Socrates programme

Section 3 - Declaration

To be completed by the person legally authorised to sign on behalf of the coordinating institution.

"I, the undersigned, certify that the information contained in this application, including Section 4 (description) is correct to the best of my knowledge. The appropriate authorities of all the participating institutions have read and fully understood the application as submitted. They have confirmed in writing their agreement with the application as submitted.^1 I declare on my honour that the institution I represent has the financial and operational capacity to carry out the proposal as submitted and that it does not fall under any of the exclusion criteria listed in chapter II of the General Call for Proposals 2004. I acknowledge that in case of false declarations, administrative and financial sanctions can be implemented against me or the institution I represent.” I am also sending by 1 March 2004 a copy of the present application to the appropriate National Agency in my country (together with a translation of Section 1 Point 2 and Section 4 in the language of this National Agency, if it is not the same as the language of the present application)- applies for Lingua I, II; Grundtvig I, I.1; Comenius II.1. I have arranged for each of the other participating institutions to send to the appropriate National Agency in its country a copy of the present application, together with a translation of Section 1 Point 2 and Section 4 in the language of the National Agency concerned, if this has been requested by the National Agency concerned.

Place: Pisa Date 19 / 02 / 2004 (day/month/year) Signature Stamp of the coordinating institution, if applicable Name and position in capitals Prof. Marco Pasquali  Rector

Checklist

The application is completed in full. All questions have been answered.	
Each page has been numbered.	
The budget covers the whole project period, is indicated in euros and has been checked for calculation errors.	
The application has been type-written or word-processed in one of the 11 eligible languages by using the correct application form.	
The original application has been signed in original by the legal representative of the coordinating institution.	
The original and 4 copies thereof are being sent to the Socrates, Leonardo & Youth Technical Assistance Office by post and in the same envelope before the closing date.	
A diskette with an electronic version of the Summary (Section 1 Point 2) is enclosed with the application paper copies.	
The bank details form (annex 3) has been filled in and duly signed in original.^2	
If the grant requested exceeds 300,000 euros and if the applicant is neither a public body nor a secondary or a higher education establishment, an external audit report produced by an approved auditor is enclosed.
The necessary copies and translations are being sent to the National Agency in the country of each of the other participating institutions before the closing date.	

Section 4.B– Description ERASMUS 3: DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS

Please describe all aspects of your project set out below, on numbered sheets, using the same order and the same numbering of questions as given in the questions.
Please respect the maximum length of text indicated, and append supporting documents only where these have a direct and material bearing on the application for support.

1. 
   Typology
   

Please tick the appropriate boxes.

 Disciplinary Network

 Disciplinary Project

 Multi-/Cross- disciplinary Network

 Multi-/Cross- disciplinary Project

 Theme
Target groups (select one or several items)
 universities

 university academic staff

 university managers/administrators

 other university staff. Please specify:      

 academic associations

 professional associations

 multipliers (teachers/trainers)

 public sector third parties

 private sector third parties

 students and students associations

 other. Please specify: …reviews and cultural organisms
Specific content/activities (select one or several items)
 dissemination and exploitation of results

 policy recommendations and formulation

 convergence of higher education structures

 other. Please specify:      

Information and Communication Technologies
 significant use of ICT/ODL (delete, if not applicable)

 use for :

 pedagogy

 institutions

 students materials

also for communication and exchange within the Network

2. Overview of the three-year TN activities (maximum 4 pages)
Describe the main features of your Thematic Network activities during the three-years of Community support, with regard to:

This proposal is for a dissemination year for the Erasmus Thematic Network CLIOHNET. CLIOHNET is a Thematic Network for the field of History, which has taken on the task of promoting innovative approaches to European History in a critical, comparative perspective. CLIOHNET deals not only with the subject as taught in higher education institutions and schools, but also, to the extent possible, in general culture. The rationale for the network is constituted by the fact that ideas about history form a very basic part of the world view of individuals and societies; so-called ‘identities’ are often based on ideas – at times partial or slanted – about the national, local or regional past. Far from being banal knowledge of little interest, drummed into children in schools and unimportant in adult life, history and ideas about it constitute a powerful force in shaping today’s social and political relations: between countries and communities and within countries and communities, with respect to language, religion, gender, citizenship and most other facets of human existence. History is one of the most widely cited of the human sciences. In the press and the media it is common to find proposals based on the formula “History shows that...” – whether or not the journalist or the reader have real knowledge about the subject. People of all walks of life are ready to be guided or swayed by their ideas about what they suppose is the past history of their national, regional, linguistic, social or gender group. However still today most professional historians, academics and teachers in schools are products of single national historiographies or historical viewpoints related to one (or at best a small number) of the European nation states. School systems and Higher Educational systems are tightly linked to each national history, centred around issues, myths and shibboleths formed in particular cultural and historical contexts. Even when a critical revision is taking place, it often takes the form of criticism of the pre-existing views of the history of each single European country. CLIOHNET’s basic tenet is that in today’s expanding Europe, at all levels, from the most popular to the most specialised, a great leap in awareness and understanding can be made when people holding different national historical views come into direct and interactive contact.

The ultimate reason for CLIOHNET is to promote a critical historical attitude in order to foster understanding and willingness on the part of all European citizens to respect the ideas and the identities of their neighbours while reconsidering and preserving the positive aspects of their own view of their past, and hence of their present.

During its operation (the Network is now entering its third year, to be completed in September 2004) CLIOHNET has had the privilege of being able to act incisively in promoting and developing this viewpoint in many converging ways: it has organised National meetings (already in 20 countries; 30 such meetings will have been held by the beginning of the proposed dissemination year) in which academics, associations, students and other interested parties have been informed about the Network and have been able to set up national CLIOHNET conferences to organise structured on-going contacts for innovation in history teaching/learning in their country; it has held conferences on such topics as Racial Discrimination and Ethnicity’ (Galway Sept. 2002) ‘Tolerance/Intolerance in European Perspective’ (Cluj-Napoca/Debrecen, Sept. 2003); it has held Socrates Intensive Programmes on key issues; it has held two plenary working meetings -- in western and in eastern and central Europe -- each year. It has participated actively in Tuning I and II and in TEEP 2002, contributing directly to the formulation of pan-European ‘Tuning’ reference points for History curricula of all levels and to creating and testing a methodology for transnational evaluation, working directly with ENQA and QAA; thanks to its participation in the Clioh’s Workshop project it has produced, distributed and tested history books, videos and DVDs according to its multinational multilingual outlook; many of its members have participated in the CLIOH PROG (now DISS) project, developing a wide array of tools for innovative learning and teaching in the subject area. Directories of historians in each European country have been made. CLIOHNET has a website, www.clioh.net. All these activities, products and insights are ready or will be so at the end of the third year of Network activities, for further dissemination, discussion and development

1. 
   Project partners (type of institution, European representativity and level of involvement).
   

The project includes full partners from all eligible countries except Liechtenstein and Luxembourg (because of the lack of a developed HE sector in those countries). Since History is studied and taught in some form at nearly all European Institutions of Higher Education, more than 2000, it is not possible to include in a working Thematic Network all relevant institutions. Hence our choice rather has been to include a variety of kinds of institutions, large, small, traditional, innovative, public and private, all distinguished by a common factor: that of being represented by interested motivated people willing to cooperate in our activities. We have attempted to maintain a balance between number of institutions in each country, taking into account in the structure of the HE sector and the population. Naturally this is not done mechanically, and some countries more represented than others with a similar population. This depends among other reasons on the fact that when a National Meeting (this is explained in greater detail below) is held, because of the interest expressed, some institutions in the country ask to join as full partners, and they are welcomed. Overall the balance seems quite good.

