Search

This article concentrates upon nexuses among peace, diplomacy, and evolving technology via intellectual migration with foci on doctoral research universities. The following salient queries are posited and responses therein: 1) What historical and contemporary pragmatic conditions link the importance of the topics? 2) What are the constructs and illustrations of science diplomacy (as integral to diplomacy) and intellectual migration? 3) What are roles of science diplomacy as observed through formal and informal government and philanthropic initiatives? 4) How are domestic and international universities preparing graduate students and professionals in novel technological manners, to engage in science diplomacy? 5) Via multiple processes and recommendations, how might science diplomacy and evolving technologies be altered and integrated to enhance intellectual migration with an ultimate goal of promoting peace and diplomatic cooperation?

Queries are raised about the linkages of universities to diplomacy and international affairs vis-a-vis the major functions of universities – teaching, scholarship and research, and public engagement. Are they quite distinct? Should they be related? This chapter explores such questions by: (1) articulating various concepts and dimensions of diplomacy and soft power; (2) examining select American and British university rankings and league tables; (3) portraying domestic and geopolitical matters via the explication of how various American and British government agencies and philanthropic foundations are affected by diplomacy and foreign policy via their missions and funding priorities for education; and (4) fusing diplomacy and international educational studies. In this exploration, it is posited how comparative and international education and “parent disciplines” are discussed in terms of the aforementioned four items. In essence, there are evolving nexuses among phenomena that influence the field.

This introductory chapter highlights the overall objectives and purposes of the volume, to articulate the research and significance of the field of comparative and international education and affairs experienced by Fellows of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES). They will explicate critical components of their research and policy modalities and postulate how future directions of the field may evolve, based upon ongoing professional involvement in their specialties. Rationales for the subcategories are expounded regarding the salience of crosscutting and interdisciplinary themes. Important dimensions of the field include how the social sciences, humanities, and international affairs have affected the evolving nature of comparative and international education. Hence, the volume is centered around the following themes: (1) succinct history and selection of Fellows by professional societies; (2) conceptual, historical, and theoretical frameworks for enriching the field; (3) pedagogical epistemologies, teachers, and genders to deepen global engagement; (4) policies, practices, and paradigms emerging from applied research; and (5) movements in the new decade.

This chapter will reiterate fundamental components of the major sections of this volume and move into innovative territories – indeed as aspects of major missions and purposes of schools and universities. That is, teaching and learning, research and scholarship, and public engagement are beyond the walls of the academy. In undertaking these aims, this chapter will: (1) reiterate social and public challenges affecting education and impacts on various demographic populations; (2) explicate the importance of conceptual and theoretical frameworks and their groundings in social sciences and humanities; (3) posit the centrality of education and public policies; (4) elaborate the roles of external funding agencies on comparative and international education; and (5) envision contemporary and emerging motifs and paradigms.

How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment, by Michele Lamont, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2009, 330 pp., ISBN 978-0-674-03266-8 Structuring mass higher educat...

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the study of terrorism has become prominent as a function of the social sciences. The purpose of this article is to examine how terrorism studies relate to university engagement in an effort to reduce violence and terrorist acts across the globe. Illustrations will be explicated from the University of St Andrews in Scotland, Tel Aviv University in Israel, and Al-Quds University in Jerusalem. The article concludes with correlating how these universities have not merely studied terrorism, but how these studies engage their students, faculty, and their communities in combating a phenomenon that is continually evident.

Recent policy trends in international higher education suggest that the dichotomy between selective and widening participation is a global issue. The central premise of this article considers the historical and contemporary challenge of promoting higher education opportunities across socio-economic distinctions in England. Three critical questions are considered: (1) How did historical developments of higher education in England during the twentieth century, including American influences after the Second World War, shape the contemporary debate on widening participation? (2) Have the purposes of higher education altered as access shifts from elite to mass? and (3) What critical philosophies influence higher education purposes and developments, and might more balanced viewpoints assist policy makers in crafting decisions? Thus, we can garner a greater comprehension of how educational policies in the twentieth century redefined the role of higher education, contributing to the debate concerning the definition of public good –social contribution for the larger society versus economic return for the individuals. In analyzing this debate, the article also: (1) explicates watershed policies, including major education acts since the 1940s; (2) examines shifting post-secondary roles via Trow's typology of higher education development – elite, mass, and universal; and (3) explores communitarian, neo-liberal, and utilitarian philosophies to illuminate ideas regarding widening access.

