[gu-l] (12/31/01)"Diversity and Change in a Global Context" by Professor
Brenda Gourley of U.K. Open University
Tak Utsumi
utsumi@columbia.edu
Mon, 31 Dec 2001 21:36:02 +0000 (GMT)
<<December 31, 2001>>
Archived distributions can be retrieved by clicking "Correspondence" in our
home page at <http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/>.
For those after 2/27/01, see or bookmark:
<http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/gu-l/> and click on "Date," for
example. The most recent archives are the bottom line.
Dr. Paul Lefrere <p.lefrere@open.ac.uk>
Alexandre Almir Ferreira Rivas, Ph.D. <alex_mau@argo.com.br>
Yamasawa, Kiyohito, Dr.Eng. <yamasaw@gipwc.shinshu-u.ac.jp>
Dear E-Colleagues:
==================
(1) ATTACHMENT II below is the transcript of the speech made by Professor
Brenda Gourley, new Vice Chancellor of the U.K. Open University, which
I received from Paul yesterday.
Dear Paul:
==========
Many thank for this info, and your msg (ATTACHMENT I).
It is the very impressive speech. I strongly suggest that you read it
through.
Dear Alex:
==========
(2) I am sure that your CampusNet and Community Development Network
projects meet well with the directions she points out.
Dear Prof. Yamasawa:
====================
(3) This is another excellent reference for the vision setting of your new
Shinshu University.
If you incorporate this into yours, your university will become very
unique and outstanding among other Japanese universities. This will
be the key to your survival.
Happy New Year!!
Best, Tak
****************************************
ATTACHMENT I
Subject: Re: Open University & GUS, InfoDev, etc
Date: Monday, December 31, 2001 6:11 AM
From: Paul Lefrere <P.Lefrere@open.ac.uk>
To: <utsumi@columbia.edu>
Cc: <tvaris@helsinki.fi>, <utsumi@columbia.edu>, <mardias@club-internet.fr>
utsumi@columbia.edu writes:
>I read the transcript of Prof. Gourley's speech with great interest. It is
very impressive.
Dear Tak
I have just checked with her office.
Her email address is b.m.gourley@open.ac.uk
Her speech is publicly available at this URL:
http://www.open.ac.uk/vcs-speeches/BGourley/VCs_council_lecture.doc
And also as a webcast at
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/stadium/live/berrill/vc_keynote_council.html
Best, Paul
****************************************
ATTACHMENT II
THE OPEN UNIVERSITY
The Council Lecture
Diversity and Change in a Global Context
Professor B. M. Gourley
Vice-Chancellor designate
21 September 2001
The 11th of September 2001 is a date that will be engraved upon our minds for
the rest of our lives. It will be engraved upon our minds not just because of
the shock and the horror of human tragedy, not just because of the gross
cruelty inflicted upon human beings by fellow human beings although both of
these are true - but because it was the day on which the golden barricades of
the First World were breached in a manner unimaginable to most of us.
I use the word barricades' advisedly. It is the word used by the Shell Group
when they described two equally plausible scenarios for the future of our
world. The first scenario they dubbed the story of barricades'. I cannot do
their research justice in such time as I have but essentially in this
scenario the biggest divide in the world is between the rich and the poor
countries. Jaworski describes it as follows: "The rich fear the turbulent
politics of the poor world. They see its spillover effects in refugees,
lawlessness, the drug trade, and environmental damage, and they want to
insulate themselves. They are repelled by what they see as alien values: for
example, Islamic fundamentalism and the tribal bloodletting in the Balkans,
the Caucasus, and Africa. They avert their attention inward and take steps to
isolate themselves from these impoverished and disease-ridden countries.
"For their part, the poor-country governments are suspicious of the motives
of the rich, remembering their history of colonial exploitation, gunboat
diplomacy, and political destabilization. The endless portrayal of rich
societies as selfish, godless, amoral, and racist creates a deep alienation.
