Header

Simulating Future Histories The NAU Solar System Simulation and Mars Settlement

   Originally published in Anthropology & Education Quarterly
   Spring 1995 Vol. 26(1):95-104
   Copyright 1995, American Anthropological Association, Dr. Reed D.
   Riner, and Jen Clodius.
   
   
   _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
SIMULATING FUTURE HISTORIES: THE NAU SOLAR SYSTEM SIMULATION & MARS SETTLEMENT

   
   
   
   _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   by Reed D. Riner (1)
   Northern Arizona University
   Flagstaff, AZ
   
   
   and Jennifer A. Clodius (2)
   University of Wisconsin
   Madison, WI
   
   
   _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
SIMULATING FUTURE HISTORIES: THE NAU SOLAR SYSTEM & MARS SETTLEMENT

   
   
   The authors and their colleagues on eleven other campuses are engaged
   in leading teams of students through the fifth iteration of the NAU
   (Northern Arizona University) Solar System Simulation (3). This is a
   classroom based role-playing simulation in which the teams of students
   build working models of communities and work-sites, some situated
   off-Earth, in an historically plausible future Solar System. (We will
   have more to say about what constitutes 'historic plausibility' later
   in this article.) The 'model- building' is done face-to-face in each
   classroom, and also collaboratively among the teams of students
   through the Internet. Students and faculty communicate with each other
   through the Internet using a variety of communications formats,
   including a Multiple-User Domain (MUD) program and E-mail.
   
   This article describes, primarily from the location of the Mars
   Settlement class at NAU, how the simulation is conducted, and what
   pedagogical and anthropological premises are involved. It is our
   contention that the pedagogical 'innovations', or alternatives, which
   we have incorporated into the Solar System Simulation, are both
   different from and complimentary to conventional instruction. The
   simulation requires that students engage both halves of their brains,
   using technology creatively and binding creativity to technological
   feasibility.
   
   At NAU we have been able to package a very unconventional course
   within conventional administrative constraints. ANT 390 Cultural
   Simulation: Mars Settlement is offered as 3cr.hr. lecture with a
   1cr.hr. lab incorporated into the course which meets 14:20- 17:00 T/Th
   in a spring semester that runs from mid-January through early May.
   Usually EGR 390 Technological Simulation: Mars Settlement is offered
   and scheduled concurrently; thus two rooms are available, so one can
   be used as a break-out room. Both courses are designated 'writing
   intensive' and are available for General Studies requirement and
   Honors, as well as major/minor elective, credit. Students from all
   undergraduate levels and from all majors may--and do--enroll. (Neville
   and Riner 1993)
   
   Northwest Passage is offered as a one-credit fieldwork adjunct to
   courses in anthropology at the University of Dayton. The L-5
   settlement is a one-credit addition to the Anthropology for the Future
   course offered at Cabrillo College. Doug Raybeck's 14 person Halcyon
   Mission to the Astroid belt met weekly as an upper-divison 3cr. hr.
   anthropology elective course. The mission to the astroid Ceres was
   organized within an honors course at Liberty High School, Issaquah,
   Washington. On each campus the course, emulating a different site in
   the future Solar System, has different pedagogical objectives,
   depending on the faculty member and sponsoring department, and
   different administrative constraints that need to be accommodated. On
   each campus conventional packaging seems to have been easily adapted
   to our unconventional course contents and collaboration.
   
   Jim Funaro, leader of the L-5 team and founder of the annual CONTACT
   Conferences where the idea for the Solar System Simulation was
   conceived, argues that, "If you want to understand how something
   works, build a working model of it." (Funaro 1991) If you want to
   understand the workings of a socio-cultural system, build a working
   model ... in which each individual site, and the supra-planetary
   socio-cultural system of the future Solar System as a whole is a
   plausible working model in which the builders are immersed. If you're
   going to teach participant-observation and applied anthropology, have
   students DO participant-observation and apply anthropology (Ericson
   and Rice 1990). This, then, is one of the unique aspects of the Solar
   System Simulation: rather than merely explaining how systems work by
   taking them apart analytically, we ask students to actually build and,
   to some extent, live in their models. Concurrently the team of faculty
   members is modeling the team behaviors they expect of their students.
   
