Notwithstanding evident asymmetries such as size, geography, history, economic structures or attitude towards immigration (2), Otmar Höll, the director of the OIIP (3) in Vienna, in trying to explain the attraction Canada exerts on Austrians, considers Canada to be closer to the positions of the European Union than the United States in “vielen zentralen global-politischen Fragen und Handlungsoptionen (4)” ["many central issues and options of taking action”.] He finds common basic values between our two countries – reflected in political and individual initiatives within organizations such as the Human Security Network or the United Nations (5). And he concludes that, from his Austrian point of view, Canada's growing appeal to the European epistemic community results from the fact that, while definitely representing North America, highly esteemed by European and Austrian scholars, Canada is not automatically synonymous with US-American positions: “In vielen dieser Dimensionen scheint mir die Übereinstimmung mit europäischen Interessen, Positionen, Zielen und Werten eher gegeben zu sein als mit jenen der USA, die aber dadurch für beide Seiten nichts an ihrer grundsätzlichen singulären Position verlieren wird” [“In many of these issues, there seems to be conformity rather with European interests, positions, goals and values than with those of the US, which does not mean that the latter would lose their undoubtedly singular position in the eyes of either side.”] (6). This is obviously not the place for details, but let me add one element to Otmar Höll’s list: If common concerns exist between Canada and Austria, higher education is definitely one of them (7). Both Austria and Canada take pride in their respective systems of education even if the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has shaken the Austrian self-confidence. And still, PISA does not disavow Austrian education as such; on the contrary, those students that have achieved top results come almost exclusively from institutions of higher secondary education; that is precisely the “ground” on which our bridge of transfer must stand.

Canada, however, is in an excellent position: According to PISA, it had the most remarkable results in 2003 (as it did in 2000), surpassing the US as Austria surpassed the Federal Republic of Germany in 2000 (8). In a recent report, the Canadian Education Centre (CEC) Network points out that the Canadian system of education absorbs 7.1% of Canada’s gross domestic product, thus lifting Canada into a pivotal position within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (9). It is on the university level, however, that significant differences between Austria and Canada become particularly noticeable. I am not referring to the higher degree of autonomy of Canadian universities, which Austria is trying to imitate, but to the tremendous national support of research programs sponsored by such institutions as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) (10). These programs may even be reinforced – as in Québec – by provincial contributions, whereas the Austrian university system has to accommodate itself with basically two organizations, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and the new Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) which, in comparison with Canada, creates an undeniable imbalance (11). Thus, generally speaking, the Canadian university has sufficient means and excellent standards, and there are a remarkable number of first-class universities. Compared with the US, Canadian universities are “competitively priced” and located in a country with comparatively low costs of living, a high standard of living, and a safe environment. Unfortunately, only the last two points are true for Austria.

Today’s Canadian academic landscape presents 91 public and private universities and university-degree colleges for a population of 32.5 million people as compared to 21 public and a few private universities in Austria (12) for a population of 8.2 million people (13). Speaking of exchange: Who are the players in this game? What is being exchanged and when did it all begin? In processes of transfer and mediation, the interacting parties may be individuals or institutions; among the former, in our case, are students, professors, researchers, administrators, artists, and authors; among the latter, departments, centers, universities, supported by embassies, “cultural institutes,” governments, and many more. In our age of globalization, however, individual players seldom take action independently of institutions while cooperation generally tends to grow according to decentralized market-like patterns (14).