Fear and suspicion rule on both sides." (Page 157) The scenario planners saw
this situation as basically unsustainable, with the distinction between war
and crime becoming increasingly blurred, and criminal anarchy emerging as a
"significant danger to the rich countries." (Page 159)
The second plausible scenario is entitled the new frontiers story'. This is
a story where the liberalization of economies continues and there is a shift
in the center of gravity in the world's economies. Dramatic growth in the
big-populous countries notably China and India combined with more careful
economic policies in the present First World make this possible. "Governments
over time learn to pay attention to the very poor and to avoid social
explosions. They also learn to spread the benefits of growth more equitably
and to provide the necessary safety nets." (Page 167) By the end of the
scenario period the world is a very different place and this is largely due
to the fact that people, "rich and poor alike, have come to realize their
economic, social and environmental interdependence." (Page 169)
It is not just this particular set of scenarios that give us pause for
thought. Political, social and economic theorists from all over the world
are, in one way or another, sounding alarm bells about a status quo that
cannot be sustained; in particular the divide between the rich and the poor
cannot be sustained. Social theorist, Manuel Castells tells us in very
powerful and moving terms that the most striking consequence of the new
global network society is its corrosive effect on equality and social
justice. In his blunt words: "Entire countries around the world and large
segments of the population everywhere are becoming excluded." (Quoted by
Barber, 1999) This kind of society is based on a systemic disjunction between
the local and the global for most individuals and social groups. "It devours
itself," he says, "losing the sense of perspective of continuity of life
across generations, so denying the future of humans as a humane species."
(Ibid) Castells concludes that the system, over time, is not only
economically and technologically unsustainable, but socially and politically
unsustainable. (Muller, Cloete and Badat, page 20)
Not the politics of the nation state, not the politics of the city, not even
the grand unifying ideal of democracy itself have so far managed to halt the
growing divide of rich and poor. Technology gives every indication of
increasing this divide. In the global context we know that in India, for
example, only 1% of households have Internet access while in Singapore access
is close to 50%. In a country as large as the United States, access is
somewhat over 45% and in Britain somewhat less than 30% (The Economist, June
24, 2000). What these figures do not tell you are the disparities they hide.
Right here in the United Kingdom a Family Expenditure Survey released in July
last year shows not only the vast differences in access but that those
differences relate to income and that they are growing. Single-parent
families and pensioners living alone have least access of all and they will
be even more marginalised in a Western society than they would be in an
African or more Eastern society, where community and family structures are
still stronger.
Curiously enough, this month also saw Durban hosting the World Conference on
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Other Related Intolerances.
Many people have been outraged, angry, disappointed, hurt and exasperated by
some of the incidents that took place there. That may be so, but none of us
should turn our faces away from what we heard, nor indeed should any of us
believe that somehow this has nothing to do with us as individuals or
institutions. If anything should reinforce that view (perhaps for less than
noble reasons), it is the recent events in New York and Washington. In
particular, I believe those of us involved in education should pay special
attention.
For me the most moving of all the events at the conference was the forum
arranged for personal "voices" to be heard. Here we heard from individuals
their personal stories of misery and gross abuse of human rights. We heard
from a woman who had been imprisoned and repeatedly raped in Serbia; we heard
from a 17 year old Nigerian slave; we heard from a gypsy girl; we heard from
a Dalit (untouchable) in India; we heard from refugees; we heard many tales
from women and from children; we heard one sad tale after another. Over the
course of just a few days we heard tell of almost every human horror that one
human being can inflict upon another; we heard that our world is indeed a
place that frequently gives little cause for pride and complacency. And if we
did truly hear, truly listen to these voices, then perhaps the conference has
achieved one important goal. For these are people that are not often -- and
perhaps have never before -- been given voice' in quite this way and in
giving them a voice we have sent a message of hope to them and millions like
them all over the world that we are prepared to listen and prepared to act
on that listening and learning experience. It seems to me that the word
diversity' was given entirely new dimensions in this arena and that a
special responsibility rests with the educators.