In this proposal we include for the first time as potential full partners several Turkish institutions – although we have included some of them as informal ‘associate’ partners and worked with them in past years. Furthermore we have now added some full partners which are not Universities (or institutions of Higher Education), but rather publishing houses, electronic and conventional and local bodies: Primrose Publishing, from UK, is specialised in multimedia publication for multilingual training, Edizioni Plus, the University of Pisa publishing house, has presented the Network’s important Culture 2000 projects, “Clioh’s Workshop I” and “Clioh’s Workshop II”; ‘Digidocs’ is a non-profit association for on-line publishing. In this proposal we also include as full partners the local bodies the Provinces of Lucca and of Pisa, for their cultural activities. The partnership counts a number of ‘associate’ partners, who of course cannot be financed from Commission grant money, but whom we think are important ‘informal’ collaborators. These go from the University of Basel, our Swiss partner of many years’ standing, whose participation in our activities is financed by CH, to our associate partners in Albania and the countries of ex-Yugoslavia and the Russian federation. We consider that these partners must be involved as much as possible in our activities. We inform them completely and if we can find appropriate sources of financing invite them to participate.

A further important and novel feature of the partnership organised for this dissemination proposal is constituted by the around 70 so-called dissemination partners. The 70 Full Partners have the responsibility for disseminating information about CLIOHnet and its activities and products to all institutions, individuals and associations in their country. This is accomplished among other things through the National Meetings and by national CLIOHnet websites. However, for the dissemination year, we have designated a certain number of specific ‘dissemination partners’. These are of two kinds: first, they are HE institutions with which a Full Partner institution will create a special liaison relationship, informing and involving the partner in CLIOHnet activities; and second, they are associations or national reviews which will also be preferentially involved. The dissemination reviews are asked to publish CLIOHnet information and materials in order to inform the national public; the associations are expected to disseminate information among their members and to give feed back.

2. 
   Relation between initial objectives and final outcomes.
   

The foreseen outcomes at the end of the third year with respect to our initial objectives are very satisfying. Our objectives -- of being able to bring a pan-European innovative and critical viewpoint to the study, teaching and learning of History, and indeed to increase the historical awareness in general culture -- thanks to the hard work of the Network and a series of positive unforeseen events are in fact definitely closer, and we count on the dissemination year to broaden the impact of our work in many directions.

Our results can be read as a crescendo. The results which we propose to disseminate on as broad a scale as possible have been reached starting with the initial contacts between the then very small number of countries forming the EU at the time of the ECTS pilot project, beginning in 1988-9. The group itself has grown, judiciously, with the addition of only strong motivated partners; it now includes active members from all countries admitted to the Socrates programme (with the exception of Luxembourg and Liechtenstein because of the difficulty of finding HE partners in those countries) including Turkey; it also has ‘associate’ members from the south-eastern European countries of ex-Yugoslavia and from Russia, as well, naturally, as from Switzerland. The recent rapid expansion of the European Union and its prospects has been accompanied at each step by a corresponding expansion of the Network activities and of the historiographical space that CLIOHNET promotes in teaching, learning and research. The initial challenge of looking critically at the national and nationalistic historiographies and teaching methods of the western part of today’s Europe have now been replaced by the even greater challenge of clarifying the links, the commonalties and the differences between countries having an ever broader range of political, religious and cultural experience.

The fortunate circumstances of being able to participate in Tuning and TEEP as a pilot subject area has on the one hand utilised precious energies in the Network, but on the other given us the possibility of formulating our work and results in a way that furnishes a pioneering model for others as well.

3. 
   Project approach (work methodology, main pedagogical and didactic approaches and concepts as well as target groups).
   

The principal concept underlying all activities is that of creating a continuous active learning environment not only for students, but also for teachers, in which existing ideas about history and identity are placed in juxtaposition with similar ideas belonging to teachers and students of other national/regional/ethnic/social or gender background. This general kind of teaching and learning environment approaches in a fundamental and efficacious way the now widely recognised problem of ‘educating the educators”: in the CLIOHNET context all educators are also active learners, learning from each other and from students (mobility and IP students). Furthermore, this general approach is now articulated in a series of specific tools, for example: 1. Guidelines and reference points for history curricula for first cycle degrees, second cycle degrees (in the future for doctoral degrees), for double degrees and single history course units; 2. Guidelines and reference points for approaches to teaching and learning linked to specific competences; 3. Criteria for quality assessment linked to both general and subject specific competences; 4. Glossary for describing subject specific and generic teaching and learning activities and environments appropriate for history teaching and learning. Furthermore the Network has been able to publish books (nine volumes to date, each printed in 10,000 copies and distributed widely), videos and now DVDs based on the interactive multi-national situations created in the eight Socrates IPs we have held and conferences we have organised. Thus we are able to provide actual multilingual multinational materials and examples of teaching-learning packages, so that our approach can easily be used, tested and adopted in actual didactic situations.

