JDAZ Joint Programme Management

From ECApedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Joint programme management

This chapter focuses on how to manage the implementation of joint programmes. Several aspects are discussed: governance and management, cooperation agreements, financial management, marketing and administration, as well as quality assurance and recognition.

Key messages for practitioners

  • 1. There are no pre-defined management models; all joint programmes need to consider their specific context and develop their own suitable model. Identify all the partners (players) in the programme, identify their role and accommodate them in the management and governance structures of the programme (partners can include: degree or non-degree awarding HEIs, non-university partners, professional bodies, alumni, etc.).
  • 2. A joint programme should preferably be seen as mainstream educational offer and the partner HEIs should avoid creating new bodies that are not necessarily needed. Establish the management structure based on the set of tasks for which joint arrangements are needed as compared to regular programme administration:
    • joint coordination and external representation of the consortium;
    • joint development and monitoring of the academic content of the programme;
    • joint quality assurance (academic and administrative; internal and external);
    • joint financial administration and decisions;
    • joint student administration (joint selection and complaints handling procedure);
    • admission, registration, assessment, grading and examinations, transfer of credits, archiving of student records for future enquiries, etc.);
    • joint promotion of the programme and joint student recruitment.
  • 3. Take into account the structure of the HEI (decentralised versus centralised), consider the pros and cons of different models in your cooperation. Examples of management models with organigrams are available through JOIMAN and JOI.CON (see section 6.2).
  • 4. Draw up a cooperation agreement as early as possible and make it flexible as it will require frequent updating. A possible solution is a general and simple agreement with references to more detailed annexes regulating different issues in the cooperation.
  • 5. Joint programmes impose extra costs and full-cost budgets must be calculated from the beginning. Arrangements for tuition fees, scholarships, cost-sharing and the financial sustainability of programmes need to be negotiated. In the case of tuition fees, different national regulations must be taken into account. Be aware of distinctions between home countries or nationalities when setting a fee policy.
  • 6. Develop a joint strategy on promotion and marketing, analysing relevant target audiences based on market research, review of relevant related 'feeding' study programmes (BA into MA), use alumni and partner networks, define your unique selling points.
  • 7. Awarding the degree is regulated by national legislation. Consulting the national ENIC-NARIC office is recommended when drafting the joint diploma and Diploma Supplement, to support future recognition of the degree.
  • 8. Global networking activities are essential to increase the awareness and visibility of the joint programme among future employers and enhance employability.
  • 9. It is important to involve non-academic, labour market actors in the planning and monitoring of the joint programme and, preferably, in internship provision.

Governance and management structures

It is important to consider how to form the governance and management structure of a joint programme because it determines how the roles, power and responsibilities are assigned, controlled and coordinated, and how information flows between the different management levels.

The governance and management structure depends on the strategic aims of the joint programme. In a centralised structure, the top management has most of the decision-making power, with tight control over players in the joint programme consortium. In a decentralised structure, the decision-making power is distributed and the partners may have different degrees of independence.

Only a minority (41%) of responding institutions have implemented additional structures to manage joint programmes, according to an IIE survey among 92 institutions in the EU and 81 in the U.S.

The JOIMAN report, based on a survey among 45 institutions, offers a chapter on the management and organisation of joint programmes. The report provides an overview of the involvement of different administrative units in the management of joint programmes and of the division of responsibilities among partners.

The JOIMAN report observes that the coordinating institution is usually in charge of receiving applications, sending letters of acceptance, financially monitoring the programme, and collecting and distributing fees. The consortium subsequently screens applications, decides on admission, organises the mobility, and issues the certificate. The partner institutions (at the central level) are in charge of enrolment, visas, accommodation, certification, delivery of the degree certificate and the diploma supplement; and (at faculty/departmental level) the partner institutions are in charge of the organisation of extra-curricular activities, examination, Master dissertation/thesis, transfer of marks and of records.

ECA’s Joint Programme Checklist recommends that each partner identify a person (or position) to act as the local coordinator and take responsibility for the joint programme within the institution. This local coordinator also acts as the main contact person for the other consortium partners.