   At the first meeting of the NAU Mars Settlement course we assemble all
   of the students in a large room furnished with tables and chairs,
   moveable adult-style furniture, and plenty of chalk-board and wall
   space. With some ceremony, deliberately aping a rite of separation, we
   close the door. We announce to the students, "You are the population
   who has been selected to establish the first permanent settlement on
   Mars. You are already en route in the mission ship. You will arrive in
   parking orbit ready to land at the end of the fourth week of class. By
   then you will have to have designed a plan for a community that will
   be viable in the severe Martian environment. More than merely viable,
   this must be a community that will be worth living in for you, and for
   your children. You are going to have to work out scientifically and
   historically plausible answers to the questions: when are you? why are
   you here? who are you, and where have you come from? where are you
   going to settle on Mars? and what are you going to do once you do
   settle?" One student commented, "This is not a bogus problem, like the
   problems are in so many other classes, with problems that are
   obviously 'set-ups' and trivial."
   
   The 'building' is not primarily the building of animated table-top
   models; it is composing a plausible scenario and a set of rules to
   direct the playing out of a viable and desirable community. Students
   collaboratively build social structure(s), and play out the
   consequences in a process of discovery. Immediately the students have
   to organize themselves to analyze their common problem: how to survive
   in a non-Earth environment. They must determine how to break the
   problem into manageable parts and assign individual responsibilities
   with commensurate authority for solving those parts, while maintaining
   dialogue with other members of their community. The students must
   devise a viable system of self-governance. (Graves and Graves 1987,
   1985, Johnson, Johnson and Holubec 1986, Collier 1980, Johnson and
   Johnson 1975) Another student has remarked on "never having
   opportunity to make (to design) an organization that works; all the
   student government organizations (on campus) are already organized for
   us." In the longer range, this 'classroom organization' is carried
   over into the Mars Settlement and played out in the model that
   students describe in the text-based virtual reality, the Multiple-
   User Domain (MUD) of SolSySim in the Internet.
   
   Before making the jump to that frame of reference--into the MUD--we
   want to make explicit some of the anthropology applied in our
   pedagogy. Riner recalls the indelible impression left in his thinking
   upon reading:
   

     "Is it not ironical that in a planned society of controlled
     workers given compulsory assignments, where religious expression
     is suppressed, the press controlled, and all media communication
     censored, where a puppet government is encouraged but denied any
     real authority, where great attention is given to efficiency and
     character reports, and attendance at cultural assemblies is
     compulsory, where it is avowed that all will be administered to
     each according to his abilities, and where those who flee are
     tracked down, returned, and punished for trying to escape--in
     short in the milieu of the typical large American secondary
     school--we attempt to teach 'the democratic system'?"
                                               (Van Norman 1968).

   
   
   This comment was published when McLuhan's maxim 'the medium is the
   message' was new and pervasive (McLuhan 1965). McLuhan's intent is
   that actions speak louder than words, that deep-structure speaks
   louder than surface structure. When the medium contradicts message,
   when initiative and collaboration are exhorted in a classroom arranged
   and organized in the traditional 19th century authoritarian,
   industrial, instructional style, the result is not direct learning but
   acute conflict (Bateson, Jackson, Haley and Weakland 1956, Bateson
   1960a, 1960b, 1969). The message of the context is inculcated much
   more indelibly than is the content of instruction. In contrast, the
   message in our medium is that success will result from a diversity of
   participants collaborating collegially and creatively in the solution
   of common problems. We expect that 'work' in the future will be less
   individual, competitive and convergent on a common end product, rather
   that work will be more cooperative, collaborative and divergent to a
   multiplicity of products (Hine, 1977). If the school experience is
   intended to provide socio-cultural competency, especially future
   socio-cultural competencies, then the classroom experience must model
   the context in which those competencies will be employed. Therefore we
   have 'deconstructed' the traditional classroom and the instructional
   style curriculum in order to construct a futures-oriented pedagogical
   experience.
   
   Second, we have invited play rather than compelled work as the primary
   motivating factor in this pedagogical situation (Riner 1978,
   Csikszentmihalyi 1975, Bateson 1955, Huizinga 1950). The result has
   been that students throw themselves into the simulation with such
   energy and absorption that many have slighted, even dropped, other
   classes. This is an embarrassing success.
   