3. 
   Project organisation (structures, management and use of information technology as a pedagogical or management tool).
   

For the purposes of the proposed dissemination project, the basic organisational structure already set up for the three years of Thematic Network activities will be maintained. That is, there is a central coordinator assisted by a management team (financial and secretarial assistance, webmaster for central clioh.net server); a Coordinating committee (at this time, the coordinators of the Universities of Graz, Gent, Groningen, Reykjavik, Riga, Debrecen and Sofia: it is planned to augment this group by two people, the Coordinators of the National University of Ireland, Galway and the University of Bologna who have been particularly active and furnished important expertise in many phases of the project); the existing Task Forces will continue to exist (there are five Task Forces, formed by on average six or seven members, who have the responsibility of analysing, instituting action and formulating recommendations for the areas of their competence (A. Access, Gender and Equal Opportunities Issues, B. Racial Discrimination and Ethnicity, C. Diachronic Cyberspace, ODL and ICT; D. History in secondary schools; E. Extending the Historiographical Space to Eastern European and Mediterranean Countries). In each country, partners will decide which institution will organise the National dissemination meeting, and how the other partners in that country (if there are more than one institution) will collaborate. Partners will be invited to organise bi- or tri national meetings when this seems possible and opportune. In those countries where the national meetings already held have led to establishing a national work group, this will be consolidated, reactivated if necessary and invited to join in the organisation of the national meeting. Each partner will be responsible for involving in the Network’s dissemination activities at least one institutional “dissemination partner”, who will be invited to participate in all national activities, and to the extent that financing can be found in other activities as well. Each partner is also responsible for involving in the dissemination activities one significant national journal or association. The associated journals are asked to publish materials illustrating the Network’s initiatives and findings. ‘Fiches’ on these dissemination partners are to be found below under point 7.4.

ICT Technology is important in CLIOHnet both didactically and as an organisational tool. The website is the central tool of communication and organisation within and outside of the partnership. There are many web-based sources of information and materials on the site (map of periodisation, materials on history of universities and free-download of books, indexes of books, national websites, calendar and so forth). As will be explained, the Network is engaged in an e-learning project (e-HLEE) presented by the University of Turku and 7 other partners on behalf of CLIOHnet.

3. 
   Dissemination and exploitation of outcomes.
   

During the operation of the TN dissemination has been an important dimension of activities throughout. And indeed it is not just a matter of ‘dissemination’, in the sense of spreading results through the National Meetings and the public meetings in conjunction with the plenary meetings. Rather these occasions and tools have been useful too to gather information and insight. We have distributed our books widely; we have also created a small booklet in 24 languages as a tool of dissemination about the Network and what it is doing. The website too has great importance as a tool for dissemination. All these tools and experiences will be used and enhanced during the proposed dissemination year.

As to exploitation, in our case this can be considered the fact that the materials produced and the guidelines and reference points already published have already been of guidance to those countries now implementing the two cycle system.

6. 
   Financial sources (preferably in table format).
   

The financial sources on which we have been able to rely during the project are basically of three kinds: 1) the EU Commission grant, which has made it possible for us to create a Thematic Network and interact in an extremely positive and productive way – as simply would not have been possible otherwise. We can add to this category the advantages of working in other related Commission pilot projects such as Tuning and TEEP which have greatly enhanced our effectiveness; 2) Support and interest in our institutions and departments, which has meant that our colleagues have been willing to take on some extra responsibilities because the CLIOHnet Coordinators devote a great deal of time to the Network; it has also meant logistical support, rooms, venues, translators, informatics, copies, willingness to cope with bureaucratic complexities and so forth. It has meant work, involvement, financial contributions and time when national o plenary meetings have been organised. Most of all it has meant that our universities have accepted that a large amount of the time of the Coordinators has not been spent on normal University or Department activities and business, but on CLIOHnet and its related projects; 3) there has been a very strong contribution of personal time by all the coordinators and a perhaps not limitless but very relevant ability to support CLIOHnet on the part of the Coordinators’ families.