The EMAP project (Erasmus Mundus Active Participation) offers several videos of coordinator presentations on course management issues.

Examples of governance models

One example is the governance model of the Erasmus Mundus Master in Research and Innovation in Higher Education (MARIHE). This two-year joint programme is built on the expertise of four consortium partners: Danube University Krems (Austria; the coordinating institution), the University of Tampere (Finland), the University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück (Germany), and Beijing Normal University (China).

Figure 1 illustrates the governance model of the MARIHE Erasmus Mundus Master Course (EMMC), with an explanation of the members and the main tasks of each board. Characteristic of the MARIHE governance model is that each board (except the international advisory board) includes a representative from each consortium partner institution.

Governance models.

Another example is the governance model of the Erasmus Mundus Master in Security and Mobile Computing (NordSecMob). This joint programme is offered by Aalto University School of Sciences (Aalto, Finland), KTH Royal Institute of Technology (KTH, Sweden), the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU, Norway), the Technical University of Denmark (DTU, Denmark) and the University of Tartu (UT, Estonia). The two-year programme leads to a double degree from two universities.

Figure 2 illustrates the NordSecMob governance model. The NordSecMob consortium agreement does not specify which type of members form the Consortium Committee, but in practice, the committee is formed by one academic and one administrative representative of each partner institution. The Consortium Committee meets twice a year and takes joint decisions on all issues relating to the joint programme, including the tuition fee level and distribution, quality assurance of the programme, adaptation of the joint curriculum, and student admission standards, procedures and selection. The Consortium Committee selects students, but this selection decision is only final after the relevant body of each partner university has approved the selection. This highlights the importance of having a common understanding within the consortium on who has the mandate to take certain decisions.

Governance model of the NordSecMob programme.

Financial management

Joint programmes impose extra running costs for aspects such as joint curriculum development, marketing, mobility, assessments, administration, and relatively high costs of short-term accommodation. The implementation of a joint programme becomes complicated when multiple countries and partners with different tuition fee policies are involved. Arrangements for cost-sharing, tuition fees, scholarships and the sustainability of programmes need to be negotiated. In situations where revenue generation is possible, it is necessary to sign an agreement for income distribution.

If the joint programme is funded by an external party, check for any specific rules and conditions that come with the provided funding. For instance, the existing differences between programme and partner countries in Erasmus+.

The Erasmus Mundus Quality Assurance (EMQA) tool provides a checklist of actions and good practice in relation to structuring human resources and setting up financial strategies.

It is important to set up a full-cost budget for the joint programme, including all running costs. The JOI.CON training project has developed an example of a full-cost calculation of a joint master (degree) programme (please note that this fictive example was developed to be applied in the particular context of this master programme and may not be fully transferable to another master programme context).

The EUA report (2008) on developing joint masters in Europe underlines the importance of proper funding procedures and distribution of resources as a critical factor for sustainability. Funding should be managed at programme level, allowing staff with relevant knowledge and experience to carry direct responsibility for financing.

The Erasmus Mundus Thematic Cluster on Sustainability provides an overview of how to achieve financial sustainability in its practical guidelines. It describes several routes, including sustainability through alternative financing, targeted dissemination and strong relationships with other Erasmus Mundus Courses.

Tuition fees

In some cases, the extra investment needed to offer joint programmes can be raised by increasing tuition fees. It can be difficult to reach an agreement with partner institutions on tuition fees due to different national and/or institutional tuition fee policies. The EU funding schemes for joint programmes require a common tuition fee policy, which constitutes an added challenge to the existing legal situation. ECA’s Joint Programme checklist includes tips on how to deal with tuition fees.

JOI.CON suggests that, apart from making a thorough inventory of the legal side of tuition fees in each participating county, institutions must try to raise awareness about the actual costs of a joint programme. The report contains several interesting tools to calculate fees (pp. 21-25).

