Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
TEEME – Text and Event in Early Modern Europe An Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate (EMJD) Annual Monitoring Report 2014 Part 1: non-reserved This report covers year three of the programme (1 September 2013 to 31 August 2014) plus the first few weeks of year four, and has been drawn up in line with the guidelines as agreed in annex three of the TEEME Consortium Agreement. 1. Students registered on the programme 31 students are currently registered on the programme: nine students in the first cohort, eight students in the second, eight students in the third, and six students in the fourth. The apparent decrease in the number of Fellowships allocated to TEEME is misleading. The number of Fellowships in the first three years was identical in each year (five Cat A and three Cat B guaranteed; one WB special window Fellowship upon application), but we did not have eligible applicants for the special window Fellowship in years two and three. The fourth programme edition is the first launched under the new funding regime Horizon2020 when the allocations to all EMJDs had been cut across the board. All 31 current students are Fellowship holders. 21 of those students are non-‐EU passport holders, ten are from within the EU. (Two students hold dual nationality, including one who has both an EU and a non-‐EU passport. For the purposes of Erasmus Mundus, this second student is registered as non-‐EU.) Together the 31 students represent 22 different nationalities and four continents: there are five students from India, two students each from Brazil, Canada, Italy, Tunisia, and the United Kingdom; and one student each from Algeria, Belgium, Colombia, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, and Venezuela. The gender balance is 22 female students, nine male. The four cohorts with full names of the students, their research projects, countries of origin, pathways and supervisory teams are listed in the four documents appended to the end of this report. The list suggests that the international aspirations of the programme and the Erasmus Mundus scheme more generally have been fully met. Spread across the institutions: all 31 students have chosen two of the four consortium universities, and the 62 choices made are divided across the consortium as follows: Kent 23, Berlin 19, Porto 12, Prague 8. This spread has not changed significantly in each cohort. The Academic Board has discussed in previous years the imbalance produced by two thirds of the students opting for Kent and Berlin, and only one third for Porto and Prague. So far it has not been thought advisable to direct student mobility more pro-‐actively to ensure a more
2
balanced spread, since this would constitute an interference in student choice and the adequate supervisory fit (the key criterion for approving pathways). The imbalance is also still deemed to be within acceptable variations. 2. First cohort (2011-14) All nine students of the first cohort, whose 36-‐month study period technically came to an end on 31 August 2014, are still registered on the programme. Of these nine students, six are currently in the second month of year four (unfunded); the other three, owing to intermissions earlier in their doctorate, are at various stages in their final semester of year three. Two students have now submitted their theses and their doctoral committees have been established. One viva is to take place in Kent (de Rycker; viva date 17 November 2014), one in Prague (Pranić; anticipated viva date mid-‐February 2015). The other seven students are expected to reach submission stage between now and June 2015. Six of those seven students have applied for, and been granted, extensions of between two and six months (the maximum extension period allowed as per the TEEME agreement is six months). The new submission dates including any intermissions taken and extensions granted are listed in the table below. No Name Inter-
mission Extension granted
Thesis submitted
New sub-mission date
