that all international universities need to consider in their practices.
The hypotheses of this study were that English would be the only language used when dealing with international matters and that some language practices of the UEF would be impractical. Both of these hypotheses were at least partly correct: English is the main language used when communicating with international students, and some language practices do not serve their purpose in the best possible way.
The study suggests that although the image of the UEF is internationally oriented, its English version of the website is not a fully coherent entity. The level of English at UEF’s website and other electronic services was not criticised, and the language skills of the staff and students was considered mostly
sufficient. The interviewees are most bothered by the inconsistency of providing information either in both Finnish and English or only in Finnish. The interviewees predict that setting the tuition fees for students coming from outside the EU and EEA areas would decrease interest in the UEF internationally. The results suggest that the attraction of a university leans largely on the local labour market. In conclusion, the UEF comes very close to Foskett’s (2012: 44–45) definition of an internationally focused university, where the level of achievement in internationalisation is strong in many dimensions. However, the study suggests that some aspects in the international practices of the UEF still require attention.
Avainsanat – Keywords
Higher education, internationality, University of Eastern Finland, ELF, ELFA
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Tiedekunta – Faculty Filosofinen tiedekunta
Osasto – School Humanistinen osasto Tekijät – Author
Sanna Mari Pennanen Työn nimi – Title
English language and internationalisation at the University of Eastern Finland: a study on international students’ experiences in doctoral degree programmes on the Joensuu campus
Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä – Date
Sivumäärä – Number of pages
Englannin kieli ja kääntäminen
Pro gradu -tutkielma x
30.5.2016 70 sivua + liitteet Sivuainetutkielma
Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Tiivistelmä – Abstract
Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on selvittää, käytetäänkö Itä-Suomen yliopiston kansainvälisissä toiminnoissa muita kieliä kuin englannin kieltä, ja onko yliopiston kielipoliittisissa käytännöissä sellaisia osa-alueita, jotka olisivat epäkäytännöllisiä kansainvälisten tohtoriopiskelijoiden näkökulmasta. Tutkimuksessa analysoidaan Itä-Suomen yliopiston englanninkielisiä verkkosivuja diskurssianalyysin keinoin, sekä haastatellaan ulkomaalaisia tohtoriopiskelijoita fokusryhmä- ja teemahaastatteluiden avulla.
Englannin kielen valta-asemasta johtuen tutkimuksen teoreettisen viitekehyksen alussa tarkastellaan englantia maailmankielenä (esim. Crystal 2003, Melchers ja Shaw 2003) ja englantia lingua francana (esim. Mauranen 2012, Seidlhofer 2005). Tutkimuksen pääasiallinen teoreettinen viitekehys koskee kansainvälistymistä (esim. Foskett 2010, Wächter ja Maiworm 2002) ja kielipolitiikkaa (esim. Jenkins 2013, Saarinen ja Nikula 2013). Taustamateriaalina esitellään Joensuun kaupunki ja Itä-Suomen yliopisto.
Lisäksi teoreettiseen viitekehykseen sisältyy osioita Suomen laista ja eurooppalaisen korkeakoulu- opetuksen kehityksestä, sillä ne avaavat tekijöitä joita kansainvälisten yliopistojen on huomioitava.
Tutkimuksen hypoteeseina olivat, että englanti on ainoa kieli jota Itä-Suomen yliopistossa käytetään kansainvälisissä tilanteissa, ja että kielellisissä käytännöissä on epäkäytännöllisiä osa-alueita. Molemmat hypoteesit pitivät ainakin osittain paikkaansa: kansainvälisten opiskelijoiden kanssa käytetään pääosin englantia, ja jotkin kielelliset käytännöt eivät ole täysin tarkoituksensa mukaisia.
Tutkimuksessa esitetään, että vaikka Itä-Suomen yliopisto on kansainvälisesti suuntautunut, sen
englanninkielinen verkkosivut eivät muodosta johdonmukaista kokonaisuutta. Haastatteluissa ei kritisoitu verkko-sivujen ja muiden elektronisten palveluiden englannin kielen tasoa, ja henkilökunnan ja opiske- lijoiden kielitaitoa pidettiin pääosin riittävänä. Haastateltavia häiritsee eniten kielitarjonnan epäjohdon- mukaisuus: osa materiaalista on sekä suomeksi että englanniksi ja osa vain suomeksi. Haastateltavat arvelevat EU:n ja ETA:n ulkopuolelta tuleville opiskelijoille asetettavien lukuvuosi-maksujen vähentävän Itä-Suomen yliopiston kansainvälistä vetovoimaa. Tutkimuksessa esitetään, että yliopiston vetovoima nojaa paikallisiin työvoimamarkkinoihin. Tutkimuksessa päätellään, että Itä-Suomen yliopisto on toimin- nallaan hyvin lähellä Foskettin (2012: 44–45) määritelmän mukaista kansainvälisesti keskittynyttä yli- opistoa, jolloin se on kansainvälisiltä toimiltaan monin paikoin laadukas. Tutkimuksessa kuitenkin esi- tetään, että kansainvälisissä käytännöissä on vielä osa-alueita, jotka eivät ole sellaisenaan täysin toimivia.
