Re: [virtualcommons-svn] A possible collaberation

[Allen L. <All...@as...>]

Hi Micael,

Yes, I've noticed this as well.. !#!$ oracle.  We've fixed it in our
development trunk (http://bitbucket.org/virtualcommons/foraging) but
that's undergoing heavy changes right now that you may not want to run
just yet.

The easiest thing to do is to simply remove the jogl entry from the
client.jnlp file.  You can comment it out entirely and the app should
still run fine since you're not running the 3D version.

    <!--
    <property name="sun.java2d.noddraw" value="true"/>
    <extension name="jogl"
href="http://download.java.net/media/jogl/builds/archive/jsr-231-webstart-current/jogl.jnlp"/>
    -->


On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Micael Ehn <mic...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi Allen,
> sorry to take this much time again. We were planning to run the experiments
> very soon and were going to run a test round today. However, it turns out
> that the system no longer works. I receive an error message saying that the
> jogl resource is unsigned. Searching the web for this error message reveals
> that oracle has removed the signature from the jogl jar-file, so that any
> system using it will refuse to start.
> The workarounds I found when searching includes compiling jogl and signing
> it, together with all other code locally and then updating the system to use
> the local copy instead, something I don't know how to do. Any ideas on how
> to solve this?
>
> Regards
> Micael Ehn
>
> 2010/11/23 Allen Lee <All...@as...>
>>
>> Ok, this was an easy patch and should be fixed now.
>>
>> Micael, there's two ways you can get the changes:
>>
>> 1. (easier/faster if it works) run an "svn update" from the
>> command-line wherever you installed the foraging software to get the
>> new code and then re-run "ant deploy"
>> 2. I've also updated the source package at
>> http://dev.commons.asu.edu/src/foraging-with-censorship.zip if you
>> want to just download the whole thing again and re-install and
>> re-deploy it.  This should be a last resort if the first option
>> doesn't work.
>>
>> Allen
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Allen Lee <All...@as...> wrote:
>> > Hi Kimmo,
>> >
>> > Sorry for the confusion!  Making the lines wrap shouldn't be too
>> > difficult (hopefully!) - I'll let you know when this is done.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Kimmo Eriksson <ki...@gm...> wrote:
>> >> Hi Allen!
>> >>
>> >> We are very pleased to tell that we have at long last understood your
>> >> email. All of us here read it as saying "I won't have time to finish
>> >> this until next year at the earliest; if you wish to test what it
>> >> looks like now, be my guest." For some reason I and Pontus re-read it
>> >> now and realize what you are actually saying is "This is a complete
>> >> version, please test it and give feedback if something needs
>> >> changing." Sorry for the delay.
>> >>
>> >> We now eagerly tested to play the game and it is really good! The only
>> >> thing we noticed needed improvement is a hopefully small thing with
>> >> the censoring: When someone writes a long chat message, it will come
>> >> out as a very long line on the facilitator's screen, making it
>> >> difficult to get to the censoring buttons. We'd like line breaks to be
>> >> inserted in long messages. Can this be arranged?
>> >>
>> >> We are enthusiastic about the prospect to run a study with censoring
>> >> here in Sweden!
>> >>
>> >> best regards,
>> >> Kimmo
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2010/9/21 Allen Lee <All...@as...>:
>> >>> Ah ok, glad it's at least installed/running ok.
>> >>>
>> >>> Realistically, I won't have time to make significant modifications to
>> >>> the code until next year at the earliest; my programming efforts are
>> >>> now focused on other projects.  That said, I would be happy to make
>> >>> small changes / tweaks to the software as time permits.  The censoring
>> >>> feature is enabled and functional (albeit crude and in need of UI/UX
>> >>> interface improvement) so if you'd like to pretest it, try it out.
>> >>> Even though I won't have much time to work on it, your feedback is
>> >>> appreciated so if you have ideas on how to improve the gui (or any
>> >>> other aspect of the software), do let us know.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you do end up running experiments or pretests and would like to
>> >>> analyze the data afterwards, let me know and I'll work on some more
>> >>> docs dealing with extracting data from the experiment.
>> >>>
>> >>> Allen
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Micael Ehn <mic...@gm...>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi, I'm not stuck at all, the game is running just fine. I was just
>> >>>> wondering what the next step in this entire process is. Were you
>> >>>> going to do
>> >>>> some modifications to the game before we actually run it here?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> //Micke
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2010/9/21 Allen Lee <All...@as...>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Micael,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I've added some more detail on actually running the experiment
>> >>>>> software here:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> http://commons.asu.edu/software/foraging/documentation#running-the-software
>> >>>>> - is that where you're stuck?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Micael Ehn <mic...@gm...>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> > Hi everyone
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > I have now managed to get the game running in our lab. What is the
>> >>>>> > next
>> >>>>> > step?
>> >>>>> > // Micke
>> >>>>> > 2010/5/27 Allen Lee <All...@as...>
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> Sounds good.  We run our experiments on a Linux server as well so
>> >>>>> >> that's not a problem at all.  If you'd like to get started first
>> >>>>> >> you
>> >>>>> >> can follow the steps listed here:
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> http://opensource.asu.edu/display/COMMONS/Foraging
