Philosophy is one of the most important sources for getting alternative perspectives on a
problem. In their critique of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) tradition, Winograd and Flores
were inspired by the work of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. Winograd & Flores
found Heidegger particularly interesting in that they found his ideas to be in direct opposition
to most of the implicit assumptions of the AI field at that time.
Winograd and Flores argued that Heidegger´s understanding of the human condition is a
better foundation for understanding and designing computer technology than the ruling
paradigm in AI at that time. As they saw it, the cognitivist approach to understanding
computers in use must be rejected if we take Heidegger seriously. In this critique they
followed up the early work of Dreyfus (“What computers can’t do”, 1972).
The AI debate as such has limited relevance for a study of interactivity. The reason is that
its research question is totally different. The AI debate has centered around the question “Can
we build intelligent computers?”. This was a reaction to early AI research that mainly asked
the question “How do we build intelligent computers?”. The debate led to the question “What
is intelligence?”, which again led to the question “In what ways are computers different from
people?”. The latter is the question Dreyfus discussed in (1986) with reference to philosophy.
We are then very close to the philosophical question “What does it mean to be human?”.
Dreyfus entered the AI debate from philosophy. He soon realized that the early AI
researchers were in many respects doing philosophy of mind, but with little or no knowledge
or reference to two and a half thousand years of philosophical research on the subject. The
main differences between the AI researchers and the philosophers were their choice of
medium and their choice of research methodology. For the philosophers, the medium has
always been language, and the methodology has always been the philosophical discourse. For
the early AI researchers, the medium was the computer, and the research methodology was
systems construction. Dreyfus showed how the AI research, despite these differences,
repeated ancient discussions in the philosophy of mind. The strength of Dreyfus’ analogy is
that it enabled him to make predictions about the results of these “discourses” based on his
knowledge of the similar philosophical discourses. His predictions have so far to a large
degree been correct. I find this to give a strong credibility to his argument.
The strongest relevance of the AI-debate for the current study of interactivity is in its use
of philosophy. It showed to many in the computer-science community that philosophy can be
used as a resource and inspiration without having to become a philosopher, much in the same
way as researchers in computer science have always used mathematics without becoming
mathematicians. Dreyfus (1972) draws mainly on three philosophers: Heidegger, Merleau-
Ponty, and Wittgenstein. As the work of these philosophers have relevance for the current
work, a short introduction is appropriate.
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) belongs to the phenomenological tradition in Continental
philosophy. One of its most influential proponents was his teacher Edmund Husserl (1859-
1938). For Heidegger it was important to move philosophy back from the realm of the spheres
to the reality of everyday human life. This meant, as he saw it, a definite break with 2000
years of philosophical tradition. In his "Being and Time" from 1927 (Heidegger, 1997), he
breaks with the tradition of exploring ideas without reference to our factual existence as
human beings. He departed from his teacher concerning the possibility of making explicit this
“background” of everyday practices that gives meaning to the world. In trying to develop a
philosophy starting out with our factual human existence, he found himself trapped in the web
of meaning produced by the basic assumptions of Western civilization. He found it necessary
to develop a set of new concepts better suited for the task. Reading Heidegger consequently
becomes a difficult task, as one first has to acquire his new "language". The problem is that
this language can not be fully understood purely through definitions referring back to our
"ordinary" language. The meaning of his concepts slowly emerge through the reading of the
work. The reading of Heidegger thus becomes an iterative process, or what in philosophy is
called a hermeneutic circle.
The French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) was heavily influenced by
both Husserl and Heidegger. Put simply, Heidegger brought philosophy back to everyday
human life, while Merleau-Ponty took it all the way back to the human body. In Merleau-
Ponty´s most important work The Phenomenology of Perception from 1945 (Merleau-Ponty,
1962) he explored the implicit assumptions about perception at that time. He ended up with an
understanding of perception that is totally different from the naive idea of perception as
stimuli reception. The latter view can still be found in part of the current literature on Human-
Computer Interaction (HCI). To Merleau-Ponty, perception is a process where an active body
enters into a "communion" with its surroundings. Perception is a continuos interaction
involving the subject's intentions, expectations, and physical actions. From this perspective,
every attempt at applying some variation of Shannon and Wiever's information theory (see
Reddy, 1993) to Human-Computer Interaction becomes an absurdity. There is clearly no purely
active "sender" or purely passive "receiver", nor any well-defined "information" or "point in
time". The fact that his understanding is in direct opposition to some of the most influential
theoretical foundations of the HCI field, makes a study of Merleau-Ponty an interesting
starting point for an exploration of human-computer interaction.