Tuition fee levels and structures may vary for each programme. An IIE survey among 92 institutions in the EU and 81 in the U.S. found that the majority of European and US respondents (respectively 64% and 55%) indicated that students paid all fees for the entire programme to the home institution. U.S. respondents were more likely to have programmes in which the student paid separate tuition fees at each participating institution (31%) than European respondents (16%). However, in terms of programme management, different fees may cause uneven enrolment numbers, causing difficulties for future financing of the programme.

Institutions can collect tuition fees in different ways. One way is that fees are paid to the coordinating institution, which then divides tuition revenues among partner institutions. However, this is not legally allowed in all countries. Some institutions apply different approaches, depending on the academic level: at postgraduate level, students pay at each institution, whereas at the undergraduate level, students only pay the home institution.

When implementing a joint programme, the following tuition fee-related issues must be borne in mind:

  • If charging tuition fees, European partner institutions should discuss whether all students should pay the same amount or whether to differentiate between European and non-European students;
  • Independent approval of the University Board may be required for charging separate tuition fees;
  • It is essential to check the legal situation of potential partners before implementing a joint programme. Involving administrative and/or legal offices can be helpful at this stage.

An essential tool for information on different higher education funding schemes and tuition fee policies is the Eurydice website, where tuition fee and financial support policies in European countries are regularly updated.


The JOIMAN report indicates that 90% of the 89 surveyed institutions offer some form of scholarship to (some or all of their) students. This scholarship funding mostly consists of a combination of EU and public or other sources. In Erasmus Mundus master courses at the surveyed institutions, scholarships generally cover tuition waivers, whereas in non-Erasmus Mundus master courses, scholarships are usually meant to partially cover travel, housing and living costs. 30% of the surveyed institutions distribute scholarships on a performance-based system, followed by programmes using a mix of performance, needs and other considerations.

The form of scholarship partially depends on the particular national funding model. An IIE survey among 92 institutions in the EU and 81 in the US indicates, for instance, that EU respondents were more likely than US institutions to offer financial assistance from either tuition fee waivers or mobility scholarships.


Key messages for practitioners

  • Develop a joint strategy with partner(s), involving all levels within the institution and the marketing departments.
  • Use a tailored approach to different audiences. Use alumni and partner networks as primary channels. Do market research, make an inventory of appropriate bachelor programmes, target academics. Do not forget national marketing.
  • Be transparent about employability options in all communications (e.g. indicating whether there are particular restraints in terms of regulated professions due to the joint, international curricula).
  • Be transparent about employability options in all communications (e.g. indicating whether there are particular restraints in terms of regulated professions due to the joint, international curricula).
  • Emphasise the programme's competitiveness.
  • Your selling point is the added value of this joint programme versus national programmes. Stress the complementarity of partner HEIs, the jointly developed curriculum, interdisciplinary, the integrated programme. Communicate the added value of 'soft skills'.
  • Implement a quality assurance cycle to all marketing activities (to evaluate and improve).

It is useful to develop a marketing plan involving all relevant institutional stakeholders: the management level, the marketing and communications department, and the programme level. The content of this plan will depend on the institutional strategies and target groups of the joint programme.

Marketing plans for joint programmes should clarify the added value of the joint programme to potential applicants. It is useful for institutions to emphasise information on the learning outcomes of the programme, and the level of employability that can be expected to strengthen students' position on the job market after completion of the programme. Emphasising the latter will also be an advantage in highlighting any collaboration with the business community and public bodies in connection with recruitment.

For more information, the EMAP project website includes a slide presentation and short film on the visibility and promotion of Erasmus Mundus joint master and doctoral programmes.

Another tool worth examining in this context is the Erasmus Mundus Quality Assurance (EMQA) website. It provides a practical tool to develop a comprehensive course vision, unique selling positions, tips on recruiting excellent students, engaging alumni and setting up a marketing strategy. The tool is freely available and can be used for self-assessment by any practitioner involved in the development or implementation of a joint programme.

The TUBEMATES project encouraged Erasmus Mundus alumni to develop video trailers on their study abroad experiences and can provide ideas and tips.