In the case of Austria and Canada, the history of scientific and cultural transfer owes important impetus to the institutional frame. A recent case study at the University of Innsbruck (15), examining the ’90s, comes up with interesting results and puts on a sound empirical basis what has hitherto been simple assumption: According to its findings, the ’90s coincided with a tremendous increase of interaction and exchange, the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 marking particularly significant steps. This change in trend had, of course, a variety of causes but it was also the consequence of institutional action on both sides. It was the consequence of:

To begin with Canada, the process I am referring to began in the late 1970s and was reinforced vigorously at the beginning of the ’90s when the Canadian government felt the necessity to adopt a policy of academic and cultural visibility by encouraging the promotion of so-called Canadian Studies Associations, interdisciplinary academic organisms merged under the roof of the International Council for Canadian Studies (16) in Ottawa. The basic policy as expressed in an informal document – “Notes for speeches on the ICCS” (17) – is clear:

Today, 21 member associations for Canadian Studies (and five associate members) are flourishing world-wide, creating an unprecedented network for the promotion of a country’s culture and learning, and it is in this context that the opening of the first Canadian Studies Center in Austria has to be seen. It was founded at the University of Innsbruck in April 1997, followed by Vienna in October 1998 and by Graz in December 1999. But the three initiatives are just as significant when viewed from the Austrian point of view. With them,

Austria has finally decided to take action and invest in the creation of a center projecting Austrian culture and learning abroad: the Canadian Centre for Austrian and Central European Studies at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Its success story is synonymous with the name of my colleague Franz Szabo. It was founded in October 1998 and re-named the Wirth Institute for Austrian and Central European Studies in October 2003. But there is more to say about Edmonton, Innsbruck, Vienna, and Graz and the reality of intercultural action: Although these centers owe their foundation to historical and institutional constellations, they would probably not have come into existence without the extraordinary commitment, the diplomatic skill, and the persistence of such strong individual participants as the then Ambassadors Peter Walker, Walther Lichem, and Paul Dubois.

So, if today the centers can be considered the primary driving forces of scholarly and cultural exchange (18), the question is still: What are their priorities when selecting knowledge or artifacts in the partner’s culture? And to go one step further: Does reception mean translation, imitation, cultural adaptation, comment, or “recycling” of the material in a productive way (19)? There is no time for detailed answers, but let me touch upon at least some aspects of the selection process. With regard to our centers: Edmonton, Vienna, and Graz basically stay within the classical implications of area studies with a clear list of priorities such as history, the arts, music, and social sciences. In accordance with the University of Alberta, e.g., the job description for the Austrian visiting professor to the Wirth Institute presupposes expertise in one of the following fields: history, political science, sociology, literature, music, art history, or theatre studies. The same is true for Vienna and Graz. In contrast, Innsbruck has adopted a different concept, including exchanges in the field of natural sciences and technology, and cooperation not only between scholars “studying Canada” but also between those collaborating on research projects with Canadians “in Canada” or vice versa. Thus, the annual award of € 2000 for the best “Canadian” publication at the University of Innsbruck is granted for papers which – I quote – “einen eindeutigen Kanadabezug aufweisen, oder in Kooperation mit kanadischen Partnern entstanden sind (20)” [“have/refer to Canadian contents or are the fruit of co-operations with Canadian partners."] Likewise, the proceedings of the inaugural symposium of 1997 included contributions from the area of agricultural sciences, and those of the 2002 symposium, contributions on academic management issues, national parks, and environmental debates (21).

But there is more to the complexity of “transatlantic exchanges” between Austria and Canada. Consciously or not, selection and reception processes always have to do with self-perception and the perception of the other, with the recognition of one’s own and the other’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficits. Edmonton, for instance, within its mission of “classical” Austrian (and Central European) Studies, has opted for an original and innovative way of presenting Austria. From the very outset, the center saw Austria as one element in a multicultural mosaic of equal partners in the heart of Europe, a vision which nowadays seems to be the only possible one. Edmonton thus anticipated, in 1998, what was to become a European reality in May 2004. And even if the strong presence of Central European communities may have been one of the reasons for the center’s priorities, Franz Szabo’s choice is interesting from a systemic point of view. His perception of Austria is (determined) from a position of strength: As a historian, he is familiar with all facets of the Austrian past and, as a Canadian, with those of the Canadian policy of multiculturalism. While approaching Austria from a Canadian point of view, he confronts us with our own otherness. A similar example is the exchange of knowledge and know-how in the “High-Arctic” project (1997-2003) of the Austrian biologist Günter Köck, where the pollutant levels in fish serve as an indicator of global climate changes. In this case, his research on the ecosystem of the Alps enables him to approach that “other” reality – Canadian and high arctic – through the looking-glass of his Alpine experience. Again, looking for “the same” may lead to completely new visions of “the other.” The results are impressive: Köck is participating in a number of bilateral research projects such as the Polar Continental Shelf Project or the Northern Contaminants Program and has evidently stimulated international research (22).