Since Merleau-Ponty published Phenomenology of Perception in 1945, phenomenology
as a philosophical discipline has developed further. The most complete attempt to date at
building a complete analysis of human existence based on the phenomenological insights is
done by Schutz and Luckman in their The structure of the life-world (1973). Luckman uses
this framework as a foundation for his current empirical study of everyday social interaction.
As a sociologist, he makes use of light-weight video equipment and films long sequences of
everyday interaction between people in their natural surroundings. He then analyzes these
sequences in search of levels of meaning.
In British philosophy we find a similar questioning of the limits of analytical approaches
in the late work of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). Wittgenstein started out with a pureanalytical approach to philosophy. His main interest was the philosophy of language. In his
most important early work “Tractatus” (Wittgenstein, 1923), he argued for the logical nature
of language and worked out a complete system for determining the “truth value” of sentences.
Referring to the AI debate, his early position would have placed him among the first
generation of AI researchers with their trust in an analytical, symbolic, and de-contextualized
approach.
After publishing “Tractatus”, Wittgenstein found no interest in philosophy, as he though
its problems to be “solved”. After some years as a school teacher in Austria, he started
questioning the foundations of his early work, and returned to Oxford. He struggled until his
death with all the paradoxes he found in his early approach. He never developed his
ideas into a coherent philosophy, but published his thoughts on the subject in
“Philosophical Investigations” (post-hume, 1953). He found one of the most important
problems of the analytical approach to an understanding of language to be its lack of attention
to context. This led him to develop the concepts language game and life form. To the late
Wittgenstein, the meaning of a sentence is given by its use. Language is primarily a means of
communication. In a certain use situation, there is a context of language users, physical
objects, and practices that give meaning to the words. He described these local uses of
language as language games. He further argues that all use of language is done within a
certain language game, whether it is involving only two people coordinating a specialized
task, or a discourse about the language of philosophy itself. For language users to be able
to comprehend the words of another language user, they need a shared background of
experience. This includes culture, corporeality, sensory system, social life etc. Wittgenstein
uses the term life form for this. To him, language users of different life forms can never truly
communicate.
We see strong similarities between Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Wittgenstein in their
critique of a purely analytical approach to philosophy. They all ended up with a focus on
everyday life, and on our factual existence as human beings. This is why Dreyfus found them
relevant for the AI debate, and this is why they are relevant for a discussion of interactivity.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Overall research methodology
The current study belongs within this "critical/reflective" tradition in computer science
concerning overall research methodology:
• It shares with all the above mentioned studies a reframing of the research problem
from fields outside of traditional computer science.
• Of the above mentioned, it shares with Ehn, Suchman, and Turkle the use of detailed
empirical studies.
• It differs from all the above studies except Turkle’s in that it does not start out with a
strong hypothesis of what will be found, but lets the research question be gradually refined
through the research process. This inductive research strategy has similarities with how
designs gradually evolve in iterative design processes.
• The study differs from all the above studies in that the empirical data are from
experiments. The detailed rationale for this choice is given in Chapter 5.
In the terminology of Habermas, the current study has primarily been driven by a hermeneutic
knowledge interest, in that the aim has been to broaden our understanding of interactivity as a
phenomenon.
At the same time, the pure curiosity has been followed by a technical knowledge interest.
The new knowledge is intended to enable tool developers to construct better software tools to
support interaction design.
The research has to a much lesser degree been driven by an emancipatory knowledge
interest. The focus has not been on the relations between people or groups of people. The data
are from experiments where the power struggle of real-world systems development and use
has to a large degree been eliminated. This is not to say that I have intended the research to be
totally neutral concerning current design practice, but the scope is relatively narrow compared
to the early work in the PD tradition. For example, my suggestion that dance classes should be
included in the curriculum of interaction designers (see Chapter 12), can hardly been
described as an upheaval of the current order of things.
concerning overall research methodology:
• It shares with all the above mentioned studies a reframing of the research problem
from fields outside of traditional computer science.
• Of the above mentioned, it shares with Ehn, Suchman, and Turkle the use of detailed
empirical studies.
• It differs from all the above studies except Turkle’s in that it does not start out with a
strong hypothesis of what will be found, but lets the research question be gradually refined
through the research process. This inductive research strategy has similarities with how
designs gradually evolve in iterative design processes.