Scenarios, stories and conferences such as these lead us to the ineluctable
conclusion that we are, this week and this month and this very year, at an
important turning point. One author calls it a "hinge of history", a time
when one ill-considered decision by the powerful could swing the balance and
make all the difference. If we keep our heads through this crucial time we
are still in a very precarious state and it will take all of our collective
and individual wills to do whatever it is that we are required to do to make
a better world, a more peaceful and equitable world.
All universities have a social responsibility in this matter. The Open
University - which has put social justice at the very heart of what it seeks
to do, and does so not just for those fortunate enough to be behind the
golden barricades, but for those beyond it is the very stuff of its mission
and much reflection is necessary to such a task.
Some may imagine that this task is not ours, but rather that of the nation
state. Yet we have seen globalization demonstrate just how helpless the
nation state can be. It is one of the great ironies of our time that thanks
to the spread of democracy, more people than ever before in human history
have a chance to influence their governments while at the same time
globalization is eroding government's ability to act on their behalf. As
Daniel Bell has remarked, the nation states are too small for the big
problems and too big for the small problems. Some people may imagine that the
task is that of large economic blocs. Yet we have seen in Europe the
helplessness of a large bloc to deal with tides of refugees, for example, and
ethnic war. The reality is that none of us, on our own, can undertake all
that is necessary to the task. As Edward Wilson has so cogently reminded us,
covenants are necessary to our survival. Corporations especially those with
global reach governments, international development agencies, institutions
such as the United Nations, the fast growing organs of civil society: all
these must be involved. Universities must involve themselves in this
endeavour or forever abandon any pretense they may have to educating, in the
words of the UNESCO declaration on Higher Education "for citizenship and
active participation in society, with a worldwide vision, for endogenous
capacity building, for the consolidation of human rights, sustainable
development, democracy and peace, in a context of justice." (Page 21)
For those that believe that this ideal might be something worth striving for
but is, nevertheless, something beyond the true core business of a
university, I would like to sound a note of caution. Universities exist in a
highly competitive climate where they are putting greater and greater
pressure on the public purse. What they do is no longer (if it ever was)
regarded as automatically a social good'. Calls for accountability and
relevance give clear notice that universities can no longer rely on public
opinion being on their side. The Association of Commonwealth Universities has
just published a document entitled "Engagement as a Core Value for the
University." It makes the point that "21st century academic life is no longer
pursued in seclusion (if it ever was) but must rather champion reason and
imagination in engagement with the wider society and its concerns." It goes
on to assert that "engagement implies strenuous, thoughtful, argumentative
interaction with the non-university world in at least four spheres: setting
universities' aims, purposes and priorities; relating teaching and learning
to the wider world; and back-and-forth dialogue between researchers and
practitioners; and taking on wider responsibilities as neighbours and
citizens." (Page i) This engagement is seen as so important that it might
well be the saving grace of a university model otherwise terminally doomed.
The work of Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, suggests that
the university as we know it, in particular one that integrates teaching and
research under one roof might be at an end. Certainly management guru Peter
Drucker thinks it is.
The theme of this year's meeting Diversity and Change in a Global Context'
is therefore singularly appropriate at such a time. It is a theme that
signifies that change is on the agenda (whether we like it or not) and that
diversity, as a concept, is fundamentally linked to that change. It is a
theme that suggests that diversity' as a strategy is a necessary response to
a globalized world where we must aspire to being global citizens and prepare
our students to be global citizens. It is a theme that seems to suggest that
the world that we occupy can be a better place and that we must reflect on
how we at the Open University can make it so. I hope we conclude our
deliberations with an understanding that this is not a choice but rather an
imperative both ethically and practically.
The diversity and change agenda must be driven by an understanding that the
world is so complex, so fast-changing, and so full of interdependencies that
no one person, no one culture, no one community can hope to understand it.