Avainsanat – Keywords
Korkeakouluopetus, kansainvälistyminen, Itä-Suomen yliopisto, ELF, ELFA
Contents
1. Introduction ... 2
2. Theoretical background on internationality and HE ... 5
2.1 English as a global language ... 5
2.1.1 The spread of English ... 5
2.1.2 English as a lingua franca ... 8
2.2 Multilingualism and internationalisation ... 11
2.3 Language policy ... 16
2.2.1 Language policy and Finnish legislation ... 17
2.2.2 Language policy at universities across the globe ... 18
2.2.3 Language policy at Finnish universities ... 19
2.4 The local context ... 21
2.4.1 Joensuu and the UEF ... 21
2.4.2 Policies related to language at the UEF ... 25
3. Method and Material ... 29
3.1 Research method ... 29
3.1.1 Discourse analysis on the UEF website ... 29
3.1.2 Interviewing doctoral degree students ... 32
3.2 Research material ... 37
3.2.1 The UEF Website ... 39
3.2.2 International doctoral degree students ... 40
4. Results ... 42
4.1 The UEF website ... 42
4.2 Experiences of doctoral degree students ... 45
4.2.1 Language requirements ... 46
4.2.2 Electronic services ... 47
4.2.3 Course arrangements ... 50
4.2.4 Internationality at the UEF ... 53
4.2.5 Tuition fees ... 56
5. Conclusion ... 59
References ... 64
Appendices ... 71
Appendix 1 – Pauwel’s six-phase model for website analysis ... 71
Appendix 2 – Invitation letter for the focus group interview ... 72
Appendix 3 – The analysed webpages of the UEF ... 73
Illustrations
Figure 1 L1 Speakers of major languages in 2015 6
Figure 2 Kachru’s model of the three ‘circles’ of English. 8
Table 1 OECD and partner countries offering tertiary programmes in English (2008) 16
Table 2 International studies arranged at the UEF 23
Table 3 Numerical data on the interviews with doctoral degree students 41
Index of abbreviations
CMR – Communications and Media Relations (at the University of Eastern Finland) EAP – English for academic purposes
ECTS – European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System ELF – English as lingua franca
ELFA – English as lingua franca in academic settings EMI – English medium instruction
HE – Higher education
NES – Native English speaker NNES – Non-native English speaker SLA – Second language acquisition UEF – University of Eastern Finland
2
1. Introduction
My research explores the international study programmes of the University of Eastern Finland (henceforth, UEF) on the Joensuu campus from the aspect of doctoral degree students. My aim is to find out the language repertoire present in these programmes and how internationality is realized in them. Due to the powerful status of English as a global language, I assume that English is the only language used regarding international affairs at the Joensuu campus of the UEF. In addition, I hypothesize that there are some aspects in the language practises of the UEF that may be found impractical by the international students. This research has been inspired by my Bachelor’s Thesis, in which I studied the language policy of the student housing company Joensuun Elli. In my Master’s Thesis, I switch my focus from a local service provider to the local university campus.
Higher education (henceforth, HE) has been influenced by internationalisation especially since the late 1980s (Teichler 2004). This phenomenon is most clearly present in countries that have small national languages – such as Finland – because they need to attract more international students (Ammon and McConnell 2002: 173). This trend has also been visible in the UEF, as the university has aimed and has been encouraged to attract international researchers (University of Eastern Finland 2014a: 13). Although there are changes to the funding model of Finnish universities to be expected and this may affect the international goals of the universities, I find this research subject highly relevant. The research draws a general picture of the language policy at the UEF, even though the focus is on the campus of Joensuu. Furthermore, it allows the international students and researchers to voice their opinions on the language arrangements in the international study programmes provided by the UEF through an appropriate medium.
There has been no published research on this topic at the UEF before. However, there are several studies and projects that explore language policies in different universities as well as the status of English in HE in different parts of the world. For instance, Saarinen and Nikula (2013) have analysed English-medium instruction (henceforth, EMI) in four HE institutions’ in Finland. Moreover, a closing report by Pöyhönen and Luukka (2007) presents the findings of a project that explores language instruction in Finland relative to the language education policy.
In the University of Vaasa, a research program called Bilingualism and communication in organizations (BiLingCo) has been in progress between 2012–2014, studying the working cultures and working models that support bilingualism in the Finnish society. Research related
3
to language policy has also touched the linguistic landscape of the city of Tampere (see for example Hartikka 2012, Koskinen 2013).
According to the statistics provided by the UEF (University of Eastern Finland 2012a, University of Eastern Finland 2013, University of Eastern Finland 2014b), the number of foreign students in Joensuu has been increasing every year, which would mean that international study programmes are important in the university’s curriculums. Universities get approximately 64% of their funding directly from the Finnish government, and each university must negotiate with the Ministry of Education and Culture on their operational and qualitative targets, also concerning internationalisation, every three years to determine their required financial resources (Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2015c). According to the Internationalisation Policy of the UEF (The University of Eastern Finland 2012b: 8), the Ministry of Education and Culture defined several indicators for the review period 2010–2015 that evaluate the level of internationalisation of Finnish universities. These indicators include the number of people participating in international student exchanges, the number of international degree students; the amount of international mobility by teaching and research staff; and the number of studies completed in international study programmes taught in English.
As it happens, the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture has accepted a proposal on revising the current funding model as of 2017, which is likely to affect the current practices concerning universities’ international affairs (The Parliament of Finland 2015). Up until now, I think it has been in the universities’ best interest to produce as many foreign degrees in their study programmes as possible, since it has been economically more productive for the university. However, it appears that this arrangement is subject to change in the future.
There are several aspects that interest and motivate me in carrying out this research. For instance, I want to learn how the international study curriculums are arranged at the Joensuu campus of the UEF Joensuu as well as which linguistic aspects the international students and researchers find practical or inconvenient. I do not try to evaluate the quality of the study programmes or compare them with the ones provided for Finnish students. However, one my purposes for carrying out this research is to understand the rationale behind the linguistic decisions and policies in the international study programmes. The main reason why I want to explore this subject is that I would like to understand more about the international setting and the occurrence of multilingualism in a town such as Joensuu. In order to fully explore the
4
international nature of the UEF, the widest coverage of the subject would be reached with as variable sampling of interviewees as possible. Because of the scale and restrictions of an MA thesis, however, the study is limited to consist only doctoral degree students at the Joensuu campus of the UEF. I expect them to have spent more time at the UEF than exchange students or master’s degree students, and assume that they would therefore have more experiences to share.
I present the theoretical background related to my research in Section 2. The research methods and material are introduced thoroughly in Section 3. The research results are presented in Section 4, and finally, in Section 5 I discuss the results and draw a conclusion from this study.
5
2. Theoretical background on internationality and HE
This section covers the theoretical background applied in this study – mainly concerning language, internationality and HE from different aspects. Section 2.1 examines English as a global language. In Section 2.2, I describe how multilingualism and internationalisation are present at universities, and, in Section 2.3, I explore the concept of language policy.