• The study differs from all the above studies in that the empirical data are from
experiments. The detailed rationale for this choice is given in Chapter 5.
In the terminology of Habermas, the current study has primarily been driven by a hermeneutic
knowledge interest, in that the aim has been to broaden our understanding of interactivity as a
phenomenon.
At the same time, the pure curiosity has been followed by a technical knowledge interest.
The new knowledge is intended to enable tool developers to construct better software tools to
support interaction design.
The research has to a much lesser degree been driven by an emancipatory knowledge
interest. The focus has not been on the relations between people or groups of people. The data
are from experiments where the power struggle of real-world systems development and use
has to a large degree been eliminated. This is not to say that I have intended the research to be
totally neutral concerning current design practice, but the scope is relatively narrow compared
to the early work in the PD tradition. For example, my suggestion that dance classes should be
included in the curriculum of interaction designers (see Chapter 12), can hardly been
described as an upheaval of the current order of things.
Research methodology in related work
Since the mid-80s there has been an increased interest in digging below the technological
surface of computer-related research problems. These works are relevant both concerning
methodology and content. The following is a short list of some of the most important early
works within this emerging "critical/reflective" tradition in computer science, focusing
on overall research methodology:
• In (Winograd and Flores, 1986), the authors make an analysis of the implicit
assumptions of the AI research tradition, and sketch an alternative theoretical
foundation for the design of computer systems. They explicitly express ടെക്നിക്കല്
Since the mid-80s there has been an increased interest in digging below the technological
surface of computer-related research problems. These works are relevant both concerning
methodology and content. The following is a short list of some of the most important early
works within this emerging "critical/reflective" tradition in computer science, focusing
on overall research methodology:
• In (Winograd and Flores, 1986), the authors make an analysis of the implicit
assumptions of the AI research tradition, and sketch an alternative theoretical
foundation for the design of computer systems. They explicitly express ടെക്നിക്കല്
• In (Turkle, 1984) and (Turkle, 1995), Sherry Turkle studies the computer as a
cultural artifact in different subcultures. Methodologically she belongs within the
social science tradition in that she does not state technical applicability as an aim of
her research. Her studies differ from Suchman's in that she to a larger extent uses the
empirical data inductively. Where Suchman uses her case to illustrate a conclusion
she has already made, Turkle enters into the data analysis without a well-defined
hypothesis to test.
• In (Ehn, 1988), the author sums up and reflects on the early years of “Participatory
Design” in Scandinavia. He re-frames systems development from three positions:
Marxism, the philosophy of Heidegger, and the late work of Wittgenstein.
Throughout the book, he keeps a focus on the relations between work, workers,
designers, and systems; and does not hide that the political dimension of the research
is a further democratization of the workplace.
A common methodological denominator of these studies, and of the work by Bødker (1991),
Laurel (1991), and Andersen (1991), is that they reframed computer-related problems within
theoretical frameworks that were at that point not made relevant to computer science (i.e.
Activity Theory, Dramatic theory, and Semiotics). In addition to the reframing, some of the
authors try to ground their resulting conclusions in empirical findings (i.e. Andersen, Ehn,
Suchman and Turkle).
All works mentioned show a strong hermeneutic knowledge interest, while (Winograd &
Flores, 1986) and (Bødker, 1991) in addition explicitly express a technical knowledge
interest. The emancipatory interest is most explicit in Ehn’s work, but is also largely present in
the work of Winograd & Flores.
surface of computer-related research problems. These works are relevant both concerning
methodology and content. The following is a short list of some of the most important early
works within this emerging "critical/reflective" tradition in computer science, focusing
on overall research methodology:
• In (Winograd and Flores, 1986), the authors make an analysis of the implicit
assumptions of the AI research tradition, and sketch an alternative theoretical
foundation for the design of computer systems. They explicitly express ടെക്നിക്കല്
Since the mid-80s there has been an increased interest in digging below the technological
surface of computer-related research problems. These works are relevant both concerning
methodology and content. The following is a short list of some of the most important early
works within this emerging "critical/reflective" tradition in computer science, focusing
on overall research methodology:
• In (Winograd and Flores, 1986), the authors make an analysis of the implicit
assumptions of the AI research tradition, and sketch an alternative theoretical
foundation for the design of computer systems. They explicitly express ടെക്നിക്കല്
• In (Turkle, 1984) and (Turkle, 1995), Sherry Turkle studies the computer as a
cultural artifact in different subcultures. Methodologically she belongs within the
social science tradition in that she does not state technical applicability as an aim of
her research. Her studies differ from Suchman's in that she to a larger extent uses the
empirical data inductively. Where Suchman uses her case to illustrate a conclusion
she has already made, Turkle enters into the data analysis without a well-defined
hypothesis to test.