Peter Senge has suggested that organizations have to constitute themselves as
what he calls learning organizations' in order to function in this world. He
describes the five key characteristics of learning organizations as having a
shared vision, being capable of dialogue or the sharing of mental models,
having the capacity for teamwork, developing personal mastery in its members
and exercising systemic thinking. Some people may assume that by its very
nature, a university is a learning organization. To think so would miss the
point entirely. Indeed to think so would mean that one had fallen into the
very trap one would hope to avoid by aspiring to be such an organization. To
assume that what one knows is everything -- even about any particular
discipline -- is profoundly dangerous. To assume that one knows everything
about what education and what research is appropriate in a world so complex
and changeable is even more dangerous. It is particularly dangerous in the
world of education where so much of what we do is, whether we like it or not,
is value driven. It is no accident, after all, that many of our institutions
were founded by religious orders.
In a society defined as a knowledge society, as the ACU document makes so
abundantly clear, "increasingly, academics will accept that they share their
territory with other knowledge professionals. The search for formal
understanding itself, long central to the academic life, is moving rapidly
beyond the borders of disciplines and their locations inside universities.
Knowledge is being keenly pursued in the context of its application and in a
dialogue of practice with theory through a network of policy-advisors,
companies, consultants, think-tanks and brokers as well as academics and
indeed the wider society." This has important implications for how a
university constitutes itself and how it makes decisions, to say nothing of
how it sets its research priorities and decides on teaching and learning
agendas. These are all issues of diversity. It means that the institution
must conceive of itself in much broader terms, cosmopolitan terms; it means
also that it is no longer possible to have all that you need to know within
the institution; it means enlarging the number of partners and collaborations
and making the borders of the institution as porous as possible; it means
embracing diversity in all its shapes and forms. It also means that, as the
institution and the world beyond today's boundaries become more permeable,
"our own values will be under constant review" (Page 40) for that indeed is
what we seek to achieve.
I would like to suggest that setting out to become a diverse organization is
unlikely to be successful if the present constituents of the University do
not have a clear understanding of what we mean by that, what the likely
implications are and why it is important. Put in another way we need to have
a shared vision of what it is we are setting out to achieve and why. Such a
shared vision is only likely to be achieved after a considerable amount of
reflection and dialogue. It is too important and requires too great a shift
in mental models (to use the Senge phrase) to be taken for granted that
people will accept it as a good thing', or even know how to implement it
once they have accepted the concept. Meaningful social change, even in an
institution that is relatively small, can only be achieved if the people in
the institution can be persuaded that it is in their interests to embrace
change and have some idea of what it means to do so.
Let me use South Africa as an example. South Africans in the late 1980s and
early 1990s were staring into a yawning abyss of civil war, economic
deterioration and a rising tide of unemployment. Even then the cushioned
elite might well have retreated further into their laagers if a massive
campaign had not been waged, not only by people outside the country (a
campaign which culminated in academic boycotts, sports boycotts and economic
sanctions) but also inside the country. One of these campaigns was one which
took a scenario planning exercise originally conducted by one of the largest
companies (Anglo-American) and turned it into a very persuasive road show'
a show which reached somewhere between 25 000 and 30 000 people in all walks
of life a show which marked a unique time of reflection and conversation, a
unique opportunity for people not only to work towards changing their mental
models, but indeed to come to understand that the whole foundation of their
privileged life in South Africa had to change. I believe that beyond a
certain age people do not necessarily have a thirst for new learning, do not
necessarily want to engage in new forms of learning, do not wish to step
beyond their comfort zones. They will do so only if they can be persuaded
that they must.