Furthermore, I present the local context for this study in Section 2.4.
2.1 English as a global language
It is apparent that English is the main language used in the international doctoral degree programmes of the UEF. Thus, it is necessary to review the English language as a globally dominant language. I briefly discuss the history of English and consider the reasons why it has become the most widely used language in the world in Section 2.1.1. In Section 2.1.2, I review the different variations of English and the concept of English as a lingua franca (henceforth, ELF).
2.1.1 The spread of English
It could be argued that English is obviously the global language in the world today. English is used in popular culture, political discussions, international customer service, travel guides, advertisements and menus – wherever an intermediary language is needed when traveling across the globe or communicating in an international setting. Crystal (2003: 3) describes a global language as one that has a globally recognized special role. Therefore, in addition to the L1 speakers of a language, it has to be used by speakers of other languages in different countries.
Importantly, English is not the only language that is recognized globally, and as Jenkins (2013:
22) notes, lingua francas are definitely not new phenomena. Several languages function as lingua franca, such as Arabic, Greek, Latin, Portuguese, and Sanskrit (ibid.). In fact, the term itself is derived from an Arabic phrase ‘lisan-al-farang’, which has referred to “an intermediary language used by speakers of Arabic with travellers from Western Europe” (House 2003: 557).
However, it is remarkable how widely the English language has spread across the globe, and
6
yet, it is not the language that has the highest number of L1 speakers in the world today, as can be seen in Figure 1.
As the chart shows, compared to English, there are thrice as many people speaking Mandarin Chinese as their first language, and a considerable number of native Spanish speakers as well.
According to the chart, English holdsthe third place in regards to the number of L1 speakers with 335 million speakers. However, the number of English speakers has been increasing during the last decade, because, in 2003, English held the fourth position behind Chinese, Hindi/Urdu and Spanish (Melchers and Shaw 2003: 8). This is one perspective on the ongoing process of language domination. As Melchers and Shaw (2003: 8) point out, the other major languages have neither the global sway nor the multi-functional use that characterizes the English language of today. Notably, neither German nor French are among the eight major languages, although in the 18th century, German was considered to be the language of science and scholarship and French the language of diplomacy and culture (Melchers and Shaw 2003: 178).
Crystal (2003: 120–121) points out that there are two major reasons why English in particular has become a globally dominant language. First, English started to spread across the globe as Britain expanded its colonial power in the 17th and 18th century. This resulted in English becoming the most used language in trade and eventually having an official language status in many colonized countries. Secondly, as the USA took over as the leading economic power in the late 19th century, English became the leading language of international politics, academic discourse, and community meetings. The development of the US technology, science and scholarship – as well as the growing attraction of the American popular culture – have also been major factors in English becoming a more popular foreign language than German or French in
122 167
193 237
260 335
414
1197
0,00 200,00 400,00 600,00 800,00 1 000,00 1 200,00 1 400,00
Japanese Russian Bengali Arabic Hindi/Urdu English Spanish Chinese
Figure 1 LI Speakers of major languages in 2015. Source: Ethnologue
7
Europe (Melchers and Shaw 2003: 179). According to Hultgren et al. (2014: 4), after the Second World War there was still some competition between English and Russian for the position of the dominant language in Eastern Europe. As the iron curtain crumbled and English surpassed Russian as the academic lingua franca in Eastern Europe, the world of academia was suddenly becoming more and more monolingual (ibid.). However, instead of labelling English as superior to other languages, it should be noted that a global language develops due to the activities of its speakers over the centuries (Melchers and Shaw 2003: 9). In other words, speakers in different countries have to accept the language and start using it in order for it to develop into a globally recognized one.
It has been acknowledged that occasionally native English speakers (henceforth, NES) take language for granted. As Harris (2011: 48) describes it: “There is an arrogance and blindness that comes with the dominance of English in the world – we are accustomed to others having to use English.” As a non-native English speaker (henceforth, NNES) who has travelled on several continents, I admit to agree with the aforementioned observation. In fact, occasionally the status of the English language has been consciously strengthened by NESs, as has been the case with the “Blair Initiative” in 1998, which aimed at “increasing Britain’s share of the global market in foreign students” (Ricento 2000: 93). According to Philipson (2008: 5), “the elimination of linguistic diversity has been an explicit goal of states attempting to impose monolingualism within their borders.” As a result, English has been accused of being the most notorious killer language. This development towards one majority language in European HE has not been easily accepted by all countries. As Ammon and McConnell (2002: 173) point out,
“the big-language countries, especially those with their own scientific tradition such as France and Germany, have been more reluctant and slower to introduce English into university teaching than the small-language countries.” One explanation for this reluctance may be a concern for the status of their own national language in the international world (Ammon and McConnell 2002: 173).
Kachru (1985) developed the Three-circle Model of World Englishes that groups all of its varieties based on “the type of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages”. First, the Inner Circle includes all the English varieties that are spoken as a mother tongue (i.e. USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) (Kachru and Smith 2008: 4). Secondly, the Outer Circle refers to areas where
8
English has an important status as a “second language” – mainly former colonies, e.g.
Singapore, India and Kenya. Thirdly, the Expanding Circle consists of areas where English is learnt as a foreign language and does not have a historical base (ibid.). Among these countries are China, Japan, Finland, and Greece (ibid.). Figure 2 displays the circle developed by Kachru (1985), demonstrating the number of speakers in the assigned groups.
Figure 2. Kachru’s model of the three ‘circles’ of English. Source: Kachru 1985: 12–15.
The types of English vary greatly among these circles. Speech is strongly influenced by the local language, i.e. the background of the speakers (Melchers & Shaw 2003: 185). There are countless varieties of English that affect the use of ELF, which is discussed more thoroughly in the next section.