The latter contains – not surprisingly – a broad section dealing with “multiculturalism and immigration policy.” The European scholar obviously has a selective and stereotyped view of Canada, associating the country in the first place with intercultural experience and openness, notwithstanding the fact that immigration is not an “anything goes” but follows strict rules. On the other hand, intercultural experience and openness are deemed to be deficient in the old nation-state Europe, confronted with new options and challenges. The titles mentioned above prove that, in this particular case, exchange is motivated by the desire to make up for one’s own deficits. The same is true on the level of literary theory where the Austrian scientific community turns to Quebec in search of appropriate models of analysis such as transculturalism or hybridity, which emerged in Quebec in the 1980s and helped to generate such innovative terms as “migrant literature.” Deficits or presumed deficits thus stimulate the process of exchange. And going into music and into the arts, the question is whether that same model would not help to explain why Austria imports Canadian dance companies, singers, and films whereas Canada still seems to have a predilection for classical – often Austrian – composers. Andrea Mellis, talking about her many years of European and Canadian experience of musical theatre, seems to confirm such a supposition (23).

The examples I chose do not, of course, cover the whole field of academic exchanges. Franz Szabo will add significant details concerning the Wirth Institute, and I should perhaps have mentioned other elements (24): The scientific community may or may not know, for instance, that Austrian philosophers like Ludwig Wittgenstein or such adoptive Austrians as the theologian Karl Rahner proved to be decisive, directly or via mediation of others like Bertrand Russell, for today’s philosophical and theological discourse in Canada; that the work of the renowned Canadian theologian Bernard Lonergan is the central node of a network linking the Universities of Innsbruck and of Toronto; that the Vienna of the turn of the century has stimulated important research on the Canadian side; that Quebec literary criticism – with a certain predilection for Thomas Bernhard – has initiated comparative studies between Austria and “la Belle Province.” The scientific community may or may not know that Austrian art historians show a new interest in Inuit art, historians and political scientists in Nunavut, and natural scientists in the Canadian North (25). In all these cases, academic exchange basically implies two different approaches, on the one hand, a purely comparative view, studying similar problems and resolving them in similar or differing ways, and on the other, the transfer of learning and artifacts in the strict sense of the word, with – possibly – a creative reception of ideas.

But what about “formal” action and reaction on the part of university administrations in Austria and Canada? What about official university partnerships and joint study programs? For reasons of time and space, I will have to set aside their visible “outcomes” like visiting professorships, excursions, symposia, or readings as well as such basic problems as the convergence or divergence of academic curricula, degree- recognition, or fees (26). The degree of institutionalization is not always easy to determine; the following remarks should therefore be considered indicators of general tendencies (27).

The earliest partnerships at university, faculty, or department levels were made in the late 1980s in the fields of business administration and economics (28), the Johannes Kepler Universität Linz visibly playing the pioneer role. The early 1990s then saw a rise in new treaties focusing again on business administration and economics, but also on agronomics, nutrition, geomatics, and architecture (29). Except for an early partnership between Graz and Waterloo in the fields of sociology and philosophy (1990) and a cooperation agreement between the University of Salzburg and Carleton (1994), the humanities were not the driving force of treaties (30). In the late 1990s, however, the number and range of cooperation agreements increased significantly: Comprehensive university partnerships were signed between Linz and the University of Victoria (1997), Linz and the Université de Montréal (1998), the Technische Universität Wien and Waterloo (1998), Innsbruck and the University of Alberta (1998), Vienna and the University of Ottawa (1999), Linz and Western Ontario (1999), and Innsbruck and Guelph (2000). In addition, faculty and departmental partnerships were concluded with Vienna, Graz, and Linz (31). The arts faculties thereby gained in visibility and were mentally supported by a new consciousness within the EU, which works in favor of corporate action in higher education. Last not but least, the establishment of anglophone and francophone post-colonial studies at Austrian universities seemed to contribute to a certain reorientation within the faculties.