   Third, we stimulate students to think in multiple future tenses. In
   each iteration the students have decided that the first permanent
   settlement on Mars could feasibly be in the mid-2070's. From that date
   they look back to the present and 'reconstruct' the events that led up
   to their situation; this entails thinking holistically about all of
   Earth's socio-cultural systems. And they look ahead at the future of
   their Settlement; this entails sensitive consideration of the
   continuity of past, through present, with future. Thinking
   systematically about alternative, plausible futures has a strong
   impact on all of one's thinking. The general character of this impact
   has been written about by Polak (1961:49-50), Boulding (1956:125), and
   Textor (1984:1) but has begun to be studied systematically only by
   Rogers and Tough (1992) Thinking in a future context, as our students
   do, adds a second tense to futures thinking, with additional general
   'consciousness raising', but as yet unspecified, impacts on their
   cognitive structures.
   
   Finally, we emphasize model-building and problem solving. Some social
   scientists are assessing socio-cultural systems as chaotic systems
   (Riner 1991, Gleick 1987). Chaotic systems cannot be predicted, but
   they can be modeled, and the models can be manipulated so the
   player(s) can discover properties latent in the model. And models,
   unlike societies, can be experimentally altered in search of preferred
   results, problem solutions. This is important scientifically and
   intellectually; it is equally important pragmatically, ethically, and
   pedagogically. Ethics precludes experimentation with human
   communities; human subjects legislation increasingly discourages
   teaching students participant-observation by doing it. Simulation
   students are immersed in a model of their own devising, and goaded by
   assignments, to reflect critically on the implications which follow
   from that model. Or, as another student observed, "This class isn't
   really about Mars; the last thing that it's about is Mars! It's really
   about organization and disorganization, and order, and apathy, and
   solving problems, and how people do -and don't- work together, and
   take risks, and make ethical decisions, and ...." until he ran out of
   breath.
   
   And all of the foregoing is reflected and reconstructed in the MUD
   (4). The Multiple-User Domain is a kind of computer program that
   enables several people to log in to a common account and chat with
   each other 'on-line' by typing their utterances in turn. The unfolding
   conversation scrolls up on the participant's screen looking like a
   play script. In the version we use (written by a Mars alumnus),
   players may partition their "cyberspace" environment into rooms,
   connect the rooms with doors, write descriptions for the rooms and for
   themselves, and create objects which they may then carry from room to
   room. Players and objects may be assigned membership in groups, and
   doors may be locked open and closed to members of specified groups.
   All of these 'sets' and 'props' and selective locks are recorded in
   the data base and so become more or less permanent parts of the text
   environment. The syntax of players, rooms, exits, objects and groups
   permits the parallel construction of very complicated models of social
   systems.
   
   The genre of MUD-type programs began as recreational environments.
   We've taken a relatively low-tech, popular, "every-man's" sort of
   virtual reality and turned it from recreational to pedagogical ends.
   We are using it, successfully, to impact the cognitive development of
   classrooms full of students. We believe that this methodology is
   successful in part because the learning takes place in a variety of
   cognitive domains simultaneously. Both technological and creative
   skills are required and developed, as is evidenced by the inherent
   qualities of working with and in the MUD database.
   
   The 'text', that is the data base along with the program for its
   manipulation, has the cumulative property of culture as records "of
   and for behavior, .. as the product of action and the precursor to
   future action" (Kroeber & Kluckhone 1952). The text also has the
   'revisable' property, again like 'real' culture; players may erase
   things they have constructed and put new features in their place. As
   their creative and technological skills increase, students frequently
   change or enhance their previous constructions. The original objects,
   however, have made impacts on the surrounding space, and these impacts
   remain as archaeological features in the simulation. Students, as a
   consequence of their active (and reflective) participation, develop
   increasing awareness of the culture they themselves are creating. The
   "system of stuff and rules" accumulates and becomes the increasingly
   limiting and potentiating, and a more apparently real referent in
   their lives (Freilich 1992).
   
   At some point in this experience it suddenly dawns on almost every
   student that s/he has been, and is, a collaborator in making the
   system in which s/he finds hirself. S/he discovers the consequences of
   the previous decisions, and begins to give increasing forethought to
   consequences of present and future decisions. Sometimes this awareness
   occurs first in the 'student' observer mind-set; in other cases it
   occurs first in the 'Martian' participant mind-set. By the time it
   occurs a certain definite distance has developed between the 'student'
   and hir 'persona'. Communicating the insight from one mind-set to
   another, from observer to participant, from participant to observer,
   is a challenge that emerges for many of the students. We believe this
   achieves the 'reflexivity' asked for by forward-looking
   anthropological educators (Segal 1990, deRoche and deRoche 1990, Smith
   1990, Peterson 1990).
   