2.1.2 English as a lingua franca
ELF has been studied for decades by a number of researchers. Barbara Seidlhofer (2005: 339) defines ELF as “a way of referring to communication in English between speakers with different first languages”. In general, ELF seems to be a simplified version of English as native language (henceforth, ENL). Seidlhofer (2005: 339) points out that English is constantly being shaped and developed not only by its native speakers, but also by its non-native speakers. She also finds that a paradoxical situation has been reached: while the majority of verbal usage in English does not involve native speakers, they are still regarded as its experts and even rulers
9
of what is correct use of English. Sowden (2012: 89) remarks that in this situation some academics have purposely encouraged the teaching of ELF in order to reduce the native speaker dominance of global English. Similarly, Hewson (2009: 110) notes that there are scholars who wish to analyse ELF in its own terms rather than by comparing it to ENL. However, according to Jenkins (2013: 5) there is resistance to the ELF-oriented view especially in the Anglophone countries – even among scholars who recognize the different types of Englishes around the world. As an example, Philipson (2008: 5) calls the idea of a culturally neutral medium language simply deceitful, and does not consider all speakers of English to be equals.
Research on ELF has been carried out from several different perspectives, such as phonology (see for example Jenkins 2000), pragmatics (see for example Meierkord 1996), and lexicogrammar (see for example Seidlhofer 2004). According to Ranta (2010: 84), ELF has been criticized as being nothing more but a variant of second language acquisition (SLA).
Mauranen (2012: 4) remarks that although ELF and SLA have many features in common, it should be noted that using a lingua franca language means using a second language (L2), but its speakers are not necessarily learners. For instance, lingua franca users may not be corrected for their errors since the purpose of language use is not to learn but to find an instrument for communication (Mauranen 2012: 6).
Ranta (2010: 88) seems to dislike the approach of evaluating ELF speech against ENL speech, but admits that in order to explore the differences and similarities between them, comparing ELF and ENL speech is natural. Karppinen (2013: 298) also considers the evaluation of lingua franca conversations to be problematic, and would like to explore how the participants of a discussion are able to adapt their language resources to any given interactive situation accordingly. There are several notable characteristics that are ‘particularly English’ but that are often misused by ELF speakers (Seidlhofer 2005: 340). In fact, Seidlhofer (2004: 220) labels some features as typical of ELF. These include for example: a) ‘dropping’ the third person present tense -s, b) ‘omitting’ definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in ENL and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL, c) inserting ‘redundant’ prepositions (as in We have to study about…) and c) ‘replacing’ infinitive constructions with that-clauses (as in I want that…). Since there are always two languages present in situations with ELF speech (the L1 and English of each language user), interference and code-switching are very likely to occur in each ELF conversation (Klimpfinger 2010: 350).
10
ELF might raise negative connotations (e.g. people using “poor” English), but some researchers clearly focus on its positive sides. For instance, Seidlhofer (2005: 339) notes that even though ELF speakers may not succeed in using grammatically correct English, it does not always cause misunderstandings or communication problems. Ranta (2010: 88) maintains that in ELF research, the focus is not only on studying how L2 speakers could improve their language skills to better resemble that of the native speakers. Furthermore, the main objective the ELF speakers is not typically to learn more English but to handle whatever professional or personal business they have at hand with NES or NNES. In Sowden’s (2012: 91) opinion, there is a clear purpose for the simplification of English: “to exclude culturally restricted items and therefore ease the process of communication”. Hewson (2009: 111), however, considers ELF from the translator’s perspective, and strongly suggests that it does not always serve its purpose as a language simplifier. On the contrary, he suggests that when an ELF text becomes a source text for a translator, it creates more challenges than assistance (Hewson 2009: 111).
According to Mauranen (2012: 6), ELF is typically regarded as a brief encounter between strangers, but there are also situations where ELF becomes a working language for more long- lasting communities, such as in business life and academia. In fact, in the research on ELF, special focus has been cast at ELF in academic settings – ELFA for short. There is even an ELFA corpus available for all researchers that was completed in 2008 by the University of Tampere and the University of Helsinki, comprising 1 million words of transcribed spoken academic English (http://www.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus). In the case of ELFA, a significant number of language users are NNESs who use English in an international setting, most likely with other NNESs (Jenkins 2013: 42). As Jenkins (2013: 42) points out, ELFA occurs not only in Anglophone countries, but also in other parts of the world – as is the case with this very Thesis and in all doctoral degree programmes at the UEF. Jenkins (2013: 61) regards ELFA as a challenger for the dominant assumption of academic English where NESs act as gatekeepers of correct English usage, but points out that ELFA still has a long way to go to be fully accepted in the context of HE and English for academic purposes (EAP). However, Mauranen (2012: 69) correctly points out that “There are no native speakers of academic language”. In an academic setting, whether it be L1, L2 or ELFA users, all novices need to learn the correct terminology, the appropriate ways of communication as well as how to present arguments and ask questions in order to be taken seriously (Mauranen 2012: 69).
11 2.2 Multilingualism and internationalisation
In this section, I discuss multilingualism and internationalisation – the latter especially by demonstrating different ways in which it is present in universities around the world. I also discuss three different approaches to how international universities can be divided into groups according to the characteristics of their international programmes.
The Oxford English Dictionary (2016) defines ‘multilingualism’ as “[t]he state or condition of being multilingual, or the policy of promoting this; the ability to speak many languages; the use of many languages.” Obviously, multilingualism is not a new phenomenon. According to Koskinen (2013: 11), as the linguistic scenery around the world has gone through drastic changes, the phenomenon is often characterized as a superdiversity. The term refers to the impossibility to determine homogeneous minority groups in communities that keep getting more and more ethnic, because there is linguistic variation even among the minorities (Koskinen 2013: 11). In fact, Blommaert et al. (2005: 199) strongly emphasize that multilingualism is not equivalent to “full competence in different languages”, but that speakers can communicate across language boundaries even with very limited knowledge of the languages in use. According to Cronin (2006: 68), the urban and ethnically rich spaces should be regarded as a place for translation, which is when the focus shifts from “us” and “them”
within cultural groups to interactions between people and communities with different backgrounds.
‘Internationalisation’ is defined by The Oxford English Dictionary (2016) as “[t]he action or process of making something international in character, composition, or scope.” According to Harris (2011: 61), internationalisation can be associated with universities in a variety of ways – most importantly by considering the international reputation of HE institutes. The reputation of a university is also related to globalisation and competition between HE institutions (Harris 2011: 61). Notably, the situation is very different from the origins of HE from earlier centuries.