On occasion of meetings and conferences institutions normally contribute not only their structures and personnel time, but they also offer some meals or buffets, guided trips and transportation. In the subject area history however, so far, we have not received other contributions.

For this reason, although a table is asked for, this general description seems to cover the topic: the time that normally would be put into University business or research is quantified in the tables elsewhere in this proposal.

6. 
   Additional benefits and spin-offs (including benefits from a European dimension).
   

As the project progresses the spin-offs and the ‘spin-ins’ -- if we can coin such a term -- are ever increasing. As to ‘spin-offs’ we can cite the activities developed by the Task Forces of CLIOHnet and carried out in through different projects for the whole Network, but in the first place by the organisers, the Task Force members themselves. For example, this is the case of the Task Force A on Gender and Equal Opportunities Issues, which provided an important input into the Socrates Intensive Programme held for the Network by the University of Riga in May 2003 on Religion and Political Change in Europe. Past and Present, which contains an important section devoted to the religious aspect of the elaboration of gender roles in contemporary Europe. The results are now published in book and DVD form for use and dissemination. The Task Force B has organised two conferences, one on ‘Racial Discrimination and Ethnicity in European History” and the other on “Tolerance and Intolerance in Historical Perspective’: these also are now available in book form for use and dissemination. The Task Force C has held an international conference on ICT in History (Bologna 2002), which is available for dissemination; it has now developed and presented successfully the three year e-HLEE e-learning project which will begin in October 2004. The Task Force D is carrying out an extensive survey of secondary school teaching/learning in the field of history and developing links with the work on history teaching in SEE countries run in the context of the stability pact. The Task Force E has carried out a survey of the teaching/learning offer in European Universities on Eastern European and Mediterranean countries. It is now presenting a proposal for a PROG for a second cycle degree in Mediterranean History Studies.

As to the ‘spin-ins’, as we have mentioned above, CLIOHnet has had and has the remarkable good fortune to be able to participate actively and proactively in the very significant Pilot Projects ‘Tuning Educational Structures in Europe” and Tuning II; and in the TEEP 2004 pilot project carried out with ENQA. This has meant that the results obtained in terms of pan-European relevance and usefulness are greater than would have been possible if CLIOHnet had not had the advantage of those synergies.

Finally let us emphasize that the Network is innovative in a European sense in a very fundamental way: it brings a pan-European dimension to a discipline which until now has been one of those most strongly linked to single national experiences. Its innovative capacity has been forged through a process of gradual, progressive accumulation of trans-national experience and knowledge. In its present from it is the product of fifteen years of experience and cumulative efforts to which than several hundred people have contributed in some way.

In CLIOHNET the broad European dimension, including east, west, north, south and centre, is not an ‘extra’, added on to something which already exists in each country. The structure and the history of the discipline themselves demand a new approach, and the Network’s strategies, its methodology and its vitality are based on its trans-national, multilingual pan-European agenda.

6. 
   Main problems encountered and solutions.
   

The main problems we have had to deal with are analogous more or less to those facing all Thematic Networks. Basically the potential of CLIOHnet is enormous, but carrying out the potential requires an enormous amount of work. Most partners are very motivated and do everything they can to carry out the project. However objectively academics – including the Central Coordinator -- must also teach and carry out a series of important duties in their home institutions. Hence their time is not limitless, and also they do not always have time available when CLIOHnet needs them. On the whole however, with some flexibility, we have been able to organise things in such a way as to have fairly constantly active partners. Experience has shown us the necessity, if at all possible, to hold two meetings per year, because otherwise the work-plan lacks continuity. Until now this has been possible because we have been able to hold meetings in common with our PROG, CLIOH, and one day of the Plenary meetings has been paid for by the Culture 2000 project, Clioh’s Workshop I and II. At this time we do not know whether we will have the same possibilities in the future, as that depends on whether the proposals we have now submitted are successful or not. This necessary flexibility has led us for example to allow the partner institutions to hold their National Meetings when it is best for them, whether or not it is at the date foreseen in our work-plan.