To resume the question of cooperation agreements, the three leading Canadian partner institutions are Carleton, Toronto, and the UBC, followed by some 15 universities from East to West, such as the University of Alberta, Calgary, the École des Hautes Études Commerciales (Montréal), Guelph, McGill, Ottawa, Université de Montréal, Waterloo, Western Ontario, and finally Wilfried Laurier, and the École Polytechnique de Montréal. There is no doubt that academic co-operation agreements involve a high financial and administrative commitment on the institutional side and there are, of course, systemic incompatibilities which do not facilitate student exchange. Canadians, for instance, are not always capable of taking courses in a language other than English and their universities sometimes find it difficult to give foreign students free access in all domains. Nevertheless, study programs abroad should continue to be or become a matter of national concern both in Austria and in Canada; they are the most important pillars of our transatlantic bridge.

This brings me to my last point, Canada, Austria, and the EU, a relationship transferring the issue of academic exchange from a bilateral to a multilateral scale. A purely economic relationship in the 1950s, the contact areas between Canada and the EU quickly diversified with such milestones as the Framework Agreement for Commercial and Economic Cooperation in 1976, the Transatlantic Declaration on Canada-EU Relations in 1990 and the Joint Political Declaration and Action Plan in 1996.

As to science and education, significant impulses result from the Agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training in 1995, the Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation in 1996, both renewed in 2000, and the Agreement for Cooperation in Nuclear Research in 1998. Besides, the European Commission supports five EU Centers installed in Canadian universities (32) in order to “increase awareness about the political, economic, and cultural importance of the EU-Canada relationship through research, teaching, and public events such as conferences and workshops (33).” The same aim is pursued by higher education and mobility programs which promote the knowledge of the partner’s language, culture and institutions and thus become “one of the means to overcome transatlantic misconceptions and misunderstandings (34).” Technological cooperation, on the other hand, has been intensified under the EU’s Sixth Framework Program, the purpose of which is the creation of a common European Research Area, the development of a dynamic knowledge-based economy, increased transatlantic mobility, new modes of non-European participation, and assistance to researchers relocating back to Europe (35). Although only 2 percent of Austrian FP5 and FP6 projects include Canadian partners (3 percent in the case of the US), Stephan Neuhauser mentions 15 Austro-Canadian S&T research projects currently “under way,” involving 20 research institutions on either side (36). The emphasis is placed “on projects in information society technologies, and in the broader area of sustainable development, global change, and ecosystems”; joint EU-Canadian projects thereby have exactly the same success rate as domestic EU proposals (37).

Still, more remains to be done, and it is in this context that three recent Austrian initiatives deserve particular attention: the OST network of Austrian scientists abroad, starting its activities in 2001; the independent Association of Austrian Scientists and Scholars in North America, founded in 2002; and the OST’s web publication bridges, launched in 2004. Whereas the OST, run by Philipp Steger at the Austrian Embassy in Washington, focuses on the outreach of government-related agencies to Austrian scientists in North America, the ASciNA, with more than 600 members and a number of representations all over the US and Canada, tries “to support and promote Austrian scholars and scientists in North America and to facilitate interaction and collaboration with international research institutions (38).” It helps researchers to prepare extended stays in North America as well as to relocate in Austria, whereas bridges addresses a broader public interested in S&T policy in Europe, the US, and Canada.

Austria and Canada thus share a common interest when it comes to scientific policies and knowledge transfer. Both of them invest in science and technology to anticipate the needs of our global society, and in social sciences and humanities to answer some of the burning questions of our time which touch on culture and identity (42). Although not comparable in size or in financial means, they are nevertheless comparable in their efforts and in the quality of their human resources.