• In (Ehn, 1988), the author sums up and reflects on the early years of “Participatory
Design” in Scandinavia. He re-frames systems development from three positions:
Marxism, the philosophy of Heidegger, and the late work of Wittgenstein.
Throughout the book, he keeps a focus on the relations between work, workers,
designers, and systems; and does not hide that the political dimension of the research
is a further democratization of the workplace.
A common methodological denominator of these studies, and of the work by Bødker (1991),
Laurel (1991), and Andersen (1991), is that they reframed computer-related problems within
theoretical frameworks that were at that point not made relevant to computer science (i.e.
Activity Theory, Dramatic theory, and Semiotics). In addition to the reframing, some of the
authors try to ground their resulting conclusions in empirical findings (i.e. Andersen, Ehn,
Suchman and Turkle).
All works mentioned show a strong hermeneutic knowledge interest, while (Winograd &
Flores, 1986) and (Bødker, 1991) in addition explicitly express a technical knowledge
interest. The emancipatory interest is most explicit in Ehn’s work, but is also largely present in
the work of Winograd & Flores.
Methodology: How to Study Interactivity?
As Bødker has pointed out (Bødker, 1990), computer science has always been multi-
disciplinary in that it has borrowed from other fields. Borrowing from other disciplines
always involves elements of selection, translation, and synthesis. These processes are by no
means straightforward. In its early days, when the research problems were mainly related to
making the computer work in a purely technical sense, computer science borrowed mainly
from formal disciplines like logic, mathematics, and linguistics. It took fairly long before
computer scientists had to take seriously the fact that computer users are human beings with
bodies, minds, history, culture, language, and social relations. Today, a lot of the research
problems are related to how computers are used. Computer science consequently now
borrows from the humanities and the social sciences.
Learning from history, I do not expect new insights concerning interactivity to emerge
from within the current computer-science tradition alone. I have consequently found it
necessary to seek inspiration from outside my own field, with all the complications involved.
The structure of the sciences
One way to start a scientific investigation is to look for the largest possible picture. In this
case that would be to have a look at the structure of the sciences. In “Knowledge and Human
Interests”, Habermas (1971) identifies three "knowledge interests" working as driving forces in
science. He uses the terms technical interest, hermeneutic interest, and emancipatory interest:
• The technical interest is governing research aimed at improving our control of nature
and/or society. Most research in the natural sciences fit this description.
• The hermeneutic ("practical") interest aims at getting a deeper understanding of a
phenomenon, not focusing on the "usefulness" of such an endeavor from a technical/
economical point of view. Most research in the humanities fit here.
• The emancipatory interest is governing research aimed at removing repression and
injustice by unveiling the power relations in society. Such research is always
political in some sense or another. Examples of such research can be found in the
Action Research tradition in organization theory.
disciplinary in that it has borrowed from other fields. Borrowing from other disciplines
always involves elements of selection, translation, and synthesis. These processes are by no
means straightforward. In its early days, when the research problems were mainly related to
making the computer work in a purely technical sense, computer science borrowed mainly
from formal disciplines like logic, mathematics, and linguistics. It took fairly long before
computer scientists had to take seriously the fact that computer users are human beings with
bodies, minds, history, culture, language, and social relations. Today, a lot of the research
problems are related to how computers are used. Computer science consequently now
borrows from the humanities and the social sciences.
Learning from history, I do not expect new insights concerning interactivity to emerge
from within the current computer-science tradition alone. I have consequently found it
necessary to seek inspiration from outside my own field, with all the complications involved.
The structure of the sciences
One way to start a scientific investigation is to look for the largest possible picture. In this
case that would be to have a look at the structure of the sciences. In “Knowledge and Human
Interests”, Habermas (1971) identifies three "knowledge interests" working as driving forces in
science. He uses the terms technical interest, hermeneutic interest, and emancipatory interest:
• The technical interest is governing research aimed at improving our control of nature
and/or society. Most research in the natural sciences fit this description.