A perusal of university Web sites, brochures, and the like provides an overview of sociocultural activities at universities that are often emphasized as integral parts of the co-curriculum. Although attention has been paid to general aspects of socialization within universities, there has been relatively little information about the role that newholidays and rituals have on socialization and resocialization within the academic community, especially as indigenous and international values are juxtaposed for various demographic groups. To begin addressing these matters, the authors examined some conceptual tenets of culture pertaining to holidays and rituals, engaged in participation observations of Kwanzaa and an African celebration at a comprehensive public research university and a universityassociated cultural event, and analyzed their explorations to explicate the nexuses between the conceptual and observed phenomena. They conclude by positing how cultural events and changing university and government policies interact and thus affect the essence of university life.

This article investigates the role of equity, diversity and affirmative action in colleges and universities in the USA-all are policy and programmatic mechanisms designed to offer educational opportunities to those who have not been full participants in American higher education. A context is offered via a breakdown of relevant demographic characteristics, a review of the literature, and an examination of the evolution and current state of equity and affirmative action in American higher education. Finally, a perspective of the current climate in American academe is offered through an analysis of the results of a series of qualitative interviews with African American women university executives. General thematic policy and programmatic motifs are articulated which can help ensure post-secondary options for those who might normally be denied opportunities.

Cet article aborde l'education sous trois politiques differentes. L'auteur analyse trois livres consacres a differents problemes de fond dans l'education, comme les liens entre l'education et la politique en Israel, les problemes d'integration a travers la question du dilemme d'excellence et egalite et les innovations pedagogiques des programmes d'etudes en se concentrant sur la maniere de dispenser un enseignement qualitatif et creatif dans un environnement urbain.

At the dawn of independence in South Africa, several basic objectives must be met to bring about a new South Africa free of apartheid. There must be a new constitution based on democracy that guarantees one person one vote in a multiracial ("nonracial" in South African nomenclature) and nonsexist environment in which resources have been redistributed in such a way as to provide an equitable infrastructure in all areas. These changes will necessitate innovative intervention strategies and viable policy options. Of the many issues to consider when discussing the infrastructure and needed changes, one is predominant-South African education. This issue is important because of the overwhelming effect that apartheid has had on it. But it is equally critical because of the influence that it has on the current and on the future sociopolitical and economic manifestations and remnants of apartheid. For example, because of the current administrative structure of the South African educational system brought on by apartheid, a basic education is not available to all. However, although the new constitution guarantees each person the right to vote,' a basic education for all citizens will be a necessary ingredient for maximum informed participation in the democratic process. The problem is that the establishment of an egalitarian educational system with equal provision for all students will not take place until a unitary system of administration and management is

This article is based upon the 2003 24th Annual Charles H. Thompson Lecture at Howard University. It devotes attention to the nexuses between Ralph Bunche's scholarly publications and diplomatic speeches and their relationships to contemporary university plans and programs to address ongoing crises. In-depth interviews with a university chancellor and a president at two major public research universities-the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor-were undertaken in order to ascertain the current roles of universities as they directly and/or indirectly build upon Bunche's conceptual writings, policy perspectives, and higher education program implementation. Little could the parents of Ralph Johnson Bunche envision on August 7, 1903, that their newborn son would become one of the 20th century's foremost diplomats and world scholars. During the middle part of the 20th century, Ralph Bunche was internationally renowned as a Nobel Peace Laureate-the first person of color to achieve this distinction-for negotiating armistices between Israel and Arab states in 1949. Within this period, the Nobel Laureate was being investigated by the House Committee on Un-American activities for his alleged ties to the Communist Party and its endeavors in the United States. Simultaneously, Bunche's former colleagues from Howard University (such as historian John Hope Franklin) and students (such as psychologist Kenneth Clark) were preparing the historical, educational, psychological, and legal arguments for eliminating separate but equal public school systems for African Americans and European American students (Henry 1999; Keppel, 1995). Most Americans and many international scholars and policymakers are aware of the historical Supreme Court decision on May 17, 1954-Brown vs. the Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas-which declared that "separate but equal" were inherently unequal. During that same week in May 1954, the House Committee cleared Bunche of alleged ties to the Communist Party. A half-century later, numerous educational institutions and organizations are commemorating the Brown decision. Fifty years later, Bunche is now known primarily in select academic and diplomatic circles. To rectify this absent legacy and to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Bundle's birth, a national Centenary Committee (with Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush and United Nations secretary Kofi Annan as honorary chairs and co-chaired by a diplomat who held six ambassadorial posts, a knighted United Nations executive, and a university director emeritus of a Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies) is undertaking a careful portrait and dissemination of the diplomatic, international relations, public policy, and educational contributions of Ralph Bunche (Ralph Bunche Centenary, 2004). The Journal of Negro Education is devoting its spring 2004 issue to an exploration and analysis of Bunche's contributions to education and domestic and international diplomacy. This lead article provides a general overview of Bundle's life by explicating educational and policy contributions of Bunche particularly as they pertain to contemporary universities. Other scholars and diplomats devote detailed attention to his life via examinations of his original and lingering influences on progressive social movements, specific disciplinary frameworks (such as political science, race relations, public policy, and globalization), and diplomacy within the United Nations. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS To begin our conceptual examination, we build upon the historical, sociological, and political science literature by and about Bunche (Bunche, 1941; Henry 1999; Keppel, 1995; Urquhart 1993) and the nexuses between diplomacy and education (Amin, 1997; Clark, 1990; Lindsay 2003; Stromquist, 2002). Based upon tenets of these scholarly and diplomatic works, a salient overarching question is posited: What components of Bunche's scholarly and diplomatic skills may be used to facilitate contemporary college and university endeavors as they address pressing diplomatic and public policies after September 11th or ongoing crises in the Middle East and other hot spots? …