Joint student administration procedures

Additional structures will be necessary to handle the student administration of joint programmes. Before the implementation of the programme, administrative procedures must be in place. And partner must agree on how to communicate with each other and with which tools. Online tools, such as Moodle, dokuWiki, Skype, and videoconference Adobe Connect Pro (ACP), can be helpful to support the joint administration and communication.

Joint student recruitment and application process

A shared web portal for a joint student recruitment process is a student recruitment tool. Such a portal should offer all relevant information on the programme, including learning outcomes, employability prospects, partner expertise, mobility options, target group, admission criteria, application process and selection criteria. The aim is to centralise and unify admissions information and encourage applications by promoting transparency and consistency in the information provided. The JOIMAN report sketches a time-line of administrative processes relating to student recruitment and registration and gives an overview of issues that can lead to conflicts in the administration of joint programmes (pp.54-60).

The Erasmus Mundus Quality Assurance (EMQA) tool provides a checklist of actions and good practice for efficient student recruitment.

The JOIMAN report is one of the few sources on the practicalities of the application process. The report suggests:

  • that online application procedures are essential to attract international students;
  • that verification of documents should be done only by the first institution, with other destination institutions relying on this screening;
  • to involve registrar or admission offices to ensure that all selected students meet the formal general registration requirements.

Whether the student application process is centralised or decentralised (i.e. each partner organises its own procedure), it is important that all partners are informed of, or have access to, the application information (according to ECA’s joint programme checklist).

The JOI.CON project has developed an sample application form for a joint European master (and doctoral) degree.

Student selection and registration

Student selection acts as a gatekeeper to the joint programme and requires the involvement of all partner institutions. Thus, it is essential that all responsibilities for (and in) the selection procedure are clearly assigned.

The two most important recommendations in the student selection process for institutions offering a joint programme are (1) to adopt a common selection procedure and (2) to set up a joint selection committee with harmonised selection procedures. Partners usually perform the pre-selection, with the final decision referred to a joint selection committee.

Concerning student registration, the idea is that, in a joint programme, all partner institutions are responsible for the students and the entire study programme, and all students are degree students at the institutions they attend during the programme. Different approaches to registration are possible, but must comply with national laws and institutional guidelines on awarding a degree.

Other guidelines on admission procedures are the following:

  • when formulating joint admission criteria, the partner institutions must be aware that some institutions may have stricter laws and less flexibility, and that it may be necessary to obtain special permissions or exemptions from their University Board to meet the requirements of participating institutions;
  • institutions must clarify which admission document requirements of all partner institutions of the consortium they need;
  • the partner institutions must agree not only on admission procedures, but also on application deadlines and appeal procedures.

See the JOIMAN report for an overview of the most common selection criteria and of different approaches between Erasmus Mundus and non-Erasmus Mundus joint programmes (pp.58-59).

The EMAP project (Erasmus Mundus Active Participation) offers several recorded videos of coordinator presentations on partnership and student selection.

Information to students

All relevant information must be clearly presented to students and be easily accessible before and upon arrival. Literature sources suggest the following guidelines:

  • Partners must agree on who is responsible for answering questions from potential applicants. There should be only one focal information point (usually the coordinator).
  • Appropriate information in English and the home language(s) of the partner institution(s) to potential students must be offered and kept up-to-date on relevant websites and recruitment portals.
  • Comparable information should be offered to students from all participating institutions.
  • The information offered should include details on admission criteria and procedures, entry points, credit weighting and workloads (incl. information on the ECTS system for non-European students), learning outcomes, employability, mobility requirements (e.g. how accommodation issues are addressed), the qualification/degree that will be awarded, course structure and coordination, and accessibility of the programme for economically disadvantaged and physically disabled students.
  • Students are subject to the academic policies of the institution where they are in residence. When students move back and forth, this rule should be clearly stated.