• The hermeneutic ("practical") interest aims at getting a deeper understanding of a
phenomenon, not focusing on the "usefulness" of such an endeavor from a technical/
economical point of view. Most research in the humanities fit here.
• The emancipatory interest is governing research aimed at removing repression and
injustice by unveiling the power relations in society. Such research is always
political in some sense or another. Examples of such research can be found in the
Action Research tradition in organization theory.
Understanding Interactivity
Part ൧
തിയറി
തിയറി
”This new ‘metamedium’ is active...
We think the implications are vast and compelling.”
Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg, 19771.
On most popular personal computer platforms, a variety of multi-media tools are currently
available for doing interaction design. These are easy to use, require little or no skill in
programming, and range from editors for pixel graphics and animation, to tools like
MacroMedia Director for integrating the different media resources. Most of the tools provide
excellent support for graphics, sound, and video. The problems arise when designers want to
be creative concerning interactivity. If a designer wants to create interactive solutions that
were not imagined by the tool makers, he or she has to make use of a scripting language like
Lingo, or even leave the tools all together and do programming in traditional programming
languages like C++ or Java.
Most designers do not have training as programmers, and for these users programming
becomes a barrier that cannot be crossed without detailed help from a professional
programmer. If such help is not available, the designer has hit the wall and has to settle for
solutions with less interactivity. As the potential for interactivity is the most powerful feature
of the computer compared to other media, this is a very unfortunate situation.
In "Drawing and Programming" Laursen and Andersen (1993) describe the problems they
had with the design and implementation of a multimedia system about the Scandinavian
Bronze Age. To illustrate how a landscape was experienced by people in the Bronze Age,
they introduced the concept of Interactive Texture. The idea was quite simple:
"In the Bronze Age, the geography had a very different meaning from nowadays.
While we now see water as a hindrance to locomotion, and firm ground as a help, the
situation was to some extent the opposite at that time when water united (because of
boats) and land divided (because of large forests and moors). We can let the user
experience this through his fingers by making the cursor move differently in different
areas. If the spot is on land, it travels slowly, while it goes quickly if it is on sea." (p.
260)
___
1 (Kay and Goldberg, 1977, p.254)
Preface
With the expansion of the EU in May 2004, an estimated 1.5 million Roma in Central
and Eastern Europe (CEE) became EU citizens. When Bulgaria and Romania join,
scheduled for 2007, that number will increase to some 4.4 million.
൧.What will this
mean in practice for the majority of CEE Roma, who continue to experience
discrimination in every aspect of their lives and on a daily basis?
൨.Roma constitute the
largest and most marginalized ethnic minority group in Europe; and its biggest civil
rights issue. Although most people agree that the enlargement process is likely to bring
positive changes for Roma in the region, the impact of EU membership can only be
assessed in the years ahead in terms of real, measurable progress in such key areas as
equal access to education and levels of employment comparable to those of the
majorities.
Romania has the largest Roma population in Europe, estimated at some 2.5 million
people.
൩.Although Romania is not yet an EU member State, the strong desire to join
the EU has fostered some positive results. As in other candidate countries with a
significant Roma minority, the Government has formulated a national plan aimed
specifically at improving the situation of Roma. Adopted in April 2001, the “Strategy
of the Government of Romania for the Improving the Roma Condition” (hereafter,
Strategy) established a detailed program for addressing the discrimination and poverty
faced by Roma communities. In addition, the Romanian Government adopted the first
anti-discrimination law in response to the EU’s Race Equality Directive in August
2000. It has been revised several times.
___________
Dimitrina Petrova, The European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), “The Roma: Between a Myth
and the Future”. Accessed on the web at http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1844&archiv=1
For example, unemployment in Roma communities is estimated at between 50 and 90 per
cent. See “EU support for Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe”, European
Commission, Directorate General for Enlargement, published by the Enlargement Informa-
tion Unit. Accessed on the web at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/docs/pdf/brochure_roma_oct2003_en.pdf
In some cases, estimates are considerably higher than official figures, due at least partly to
the reluctance of some Roma to identify themselves as such. According to the 2002 census
in Romania, the official figure for the Roma population was 535,000. Dimitrina Petrova,
The European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), “The Roma: Between a Myth and the Fu-
ture”. Accessed on the web at http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1844&archiv=1
and Eastern Europe (CEE) became EU citizens. When Bulgaria and Romania join,
scheduled for 2007, that number will increase to some 4.4 million.
