Open & Distance Education in the Global Environment

Collaboration in the Time of Competition

Presented at:
International Conference on Open and Distance Education
International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
Theme: Open & Distance Education in the Global Environment:
Opportunities for Collaboration

New Delhi, India
19-23 November 2005


written by:

Sir John Daniel, Asha Kanwar (Commonwealth of Learning),
Stamenka Uvalić-Trumbić and Zeynep Varoglu (UNESCO)

presented by Sir John Daniel

Introduction

As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Indira Gandhi National Open University it is an honour and a privilege to give this keynote address on the 88th anniversary of the birth of Indira Gandhi herself. She was born on the 19th of November 1917 and I pay homage to her memory today. The Indira Gandhi National Open University was named in her honour soon after her untimely death.

I believe that she would have been proud of the way that the Indira Gandhi National Open University has developed over two decades. It has become both a national treasure and an international icon as the largest unitary university in the world. Through its scale, scope and its use of technology it is an inspiration to educators everywhere.

Please allow me also to pay a personal tribute to IGNOU's founding Vice-Chancellor, Professor G. Ram Reddy. One of the outstanding group of vice-chancellors who founded today's mega-universities, he was a towering figure in Indian education as well as a personal friend. A decade ago, at the Birmingham ICDE Conference, I had the signal honour of receiving, with Professor Reddy, the Award for Individual Excellence of the ICDE and the Commonwealth of Learning. Sadly, Professor Reddy died only days after receiving that award. He too would be proud to see what IGNOU has become today.

The theme of this conference is Open and Distance Education in the Global Environment: Opportunities for Collaboration. How very appropriate to hold a conference on this theme in India! This country is making a remarkable contribution to the development of higher education in the developing world.

Visiting Africa last year to address the Pan-African Parliament, the President of India announced the special initiatives that India was taking to support the New Partnership for African Development, NEPAD. He spoke in his inspiring way of the contribution of electronic and knowledge connectivity to the economic development of Africa. Satellite and fibre-optic links could connect all 53 nations of the African Union and support tele-medicine, eLearning, eGovernance, eCommerce, infotainment, resource mapping and meteorological services1. The pact between India and the African Union was signed three weeks ago. IGNOU's programmes could be made available throughout the African Union through this Pan-African Satellite Network.

I refer also to India's participation in the renaissance of the universities of Africa, where your model of the Indian Institutes of Science and of Technology is being adopted as one way of repairing decades of neglect.

Facilitating south-south collaboration between India and Africa is an important function for both COL and UNESCO. COL has more activity in India than in any other country. We assist India directly and we help India to help other Commonwealth countries. That's another reason why I am proud to be here.

This conference is about collaboration. To practice what I preach I have made this address an opportunity for collaboration by calling on the wisdom of three co-authors.

Professor Asha Kanwar is a former Pro-Vice-Chancellor of IGNOU and leads our work in higher education at the Commonwealth of Learning. Stamenka Uvaliæ-Trumbiæ heads the Section on Reform, Innovation and Quality in Higher Education at UNESCO. She has a special attachment to New Delhi, having lived part of her youth here when her father was the distinguished Ambassador of Yugoslavia to India in the 1960s. He became a close friend of Indira Gandhi in these important years for the Non-Aligned Movement when India was a pillar of this early expression of south-south collaboration. Zeynep Varoglu is also from UNESCO and has recently coordinated a significant product of the close collaboration between UNESCO and COL: the joint publication Perspectives in Distance Education: Lifelong Learning and Distance Higher Education2. Finally, let me simply note that Indira Gandhi and I both studied at Oxford University and I am proud to be an honorary graduate of IGNOU.

Our title is Collaboration in the Time of Competition. This paraphrases the title of a novel by the Columbian Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera3. In that remarkable book he juxtaposes love, the most sublime human emotion, with cholera, a dreaded and often mortal disease. Without aspiring to Marquez' literary brilliance we shall juxtapose the seemingly contradictory concepts of collaboration and competition. Is harnessing them together a paradox or a possibility? Is it rhetoric or reality?