1 Avxentevskaya -‐-‐ 2 months -‐-‐ 31/10/2014 2 Beider 3 months 3 months -‐-‐ 28/02/2015 3 De Rycker -‐-‐ -‐-‐ 31/08/2014 -‐-‐ 4 Elsayed 2 months 3 months -‐-‐ 31/01/2015 5 Gargioni 6 months -‐-‐ -‐-‐ 28/02/2015 6 Jakka 2 months 6 months -‐-‐ 30/04/2015 7 Nikolovska -‐-‐ 3 months -‐-‐ 30/11/2014 8 Pranić -‐-‐ -‐-‐ 31/08/2014 -‐-‐ 9 Rowlatt -‐-‐ 4 months -‐-‐ 31/12/2014
3. Student mobility The nine students in the first cohort have now completed, or are about to complete, their pathways. Five students in the second cohort transferred to the other three sites on 1 March 2013 (two to Berlin, two to Porto, one to Prague), three remained at Kent. All have since continued on their pathways. Six students in the third cohort transferred to two of the other sites on 1 March 2014 (four to Berlin; two to Prague). Mobility overview, cohorts 1 to 4, covering the three semesters 3/2014 to 8/2015 (NB: Cohort 3 students will be on placements in semester 3/2015-‐8/2015 and their final site allocation will follow their placement choice – these students are indicated in italics in the list below):
3
Semester
Site Cohort 4 (2014-17)
Cohort 3 (2013-16)
Cohort 2 (2012-15)
Cohort 1 (2011-14)
Kent -‐ Klein Käfer, Sousa Garcia (2)
Ala Amjadi, Caldari, Lange, Leemans, Kesavan (5)
Gargioni, Nikolovska, Rowlatt, de Rycker, Jakka, El Sayed (6)
Berlin -‐ Amelang, Basu, Diviya, Kadi (4)
(0) Beider (1)
Porto -‐ (0) Garcia Zaldua, Pascual Noguerol, Perez (3)
(0)
3/2014-‐8/2014
Prague -‐ Bakić, Liu (2) (0) Avxentevskaya, Pranić (2)
Kent Boughanmi, Fersi, Kocsis, Sharda, Smith, Teo (6)
Klein Käfer, Sousa Garcia (2)
Caldari, Garcia Zaldua, Kesavan, Perez (4)
El Sayed, de Rycker, Gargioni, Nikolovska, Rowlatt, Jakka (6)
Berlin -‐ Amelang, Basu, Diviya, Kadi (4)
Lange (1) Beider (1)
Porto -‐ (0) Ala Amjadi, Lange, Leemans, Pascual Noguerol (4)
(0)
9/2014-‐2/2015
Prague -‐ Bakić, Liu (2) (0) Avxentevskaya, Pranić (2)
Kent (0) Amelang, Basu, Diviya, Klein Käfer, Sousa Garcia (5)
Caldari, Garcia Zaldua, Kesavan, Perez (4)
Jakka (1)
Berlin Boughanmi, Kocsis, Smith, Teo (4)
Amelang, Basu, Diviya, Kadi, Klein Käfer (5)
Lange (1) -‐
Porto Fersi (1) Bakić, Liu, Sousa Garcia (3)
Ala Amjadi, Leemans, Pascual Noguerol (3)
-‐
3/2015-‐8/2015
Prague Sharda (1) Bakić, Liu Kadi (3)
(0) -‐
4
4. Monitoring of academic progress All students have one progress meeting every six months, with each meeting constituting a progression point. These meetings are held at all four sites and trigger a report lodged centrally with the coordinating institution (with further copies held by the general coordinator). Supervisory staff external to the institution where the student is studying are required to submit comments in writing prior to the meeting unless they attend the meeting via skype or in the flesh. Over the past year, 39 progress meetings involving the first three cohorts were held at all four sites. The participation pattern of the supervisor external to the site where the meeting was held was as follows: Participation via skype: 12 meetings (31%) Participation in the flesh: 2 meetings (5%) Submission of written comments: 22 meetings (56%) No input: 3 meetings (8%) The fact that over one third of all progress meetings are now conducted face to face by supervisory staff from two different institutions indicates a considerable increase in collaboration across all four sites by the TEEME academic staff. At the same time, the 8% of meetings conducted without any input from the second supervisor remain a concern and will be addressed by the general coordinator through direct approach of the staff concerned. 5. Changes to the programme There have been no major changes to the programme. The only minor change is the following:
• The bi-‐annual progress reports now contain a choice of only three recommendations (proceed; cause for concern; withdraw) rather than four (exemplary progress; satisfactory progress; cause for concern; withdraw). This change was agreed at a meeting of all supervisory staff present at the Prague conference in November 2013 where it was felt that the interpretations of the distinction between “exemplary” and “satisfactory” varied greatly at the four sites and had a detrimental effect on the students’ perception of their own progress.