Debate surrounding the concept and goals of affirmative action is growing in the United States and other countries. This article explicates and compares the conceptual tenets of affirmative action as they have been operationalized in the U.S. and South Africa. It critiques the positions on equity and affirmative action stated in South African policy documents and by key government policymakers, university executives, and faculty. It also presents case study data on the relationship between affirmative action and institutional change at four South African universities, identifying emerging paradigms for democracy in that nation's higher education system. INTRODUCTION Much of the development of affirmative action concepts, policies, and programs-along with much of the debate-has been centered in the United States. However, other countries have used this mechanism to redress societal inequities. In South Africa, the transformation from apartheid to democracy has highlighted the roles of institutions of higher education. The development of a critical knowledge base and the preparation of students to assume key professional and policymaking roles in various sectors are central purposes of universities. Unfortunately, the presence of "Blacks" (Africans, Indians/Asians, and Colored groups) and women of all races and ethnicities in South African universities as students, faculty, and professionals is still limited in various disciplines, faculties, and administrative areas. Herman (1995), for example, reports that 51 out of every thousand in South Africa's White population were enrolled in postsecondary institutions in 1991 compared to 35, 13, and 9 out of every thousand for the Indian/Asian, Colored, and African populations, respectively. The 1996 Green Paper on Higher Education Transformation, one of the South African government's major working policy documents, details staff composition trends showing that Whites and men still hold those positions with the greatest prestige, status, and influence in the nation's academy (National Commission on Higher Education, 1996b). The Green Paper further reveals that in 1993, South Africa's historically White universities (HWUs) produced 83% of all research articles generated by the nation's scholars and 81% of all master's and doctorate graduates. To change these realities, redress or affirmative action has become a salient mechanism. Increasing the percentages of underrepresented groups and women is a primary emphasis of affirmative action in higher education. Other prominent ways to redress inequities and to diversify colleges and universities include: professional development for junior professionals, academic bridge programs for students who are underprepared to engage in university work, and the equitable distribution of financial resources to the historically (Black and) disadvantaged universities (HDIs) that have served the nation's Black populations. Various levels of resistance have been encountered in the implementation of such changes in South Africa. Several reports and pieces of legislation written or passed since the 1994 democratic elections have articulated rationales and ways of ensuring fairness and equity throughout the South African university system. After presenting a brief "glimpse" of the disparate education provided to South Africans of various racial/ethnic groups during the apartheid era, the present article explicates and compares the conceptual tenets of affirmative action as they have been operationalized in the United States and South African contexts. It also critiques the positions on equity and affirmative action expressed by various South African educational policy documents and government officials. To portray the relationship between affirmative action policy and institutional change in the nation's HWUs and HDIs, this article presents relevant findings from the authors' qualitative study of the history and goals of four South African universities. …