According to Harris (2011: 18), in the medieval university, central thoughts surrounded around religion whereas the modern universities place their focus more on science. Furthermore, Harris describes the modern university as an important part of global industry:
…In the case of the UK, for example, they [vice-chancellors and senior members of the university] have to (i) ensure their institution’s survival in a highly competitive market environment; (ii) attract more students, with the result that there is now a far broader and more
12
diverse population than ever before, with first generation students and large numbers of international students from across the world; (iii) device new courses for new student markets;
(iv) generate more income; (v) demonstrate and increase the international reputation of individuals and the institution through research and teaching; (vi) establish partnerships and collaborations with a wide range of bodies and organizations across the world; and (vii) engage in knowledge transfer. (Harris 2011: 18–19)
Although these examples concern the universities of the UK, they are very relevant aspects for all international HE institutions. From a student’s point of view, I think experiencing international studies is the best way to prepare oneself for the international job market in today’s globalized world. In such a multilingual continent as Europe, language teaching and learning has become an important issue (Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez 2008: 11). Furthermore, the European HE policy strongly values the implementation of joint degrees and joint degree programmes (Hyppönen 2007: 11).
According to Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez (2008: 14), there have been attempts to improve the relationships between the European countries for decades, and university students in particular are regarded as potential ambassadors to gain new knowledge from other cultures whilst promoting their own. European student exchange programmes have been around since the late 1970s, and today one of the most popular exchange programmes for students and teachers is the Erasmus programme, founded by the European Commission in 1987 (Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez 2008: 14). The European co-operation deepened in 1999 with the Bologna Declaration, which was a step towards a new HE collaboration system – establishing objectives for promoting mobility of students and teachers, constructing easily readable and comparable degrees as well as establishing a common credit system (Räisänen, Fortanet-Gómez 2008: 15).
One form of the deepened collaboration is the foundation of European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS), which is a standard comparing the performance of HE students in Europe and enabling easier transfer of study credits across international borders (European Commission 2015c: 3). There are specific guidelines for implementing the ECTS. For example, the institutions are expected to provide an accessible course catalogue that includes course information in the national language of the institutions as well as English (European Commission 2015b: 54). HE institutions that correctly implement the ECTS are awarded the ECTS Label, which has been received by three HE institutions in Finland: the Arcada University of Applied Sciences, the Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences and the University of Oulu (European Commission 2015a: 1).
13
Foskett (2010: 44–45) who analysed 23 universities in the UK and Asia, places universities into five categories according to their level of internationalisation:
1) Domestic universities – focusing on their own local context – no internationalisation.
2) Imperialist universities – strong international recruitment activities, but not much action to change the organization.
3) Internationally aware universities – organization is changed to fit the international profile better, but there is no engagement with ‘overseas’.
4) Internationally engaged universities – curriculums are prepared as ‘global’ and staff is encouraged to seek research and education partnerships overseas.
5) Internationally focused universities – level of achievement in internationalisation is strong in many dimensions.
Ferguson (2007: 13–14) argues that many international universities in mainland Europe have features from the second group – implying that the universities’ interests lie largely in the economic rewards provided by recruiting international students. Wächter and Maiworm (2002:
79) maintain that the HE institutions offer EMI for four different reasons: 1) to attract foreign students, 2) to prepare the domestic students for global or international markets, 3) to provide study programmes that have not been in the country before, and 4) to increase more revenue with tuition fees. Quite surprisingly, although there is an official non-fee policy in Denmark and Germany, according to the survey, their institutions still regard the fourth factor as a valuable reason to attract foreign students (Wächter and Maiworm 2002: 79). The reason might be that the revenue of Danish and German institutions does not depend so much on tuition fees, but is in some other way connected to their funding model.
According to Wächter and Maiworm (2002: 79), the economic rewards play no role in Finland, where no tuition fees are gathered from the students. However, there are two reasons why this view is invalid and out-of-date. First, the majority of the Finnish universities’ funding has been received directly from the Finnish government (approximately 64%), which instructs and supports the objectives of Finnish HE institutions (regarding impact, quality and internationalisation) (Ministry of Education and Culture 2014). As an example, the number of degrees produced by international students has had a greater effect on the funding that the universities get from the Finnish government than the number of degrees produced by Finnish students (University of Eastern Finland 2014a: 7). Secondly, on 11 December 2015, the Parliament of Finland accepted the Finnish government’s proposal to make legislative changes regarding the tuition fees (Parliament of Finland 2015). According to the proposal, “institutes of higher education may charge tuition fees from students coming from outside the European
14
Union and the European Economic Area” (Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2015a).
Moreover, the tuition fees are to be at least the size of 1,500 euro per year, but set by the HE institutes themselves accordingly with the school's internationalisation strategy (ibid.). Notably, the tuition fees only concern those studying in a language other than Finnish or Swedish (ibid.).
Since the publication of the proposal, some of the Finnish universities have announced their decision to introduce tuition fees in autumn 2017 for non-EU/EEA students: tuition fees for the students at the University of Helsinki range from 10,000 to 25,000 euros (University of Helsinki 2016) and the tuition fees for the students of UEF range from 8 000 euros to 20 000 euros depending on the study programme (University of Eastern Finland 2016c). I think it is clear that today there are financial reasons for arranging EMI in Finland as well. Naturally, it remains to be seen what sort of effect the new legislative changes have in the attraction and position of Finnish HE institutions in the global competition of international students. The tuition fees concern students that start their studies on or after 1 August 2017. The possible effects of these legislative changes are contemplated more thoroughly in the analysis part of this study in Section 4.3 and in the conclusion of this study in Section 5.