൧.What will this
mean in practice for the majority of CEE Roma, who continue to experience
discrimination in every aspect of their lives and on a daily basis?
൨.Roma constitute the
largest and most marginalized ethnic minority group in Europe; and its biggest civil
rights issue. Although most people agree that the enlargement process is likely to bring
positive changes for Roma in the region, the impact of EU membership can only be
assessed in the years ahead in terms of real, measurable progress in such key areas as
equal access to education and levels of employment comparable to those of the
majorities.
Romania has the largest Roma population in Europe, estimated at some 2.5 million
people.
൩.Although Romania is not yet an EU member State, the strong desire to join
the EU has fostered some positive results. As in other candidate countries with a
significant Roma minority, the Government has formulated a national plan aimed
specifically at improving the situation of Roma. Adopted in April 2001, the “Strategy
of the Government of Romania for the Improving the Roma Condition” (hereafter,
Strategy) established a detailed program for addressing the discrimination and poverty
faced by Roma communities. In addition, the Romanian Government adopted the first
anti-discrimination law in response to the EU’s Race Equality Directive in August
2000. It has been revised several times.
___________
Dimitrina Petrova, The European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), “The Roma: Between a Myth
and the Future”. Accessed on the web at http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1844&archiv=1
For example, unemployment in Roma communities is estimated at between 50 and 90 per
cent. See “EU support for Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe”, European
Commission, Directorate General for Enlargement, published by the Enlargement Informa-
tion Unit. Accessed on the web at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/docs/pdf/brochure_roma_oct2003_en.pdf
In some cases, estimates are considerably higher than official figures, due at least partly to
the reluctance of some Roma to identify themselves as such. According to the 2002 census
in Romania, the official figure for the Roma population was 535,000. Dimitrina Petrova,
The European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), “The Roma: Between a Myth and the Fu-
ture”. Accessed on the web at http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1844&archiv=1
Acknowledgements
The Open Society Institute would like to acknowledge the primary role of the
following individuals in researching and drafting the local monitoring reports. Final
responsibility for the content of the reports rests with the Open Society Institute.
Braila County Anton Gina and Parnica Anisoara
Cluj County Maria Ursu and Adrian Moldovan
Dolj County Costache Marcel and Silviu Bratu
Iasi County Laura Constantin and Daniela Rusu
Timis County Valentin Pepenel and Carmen Marcu
A joint project of:
THE RESOURCE CENTER FOR ROMA COMMUNITIES (RCRC),
CLUJ NAPOCA , ROMANIA
Florin Moisa Executive President
THE EU MONITORING AND A DVOCACY PROGRAM (EUMAP),
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE , BUDAPEST
Penelope Farrar Program Director
Miriam Anati Deputy Program Director
Alphia Abdikeeva Program Officer
Katy Negrin Program Officer
Andrea Gurubi Watterson Program Assistant
THE ROMA PARTICIPATION PROGRAM (RPP), OPEN SOCIETY
INSTITUTE , BUDAPEST
Rumyan Russinov Program Director
Bernard Rorke Deputy Program Director
Iulius Rostas Program Manager
Links: http://www.romacenter.ro
http://www.eumap.org
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/focus_areas/rpp
following individuals in researching and drafting the local monitoring reports. Final
responsibility for the content of the reports rests with the Open Society Institute.
Braila County Anton Gina and Parnica Anisoara
Cluj County Maria Ursu and Adrian Moldovan
Dolj County Costache Marcel and Silviu Bratu
Iasi County Laura Constantin and Daniela Rusu
Timis County Valentin Pepenel and Carmen Marcu
A joint project of:
THE RESOURCE CENTER FOR ROMA COMMUNITIES (RCRC),
CLUJ NAPOCA , ROMANIA
Florin Moisa Executive President
THE EU MONITORING AND A DVOCACY PROGRAM (EUMAP),
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE , BUDAPEST
Penelope Farrar Program Director
Miriam Anati Deputy Program Director
Alphia Abdikeeva Program Officer
Katy Negrin Program Officer
Andrea Gurubi Watterson Program Assistant
THE ROMA PARTICIPATION PROGRAM (RPP), OPEN SOCIETY
INSTITUTE , BUDAPEST
Rumyan Russinov Program Director
Bernard Rorke Deputy Program Director
Iulius Rostas Program Manager
Links: http://www.romacenter.ro
http://www.eumap.org
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/focus_areas/rpp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