6. Finalizing of thesis submission, viva procedures, and final certificate Prior to the first two students submitting their theses on 31 August 2014, the TEEME Academic Board finalized its own procedures regarding the thesis submission process and the arrangements for the viva. Guidelines to staff and students have been published on the TEEME website: http://www.teemeurope.eu/DCA/thesis_submission.html
5
For each viva a doctoral committee will be established consisting of either five or six members, depending on the degree-‐awarding institutions involved in the viva. The rules regarding the composition of the doctoral committee conducting the viva are included in the Doctoral Handbook, section 22: http://www.teemeurope.eu/documents/TEEME%20doctoral%20handbook%202013.pdf The final certificate for the joint degree to be awarded to each successful TEEME student has been the subject of much discussion and institutional consultation throughout the year. The discussions covered all aspects of the final certificate, including its precise wording, the process of printing, and the issuing of the certificate to the student. It was not possible to get a one-‐page joint degree certificate in one language accepted by all partners, therefore certificates will be issued in either one, two or three languages, depending on the combination of degree-‐awarding institutions. These languages are English, German and Portuguese (with CU Prague being prevented by internal regulations from issuing a Czech-‐language certificate in conjunction with more than one other language and therefore opting for a certificate in English). A version in English, the consortium language, will be part of all certificates. A detailed draft annex to the Consortium Agreement specifying the precise regulations for the issuing of the final certificate is currently being considered by all four institutions. 7. Management Board The TEEME Management Board met for the first time in 2014. The meeting was conducted in the form of an email consultation, with questionnaires being sent to all members of the board and the responses summarized by the Chair. The documentation is available in full on the TEEME website: http://www.teemeurope.eu/governance/board-‐meetings.html?tab=tab3 The summary of responses includes action points for the TEEME Academic Board which will be considered at its next meeting in Berlin on 1 November 2014. 8. External review The TEEME Consortium Agreement included under clause 13.4 the requirement to have the programme reviewed after year three by a committee containing at least one external reviewer. This review was conducted in June 2014 as part of the periodic programme review of the Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies at the University of Kent, which administers TEEME. The review group contained two external members and has concluded that it is entirely satisfied with the contents and the management of the programme. A letter from the Chair of the Management Board confirming this outcome has gone out to all consortium partners and will be considered by both the Advisory Board and the Academic Board of Studies at their meetings in October/November 2014.
6
9. Arrival of fourth cohort The six new students of the fourth cohort have all arrived safely at Kent in mid-‐September for the start of their first semester. No problems relating to visas or transportation have been reported. A detailed timetable for the first semester has been put together by the general coordinator. 10. Work placements All students in the second cohort have undertaken their work placements in 2014. At the time of writing, three students are still completing their placements, while five have already submitted their reports, available on the website: http://www.teemeurope.eu/placements/Placement_reports_cohort%202.pdf The table below gives an overview of placement allocations. Name Placement
provider Date of placement
Work pattern
Report received
Ala Amjadi Courtauld Gallery (London)
Started 09/2014
1 or 2 days a week
No (placement ongoing)
Caldari British Library (London)
03/03-‐11/04/2014
3 days a week over 6 weeks
Yes
Garcia Zaldua Museu Municipal de Etnografia e história da Póvoa de Varzim (Porto)
05/05-‐06/06/2014
4 weeks, daily Yes
Kesavan Globe Education (London)
Started 09/2014
2 or 3 days a week
No (placement ongoing)
Lange National Maritime Museum (London)
03/03-‐04/04/2014
4 weeks, daily Yes
Leemans National Maritime Museum (London)
12/05-‐13/06/2014
4 weeks, daily Yes
Pascual Noguerol
Casa da Música (Porto)
Started 09/2014
4 weeks, daily No (placement ongoing)
Perez Teatro Nacional São João (Porto)
21/05-‐08/07/2014
7 weeks, 4 hours a day, plus extras
Yes
All five students who have so far submitted reports write very positively about their work placement, emphasising the value of acquiring work experience in a professional context and commenting on the link between their own research and the working conditions in a public-‐facing institution. They join the first-‐cohort TEEME students in considering the work placement as “one of the most exciting and interesting experiences of [their] professional work life” (Lange). Some of the blog posts that have come out of the TEEME work placements this year include the following:
7