Monitoring student progress

Participating institutions must agree on who is responsible for the monitoring of students, procedures regarding lack of study progress, and rules for leaves of absence. Participating institutions must be informed about the different institutional procedures, so that they can all recognise the procedures at the respective institutions. If possible, strategies, procedures and guidelines should be jointly formulated in order to ensure the best monitoring.

The JOIMAN report observes that in the 36 institutions surveyed, in most cases, monitoring of academic progress is performed by the institution that delivers the course programme. In most cases surveyed, students on joint programmes are assigned a local coordinator who is responsible for monitoring their academic progress. Further, all academic staff, teaching in the programme, are responsible for monitoring courses and examinations. Local coordinators generally report their observations to joint programme boards or quality assurance boards.

Student agreement templates

A joint programme consortium normally defines the obligations of the student and the consortium in a 'student agreement', which is signed by the student and the consortium at the start of the programme. Examples of student agreements are available in the Annex to the JOI.CON report, and through the EACEA Erasmus Mundus Action 1 good practice website.

===Assessment and grading=Participating institutions must have a clear and shared policy on assessment and grade calculation. This policy must state whether the completion requirement framework is based on e.g. the number of completed course credits, the student workload, or required learning outcomes. It is recommended to develop a grade conversion table. You can find a template for such a table on the EACEA Erasmus Mundus Action 1 good practice website.

One example of a grade conversion table is the table used by the Erasmus Mundus Master in Security and Mobile Computing (NordSecMob), a joint programme offered by five universities in northern Europe (see page 21 in the NordSecMob Student Handbook. This figure illustrates the NordSecMob grade conversion model and table. Please note that this is an example of a grade conversion model that works for this specific master programme; since grading systems vary between universities, each joint programme consortium needs to develop its own grade conversion model.

To provide clarity for students, participating institutions are recommended to clearly indicate their grade conversion model in the student handbook for the joint programme. The student handbook must also clearly state whether the participating universities will take care of the transferring of credits between the universities. The NordSecMob Student Handbook, for instance, clearly indicates that the participating universities will transfer credits between the universities. The student handbook can also indicate where – at each participating institution – students can order credit transcripts.

The EACEA Synthesis Report 2013 states that best results were achieved when academic staff met regularly at programme level events to discuss course content, teaching and joint supervision methods, and evaluation practices in view of achieving greater harmonisation in grading the learning outcomes.

Having an independent external assessor to ensure compatibility of grading standards across courses and modules can be useful. Co-supervision of the master dissertation/thesis supports the common approach to assessment, as well as a joint, international jury for the dissertation/thesis defence.

The grading policy must also clearly state what constitutes a failure. Course failure may vary between institutions and this must be clearly communicated to partners and students. Sufficient opportunities to re-sit exams and re-take courses must be available, as agreed by the partners. Partner institutions must agree on the rules for dismissal in case students perform well at one partner, but not at the other. In some programmes, a dismissal by one partner means a dismissal from the entire programme. The partners should also discuss re-admission policies.

Credit accumulation

The approach of double or triple counting the same student workload (i.e. counting the same credits at different consortium universities) can significantly jeopardise the academic integrity of the programme. An IIE survey of 92 EU and 81 U.S. institutions found that 66% of the responding institutions had measures in place to regulate the double counting of credits. For credit accumulation in the European area, you can use the European Credit Transfer System as explained in the ECTS Users’ Guide (2009), which is regularly updated.

Student services

Welcoming and mobility

At the start of their joint programmes, it is useful to send students the necessary academic, practical and social-cultural information. However, ideally, services provided for students on joint programmes are integrated in the general service provided to all students (avoiding 'special lanes'), according to the JOIMAN report.

Since many joint programmes are supported by highly competitive scholarship schemes, it is necessary to provide welcoming information individually in a smooth and timely manner. Otherwise, the selected students might opt for another study programme.

According to the 2013 EACEA Synthesis Report, mentioned as a good practice, many Erasmus Mundus courses initially welcomed all their students at the coordinating institution, in order to address administrative issues and give an opportunity for students to understand the integration challenges during the mobility scheme.