Internationalisation is a major part of HE, and it has become an aspect that sets the global HE institutions in rival positions. The number of international students has increased worldwide:
according toone estimation, the number of students studying abroad will be six million by the year 2020 (Hughes 2007: 1). HE institutions have strong competition for the fee-paying students from abroad, and Anglophone countries are in the lead when it comes to attracting international students. According to Hughes (2007), this leads to questions of equity and quality on many levels. Small countries (such as the Nordic Countries) can only compete in the international HE market by arranging English language instruction. As Wächter and Maiworm (2002: 81) phrase it, they have no chance of attracting foreign students if they only offer programmes in their disadvantageous native language, so they are bound to offer EMI. As can be seen from Foskett’s (2010) category, universities have different ways to handle internationalisation, which means that marketing a university as being “international” does not necessarily describe many of its actions as an internationalized institution. According to Harris (2011: 62), there is a lot of variation between European countries regarding their policy on arranging international HE.
While Finland has no other choice but to offer EMI, the emphasis in Sweden is on non-English modern languages, since English is already more widespread (Harris 2011: 62). Furthermore,
15
in Portugal, the problem is solved either by offering courses in other languages than Portuguese, or by doing cooperation with foreign universities in terms of offering joint degrees (ibid.) Interestingly, according to the analyses carried out by the European Community in 2005 and 2006, the attractiveness of the European universities is remarkably less than that of the United States, China and India (University of Eastern Finland 2012b: 3). Furthermore, the cooperation between European universities and companies is considered insufficient (ibid). Therefore, the EU encourages European HE institutions to promote internationalisation by various measures, e.g. encouraging cooperation between HE institutions, promoting the mobility of students, teachers, researchers and other staff, improving the visibility and attractiveness of the European Research Area and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) as well as creating programmes that offer labour market driven competences (ibid.). In order to face these challenges, The Finnish Ministry of Education attempts to lead Finland into becoming “one of the world’s leading education-based economies”, and to specifically concentrate on increasing the share of education and knowledge as an export (Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2010: 3–4). In the Internationalisation Policy of the University of Eastern Finland 2012–2015, the UEF (2012b: 5) also expresses the aim of becoming an internationally recognized research university and to be ranked among “the three most important universities in Finland and among the leading 200 universities in the world”.
As universities have different reasons to hold international programmes, it is important to note that the programmes are also arranged to serve different purposes. Therefore, international programmes can be divided according to their use of foreign language, as has been done by Alexander (2008). Firstly, there are replacement types in which both the students and staff members use foreign language throughout the programme – as in Finland, for instance (Alexander 2008: 82). Secondly, in the cumulative type of international programme, the use of foreign language is steadily increased, as is done in Poland (ibid). Thirdly, there are international programmes that represent the additional type, which are designed to help the students get accustomed to courses held in the local language much like in Germany (ibid).
According to a study carried out by Wächter and Maiworm (2002: 30), Finland and the Netherlands are the leaders in providing EMI in Europe. Their study (which excluded the Anglophone countries) measured, for example, the share of programmes taught in English in contrast with all other programmes (Wächter and Maiworm 2002: 24–30). Then again, Jenkins
16
(2013: 4) provides a table that displays a categorization of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and partner countries in accordance with the number of English-speaking programmes offered by the countries’ universities.
Table 1. OECD and partner countries offering tertiary programmes in English (2008). Source: Jenkins (2013: 4).
Use of English in instruction OECD and partner countries All or nearly all programmes Australia, Canada, Ireland,
offered in English New Zealand, UK, United States
Many programmes Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands,
offered in English Sweden
Some programmes offered in English Belgium (Fl.), Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Japan,
Korea, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Turkey
No or nearly no programmes Austria, Belgium (Fr.), Chile, Greece,
offered in English Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico,
Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain
Because of the increase of EMI, Jenkins (2013: 5) argues that the number of NNESs may have surpassed the number of NESs in universities around the world. Furthermore, she questions whether the international universities consider the linguistic consequences of recruiting ethnically diverse students and staff (Jenkins 2013: 5). In fact, Jenkins (2013: 7) claims that the process of internationalizing the curriculums in universities has not currently gone very far.
This is something that has to be considered also when carrying out the research on UEF as an international university.
2.3 Language policy
In this section, I discuss the concept of language policy. In general, the term is used to cover all the language-related choices and actions, as defined by Johansson, Nuolijärvi and Pyykkö (2011: 17). Hornberger (2006: 28) introduces three different approaches for studying language policy and planning. First, status planning refers to actions regarding the functions and purposes of languages in speech communities. Secondly, corpus planning concentrates on the adequacy
17
of the form or structure of languages. Lastly, acquisition planning aims to influence the allocation of users of the languages. According to Backhaus (2012: 240), who discusses language policy at the municipal level, there are a couple of definable language policy fields that are relevant for all the local language policy makers: (1) language within the administrative body, (2) communication between administration and the public, and (3) public signs. He also notes that unlike the higher administrative levels, municipal governments are in daily contact with the general public and are thus obligated to take much greater care to communicate with their residents (Backhaus 2012: 226).
In Section 2.2.1, I demonstrate how language policy is referred to in legislative contexts. In Section 2.2.2, I discuss the research results by Jenkins, who studied language policy of international universities across the globe. Lastly, in Section 2.2.3 I discuss the language policy at Finnish universities based on the studies carried out by Saarinen and Nikula (2013) as well as Pyykkö et al. (2007).
2.2.1 Language policy and Finnish legislation
This section studies different legislative acts related to languages and the extent to which they are applied in Finnish universities. According to the Language Act, first passed in 1922, the official languages in Finland are Finnish and Swedish. After the revision that came into effect in 2003, the Language Act also ensures rights for the minority languages of Finnish sign language, Saami languages, Romani languages and Karelian languages (Finlex 2003b). The largest minority language regarding foreign languages is Russian (Leppänen et al. 2011: 17).
Presumably, the aforementioned languages are not the only languages spoken in Finland. The Language Act is mainly applied in courtrooms and before other state and municipal authorities as well as joint municipal organizations. The Council of State decrees either a monolingual or bilingual language status for each municipality (Finlex 2003b). In a monolingual municipality, such as Joensuu, the municipal officials are required to have excellent oral and written skills in the official language spoken by the majority of the inhabitants, and satisfactory skills in understanding the official language spoken by the minority of the inhabitants (Finlex 2003a).