Marquez draws parallels between the symptoms of love and those of cholera. At the end of the novel a quarantine of cholera makes eternal love possible. Less ambitiously, we shall try to demonstrate the symbiosis between collaboration and competition. We shall examine their roles in the recent history of distance education and look at collaboration today. A variety of successful international examples shows that collaboration is an essential underpinning to the healthy competition that can bring learning opportunities to millions. We shall end with comments on what makes collaboration successful.

From national to international: the evolving scope of distance education

Early history

The emergence of modern multi-media distance education in the last decades of the 20th century had several causes. Governments wanted to expand access to higher education. They assumed this would require the use of new technologies and methods, because an essential aim was for students to learn wherever they were, without having to assemble in classrooms. Teaching and learning would occur at distance.

Distance learning was not new. At the time, in the 1960s and 1970s, it was already widespread; it was called correspondence education and it was highly competitive. In some countries commercial companies competed for correspondence students, in others, as here in India, the competitors were the correspondence branches of public universities.

Everywhere competition was brisk and largely unconstrained by state regulation. This meant that maximising student success often took second place to maximising institutional income. Commercial correspondence schools collected their fees upfront and relied on early students drop-out to boost profits. The university correspondence branches were more eager to plough money back into the campus than to help correspondence students complete their studies.

This bad situation provoked two responses: regulation and new competition. In 1970 Jessica Mitford published an article in Atlantic Monthly, 'Let us now appraise famous authors', that was a devastating exposé of the racket then masquerading as one of the best-known US correspondence schools4. She later described entertainingly, in her 1979 book Poison Penmanship: the Gentle Art of Muckraking, how that article caused a flurry of regulation of correspondence teaching5. UNESCO helped to establish guidelines for good practice6.

New competition came from the open universities that numerous governments set up following the pioneering example of the United Kingdom. In order to widen access to higher education these institutions innovated in various ways. One was to extend the media of distance learning beyond print. Another was to focus on student success rather than institutional profit. Collaboration was the means to both these ends.

To extend their media open universities collaborated with other organisations. The UK Open University has worked with the BBC for three decades and co-publishes materials. IGNOU has a developing relationship with the Indian Space Research Organisation for the use of satellite links. There are many other examples.

To serve students better the open universities have created student support networks that rely on collaboration with other institutions for study centres and tutors. Through such collaboration the open universities grew deep roots in their national post-secondary systems that partly explain their rapid acceptance by the academic world.

Institutional collaboration was accompanied by collaboration at the national level. India set up the Distance Education Council as a collective mechanism for quality assurance and the regulation of distance teaching in both open and conventional universities. In the UK the Council for National Academic Awards was an outstanding example of a collective approach to ensuring the quality of the awards made through the numerous polytechnics.

Our brief account of the early history of modern distance education suggests that collaboration and competition are two sides of a spinning coin. After a period of competitive free for all, correspondence education began to face both regulation and competition from new state providers that used collaboration as a basis for improving their teaching.

Recent developments

What about more recent developments? Over the last ten years the leitmotiv of distance education, as for higher education generally, has been internationalisation, which is not the same as globalism7 and globalisation8. Higher learning and scholarship has been international for a millennium. Centuries before Erasmus came to symbolise the academic nomads of medieval Europe, Arab scholars travelled frequently between Baghdad and the great centres of learning of the Middle East9. The University of Nalanda in ancient India attracted students from China, Nepal, Tibet and Korea.

Although cross- border traffic in learning materials and courses is now growing rapidly, it is wrong to associate the internationalisation of distance education directly with the World Trade Organisation and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS is an effect, rather than a cause, of the accelerated internationalisation of higher education caused by more rapid and effective communication links.

Improved communications have given particular impetus to distance education. We refer not only to information and communications technology but also to the removal of barriers to the movement of people as the Berlin Wall came down apartheid ended. The dotcom boom, coming soon after these political upheavals, created an effervescence of competitive projects for delivering learning online to an international audience.

The competitive eLearning frenzy spawned by the dotcom boom mirrored the free-wheeling era of correspondence education half a century earlier. But there are also parallels between the collaborative nature of contemporary international developments in distance education and the evolution of national systems a generation earlier. Organisations now collaborate internationally in order to enrich academic environments and programmes for students. The Open Educational Resources movement has become a vital new area for individual and institutional collaboration. At the same time countries are working together to create quality assurance frameworks. Let us examine these phenomena in turn.