http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/library/2014/06/30/letters-‐archibald-‐buchanan-‐midshipman-‐1803-‐1804/ http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/library/tag/family-‐history/ http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/longitude/2014/07/30/guest-‐post-‐pirate-‐map/ (Daniel Lange on writing the National Maritime Museum website about the letters of a common sailor shortly before the Battle of Trafalgar and about a pirate map.) Several other blog posts, websites and related publications by TEEME students undertaking placements in 2014 are in preparation (eg at the Globe Theatre and the Courtauld Gallery). Responses from placement providers have again been very positive. Cohort 2 students will talk about their work experiences in a dedicated 90-‐minute slot at the TEEME annual conference in Berlin on 1 November 2014. 11. TEEME annual conference TEEME held its second annual conference from 31 October to 2 November 2013 at Charles University in Prague. The programme and conference poster have been archived on the website: http://www.teemeurope.eu/documents/2013%20TEEME%20conference%20programme.pdf (programme); http://www.teemeurope.eu/documents/wordworldsposter/wordworldsposter.pdf (poster). The conference featured a keynote lecture by Carlo Ginzburg and was attended by all 25 TEEME students then registered, c. 20 TEEME staff, 4 representatives of the associate partners, and several colleagues and students from Charles University. Staff and student feedback on the conference has been excellent. The third TEEME conference will be taking place at Free University of Berlin from 30 October to 1 November 2014. A conference website has been set up at http://teemeconference2014.com/ 12. Additional elective modules Several elective modules open to all TEEME students were offered by the participating universities this year in addition to the regular offerings. They included: “Parents and Children: The Iterations of King Lear”, taught by Prof. Michael Neill in Kent, 4 March to 3 April 2014; “Women and Power: Early Modern Representations”, taught by Prof. Rui Carvalho Homem in Porto, 23 to 28 June 2014; and “Rhetoric in Early Modern Literature and Philosophy”, taught by Prof. Martin Procházka (for the third successive year) in Prague, 15 to 25 September 2014.
8
13. Student conferences, symposia and fellowships TEEME students have been very active on the international conference circuit this year, with many attending a variety of events and delivering papers on their research. There have also been several conferences and symposia organized by TEEME students themselves (in addition to the annual TEEME conference, which is a mandatory programme element). These additional events include: Early Stuart Politics. The Anglo-‐French and Anglo-‐Spanish Marriage Negotiations and their Aftermath, c. 1604-‐1630, 10 to 12 April 2014, held at the University of Kent and Canterbury Christchurch University, organized by Valentina Caldari (TEEME) and Sara Wolfson (Canterbury Christchurch) Knowledge Machines. The Potential of the Digital, 27 September 2014, held at the University of Kent, organized by Kate de Rycker (TEEME), Martina Pranić (TEEME), and Janneke Adema (Coventry) Movable Types: Peoples, Ideas, Objects. Cultural Exchanges in Early Modern Europe, 27 to 29 November 2014, to be held at the University of Kent, organized by Kate de Rycker (TEEME), Tiago Sousa Garcia (TEEME), and Stefania Gargioni (TEEME) Anglo-‐Iberian Relations, 1500-‐1850, 9 to 11 April 2015, to be held in Mértola, Portugal, organized by Valentina Caldari (TEEME) and Elizabeth Evenden (Harvard) Two TEEME students have also successfully applied for postdoctoral fellowships and follow-‐on funding: Maria Avxentevskaya has been awarded a two-‐month fellowship by the Anna Amalia Library in Weimar, and Valentina Caldari has been awarded a one-‐month study fellowship by the École des hautes études hispaniques et ibériques in Madrid. 14. Doctoral student feedback Only summaries of student responses are provided here; the full feedback is available on the Governance section of the TEEME website: http://www.teemeurope.eu/governance/student-‐feedback.html a) Cohort three, semester one (Kent): The third cohort were asked at the end of their first semester at Kent (February 2014) to provide feedback on the following aspects: 1) the field trips, 2) the weekly supervision seminar, 3) research methods, 4) the Kent Graduate School skills workshops, 5) general programme organisation and communication between TEEME staff and students, 6) any other comments. Feedback was predominantly positive across the cohort. The programme is seen as “excellent and well conceived”, “effective and well organized”, and the
9