   The plausibility of the students' future history is not only
   desirable, it is required. We allow the development of new
   technological futures only to the extent that students can demonstrate
   their feasibility, preferably by extrapolating from current research
   trends or ideas. While this may seem restrictive, given the advances
   made over the last century, it does preclude the students developing
   "sudden" breakthroughs in, say, faster-than-light transportation. All
   of the teams have available to them (both in the MUD and through
   E-mail) a variety of expert professional advisors who specialize in
   physics, legal systems, astronomy, and planetary data.
   
   Yet another kind of learning occurs as students develop the virtual
   model of their communities. A number of concepts familiar to computer
   programmers, conce made challenging and even fun in a MUD. These
   concepts include linked lists, loops, if-then-else clauses, Boolean
   logic, pattern matching, set theory, variables, lables, attributes
   tracing and parsing. Though, to a new user, these concepts would seem
   baffling in a computer class, on a MUD they have immediatly visible
   and applicable uses. Once someone has explained to a user that moving
   a room is as easy as opening new doors to it from someplace else and
   removing the old doors, (which a programmer would see as moving a node
   in a linked list) they understand and are able to do it quite easily.
   Once a MUDder starts learning the tricks possible in a MUD, it's only
   a short transition to using them in a bonafide programming
   environment.
   
   Additionally students learn improved communications skills. One of the
   benefits of using a MUD environment is that it equalizes (dare we say
   "democratizes"?) the interaction dynamic within the student group.
   Many students who rarely express their ideas, concerns and questions
   in a seminar setting feel free to do so at a keybaord. This increased
   participation using electronic media has been noted by others.
   According to Sproull and Kiesler, perceived status in face-to-face
   interactions has a high correlation to how much the person speaks. In
   their experiments, however, discussions held electronically showed
   twice as much equality of participation as discussions held
   face-to-face (1991: 60). We find that, because we have greater
   participation from all of our students, a broader range of ideas is
   presented and considered as students develop their cultural systems.
   
   Differentiation in traditional gender roles is also reduced
   electronically, according to Sproull and Kiesler's observations. In
   the NAU Solar System Simulation we've noted similar variation from
   "traditional" roles. Female students aren't supposed to prefer "hard"
   sciences; we've had women take on the design and theoretical
   construction of power plants. Male students aren't supposed to be good
   with words; we've had men take on the role of team historian.
   
   Working in the MUD environment can act as a Goffman-esque "backstage"
   for some students. They become used to interacting with other
   students, and, time and again, we've seen these increased
   communication skills carried from the MUD back into their everyday
   lived experiences. This is not to say, of course, that working through
   a MUD will cure a lack of social skills, but it has certainly helped
   numerous students with whom we've had experience.
   
   We come, then, to why we, as educators, have continued to use this
   method of teaching anthropology. First, it works. Our students become
   enthused, and willingly learn information about subjects in which they
   previously had no interest, and (albeit sometimes unintentionally)
   learn to look at their current world in a considerably broader
   perspective. Second, by removing the course curriculum from Van
   Norman's all-too-accurate description of the American academic
   institution, we allow the students to teach themselves. This is not to
   say, of course, than we stand idly by and let chaos reign--there are,
   indeed, assignments and expectations and grades. In fact, we
   frequently find ourselves running to keep ahead of new ideas, new
   concepts, and new applications in order to be able to guide and
   suggest alternatives to impractical ideas.
   
   Finally, we are aware that we are treading on some not-yet-firm
   ground, what Howard Rheingold calls "homesteading on the virtual
   frontier". We are, in pushing anthropology into the future, studying
   the initial impacts made by virtual communities--communities of
   interest, not of location. As Rheingold observes, these virtual
   communities have, and will continue to have, ramifications on "our
   real-life relationships and communities [and] lead to fundamental
   questions about social values in an age when so many of our human
   relationships are mediated by communications technology" (1993: 146).
   This, then, is anthropology for the future--and it's fun!.
   