Importantly, operating in two languages does not require that every member of the personnel must have fluent language skills in both languages. Notably, nothing in the legislation prevents
18
authorities from providing services in a wider range of languages (Ministry of Justice, Finland 2012). Hence, English is a valid option as a language choice.
It is mentioned in the European Union’s plain of action, as well as in the objective statements of the Council of Europe, that all citizens ought to be able to speak two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue (Sajavaara et al. 2007: 28). Sajavaara and et al. (2007: 27–28) point out that in Finland this objective has been realized ever since the establishment of comprehensive schools, and that language education in Finland has developed greatly within the last three decades. According to Sajavaara et al. (2007: 25, my translation), “universities’
language of instruction and degree may be Finnish (e.g. the University of Tampere), Swedish (Åbo Akademi) or both (e.g. University of Helsinki, University of Vaasa, the Sibelius Academy).” Notably, the language of instruction is Finnish also in the UEF (University of Eastern Finland 2011b: 7). However, universities are allowed to use other languages in instruction and examination (Finlex 2009). Students who have received education in some other language than Finnish or Swedish (or who have been educated abroad), are not concerned with the same objectives and requirements as Finnish students. For one thing, they receive an English degree title. Moreover, they are not required to be proficient in Finnish and Swedish, but their language proficiency is determined by the university they attend (Finlex 2004). In addition to legislative frames, universities have their own policies and regulations regarding languages, which are explored in the next two sections.
2.2.2 Language policy at universities across the globe
In her research, Jenkins (2013: 71–84) reviews the academic English language policies in HE worldwide, and explores how NNES and NES students as well as the university staff consider these language policies in practice. In her research, discourse analysis was carried out on websites and other online material provided by a range of international universities across the globe. Her research also included an open-ended questionnaire administered to academic staff of the universities, and unstructured interviews with international students from an institution in the UK (Jenkins 2013: 71).
19
Concerning Asian universities, Jenkins (2013: 99) finds that there is confidence in the English used particularly by the Chinese institutions. She also points out that doing research on Chinese ELF is becoming popular among Chinese students and academics (Jenkins 2013: 99). When it comes to Europe, Jenkins (2013: 100–108) sees a distinction between the institutions in northern, southern and central European countries. She argues that in some countries, specifically in the Mainland Europe, there is a hint of antipathy towards English as the lingua franca of the EU and of HE (Jenkins 2013: 100). This seems to be the case especially in the websites of Belgian and Spanish universities (Jenkins 2013: 102). In some cases in the southern Europe, institutions place more emphasis on their local language(s) than on English (Jenkins:
2013: 102–103). Jenkins (2013: 104) also notes that EMI programmes are highly promoted in the northern parts of Europe, which illustrates the disadvantage of smaller native languages very well. Yet, according to Jenkins (2013: 105), internationalisation is emphasized even more so in the central and eastern Europe, since in some countries in these areas English appears to be assumed as the language to open doors. Contrary to Europe, institutions in the countries of Latin America tend to be less prone to have EMI programmes in HE (Jenkins 2013: 108). Not surprisingly, most detailed information about English language programmes is provided by institutions in the Anglophone and Anglophone branch campuses (Jenkins 2013: 111–112).
2.2.3 Language policy at Finnish universities
According to Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 134), language skills have been considered important in Finnish HE for decades. Universities first founded their own language centres in the late 1970s (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 134). In 1987, the Ministry of Education refined their first official internationalisation strategy, in which language was often discussed in very practical terms (ibid.). By the end of the millennium, the focus shifted to developing ‘foreign language’
study programmes, which caused EMI programmes to arise (ibid.). The number of international degree programmes in Finland has increased rapidly within the last few decades (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 135). This development, along with the Bologna reform established by the European Commission, has put pressure on the universities’ language centres to develop EMI for the university staff as well as to improve the pedagogical abilities of the teaching staff (Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez 2008: 26).
20
Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 134) emphasise that the ‘foreign language’ study programmes used to be genuinely foreign language programmes, since the language repertoire of the programmes included not only English but German and French as well – at least at the turn of the new millennium. They agree with Lehikoinen (quoted in Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 134), who implies that in the Finnish education today, foreign equals English. In fact, according to Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez (2008: 35–36) Finland offers most English-language degree programmes in Europe (not counting Anglophone countries). Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 134) see this as a proof of the strong role that English has in Finnish society. Furthermore, Hellekjær (2010: 233) argues that it is often thought to be self-evident that lecturers and students have close to no problems when operating in English. Then again, Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 132) point out that using a lingua franca language may deplete the teacher’s performance and make learning more demanding for the students. Pyykkö et al. (2007: 135–147) add that universities do not seem to question the fact that all foreign language instruction takes place in English, although internationalisation is a major factor in the strategic thinking of all higher education organizations and the reason why more and more students are recruited from abroad. They discuss the possibility of offering foreign education in some other language than English, but recognise and acknowledge the status of ELF today (Pyykkö et al. 2007: 135).
According to Pyykkö et al. (2007: 126), the university curricula are prepared in departments and the final decisions regarding them are made in faculties. Universities are also responsible for the quality and development of the degrees (Pyykkö et al. 2007: 126). In fact, Pyykkö et al.
(2007: 129) note that neither the language repertoire nor the volume of language education in different universities has ever been nationally planned, nor have there been reports concerning the need for language experts (with the exception of teacher training). However, based on the aspects of the Bologna Declaration (described in Section 2.2), and the EU’s plain of action that includes an object for all citizens to learn to speak two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue, I would argue that universities are guided towards internationalisation.
Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 137) discovered in their research that the role of EMI in international study programmes does not seem to aim at teaching both language and content simultaneously. On the contrary, as has been argued by Smit (2010: 262), the programmes are not chosen for the purpose of learning the language of instruction, but to enrol in a programme where all participants share a common language (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 137). In fact,
21
students are usually required to have proper English skills prior to their studies in the international programmes (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 141). All programmes have their own definition of ‘good’ or ‘sufficient’ English skills, and the students are required to prove their language skills with a test (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 142). In their research, Saarinen and Nikula (2013: 138) learnt that international study programmes are often distinguished from regular courses offered in Finnish, for example by promoting the programmes as a way to increase the students’ global or international skills in the labour market (Saarinen and Nikula 2013: 138).