Institutional Collaboration in Cross-Border Education

The UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN programmes express the ancient tradition of international academic collaboration in contemporary form. The many examples include the Global University Network for Innovation; the ORBICOM network of UNESCO Chairs in Communications; and the UNESCO-Cousteau Ecotechnie Network for interdisciplinary work in sustainable development. There are also some twenty UNESCO Chairs and four UNITWIN Networks in Distance Education10.

In partnership with Hewlett-Packard UNESCO is addressing the problem of brain drain by engaging national Diasporas in links between universities in South-East Europe and partners in richer countries. By creating virtual communities these links enrich local research environments and encourage young academics to work in their own countries. The scheme is now being adapted for Africa.

By conducting education across borders many institutions at this conference are also levelling the international academic playing field. One reason for creating the Commonwealth of Learning was to increase the cross-border supply of courses in the interests of development. In my own career I have been a cross-border student twice. When living in the UK in the 1990s I studied for Diploma in Theology from a Canadian university. Four years ago, whilst resident in France, I took a course in international development from the UKOU.

Cross-border distance education is a growing phenomenon but we must not overstate its current impact. We have found that in developing countries, which may have most to gain from cross-border provision, enrolments are negligible compared to those in local institutions11.

What can we do to promote cross-border distance education that serves the interests of developing countries? What are the implications for your institutions?

The imperative is collaboration. Distance learning across borders is one of those happy enterprises where sound principles and healthy pragmatism lead you in the same direction. The direction is towards partnership. Partnership is a sound principle because you develop indigenous capacity for distance learning in the country where you are operating and avoid accusations of cultural imperialism. It is also healthy pragmatism because partnering with a credible local institution gives you access to much larger numbers of students than going it alone and also facilitates relationships with the national authorities.

Partnership will, of course, strengthen your partner's ability to operate a distance learning system. One day your partner may be able to operate without you, but you should welcome that. You will have increased the country's intellectual independence. If relations remain good the partnership can then explore new directions. You may start sourcing courses from your partner. Even if the partnership ends, there are plenty more countries and plenty more institutions that need your help.

Some people assume that the natural flow of cross-border distance education is from developed to developing countries, but this is nonsense. Institutions in developed countries have difficulty getting their costs low enough to serve students in poorer countries, which is partly why cross-border enrolments there are tiny. There is, however, an encouraging trend towards south-south partnerships. IGNOU, for example, is already active in 26 countries. The Commonwealth of Learning facilitates the use of its courses abroad, notably in Africa, because they are more appropriate and much cheaper than courses from richer countries.

Are there other useful roles for international organisations like UNESCO and COL in promoting cross-border partnerships in distance education? We shall look at quality assurance in a moment, but what of the areas of course development and student support? I list three areas where COL has helped.

First, on this day when we commemorate Indira Gandhi, I note the COL Fellowships named for her son, Rajiv Gandhi, who as Prime Minister of India was very influential in the creation of COL at the 1987 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. These fellowships support distance education professionals all over the developing Commonwealth who pursue their education by studying the IGNOU Master of Arts programme in Distance Education.

Second, COL is proud to have helped in the development of two international master's programmes, the Commonwealth Executive MBA and the Commonwealth Executive Master of Public Administration. These were produced jointly by the four open universities of South Asia: IGNOU; the Allama Iqbal Open University of Pakistan; the Bangladesh Open University; and the Open University of Sri Lanka. The programmes are offered by those four universities and will soon be offered in Malaysia and Nigeria.

Finally, COL is now helping to create a collaborative network called the Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth. Two-thirds of the 53 Commonwealth countries are small states, most of them islands. When their Ministers of Education met in 2000, at the peak of the dotcom frenzy, they decided that their countries needed to work together to master the eWorld and they asked for COL's help. The Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth is the result. It is a collaborative network rather than a new institution. Representatives from 23 of these small states met in Singapore two months ago for a planning and orientation meeting that has sparked various collaborative ventures.