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
    Footnotes:
    
   (1) Reed D. Riner (rdr@dana.ucc.nau.edu) is Professor of Anthropology
   at Northern Arizona University, (Flagstaff, AZ 86011), where he
   regularly teaches seminars on the anthropological study of alternative
   futures. His most recent publications include "Anthropology About the
   Future" Human Organization, 50(3), Fall 1991, and, with Melvin K.
   Neville "The Futures of Higher Education: Past, Present and Future" in
   "Creating the 21st Century", Futurics 15(3&4):57-67, 1991. Earlier
   versions of this paper were presented at CONTACT VIII, Mar 1991,
   Phoenix, Az, the 21st Century Conference, Apr 1990, ASU-West, Phoenix
   AZ, the World Future Society conference "Creating the 21st Century"
   July 1991, Minneapolis, MN, and the National Collegiate Honors Council
   conference, Nov, 1991, Chicago, IL. The author especially thanks his
   collaborators Mel Neville (NAU), John Bregenzer (U Dayton), and Denise
   Aedan for their contributions in the development of this paper and the
   project from which it derives.
   
   (2) Jen Clodius (jclodius@students.wisc.edu) is a graduate student in
   Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and studying
   community-formation on the Internet. Her most recent publications
   include several ethnographic technical reports for NORC at The
   University of Chicago. She was originally introduced to SolSys and
   DragonMUD when she was the teaching assistant for an anthropology
   class involved in the SolSys simulation. Clodius has been
   co-administrator of DragonMUD since May, 1991, dealing primarily with
   issues of human relations, computer-mediated communications, and
   human-machine interfaces. Additionally she has been an advisor on
   SolSys since 1992.
   
   (3) The sites, faculty members, disciplinary affiliations and
   institutions, reading from the bottom of Earth's gravity well up, are:
   Northwest Passage (a submarine city under Earth's north polar cap),
   John Bregenzer, anthropology, U Dayton; Luna Station, Chris Jones,
   political science, Eastern Oregon State College; L-5, Jim Funaro,
   anthropology, Cabrillo College; L-4, Alluquere Rosanne Stone, radio,
   television, film, U Texas-Austin; Mars Settlement, Reed Riner,
   anthropology, and Melvin Neville, computer science, NAU, and James
   Dator, political science, U Hawaii; Ceres, Don Robertson, honors,
   Liberty High School, Issaquah, WA; Halcyon (Jovian Moon Mission), Doug
   Raybeck, anthropology, Hamilton College. Additionally Alan Aycock and
   Henri Beaulieu, anthropology, U Lethbridge, James M. 'Tim' Wallace and
   Leigh Mills, anthropology, NCSU; Elizabeth Viau, education, CSLA;
   Marilyn Garber, philosophy, CS-Dominguez Hills, and Ted Christiansen,
   The George Washington University are participant-observers, intending
   to lead teams in the next, Spring 1995, iteration.
   
   (4) MUD (short for Multi-User Dungeon, originally) was the name of a
   game written by Roy Trubshaw and Richard Bartle when they were
   students at Essex University in the UK. The first, and still one of
   the most commonly-used American versions, was TinyMUD, written by
   James Aspnes of Carnegie-Mellon University in 1989. Our program,
   DragonMUD (Ver 1.5.5.J7) has been adapted and comprehensively
   re-written by John P. 'Jopsy' Crane. Cited as one of the seven "first
   rank" TinyMUDS in Bartle's critique, DragonMUD is the oldest
   continuously-running implementation of the TinyMUD family, and the
   only one of those initial seven still in existence. Originally put up
   in December 1989, it became accessible to non-local players when NAU
   went on the InterNet in March of 1990. Crane's version of the TinyMUD
   code is now being used by several other sites, including Athens
   located at Merrimack University in Maine, Prohibition in Santa Cruz,
   California, ToadMUD in San Diego, and MetropolisMUD in Raleigh, North
   Carolina, with several other sites under development.
   
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
    References Cited
    
   Bateson, Gregory
   1969 "Double Bind, 1969" Symposium on the Double Bind, American
   Psychological Association. Reprinted in Gregory Bateson, author and
   editor, Steps Toward an Ecology of Mind. 1973 NY: Ballentine Books,
   Inc.
   1960a "The Group Dynamics of Schizophrenia" in L. Appleby, J.M.Scher,
   and J. Cumming editors Chronic Schisophrenia: Explorations in Theory
   and Treatment. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
   1960b "Minimal Requirements for a Theory of Schizophrenia" A.M.A
   Archives of General Psychiatry 2:477-491.
   1955 "A Theory of Play and Fantasy" A.P.A Psychiatric Research 1-105.
   