consortium of four universities in four different countries is described by one student as a “seamless network”. Another student commented specifically on the excellent communication channels between different cohorts. Among the programme elements highlighted for particular praise were the supervision seminar (“most enriching”, “very useful”, “great opportunity”, “useful rite of passage”, “very valuable”, “excellent”, “stimulating environment”, “opened horizons and offered different perspectives”) and the field trips (“most elevating element” of the programme, “useful and inspiring”). One student summarized the purpose of the field trips in words that could not have been chosen any better by the general coordinator: “The field trips gave a well-‐rounded introduction to the institutions we visited. It was instructive to discuss the rewards and challenges of being public institutions that had to reconcile often conflicting goals. The field visits also helped me flesh out early modernity through a variety of paradigms -‐ space, material, object, text, archive etc. Since many of the institutions are involved in reconstructing or revisiting the past in some sense, the visits also helped add contemporary perspective to the historical imagination on which many of our projects are based. It was reassuring to discover potential 'real-‐world' uses of academic work/skills. The preparatory sessions introduced the visits well. I liked that the introductions highlighted key issues rather than giving a generic overview.” The research methods were seen as a mixed bag this year, with some considered very helpful and others less so. The skills courses offered by the Kent Graduate School were again severely criticized by many students, though it was clearly helpful to book places in advance on some of the most popular of these courses that had been recommended by previous TEEME students. No suggestions were made regarding any major structural changes but some criticism and suggestions for minor changes were offered regarding specific elements of semester one provision, summarized below. 1) The field trips were “not all equally helpful”, one student commented, with “some less necessary to my research”. The same student thought they were too long in duration and not ideally scheduled on a Wednesday before the supervision seminar on a Thursday. Another student suggested that the preparatory reading for the field trips could be compiled in one package and handed out in advance. 2) The supervision seminars were generally praised though one student thought that “more specialists” should be invited. Another student thought it might be helpful to set a time limit for presentations. 3) Research methods: one student suggested an additional session on the use of archives. 4) General organisation: one student thought it might be helpful to meet all Kent-‐based staff at the beginning of term.
10
5) Other suggestions: One student thought a general “introduction to early modern studies” might be a helpful module; one thought the MEMS research seminar (convened every Thursday afternoon during the Kent autumn term) should not be “compulsory”; one student suggested that all students should be accommodated in the same house on the Kent campus; one student asked for a greater choice of modules at Kent; one students thought the EACEA should be alerted to problems with the issuing of visas by the London-‐based embassies and consulates of the EU partner countries. Comments on this feedback by TEEME coordinator and actions already undertaken as a result of feedback: 1) a) Field trips “not necessary to research”: the field trips are not intended to be directly related to any one student’s specific research project, as clearly set out in the TEEME documentation, the Handbook to students, and explained and emphasized in the induction sessions in the first semester at Kent. Hence the expectation of the student articulated in the feedback quoted above is misguided. 1) b) Duration and timetabling of field trips: most field trips are between four and five hours in length, which does not seem particularly long. However, four out of five field trips require trips to London from Canterbury, where the students are based, which may make the visits seem longer than they actually are. Since the relevant institutions are located in London and not in Canterbury, it is not easy to see a solution to this problem. Timetabling: the Thursday supervision seminar starts at 2pm in the afternoon, so it is difficult to see how even a late return to Kent the previous night could have much impact on performance on Thursday afternoons. The slot for the supervision seminar has not been changed, although an attempt was made to move the field trips from Wednesday to another day of the week. This was only possible for one out of five institutions, however. 1) c) Preparatory reading in one pack: The reading is suggested by the institutions visited and their recommendations are not always available at the start of term. An attempt will be made in 2014 to distribute any required reading earlier than last year, when it was generally available one week before the session. 2) “Specialists” at supervision seminar and time limit for presentations: The primary function of the supervision seminar is to give students a forum for the early articulation of their project ideas and to get feedback from their peers and staff at Kent. All participating staff and students are “specialists” in the sense that they are early modernists at varying stages of their research career. Beyond that it is not clear what precisely the student had in mind with their comment. A time limit for presentations goes against the idea of these seminars, in which students are invited to start a debate with their peers in whatever form they find most suitable. In most cases this has led to lively debates rather than overlong presentations by students.