A recent UNESCO/COL publication on Lifelong Learning and Distance Higher Education2 has examined distance education systems - especially those designed for lifelong learners- in the context of the knowledge explosion, the changing interaction between the public and private spheres and the increasingly rapid development of ICTs. It contains various examples of the role of international collaboration in the provision of effective distance education in the era of eLearning

International Collaboration for Quality Assurance

Some of the collaborative ventures that we have just described could, at least in principle, have been organised by the institutions themselves without the help of international agencies. In quality assurance, however, the role of an international intergovernmental agency, particularly UNESCO, is more necessary. Making policy for higher education systems is an expression of national sovereignty and even those governments that do not manage quality assurance directly monitor it closely in their own jurisdictions. Having UNESCO promote quality assurance in cross-border distance education, through collaborative negotiations involving multiple stakeholders, allows governments to influence processes and frameworks.

UNESCO stepped up its engagement in this area in 2002 by creating the Global Forum on International Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of Qualifications as a platform for international dialogue about these matters12. In June 2004, at its second meeting, the Global Forum paid particular attention to distance education. A discussion chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of Pakistan's Allama Iqbal Open University, Dr Altaf Hussein, concluded that developing countries will create the greatest demand for higher education in the coming years.

Traditional face-to-face education will not be able to cope with this demand so expanding distance education will be essential. The challenge, however, is that despite its potential for good, distance education also lends itself to unethical competition in which degree mills proliferate. To counter this possibility the Forum called for inter-governmental cooperation in cross-border higher education to collect and share information and to address issues of quality assurance. An important recent outcome of this cooperation is the UNESCO/OECD Guidelines on Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education13.

Numerous countries collaborated in developing these Guidelines, which promote mutual trust and international cooperation in quality assurance and the recognition of qualifications, especially those provided across borders. They emphasise the shared responsibility of providers and receivers for ensuring the quality of higher education and aim thereby to protect students through a joint effort of the six key stakeholder groups14. Dialogue and sharing, access, transparency and reliability of information are key principles. Last month the UNESCO General Conference backed these Guidelines as a timely and useful response to the challenges that cross-border higher education poses to both developed and developing countries. The Guidelines stress that cross-border provision, including eLearning, should mirror local priorities as expressed in national higher education policy. They will be a basis for building capacity and helping national decision makers to develop robust quality assurance systems.

Whilst the guidelines are an important point of reference, effective quality assurance requires action by many players. Training those players and building institutional capacity for quality assurance are vital functions in which collaboration is also crucial. To this end UNESCO and COL have developed a model programme for a capacity-building workshop for quality assurance in distance education. It will be tested in Kolkata next week in a conference on The Quality Culture at the Netaji Subhas Open University. The purpose there is to expand QA capacity in the Indian open universities as well as institutions in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

A similar workshop will be held later this month in the Caribbean at the conference of CANQATE, the Caribbean Area Network for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education. Both workshops draw on the expertise of international bodies such as the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU), the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies for Higher Education, and the Caribbean Community and Common Market, CARICOM. These collaborative events help competing institutions to improve the quality and consistency their programmes, not least by sharing information on their practices.

To help share information UNESCO is developing a Higher Education Open and Distance Learning Knowledge Base that will make available regional databases higher distance education in Africa, the Asia-Pacific and the CIS and Baltic States15. These databases are linked to a search tool on the main UNESCO site through the COL Knowledge Finder using the common taxonomy of the World Bank GDENet. In addition, a decision-support tool poses key questions related to quality assurance in distance education.

The key challenge in this project was to combine expertise in technology with expertise in education. This required a new form of collaboration between competing partners speaking different languages. To increase efficiency technical development was separated from content development. The former was done by the South African Institute for Distance Education; the latter by Indonesia's Universitas Terbuka through electronic consultation with experts. Dialogue and understanding between the education and informatics specialists was critical in maintaining the focus on educational issues that will ensure the project's success.

Institutions are asking whether eLearning requires new approaches to QA. A survey on quality assurance in the mega-universities16 carried out for UNESCO showed that most institutions had not developed distinct QA systems for eLearning but used the same criteria as in their other distance education offerings 17. However, the Korean National Open University, which offers 60 online courses, uses three special quality assurance measures for them. AIOU has adopted a more general QA process for developing multimedia content.

In eLearning, quality assurance is closely related to standards for the interoperability and reusability of computer-based educational materials18. Several bodies are collaborating worldwide to define, develop, categorize, and expand the use of standards and specifications. Such standards address metadata, content, administrative systems, learner information, and learning management systems. The CETIS site lists international bodies engaged in these matters19. These standards are particularly important for the collaborative development of Open Educational Resources.