Reflection in this case could well begin with an examination of the scenarios
compiled for us by the Shell group -- the stories of the golden barricades
and the new frontiers. It should include consideration of the main drivers
for change in Higher Education: the pressure for equity and access, for
social inclusion, on the one hand and on the other the forces of
globalization which have made lifelong learning an economic necessity and put
education on the map as one of the biggest businesses in the world, an
intensely competitive arena where only the strong and the focused will
survive. The Internet alone makes literally thousands of degrees available,
some of them with brands that our consumerism culture recognizes and, indeed,
to which it responds. Microsoft is a good example. The Open Sourceware
movement adds impetus to the competitive dimensions which our institutions
have to accommodate. The recent decision of MIT to put all its material on
the Web is the first indication of what this might mean.
Higher Education in South Africa also went through a period of intense
reflection both as a system and at an institutional level. The system
produced the National Commission on Higher Education a document that
essentially defined new goalposts and was one of the most far reaching
examinations of any HE system in the world. Experts and leaders from all over
the world, east and west, were brought into the process. Institutions were
variable in their engagement. At the University of Natal we embarked on a
series of intense dialogues with communities and stakeholders that
universities have not traditionally regarded as partners. The result was a
set of strategic initiatives that have guided the university through the most
turbulent period in its history and played a major role in keeping it stable.
By delivering on these initiatives the University literally positioned itself
in a way that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago and did so because it
did not, consciously not, rely on only its internal resources and thinking to
conceive of its role and the part it could play in a new democracy.
Reflection and conversation in South Africa (which I am using as an example
of social change) went far beyond the kind of scenario road show that I
described earlier. It included, and indeed still includes, a variety of very
painful exercises in self-examination and reflection. One of these exercises
was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which gave people from every
quarter the opportunity to tell their stories of pain and loss and
humiliation. The process was motivated by an understanding that merely moving
into a new democracy was not enough. People -- all people -- had to
understand what had happened during those horror years and there had to be
apology and forgiveness. Universities, for their part, would do well to
reflect on the proceedings of the World Conference on Racism that I described
earlier. The issues that were raised there and the heated and painful debates
that took place are debates that are being elevated to world platforms and in
some cases, separate us from understanding one another across continents and
cultures.
Let us also reflect on what happened in New York and Washington last week.
This was a spectacular event but it was not as isolated as we would like to
believe. The terrorists, the extremists, the people in the streets of
Washington, Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa unacceptable and repugnant as
some of their tactics are are all telling us the same thing. The world is
not at all what it may seem to us sitting here in Milton Keynes. As one
sloganeer so aptly summed it up in Genoa: "you are G8, we are 6 billion."
John F. Kennedy, writing in his book Why England Slept, cited a former
British prime minister's description of the pre-war 1930s as "years the
locusts have eaten". In his book Six Nightmares: Real Threats in a Dangerous
World and How America Can Meet Them, Anthony Lake writes: "Look around you.
Listen. You can hear the locusts munching." The recent events in the United
States have sounded a massive alarm for the world's populations, but there
are various other alarms that Lake raises, and which may be wise for us to
heed.
It behoves universities to exercise some intellectual leadership in these
matters and to ensure that the future leaders of the world, many of whom
study in the universities of tomorrow, are better equipped, educationally and
attitudinally, than those of today. The words of Nelson Mandela evoke real
possibilities: No one is born hating," he said. "People must learn to hate
if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love "
Of course one of the blessings in South Africa during a time of change was
great leadership, one of the most outstanding examples of which was Nelson
Mandela - a man who had truly risen above the circumstances of his
imprisonment and the humiliations he had endured; a man who harboured no
bitterness; a man who was the living embodiment of forgiveness. A great
leader. But we have learnt in South Africa, and there are many examples all
over the world, that leadership does not reside in one person. Indeed it is
dangerous if it does. Leadership can and should be shared. It needs to be
cultivated and nurtured and developed wherever it is found. Building a
culture of leadership, encouraging enterprise and being tolerant of mistakes
are all necessary to a change process, where people need to be given room to
grow, accommodate to new realities. Grulke (page 195) suggests that an
organization built for the 21st century should resemble a flock of birds, as
individuals take turns to determine direction and lead aspects of the
enterprise. Highly structured and hierarchical organizations do not encourage
such leadership, do not distribute decision-making, and will not be
sympathetic to diversity and change.