2.4 The local context
In this section, I explore the local context regarding my research. First, in Section 2.4.1 I provide background information on the town of Joensuu, since it is the setting for the objects of my research. I also present the UEF and its current international study programmes. Furthermore, I briefly describe the electronic services that the UEF provides for its students, since they are likely to emerge in the focus group discussion. Secondly, in Section 2.4.2 I observe some key aspects of the policies that are closely related to UEF and languages.
2.4.1 Joensuu and the UEF
Joensuu is located in the Eastern Finland and it is the regional centre and capital of North Karelia (City of Joensuu 2016a). According to the statistics of the 1st of January 2016, the town’s population has reached 75,514 (City of Joensuu 2016b). Approximately one third of the population consists of students, and up to 20% of students are foreigners (City of Joensuu 2016c). The close proximity of the eastern border to Russia has been a major factor in the town’s history. According to the statistics, in 2014 there were 1,973 foreigners living in the Joensuu region, which equals to approximately 2.61% of the town’s population (Joensuu taskukoossa 2015). There are approximately 50 different nationalities in Joensuu, and the biggest minority group is formed by the immigrants of Russian descent (Joensuu taskukoossa 2015).
International students in Joensuu may study at the UEF, the Karelia University of Applied Sciences, as well as colleges and technical colleges. For the purposes of this research, I limit
22
the study to concern only doctoral degree students at the Joensuu campus of the UEF, because I am familiar with the UEF as a student and I am based at the Joensuu campus myself.
Furthermore, I assume that many doctoral degree students have spent more time at the UEF compared to exchange students or master’s degree students, and have thus more experiences to share.
According to a leaflet provided in the website of UEF (2014: 4), the university was founded on the 1st of January 2010 as the University of Joensuu (which had campuses in Joensuu and Savonlinna) and the University of Kuopio merged into one large entity. “The University has 15,000 degree students and four faculties: the Philosophical Faculty, the Faculty of Science and Forestry, the Faculty of Health Science, and the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies” (Savonlahti and Vuorre 2014: 4). The UEF has approximately 1,400 international students every year (ibid.). In order to promote the international exchanges of scholars and students, the UEF is doing cooperation with approximately 130 universities across the globe (Savonlahti and Vuorre 2014: 5). The UEF practices international education cooperation also by encouraging its researchers to visit the university’s partner institutions abroad more often (University of Eastern Finland 2012b: 7). Although most of the study programmes are held in Finnish, there is a variety of international study programmes available in English for students in Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral level (Savonlahti and Vuorre 2014: 6).
Students can study in several different degree programmes. In Joensuu, international students can study in non-degree programmes (which are aimed at exchange students at both Bachelor’s and Master’s level), Bachelor’s degree programmes, Master’s degree programmes and Doctoral degree programmes (Savonlahti and Vuorre 2014: 7–22). There are 13 discipline-specific or thematic doctoral programmes arranged at the UEF starting from the academic year of 2015–
2016 (UEF – Doctoral School, 2015). In the autumn of 2015, the structure of the doctoral degree programmes was renewed (as did the outlook and design of the entire UEF website, which is further discussed in the Section 3.2.1). The changes included merging some of the previous programmes into broader thematic programmes. For instance, in the Philosophical Faculty, programmes of Doctoral Programme in Language Studies, Doctoral Programme in Social and Cultural Encounters, Doctoral Programme in Theology, Life Course in Context Doctoral Programme and Doctoral Programme in Russian and Border Studies were merged into Doctoral Programme in Social and Cultural Encounters, which is now arranged together with
23
the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies. The different degree programmes that can be enrolled in Joensuu are presented in the following table.
Table 2. International studies arranged at the UEF. Based on UEF Website, 2015
Non-degree programmes Master’s degree programmes Doctoral degree programmes (Joensuu, Kuopio) Finnish Culture Study Programme MDP in Linguistic Sciences Doctoral Programme in
Educational Studies
Linguistics and Language Technology MDP in English Language and Culture Doctoral Programme in Social and Cultural Encounters
International Study Programme in Education
MDP in Clinical Linguistics Doctoral Programme of Clinical Research
Professional Intercultural Competence MDP in Educational Sciences Doctoral Programme in Molecular Medicine
Education and Adult Education, Special Education, Career Counselling
MDP in Early Language Education for Intercultural Communication
Doctoral Programme in Health Sciences
Teaching Foreign Languages to Young Learner
MDP in Forestry (CBU) Doctoral Programme in Science, Technology and Computing Psychology Courses for International
Exchange Students
MDP in European Forestry Doctoral Programme in Environmental Physics, Health and Biology
Approaches to Theology Transatlantic Forestry Master (TransFor-M)
Doctoral Programme in Forests and Bioresources
Foreign Languages and Translation Studies
MDP in Information Technology (IMPIT)
Past, Space and Environment in Society Doctoral Programme An International Study Programme in
Environmental Science and Forestry
MDP for Research Chemists Doctoral Programme in Business Information Technology and Computer
Science
MDP in Photonics Doctoral Programme in Law Business and Management MDP in Wood Materials Science Doctoral Programme in Social and
Cultural Encounters An International Study Programme in
Law
MDP in Environmental Biology (EnvBio)
Doctoral Programme in Welfare, Health and Management Karelia, Russia and the Baltic Area MDP in Color in Informatics and
Media Technology (CIMET) Border Crossings: Global and Local
Societies in Transition
MDP in Colour in Science and Industry (COSI)
Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change
MDP in Environmental Policy and Law Social Sciences MDP in Border Crossings: Global and
Local Societies in Transition MDP in Service Management
International Economic and Resources Law: MDP in Law
Additional courses available for exchange students (Joensuu) Environmental Biology
European Forestry Wood Materials Science Photonics
Chemistry Computer Science Border Crossings
Environmental Policy and Law
International Economic and Resources Law Service Management
Linguistics Sciences
English Language and Culture Educational Sciences
Early Language Education for Intercultural Communication