Recommended practice is to guarantee accommodation for students because most joint programmes have a fixed curriculum with an intense, preset mobility structure. The JOIMAN report observes that in the 36 institutions surveyed, housing support is normally offered as part of the general student services.

Student guidance

Due to the jointly developed, fixed curricula with integrated mobility, it is recommended to ensure proper student advice and guidance during the studies, preferably at departmental level. Students could have junior academic tutors, but it is also advisable to arrange regular meetings with senior staff who monitor progress and offer support.

Career guidance is also important since students get few opportunities for local networking with employers due to the mobility scheme. According to the EACEA Synthesis Report, some Erasmus Mundus courses developed a career guidance plan, combining individual guidance with programme-level events such as career fairs involving employers or alumni events. For suggestions on how to promote employability, see section 6.8.

Visa and residence permits

The JOIMAN report recommends that institutions offering joint programmes try to develop close cooperation with embassies/consulates and local authorities on visa and permit issues.

The European Commission and Executive Agency have facilitated several initiatives on this issue (see source list).

It is important to look at the visa and residence regulations at an early stage of the joint programme development and management.

Language support

It is advisable to properly assess language proficiency at admission stage to ensure smooth progression. Language support and courses on academic writing and methodology can be offered.

Few data are available on language support provided specifically to students on joint programmes. It is likely that the language support they receive is part of general language support services for international students. An IIE study of joint programmes found that nearly half of the 180 researched institutions included foreign language training at both the home and the partner institution.


The consortium should consider how and through which institutions students are insured for the full length of their programme. Some national health insurance schemes fully cover visiting students.

Sometimes the partners will have to find an insurance company that can provide global insurance cover. This guide does not recommend insurance companies, since institutional experience shows that the services provided by various globally active companies differ from country to country in terms of content and quality.

Awarding the degree and the diploma supplement

Jointly awarding a degree and particularly issuing one diploma (and diploma supplement) remain the main challenges for joint degree programme coordinators. This is largely due to differences in national legislations. The main recommendation to keep in mind is to be fully aware of national legislation on this, and to consult the national ENIC-NARIC offices. In addition, the national ministries of education or the national university organisation may also be able to provide information to technical questions in relation to formulating and issuing the joint diploma and the Diploma Supplement. For details, refer to section 8.4.

Promoting employability through links to non-academic actors

Promoting employability is important: joint programme graduates need appropriate jobs, and good graduate employability rates enable the programme to increase its prestige and rely on alumni for promotion, participation in teaching or provision of internships. However, given the integrated mobility and the international nature of joint programmes, students rarely have time to form stable relationships to the local labour market and employers.

The Practical Guidelines of the Erasmus Mundus Cluster on Employability offer concrete ways of involving non-academic partners in the planning and implementation phase The guidelines are based on the results of a survey, conducted by the Employability Cluster, among approximately 3,600 Erasmus Mundus respondents (alumni and students), and on interviews with qualitative coordinators. The practical guidelines present several good practice examples and 10 key recommendations.

Integration of labour-market elements can be done through:

  • an advisory board from industry and other HEIs;
  • sponsors and partners;
  • networking with industry and business, research institutes, professional and scientific associations;
  • visiting scholars, especially non-academic guest lecturers;
  • dissertation/thesis cooperation;
  • non-academic partners involved in kick-off/initial intensive courses/Summer Schools;
  • company, employer visits;
  • practical, 'real-life' project-based learning and research projects;
  • international thematic networking, social media networks;
  • alumni contacts, surveys, up-to-date employability statistics;
  • career development sessions by career services, personal discussions with academics, intercultural awareness;
  • employer fairs on campus to create a meeting forum;
  • integrated placements;
  • mentoring during the placements to connect practical results to educational offer, feed-back from internship mentors.

Career orientation during the studies is important, to enable students to find appropriate employment after course completion. This can be done by asking them to find their own internships or arrange academic conferences. Confidence creates commitment.