I remember vividly my mother jumping up and down, clapping her hands, and shouting, "Thurgood Marshall just won the Supreme Court decision! Thurgood Marshall just won the Supreme Court decision!" As a tiny preschooler, I remember being excited also, although I was not exactly sure why. When I rode the yellow bus to school two years later, I was one of the first to experience "integration" in the immediate wake of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954). Now, 40 years later, I am a dean at an historically Black university, after spending nearly 15 years in administrative and faculty positions at predominantly European American universities. As I reflect on my experiences in both types of higher educational settings, I clearly recognize that Brown has not achieved what many optimistic and progressive African Americans and other Americans had envisioned, particularly for African American women as administrators in higher education. Why is this the case, particularly for African American women as administrators in higher education?This article provides a critical examination of the factors that continually hinder the integral presence of African American women in pivotal decision-making positions in colleges and universities throughout the United States. What unique issues confront African American women in their attempts to secure deanships at major research institutions? How do they enter the pipeline for a deanship? How do they view their career advancements and options? What are their options after serving in a deanship?Descriptive statistics provide an initial portrait. That portrait is followed by a discussion of mutable racism and sexism, which are central constructs that help respond to the questions raised above. Pivotal factors such as structural policies and conditions, stereotypes and prejudice, institutional climate, mentoring, and networking are related constructs (Braddock & McPartland, 1987; Gilliland, 1990; Hacker, 1992; Kaplan & Tinsley, 1989; Kanter, 1977; Lindsay, 1988; Moore, 1984; Moore, Salimbene, Marlier, & Bragg, 1983; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Welch, 1992). The qualitative traditions espoused in seminal works by Lorde (1984), Bateson (1989), Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule (1986), and Gilligan (1982) elicit the perspectives of women as sources of wisdom about these issues. Lastly, this article presents the results of indepth interviews conducted by the author with three African American women who were among the first deans or associate dean of education at what the Carnegie Foundation (1987) classifies as the nation's Research I (the top 50 or so universities) and Research II (the top 100 universities). In these interviews, the subjects described their experiences and views as line administrators.The anticipation, given the time that has elapsed since Brown, is that mid-morning or noon should be seen on the clock. It is difficult to read the clock, given darkened conditions. Why is it so dark?THE PORTRAITDuring the early 1990s, a handful of African American women were appointed presidents or chancellors of American colleges and universities. Among these are the presidents of Texas Southern University, South Carolina State University, York College and City College of the City University of New York; the chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Kearney; and the provost at Stanford University in California. However, no African American women presently serve as chief executives at major European American research or comprehensive doctoral degree-granting universities. These realities exist despite the ever-present statement on position announcements which states: "Women and minorities are encouraged to apply; this university is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer."An investigation of the search process for deans of colleges or schools of education at Research I and Research II universities provides some initial insights into the reasons for this underrepresentation of African American women at the executive levels of higher education administration. …

When the authors began to study the phenomenon of progressive education, they were confronted by the conspicuous absence of material on this subject in Black education-particularly Black colleges. A survey of the major Progressive Education Association journal, Progressive Education, provided only a few articles that focused on progressive education and Black schools and dealt with the issue mainly in terms of experimental human relations courses in white institutions. Moreover, Lawrence Cremin's (1964) work, The Transformation of the School. Progressivism in American Education, does not discuss progressive education in relation to Black institutions. After reviewing other works and encountering similar results, one author asked Dr. William Kornegay (Professor of Cultural Foundation of Education, University of Massachusetts) for references on progressive education in Black colleges. His initial response was, "Oh, to my knowledge, there wasn't any in Black colleges."

[1] The research data were collected during the writer's appointment as a Scholar‐in‐Residence at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Information Agency. The analyses are the writer's and do not reflect official policies of the USIA, the United States Department of State, the Tanzanian government, or the University of Massachusetts.

Receiving a Fulbright senior scholar's grant is regarded as a laudatory achievement by most in the scholarly and research communities. To some it portrays the apex of an academic career built on years of sound scholarship that will then be shared with international colleagues and students. Such views are not universally shared as substantially different perspectives of the senior Fulbright and other international education and cultural programs are vividly discussed in the Chronicle of Higher Education.' Fundamental questions are raised regarding the soundness and feasibility of operating Fulbright programs within the United States Information Agency (USIA), a federal unit charged with promoting the American government's viewpoints-what some call propaganda-throughout the world. For me, the introduction to diverse perspectives occurred several years earlier when I accepted a position as a scholar-in-residence and administrative appointee in the USIA. Academic colleagues asked, "How could you accept a position in a propaganda agency?" Often I replied, "Why wouldn't I accept a position designing and developing a Fulbright-funded program that focuses on mathematics, science, and English education? Wouldn't you accept a Fulbright assignment?" My colleagues' queries and the article in the Chronicle highlight a recurrent half-century debate concerning the purposes and roles of educational and cultural programs in international or foreign affairs. Indeed, components of the debate were lucidly articulated in the mid-1960s in two seminal works: The Fourth Dimension of Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs, written by Charles Frankel, and The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs: American Educational and Cultural Policy Abroad by Philip Coombs.2 Both works asserted that various sociopolitical dimensions and institutional structures-including educational and cultural affairs-were fundamental and, in some instances, indispensable to American foreign policy. Their views were reflected in Department of State policies when

This article examines critically the position of African-American women in relation to public and higher education policies. Post-baccalaureate students (graduate and professional), faculty, and administrators are the foci. The article examines the following: (1) legislative, judicial, and executive decisions influencing African-American women; (2) the development and implementation of public and higher education policies with special focus on the State of Georgia; (3) a descriptive statistical analysis of where African-American women are situated in higher education; (4) the establishment of programs to enhance African-American representation in higher education; and (5) future policy research issues including those which analyze interactive nexuses among federal and individual state and higher education policies.