11
3) Research methods session on archives: a session at Canterbury Cathedral archives led by the Cathedral’s Head archivist has been included in this year’s programme. 4) Getting to know Kent-‐based staff: a session entitled “Meet the Staff”, in which all medieval and early modern staff at Kent are invited to present themselves and their research in five minutes, was held in week 0 of the autumn term (25 September) this year. 5) a) “Introduction to early modern studies”: the various events and sessions organized during the first semester at Kent, plus the online workshop in semester two, organized by Berlin, and the various modules and skills courses on offer in all institutions, are intended to prepare students for their specialized early modern research. Students on a doctoral programme are otherwise expected to arrive with extensive background knowledge. 5) b) MEMS research seminar should not be “compulsory”: the weekly research seminar offered by MEMS is not compulsory for TEEME students. 5) c) On-‐campus accommodation in one house: despite many efforts to have all TEEME students choosing to live on campus accommodated in one building, accommodation services at Kent have not been able to organize this. Unfortunately, this is out of the control of academic staff at Kent. In 2014, owing to the smaller size of the cohort and to the fact that only four out of six students opted to live on campus, all on-‐campus TEEME students have actually been accommodated in the same house. 5) d) Greater choice of modules at Kent: the Lear module mentioned above under point 11 was made available to all TEEME students this year. 5) e) Visa problems: The EACEA is well aware of ongoing difficulties in obtaining visas. The advice issued by the Agency is followed by TEEME. In addition, TEEME supports all students in their attempt to procure the required visas. So far, not a single visa necessary for the agreed programme mobility has been denied to any TEEME student since the start of the programme in 2011. b) Cohort one, semester 5; cohort two, semesters 2 and 3 (Berlin): Feedback from both cohorts praised the modules and lectures attended and the general support received from TEEME staff in Berlin. The overall organisation and programme coordination were described as “professional” and “efficient”. No criticism of the Berlin provision was raised in the feedback. c) Cohort 1, semesters 5 and 6; cohort 3, semester 2 (Prague) One cohort one student spent their final TEEME semester in Prague and reports excellent support and assistance, and clear communication of the process of thesis submission. Two cohort three students also report excellent support from the local coordinator and praise the supervision seminar in which they had the
12
chance to present their projects to their peers and local professors. One criticism concerns the slow response from the International Office in Prague (occasioned by a staffing change), which however improved considerably towards the end of the semester. One suggestion is to have more early modern modules on offer, another to scale down slightly the amount of material covered in existing modules. The request by one student “to provide students with Schengen visas” covering the whole of the three years of the TEEME doctorate is not within the power of the programme organizers as visa rules are the exclusive preserve of EU members states. As indicated above under 14a), response to 5e), TEEME has so far been successful in enabling all its students to procure the necessary visas for the required programme mobility. Note: at the time of writing this report, no feedback has yet been received from Porto. Any feedback received later will be included in next year’s AMR. 15. Relations with the Agency (EACEA) Our main contact at the Agency has changed again in the course of 2014. Misia Coghlan, who attended the Porto conference in November 2012, has moved on and been replaced by Christine Voelkl. Our second contact remains Georgiana Ghitun. The main business between TEEME and the Agency concerned the EACEA response to the pre-‐financing request submitted for the first edition of the programme in April this year. This response was received on 4 August 2014 and while the request was accepted it also contained four recommendations. The first of these concerned a misreading of the documentation provided by TEEME, the second asked for clarification of a line in our Fellowship Contract, and the fourth asked for an elaboration of our thoughts on the sustainability of the programme. These queries will be answered in due course by the general coordinator. The third recommendation concerned a more serious issue. It pointed out that the pathway followed by one Category B student in cohort 1 was not eligible under EM rules because that student had obtained their previous degree in one of the two pathway countries in which s/he was now also studying on TEEME. According to the Agency, EM rules state that all Cat B students need to study in at least two EU countries for at least 6 months in each, and that neither of those two countries can be the same one as the one where the last degree was obtained. This is not a rule of which the TEEME Academic Board had any awareness. Close scrutiny of the EM programme guide revealed that this rule was not obvious from the explanations provided. The relevant rules stipulate, first, that all EMJD students must study in at least two countries for at least six months in each. In this part of the guide, no restrictions regarding the choice of country are indicated. Second, the rules state that EMJD candidates need to engage in research activities in at least two different countries, and that for Cat B Fellows, neither of these two countries can be the country where they obtained their last degree. No minimum time period is specified for these activities.