These examples show that extensive collaboration is necessary in the provision and quality assurance of cross-border higher education if competing institutions are to serve students effectively. But what makes collaboration work? In our concluding remarks on this age-old challenge we shall first address inter-institutional cooperation in cross-border provision before looking at multilateral collaboration.

What makes for successful collaboration?

Inter-institutional cooperation

Searching for the ingredients of successful inter-institutional cooperation in distance education is not a new activity. Twenty years ago the Commonwealth Secretariat commissioned a rambling survey that identified many models of collaboration and concluded: 'Cooperation is now a necessity, not an Option'20. More recently Sally Johnstone and others have assembled case studies of contemporary collaborative endeavours21. What principles emerge from this work?

First, there must be clarity of purpose. As the Commonwealth study puts it: 'High-sounding rhetoric is a waste of time, as is a vague desire to collaborate'. All partners must know what they want to achieve and believe that it can best be achieved through cooperation. Second, the smaller the group of partners, the better are the chances of success. Third, everyone must contribute - preferably financially - and everyone must gain. Fourth, there must be people committed to the collaborative venture in each partner institution. Whilst each partner must show commitment from the top, institutional heads are not the best people to put in the governance structure of the partnership. This is partly because they are too busy but also because chief executives often find it difficult to make compromises with institutional self-interest for the good of the partnership. Finally, echoing the principle of clarity, the collaborative enterprise must be adequately funded at the start and must have a credible strategy to generate sustained funding.

There is nothing surprising or complicated about these principles. Sadly, the chequered history of collaborative ventures in distance education suggests that they are honoured more often in the breach than in the observance. However, the Open Educational Resources movement may give collaboration a new lease of life because electronic communication makes it easier and the payoff, namely the worldwide sharing of learning objects, is potentially greater.

What of the much broader collaboration needed to reach multilateral agreements about quality assurance in cross-border education?

Multilateral collaboration

Today multilateralism is under threat. A recent presentation at the Commonwealth Secretariat had the title "Can We Rescue Multilateralism" and it is fashionable to depreciate the work of the United Nations. But recall what Winston Churchill said just after he had lost an election: "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time". In a complex world of many nations there has to be multilateral collaboration. What lessons can we draw from developing the Guidelines on Cross-Border Higher Education about achieving multilateral agreements? Four principles emerge.

A first requirement is clarity about the status of the document being negotiated. An international treaty that has subsequently to be enacted into national legislation is one thing. Quite another are advisory guidelines that must rely for their impact on the commitment that their inherent moral and intellectual quality evokes from governments and institutions.

Second, the early drafts of the document should be developed through an iterative process drawing on experts from a variety of backgrounds. Electronic communication makes collaborative drafting and consultation much easier and, by giving a voice to other stakeholders such as student associations, gives a wider sense of ownership than involving only governments. Although it made the process more complex, having UNESCO and the OECD work in partnership broadened the constituency for the Guidelines by bringing together industrialised and developing countries.

Third, once a sound draft document emerges, information dissemination and consultation must be widespread and genuine, since the moral authority of the Guidelines reflects the breadth of the consensus that they attract. In this case, thanks to such consultation, a potential split with an important part of the higher education community was avoided. A statement by the International Association of Universities and others complements the Guidelines22.

Fourth and finally, there must be a commitment on the part of governments and institutions to use the Guidelines once they have been agreed.

Conclusion

Let us conclude. We have argued that in the evolution of distance education initial periods of unbridled competition were followed by greater collaboration. This occurred in both the national and international phases of development. We have given examples of international collaboration in cross-border higher education: both for programme provision and for quality assurance. Finally, we have identified some of the principles of successful collaboration.

We now return to our initial question: is combining competition and collaboration paradox or possibility; is it rhetoric or reality? Some argue that a freely competitive marketplace is the most genuine form of collaboration. However, global cross-border education is not a freely competitive marketplace and has no prospect of becoming one. Collaboration is a means of ensuring that each country can pursue and protect its national interests during the steady internationalisation of higher education.