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> The main things that you'll need on your Linux server is to make
>> >>>>> >> sure
>> >>>>> >> you have a Java 1.6 JDK and Ant installed.  Maven is an optional
>> >>>>> >> dependency if you don't already have a webserver running on your
>> >>>>> >> Linux
>> >>>>> >> server and want to use Maven's Jetty plugin webserver.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> Micael, I'll prepare a zipfile for you in the next few days that
>> >>>>> >> has
>> >>>>> >> the configuration parameters and so on set for the censoring
>> >>>>> >> experiment.  In the meantime however if you'd like to just try
>> >>>>> >> out the
>> >>>>> >> software first feel free to download it and install it via the
>> >>>>> >> instructions above and please let me know if you have any
>> >>>>> >> questions.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Pontus Strimling
>> >>>>> >> <pon...@gm...> wrote:
>> >>>>> >> > Sounds great Allen. The man in contrll of our lab is a PhD
>> >>>>> >> > student by
>> >>>>> >> > the name of Micael. His email is "Micael Ehn"
>> >>>>> >> > <mic...@gm...>.
>> >>>>> >> > Our lab runs on Linux is that a problem?
>> >>>>> >> >
>> >>>>> >> > Pontus
>> >>>>> >> >
>> >>>>> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Allen Lee <All...@as...>
>> >>>>> >> > wrote:
>> >>>>> >> >> Hi Kimmo, Pontus:
>> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>>>> >> >> I've got an initial version of censored chat implemented and
>> >>>>> >> >> would
>> >>>>> >> >> like to take the next steps to deploy our software over on
>> >>>>> >> >> your end
>> >>>>> >> >> so
>> >>>>> >> >> you can play with it, provide feedback, etc.  Is there a tech
>> >>>>> >> >> person
>> >>>>> >> >> that I should coordinate with directly?
>> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>>>> >> >> Thanks!
>> >>>>> >> >> Allen
>> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>>>> >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Marco Janssen
>> >>>>> >> >> <Mar...@as...>
>> >>>>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> Hi Kimmo,
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> Yes, it is probably best if we make here changes to the code.
>> >>>>> >> >>> It
>> >>>>> >> >>> should not be too hard. We need to restrict the number of
>> >>>>> >> >>> messsages
>> >>>>> >> >>> people
>> >>>>> >> >>> can send in a timeslot so that an experimenter can approve
>> >>>>> >> >>> those
>> >>>>> >> >>> messages in
>> >>>>> >> >>> time.
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> It would be very helpful if experiments can be run in
>> >>>>> >> >>> Stockholm. It
>> >>>>> >> >>> will be interesting to see whether the same behavior is
>> >>>>> >> >>> observed
>> >>>>> >> >>> with
>> >>>>> >> >>> Swedish students (I expect so).
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> Marco
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>> >> >>> From: Kimmo Eriksson [mailto:ki...@gm...]
>> >>>>> >> >>> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:27 AM
>> >>>>> >> >>> To: Marco Janssen
>> >>>>> >> >>> Cc: Pontus Strimling; Allen Lee
>> >>>>> >> >>> Subject: Re: A possible collaberation
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> Hello! It is interesting to hear that you are already
>> >>>>> >> >>> thinking
>> >>>>> >> >>> along
>> >>>>> >> >>> these lines.
>> >>>>> >> >>> (And sorry it took us two weeks to reply.)
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> I and Pontus are convinced such a study would be very
>> >>>>> >> >>> important,
>> >>>>> >> >>> and
>> >>>>> >> >>> would
>> >>>>> >> >>> like to make it happen. I think the development is best done
>> >>>>> >> >>> at
>> >>>>> >> >>> your
>> >>>>> >> >>> end. We
>> >>>>> >> >>> can contribute with ideas and with development money from our
>> >>>>> >> >>> grants,
>> >>>>> >> >>> and we
>> >>>>> >> >>> can run the study in Stockholm.
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> How does that sound to you?
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> Kimmo
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>> 2010/4/14 Marco Janssen <Mar...@as...>:
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Hi Kimmo,
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> I have considered this option too, and I have seen other
>> >>>>> >> >>>> doing
>> >>>>> >> >>>> this
>> >>>>> >> >>>> in
>> >>>>> >> >>>> more regular experimental economics games. We notice that
>> >>>>> >> >>>> the
>> >>>>> >> >>>> participant type a lot of messages, so we need to check
>> >>>>> >> >>>> whether
>> >>>>> >> >>>> such
>> >>>>> >> >>>> a
>> >>>>> >> >>>> set up will reduce the amount of chat traffic, otherwise it
>> >>>>> >> >>>> will
>> >>>>> >> >>>> be
>> >>>>> >> >>>> difficult for the monitor to approve messages (we have
>> >>>>> >> >>>> typically
>> >>>>> >> >>>> 10
>> >>>>> >> >>>> to
>> >>>>> >> >>>> 15 people at the same time).
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Related to CT3 I have considered the possibility to have
>> >>>>> >> >>>> them
>> >>>>> >> >>>> talking
>> >>>>> >> >>>> about a) something they all agree on unrelated to the game
>> >>>>> >> >>>> b)
>> >>>>> >> >>>> something
>> >>>>> >> >>>> there might be disagreement about (whether a particular
>> >>>>> >> >>>> sports
>> >>>>> >> >>>> team
>> >>>>> >> >>>> is
>> >>>>> >> >>>> the best) unrelated to the game. I can imagine even this
>> >>>>> >> >>>> might
>> >>>>> >> >>>> have
>> >>>>> >> >>>> an
>> >>>>> >> >>>> effect.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Marco
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>> >> >>>> From: Kimmo Eriksson [mailto:ki...@gm...]
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:58 PM
>> >>>>> >> >>>> To: Marco Janssen
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Cc: Pontus Strimling; Allen Lee
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Subject: Re: A possible collaberation
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Hello Marco, hi Allen!
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Those are good ideas, Marco. For T3, I would argue that we
>> >>>>> >> >>>> for
>> >>>>> >> >>>> each