So what does building a diverse institution mean? In essence it means that we
have to reflect on three issues: who we are, what we do, and how we govern
ourselves (that is, our decision-making processes).
Who we are is reflected in our staffing composition as well as the ranks and
positions of the staff. It is not particularly impressive if 50% of our staff
are female but they are all in the lower ranks of the university structures
and do not feature in any of the decision-making bodies. Who we are is
reflected in our student body, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level
and across different disciplines (although I accept that some disciplines are
more intractable than others). Neither of these is simply a race or gender
matter. Issues of class, origin (like urban or rural) and whole host of other
potential divisions need careful attention to make an inclusive and diverse
staff and student body.
Diversity is not something that is easily accommodated in a set
organizational culture. Newcomers from different backgrounds are not really
welcome nor are they likely to contribute to their full potential if it is
they that must accommodate to the dominant culture and there is no
accommodation to them. The space and the time to learn to appreciate and
value different points of view is also something that needs attention. It has
to do with engagement' to use the ACU word again. Troy Duster, writing on
this topic, used an easily understood example. "Access to the theatre just
means you get in," he said. "Whether you enjoy the performance is another
matter." (Page 42) He used another striking example in conversation where he
drew a spectrum with hate' being at one end and love' or appreciation being
at the other. "Tolerance," he said, "is just in the middle. There's a way to
go before you get to appreciation."
What we do is reflected in what we teach, both in the range and content of
our courses, and what we research. It is not what you say but what you do
that will eventually be the benchmark by which you want to be judged.
"Universities continue to do their least impressive work on the very subjects
where society's need for greater knowledge and better education is most
acute." (Bok, page 122): public education, poverty and blighted urban and
rural communities, corruption, social work and human services, refugee
issues, war and AIDS orphans to name but some. In the matters determining
war and peace, central to the ethics of solidarity and global citizenship,
difficult moral questions and hard decisions need to be surfaced even within
the boundaries of the institution. We have debated before what it means to be
educated, what it means to be a global citizen. Never before have the answers
been central to our very survival.
How we govern ourselves is the last area where diversity is to be given
attention and where there has to be vigilance if we are to get the full
benefit of a diverse community. Who gets to make the important decisions? How
porous can our boundaries be made and how is this done? How do we engage with
the communities in which we are sustained?
The essential skills and capabilities of learning communities (such as there
are) include the need for communities to aspire to be something different.
Other requirements are reflection and conversation in those communities and a
willingness to engage in ways that may mean that assumptions and beliefs may
well change. And then some capacity to see larger systems and forces at work
is needed. A special kind of leadership seems to be a necessary condition as
well. I have been privileged to live in a country, South Africa, where all
these elements were at work and where deep and profound change and learning
has taken place. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the
South African transition was anything more than an interesting episode in
history and whether or not it can be transported as a learning experience to
any other place in any other time. I believe it can.
Ladies and gentlemen, we stand at the dawn of a new tomorrow. We can either
embrace the rich mosaic of our human cultures, races, religions, gender, to
name but some of what could reaffirm our faith in the triumph of the human
spirit, or we could seek refuge within the familiar. The natural reaction is
not always the smartest. In a global age it is even dangerous. This is not a
time for competition, for winners and losers, but rather a time for
collaboration and reconciliation. This is not a time for the faint-hearted
but for the courageous. It is a time for strong intellectual leadership
leadership which affirms the ties that bind us as citizens of the same
planet, and which affirms the ethics of a common humanity. Working together,
towards a common goal, I believe it is possible for us, as Martin Luther King
said "to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope".
It has been said that "destiny is not a matter of chance it is a matter of
choice. It is not a thing to be waited for it is a thing to be achieved."