13
All TEEME students study in at least two countries for at least six months in each, and all engage in research activities in one or two other consortium countries as well, though not for periods of six months or more. In our opinion we had been following the rules as stated in the programme guide. The general coordinator put this case to the Agency and added that the data about the student in question had been scrutinized by the Agency on two previous occasions, when no objections were raised. The Agency accepted these arguments on condition that in subsequent cohorts all Cat B pathways observe the rule regarding the country where the last degree was obtained. This affected four students in cohorts two and three whose pathways have now been adapted. Kent, 22 October 2014
Bernhard Klein (TEEME General Coordinator)
14
List of Erasmus Mundus Fellows, 2011 entry
Name Country Topic Pathway Supervisors 1 Avxentevskaya,
Maria Russia The Aesthetic Aspect of
Knowledge Acquisition in the European Renaissance and Early Modern Period
1) Berlin 2) Prague
1) Pfister 2) Procházka 3) Kent adviser: Kesson
2 Beider, Mikhail Canada / Russia
Formation of Modern Eastern European Identities during the Early Modern Period in the Polish-‐Lithuanian Commonwealth
1) Prague 2) Berlin
1) Županič 2) Ulbrich 3) Kent adviser: Grummitt
3 De Rycker, Katharine
United Kingdom
The Intertextual Presence of Thomas Nashe and Pietro Aretino in Elizabethan and Jacobean England
1) Porto 2) Kent
1) Carvalho Homem 2) Kesson 3) Pfister
4 Gargioni, Stefania
Italy The Diffusion of Political and Religious Propaganda during the Wars of Religion in France (1560-‐1576)
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Jarzebowski 2) Potter
5 Hashem Abdel-Rahman Elsayed, Laila
Egypt Cross-‐cultural Representations of Otherness in Early Modern English/ Arabic Travel Texts
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Schülting 2) Landry
6 Jakka, Sarath Chandra
India Mapping Utopia and Education in Early Modern Europe and Contemporary India
1) Porto 2) Kent
1) Vieira 2) Cox
7 Nikolovska, Kristina
Macedonia Narrating the Self and the City: Accounts of Southeast European Peoples in the Early Modern Period
1) Kent 2) Berlin
1) Landry 2) Jarzebowski
8 Pranić, Martina Croatia Historical Manifestations of Carnival in Four European Cultures
1) Berlin 2) Prague
1) Pfister 2) Procházka 3) Kent adviser: Klein
9 Rowlatt, Linnéa Shekinah
Canada The Role of Climate Change in the Protestant Reformation
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Ulbrich 2) Fincham
15
List of Erasmus Mundus Fellows, 2012 entry
Name Country Topic Pathway Supervisors 1 Ala Amjadi,
Maryam Iran Veils versus Bonnets: Cross-‐
cultural Representations of Femininity in Early Modern English/Persian travelogues
1) Kent 2) Porto
1) Landry 2) Bastos da Silva
2 Caldari, Valentina
Italy Hispanophilia and Hispanophobia: English Attitudes towards Spain and Its Empire in the 1620s
1) Porto 2) Kent
1) Vieira 2) Fincham
3 Garcia Zaldua, Johan Sebastian
Colombia When Worlds Collide: European-‐Indigenous Metallurgies During the Contact and Early Colonial Period of America (1500-‐1650)