But are collaborative arrangements innocent or are they inherently complicit with wider national and international power relationships? Do those with most money attract and dominate the best partnerships? Do the politically weaker nations get pushed around by the regional Big Brothers? Given their funding structures, can international agencies be genuinely multilateral or must they always bend to powerful members having less interest in global public goods? These are difficult questions that we have not addressed directly. They are also questions that take us well beyond our focus on cross-border distance education into some fundamental dilemmas of the human condition.

We took our title, Collaboration in the Time of Competition, from a Columbian Nobel prize winner. Since we are in India, we end with some words from your own distinguished Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen, on this theme23. He writes:

'Exactly how does a problem of interactive relations involve both cooperation and conflict? Both the parties have a strong interest in having some cooperative solution rather than none, and yet they rank the different cooperative solutions in quite dissimilar ways-indeed, typically in opposite directions... There is therefore the simultaneous presence of cooperation as well as conflict in relations of this kind.'

That sums it up nicely!

References and notes

1. www.isro.org/pressrelease/Jul11_2005.htm  

2. COL/UNESCO (2005) Perspectives on Distance Education: Lifelong Learning and Distance Higher Education, C. McIntosh and Z. Varoglu (Eds.), 164 pp.

3. G.G. Márquez (1989) Love in the Time of Cholera, Penguin

4. Mitford, J.L. (1970) Let us now appraise famous authors, Atlantic Monthly, 226, pp. 45-54.

5. Mitford, J.L. (1979) Poison Penmanship: The Gentle Art of Muckracking, Knopf, New York

6. UNESCO (1978) Regulations and Legislation Regarding Correspondence Education: A Survey of Five Countries with Recommended Guidelines for Developing Countries. Author: Gunning, Robert. 72 pp.

7. J.R. Saul (2005) The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World, Atlantic

8. UNESCO (2004) Higher Education in a Globalised Society: Education Position Paper

9. J.S. Daniel (2003) Iraq: Educational Renewal for an Arab Renaissance? in I. Abrams and W. Gungwu, eds., The Impact and Consequences of the US-Iraq War, World Scientific Publishing, pp. 215-233

10. http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/
11. J.S. Daniel, A. Kanwar, and S. Uvaliæ-Trumbiæ (2005) Who's Afraid of Cross-border Higher Education? A Developing World Perspective, Higher Education Digest, Issue 52 Supplement, Cheri, London: pp. 1-8.

12. Unesco, higher education second meeting  

13. http://www.unesco.org/education/amq/guidelines  

14. Governments; higher education institutions/academic staff; QA bodies; student bodies; recognition bodies; professional bodies.

15. Varoglu, Z (2005) The Higher Education Open and Distance Learning Knowledge Base, in op. cit. (2) pp. 97-105

16. Allama Iqbal OU, Pakistan; Anadolu U. (Turkey); Indira Gandhi National OU, India; Korea National OU; UKOU; Shanghai TVU, China; Sukhothai Thammathirat OU, Thailand; Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia

17. Jung, I. (2005) Quality Assurance of Mega-universities, in op. cit. (2) pp. 79-95

18. Law, J (2005) 'Background Study on Higher Education and ICTs', document prepared for UNESCO, The Division of Higher Education

19. http://www.cetis.ac.uk/static/who-does-what.html  

20. J.S. Daniel, I. Mugridge, B.L. Snowden and W.A.S. Smith (1986) Cooperation in Distance Education and Open Learning, Notes prepared for the Commonwealth Secretariat, http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/zef/cde/policy/DANIEL.DOC  

21. S.M Johnstone and S.B Conger with U. Bernath, W.J. Husson, A.L. Maurandi and M.E. Perez de Madrigal. 'Strategic Alliances: Collaboration for Sustainability' in World Review of Distance Education and Open Learning, Vol. VI. Strategies for Sustainable ODL, A. Hope & P. Guiton (eds.) London: COL/RoutledgeFalmer Press. Due December 2005 pp. 111-130.

22. International Association of Universities (2005) Sharing Quality Higher Education Across Borders: A Statement on Behalf of Higher Education Institutions Worldwide http://www.unesco.org/iau/p_statements/index.html

23. Sen. A. (2005) Women and Men, in The Argumentative Indian New York: ESG, pp. 241-2.