(William Jennings Bryan, quoted in Visions, page 322). And none of us is
excluded from this responsibility, as John Donne noted as far back as the
17th century: "No man is an island entire of itself", he said. "Every man is
part of the main. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in
mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls
for thee."
Bibliography
1. Beckham, Edgar F. (Ed), Diversity, Democracy & Higher Education: A
view from three nations. Association of American Colleges and
Universities, Washington, 2000.
2. Bok, Derek, Universities and the Future of America. Duke University
Press, London, 1990.
3. Castells, M. The Information Age: Economy, Society & Culture - Volume
1: The Rise of the Network Society. Second edition. Blackwell, Oxford,
2000.
4. Grulke, Wolfgang (with Gus Silber), Ten Lessons from the Future: 21st
Century Impact on Business, Individuals and Investors. @One
Communications, Johannesburg, 2000.
5. Jaworski, Joseph, Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership
(Introduction by Peter Senge). Berret-Koehler Publishers, San
Francisco, 1988.
6. Kaku, Michio, Visions: How Science will revolutionise the Twenty-First
Century. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988.
7. Lake, Anthony, Six Nightmares: Real Threats in a Dangerous World and
How America Can Meet Them. Little Brown & Company, New York, 2000.
Articles and other publications
8. Challenges of Globalization: South African debates with Manuel
Castells. Muller, Johann; Cloete, Nico; Badad, Shireen (Eds). Maskew
Miller Longman, Cape Town, 2001.
9. Engagement as a Core Value for the University: A Consultation
Document. Association of Commonwealth Universities, London, April
2001.
10. "Government and the Internet" in The Economist. June 24 - 30, 2000.
11. Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action.
UNESCO Publication, Paris, October 1998.
****************************************
Distribution List
Dr. Paul Lefrere
Senior Lecturer
Institute of Educational Technology
Director, Networking and Partnerships, Joint Information Systems Committee
(JISC)
Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Systems
Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44-1-908 65 33 88
Fax: +44-1-908 67 28 02
p.lefrere@open.ac.uk
http://www-iet.open.ac.uk/
Alexandre Almir Ferreira Rivas, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor
Director of the Center for Environmental Sciences
Director Centro de Ciencias do Ambiente e Professor da Economia
University of Amazonas - Brazil
Centro de Ci=EAncias do Ambiente
Av. General Rodrigo Otavio Jordao Ramos 3000
Bairro do Coroado - Campus Universitario
C.P. 4208, Manaus, AM 69053-140
BRAZIL
Tel/Fax.: +55 92 647.4066 or +55-92-644-2384
Cel: +55-92-9988.9121 (from 7:30am to 7:00pm, Monday to Friday)
alex_mau@argo.com.br
http://www.argo.com.br/~alex_mau/alex.htm
http://lab-tiama.pop-am.rnp.br/cca/workshop/English/wksp_E.htm
Yamasawa, Kiyohito, Dr.Eng.
Professor
Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering
Shinshu University
4-17-1 Wakasato, Nagano 380-8553
JAPAN
Tel: +81-26-269 51 96
Fax: +81-26-223 77 54
ISDN:+81-26-223-0228
yamasaw@gipwc.shinshu-u.ac.jp
http://yslab.shinshu-u.ac.jp
**********************************************************************
* Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman, GLOSAS/USA *
* (GLObal Systems Analysis and Simulation Association in the U.S.A.) *
* Laureate of Lord Perry Award for Excellence in Distance Education *
* Founder of CAADE *
* (Consortium for Affordable and Accessible Distance Education) *
* President Emeritus and V.P. for Technology and Coordination of *
* Global University System (GUS) *
* 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing, NY 11355-3998, U.S.A. *
* Tel: 718-939-0928; Fax: 718-939-0656 (day time only--prefer email) *
* Email: utsumi@columbia.edu; Tax Exempt ID: 11-2999676 *
* http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/ *
**********************************************************************