1) Porto 2) Kent
1) Polónia 2) Pettigrew
4 Kesavan, Vidya
India Nuclear Shakespeare. Modernity and Technology from Early Modern Europe to the Global(ised) Nuclear Age
1) Prague 2) Kent
1) Procházka 2) O’Connor
5 Lange, Daniel Germany ‘Writing Pirates’ -‐ British Buccaneers and Their Travel Narratives, 1684-‐1699
1) Kent 2) Berlin
1) Klein 2) Ulbrich
6 Leemans, Annemie
Belgium Studio Practice and Immigrant Artists in England. The Study of A Very Proper Treatise
1) Kent 2) Porto
1) Richardson 2) Polónia
7 Pascual Noguerol, María Cristina
Venezuela / Spain
Explorations of the Interaction between Architecture and Music in the European Renaissance and Latin American Colonial Art
1) Berlin 2) Porto
1) Schneider 2) Polónia 3) Kent adviser: Klein
8 Perez, Natália Brazil Gender Roles in Early Modern European Theatre and Their Influence on Productions in the American Continent
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Kolesch 2) Cox
16
List of Erasmus Mundus Fellows, 2013 entry
Name Country Topic Pathway Supervisors 1 AMELANG, David Spain The Spanish Globe 1) Berlin
2) Kent 1) Mahler 2) O’Connor
2 BAKIC, Jelena Montenegro The Price of Being an Outsider: Women Artists in Transnational and Transcultural Contexts
1) Prague 2) Porto
1) Nováková 2) Santos 3) Kent adviser: Landry
3 BASU, Somnath India Early Modern Religious Prose Pamphlets, 1558-‐1588
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Schülting 2) Fincham
4 DIVIYA India The Language Question and Rhetorical Selfhood in English and Indian Early Modernity
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Pfister 2) Landry
5 KADI, Djamila Algeria Barbary Captivity Narratives
1) Berlin 2) Prague
1) Jarzebowski 2) Nováková 3) Kent adviser: Klein
6 KLEIN KÄFER, Natacha
Brazil German "Brauchbücher" in Southern Brazil
1) Kent 2) Berlin
1) Richardson 2) Jarzebowski
7 LIU, Yi-Chun Taiwan Utopian Writing in East and West
1) Prague 2) Porto
1) Prochàzka 2) Vieira 3) Kent adviser: Newman
8 SOUSA GARCIA, Tiago
Portugal The First English Translation of Camões' The Lusiad
1) Kent 2) Porto
1) Klein 2) Santos
17
List of Erasmus Mundus Fellows, 2014 entry
Name Country Topic Pathway Supervisors 1 BOUGHANMI,
Soumaya Tunisia The Sultan and the
Ottoman Court in Early Modern English and French Drama
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Schülting 2) Landry
2 FERSI, Haifa Tunisia Marginal Communities in England and Spain
1) Porto 2) Kent
1) Santos 2) Richardson
3 KOCSIS, Alexandra Szilvia
Hungary The Relation of Texts and Images in Early Modern Reproductive Prints
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Olk 2) Thomas
4 SHARDA, Saksham
India Shakespeare’s Bollywood and Bollywood’s Shakespeare
1) Prague 2) Porto
1) Procházka 2) Carvalho Homem 3) Kent adviser: tbc
5 SMITH, Richard United Kingdom
Converted Jews and the ‘Ethnographic’ Approach to Writings on Judaism in 16th-‐century Germany
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) tbc 2) Loop
6 TEO, Emily Kang Ning
Singapore Identifying Global Connectedness through European and Chinese Travel Accounts (1580-‐1630)
1) Berlin 2) Kent
1) Mühlhahn 2) Klein