Internships are highly appreciated in terms of employability, 84% of the Erasmus Mundus graduates assess the internship experience as highly profitable for their future career.

When planning the course structure, realise that too much mobility can hinder career orientation and settlement (Practical Guidelines of the Erasmus Mundus Cluster on Employability). Therefore, appropriate strategies need to be adopted. Given the integrated mobility and the international nature of joint programmes, students rarely have time to form stable relationships to the local labour market and employers. Additionally, programme learning outcomes are often geared towards answering global social-economic needs of an internationalised working life. Consequently, global networking during studies are essential for ensuring good employability perspectives, and for providing potential for future research cooperation and follow-up programmes.

Networking can be done through social media, tutoring by senior students, alumni networks and involvement of international external scholars, who can later facilitate the professional advancement of graduates. The importance of networking is described in the Practical Guidelines of the Erasmus Mundus Cluster on Employability, which also contains cases of good practice.

Templates and tools

The EACEA good practice for Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Erasmus Mundus good practice website.

The Erasmus Mundus Quality Assurance (EMQA) practical tool for supporting all aspects of joint programme development and administration.

Practical approaches to the management of joint programmes: results from the JOI.CON Training Project.


Key sources

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, Erasmus Mundus Master Courses: Experience and lessons learnt from the first generation EMCS. Brussels, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2012.

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), European Commission, Joint International Master programmes. Lessons learnt from Erasmus Mundus The first generation, Synthesis Report, Brussels, 2013.

ENIC-NARIC network, Information on academic and professional recognition.

Erasmus Mundus, Clustering Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses and Attractiveness Projects. Lot 2: Employability. Practical guidelines. Brussels, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2011.

Erasmus Mundus, Erasmus Mundus Quality Assessment 2012, Handbook of Excellence Doctoral Programmes. Brussels, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2012.

Erasmus Mundus, Erasmus Mundus Programme: Cluster on Sustainability and Recognition of Degrees and Joint Degrees website. Brussels, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2013.

Erasmus Mundus, Erasmus Mundus Quality Assurance, Handbook of excellence, practical tool. Brussels, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2012.

Erasmus Mundus-ACE Erasmus Mundus Action 3 project, Erasmus Mundus promotion to European students

Erasmus Mundus Active Participation (EMAP project, 2009-2012) website:

European Commission Education and Culture DG, ECTS Users’ Guide. Brussels, 2015.

European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education (ECA), Joint Programme checklist: inspired by quality assurance. 2014.

European University Association, Developing Joint Masters Programmes for Europe. Results of the EUA Joint Masters Project, 2002 – 2004. Brussels, EUA, 2004.

Eurydice, National student fee and support systems 2011/2012, Eurydice Website. 2012.

JOI.CON, Practical approaches to the management of joint programmes: results from the JOI.CON Training Project. Leipzig University, 2012.

JOIMAN Network, Guide to Developing and Running Joint Programmes at bachelor and master’s level: a template. no date.

JOIMAN Network, How to manage joint study programmes? Guidelines and Good Practices from the JOIMAN Network. no date.

  • Book 1: Good practice report for the management and administration of joint programmes.
  • Book 2: Development and management of joint programmes with non-EU partners.
  • Book3: Developing and managing joint doctoral programmes: challenges and opportunities.

Obst, D., Kuder, M. and Banks, C., Joint and double degree programs in the global context: Report on an international survey, IIE, New York, 2011.

University of Bergen, Agreement template. Bergen, no date.

Other sources

Evers, N. and Lokhoff, J. eds, Links that matter. Recurring themes in EU-Asian Higher Education Cooperation, 2010.

Knight, J. and Lee, J., ‘International Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programmes: New Developments, Issues, and Challenges’, in: Deardorff, D.K. et al., The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education, Sage, California, 2012, pp.343-357.

NordSecMob Consortium, NordSecMob Student Handbook, version 21-06-2012.

Obst, D. and M. Kuder, Joint and Double Degree Programs: An Emerging Model for Transatlantic Exchange. Berlin and New York, 2009.

TUBEMATES project.