   Bateson, Gregory, Don D. Jackson, Jay Haley, and John H. Weakland
   1956 "Toward a Theory of Schiozophrenia" Behavioral Science I(4).
   
   Boulding, Kenneth
   1956 The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. Ann Arbor, University
   of Michigan Press.
   
   Collier, K. G.
   1980 "Peer-Group Learning in Higher Education: The Development of
   Higher Order Skills" Studies in Higher Education 5(1):55-62.
   
   Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly
   1975 Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and
   Games. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers
   
   deRoche, Constance and John E. deRoche
   1990 "As I Say, As I Do: Teaching Reflexivity thorugh a Reflexive
   Subject" Anthropology & Education Quarterly 21(2):126-133.
   
   Erickson, Paul A. and Patricia C. Rice
   1990 "Introduction: Themes for the 1990's" Anthropology & Education
   Quarterly, 21(2):101-105.
   
   Freilich, Morris
   1992 "Culture as Rules: New Thoughts On An Old Idea" paper presented
   at the 91st Annual meeting of the American Anthropological
   Association, San Francisco, CA. 5 Dec 1992.
   
   Funaro, James, editor
   1991 Anthropology For The Future: CONTACT - Cultures of the
   Imagination. Aptos, CA: Kinko's Copies.
   
   Gleick, James
   1987 Chaos: Making a New Science. NY: Viking Penguin, Inc.
   
   Goffman, Erving
   1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City NY:
   Doubleday Anchor.
   
   Graves, Nancy R. and Theodore D. Graves
   1985 "Creating a Cooperative Learning Environment. An Ecological
   Approach." in R. Slavin, et al. Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to
   Learn. New York: Plennum Press.
   1987 "Cooperative Learning - A Resource Guide". International
   Association for The Study of Cooperation in Education Newsletter.
   IASCE, 136 Liberty Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.
   
   Hine, Virginia
   1977 "The Basic Paradigm of a Future Socio-Cultural System" World
   Issues II(2):19-22.
   
   Huizinga, Johann
   1950 Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston:
   Beacon Press.
   
   Johnson, David W. and Robert T. Johnson
   1975 Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition and
   Individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   
   Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson and Edyth Johnson Holubec
   1986 Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, MN:
   Interaction Book Co.
   
   Kroeber, Alfred and Clyde Kluckhohn
   1952 Culture: A Critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers of
   the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University,
   47.
   
   McLuhan, Marshall
   1965 Understanding Media: The extensions of Man. NY:McGraw Hill.
   
   Neville, Melvin K. and Reed D. Riner
   1993 "The Mars Course: A Technological and Societal Simulation" in
   David Hartman editor, "Proceedings of the American Society of
   Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Section 1993 Annual Meeting
   and Conference.
   
   Peterson, Earl
   1990 "Helping TA's to Teach Holistically" Anthropology & Education
   Quarterly 21(2):179-187, June.
   
   Polak, Fred
   1961 The Image of the Future. 2 Vols. New York: Oceana Publications.
   
   Rheingold, Howard
   1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.
   Reading MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
   
   Riner, Reed D.
   1991 "Anthropology About the Future: Limits and Potentials" Human
   Organization, 50(3):297-311.
   1978 "Information Management: A System Model of Ritual and Play" in
   Michael A. Salter, ed. Play: Anthropological Perspectives. West Point,
   NY: Leisure Press.
   
   Rogers, Martha and Allen Tough
   1992 "What Happens When Students Face the Future?" Futures Research
   Quarterly 8(4):9-18, Winter.
   
   Segal, Edwin S.
   1990 "The Journal: Teaching Reflexive Methodology on an Introductory
   Level" Anthropology & Education Quarterly 21(2):121-127.
   
   Smith, J. Jerome
   1990 "Pasteboard Ethnography: Qualitative Fieldwork Projects in
   Card-Game Settings" Anthropology & Education Quarterly 21(2): 146-152.
   
   
   Sproull, Lee and Sara Kiesler
   1991 Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization.
   Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   
   Textor, Robert B., M.L. Bhansoon Ladavalya, and Sidthinat
   Prabudhanitisarn
   1984 Alternative Sociocultural Futures for Thailand: A Pilot Inquiry
   among Academics. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Faculty of the Social Sciences,
   Chaing Mai University.
   
   Van Norman, Royce
   1968 "School Administration: Thoughts on Organization and Purpose",
   Phi Delta Kappan 47:315-16, Feb.