>> >>>>> >> >>>> round randomize the order of the players and let them each
>> >>>>> >> >>>> in turn
>> >>>>> >> >>>> have their say about rules.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> I'll just present what I and Pontus had in mind instead, and
>> >>>>> >> >>>> then
>> >>>>> >> >>>> try
>> >>>>> >> >>>> to figure out which approach is preferable.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> We were thinking of having a research assistant "censoring"
>> >>>>> >> >>>> communication differently in various treatments:
>> >>>>> >> >>>> - CT1: Participants are told that they are free to chat, but
>> >>>>> >> >>>> that
>> >>>>> >> >>>> to
>> >>>>> >> >>>> "avoid abuse" all messages are routed via a "censor" who
>> >>>>> >> >>>> must
>> >>>>> >> >>>> approve
>> >>>>> >> >>>> of the message before it is relayed to other players.
>> >>>>> >> >>>> - CT2: Participants are told that they can chat only about
>> >>>>> >> >>>> how to
>> >>>>> >> >>>> play
>> >>>>> >> >>>> the game, and that to avoid abuse....
>> >>>>> >> >>>> - CT3: Participants are told that they can chat only about
>> >>>>> >> >>>> things
>> >>>>> >> >>>> not
>> >>>>> >> >>>> related to how to play the game, and that to avoid abuse ...
>> >>>>> >> >>>> - CT4:  Participants are told that they can chat only after
>> >>>>> >> >>>> the
>> >>>>> >> >>>> game
>> >>>>> >> >>>> is finished, and that to avoid abuse ...
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> The advantage of this setup, I think, is the overall
>> >>>>> >> >>>> similarity
>> >>>>> >> >>>> between manipulations. Our hypothesis, then, is that there
>> >>>>> >> >>>> will be
>> >>>>> >> >>>> no
>> >>>>> >> >>>> difference in outcome between the high control CT1 and CT2
>> >>>>> >> >>>> but a
>> >>>>> >> >>>> worse
>> >>>>> >> >>>> outcome of CT3. It is also interesting whether CT3 gives a
>> >>>>> >> >>>> better
>> >>>>> >> >>>> outcome than the low control CT4.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> The disadvantages with this setup seem to be of a practical
>> >>>>> >> >>>> nature:
>> >>>>> >> >>>> (1) It may be difficult to implement the censoring feature
>> >>>>> >> >>>> in the
>> >>>>> >> >>>> software. I guess Allen would be able to answer that.
>> >>>>> >> >>>> (2) It may be difficult for the censor to make quick
>> >>>>> >> >>>> decisions on
>> >>>>> >> >>>> whether to approve messages. (My guess is this is not a
>> >>>>> >> >>>> problem; I
>> >>>>> >> >>>> think it would be pretty easy given a little training. Also,
>> >>>>> >> >>>> given
>> >>>>> >> >>>> that a rule is declared most participants will probably
>> >>>>> >> >>>> follow it
>> >>>>> >> >>>> directly without trying the patience of the censor.)
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> Kimmo
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>> 2010/4/13 Marco Janssen <Mar...@as...>:
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Pontus,
>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> There are indeed a number of variations we can do with the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> pacman
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> environment to test the effect of communication. I think
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> that the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> participants know that they are in the same group, even if
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> they
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> are
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> overharvesting a resource. But once they communicate the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> framing
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> >> >>>> the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> problem is changed from competition to collaboration. An
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> initial
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> idea
>> >>>>> >> >>>> to
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> test this is the following:
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> - T1: before the participants know what the experiment is
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> about
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> >> >>>> get
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> time to chat with eachother for a number of minutes. They
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> are
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> informed
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> that they will be in the same group during the experiment
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> but do
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> not
>> >>>>> >> >>>> get
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> info what it is about.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> - T2: instead of communication, the participants can write
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> how
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> they
>> >>>>> >> >>>> like
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> to coordinate the round. They can only write one message
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> and see
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> messages of others after they have submitted theirs.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Although one
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> way
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> communication does not lead to very good coordination, this
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> treatment
>> >>>>> >> >>>> is
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> focused on setting rules. An alternative might be that one
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> randomly
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> defined person is asked to define the rules for the next
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> round
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> (to
>> >>>>> >> >>>> avoid
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> confusion).
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> - T3: Participants receive a message that the best way to
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> improve
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> earnings is to follow a number of rules. This is a message
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> provided
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> by
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> us.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> - control treatments are no communication, and traditional
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> chat.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> I expect that T1 will lead to significant higher earnings
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> than no
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> communication, just because they now see this as a group
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> task.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Just my 2 cents
>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Marco
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> I cc Allen Lee, the computer wizkid who implements the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> software.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: Pontus Strimling [mailto:pon...@gm...]
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:58 AM
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> To: Marco Janssen; Kimmo Eriksson
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Subject: A possible collaberation
>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Marco!
>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Me and Kimmo where discussing the effects of communication
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> on
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> collaboration in social dilemmas. Basically we see two
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> possible
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> effects: one is that people bond through communicating and
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> become
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> more
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> collaborative in general through recognising that the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> others are
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> humans in a similar situation. The other possibility is
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> that they
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> use
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> the communication to set rules (like instance this corner
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> is mine
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> this
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> is yours and so on). We believe that the later one is the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> more
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> important one but can't find any experiment that has showed
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> this.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> So
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> we thought we'd ask you if you have any thought on the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> subject
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> if
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> you'd be interested in working with us on testing this in
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> your
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> pac
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> man
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> game? Our idea is that we would manipulate what kind of
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> communication
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> we allow them before they play and them let them play the
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> game as
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> is.
>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best regards
>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Pontus
>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>> >>>>> >> >>>
>> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>>>> >> >> --
>> >>>>> >> >> Allen Lee
>> >>>>> >> >> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity
>> >>>>> >> >> [http://csid.asu.edu]
>> >>>>> >> >> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona
>> >>>>> >> >> 85287-2402
>> >>>>> >> >> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>> >>>>> >> >>
>> >>>>> >> >
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> --
>> >>>>> >> Allen Lee
>> >>>>> >> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity
>> >>>>> >> [http://csid.asu.edu]
>> >>>>> >> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona
>> >>>>> >> 85287-2402
>> >>>>> >> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Allen Lee
>> >>>>> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity
>> >>>>> [http://csid.asu.edu]
>> >>>>> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona
>> >>>>> 85287-2402
>> >>>>> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Allen Lee
>> >>> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
>> >>> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
>> >>> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Allen Lee
>> > Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
>> > Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
>> > Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Allen Lee
>> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
>> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
>> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>
>



-- 
Allen Lee
Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
School of Human Evolution and Social Change [http://shesc.asu.edu]
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671 | e-mail: all...@as...