The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-497X.htm

Knowledge Knowledge democracy and the democracy implications to information access Ahmad Raza and Hasan Sohaib Murad School of Business and Economics, University of Management and Technology, 37 Lahore, Pakistan

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of “knowledge democracy,” deploying a pluralistic, and cross disciplinary and humanistic critique. Design/methodology/approach – This is a culturally pluralistic and humanistic interpretation of globally emergent form of learning pedagogy, particularly manifested in e-learning. Findings – This paper explores the concept of knowledge democracy in the context of knowledge and information revolution. It has been argued that knowledge democratization implies freedom and equality to access information and knowledge across cultures and societies, particularly in the context of globalization. It is asserted that a democratization of the notion of knowledge would cause a paradigm shift; the way instruction and education are socially structured in different social systems. The knowledge society provides a new spirit of global sharing of values, acceptance of others and learning to live with divergent worldviews. It is contended that e-learning in particular sets a new global social opportunity to transcend regional, racial and national prejudices. Originality/value – The paper underscores the significance of pluralistic and humanistic perspective on knowledge and e-learning. Keywords Globalization, Epistemology, E-learning, Knowledge management, Information and communication technologies Paper type Conceptual paper

Social forms of knowledge Historically, knowledge has been the defining attribute of human species. From the simple hunters of pre-historic times to medieval peasants to modern day information creators; all have sought to understand more deeply the structure of physical and social world. Their understanding is rooted in more and more sophisticated tools of knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination. This process of knowledge creation is essentially social and symbolic in nature. The human quality to create and codify understanding in symbolic forms particularly “language” leverage human form of consciousness over the rest of the living creatures of the world (Polanyi, 1983). Form birth till death, the behavior of the individuals is shaped by the collective knowledge of the community, and the social consciousness legitimized by the cultural epistemic justifications underlying the former. Even the most rigorous forms of human knowledge such as modern science are subject to social practices of the scientific communities and their trial and error methods (Kuhn, 1962; Popper, 1962). An epistemic agreement about the structure of reality is amended (reinterpreted) in the light of sufficient collective counter-evidences. This shift in human understanding reflects a corresponding shift in environment and consciousness. Multicultural Education & Voegelin (1975) comments, each historical epoch is shaped by the “consciousness of the Technology Journal Vol. 2 No. 1, 2008 epoch.” Earlier, Hegel speaks about this collective wave of human consciousness as pp. 37-46 “zeitgeist.” Mannheim (1952) terms this collective consciousness as “weltanschauung.” q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-497X It appears from the reports of cultural and historical annals that “epochal consciousnesses DOI 10.1108/17504970810867142 METJ constitute an inevitable, inescapable and irreversible process of social transformation 2,1 experienced by collective human psyche across cultures and civilizations.” For example, the norms of human political behavior have remained subject to “epochal consciousnesses.” There were times, when rulers enjoyed total sway over lives of people. They held complete religious and secular authority in their societies. From India to China to Egypt and Europe, they were “gods” personified. Their actions and decisions 38 were not subject to any external control. During the middle ages, “divine rights” of rulers were espoused as normal political standard, still unaccountable to common citizens but aided by a host of powerful elites. Samurais, Knights and Nawabs formed these political elite of the ruling dynasties. These political elites supported the adventures of the rulers and in turn enjoyed their patronage and a share in political power. It took a bloody revolution in France in 1789, which transformed the political nature of human societies forever. The “will of people” was accepted as the true source of sovereignty and all political, social, cultural, and intellectual events that followed reflect this new “epochal consciousness” and its democratic spirit. Lasswell (1941) has summed up this new found epochal consciousness in the following words. “When we respect the capacity of every individual to contribute to the common life, we practice justice and achieve democracy.” Individuals were placed at the core of new epistemological discourse in science, philosophy, economy, politics and education. A complete new “context” (Berlin, 1958) was set in place to organize public and private affairs of the citizens. The new social mechanism of democratic values allowed, “the largest part of the population to influence major decisions” regarding holders of public offices, kind of education and curricula and economic and social betterment of the communities (Lipset, 1960; Friedrich, 1950). The “epochal consciousness” of democracy was more than a transformation of forms of political governance; it created, what Dewey (1916) terms as: [...] a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. The extension in space of the number of individuals who participate in an interest so that each has to refer his own action to that of others, and to consider the actions of others to give point and direction to his own, is equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of class, race, and national territory which kept men from perceiving the full import of their activity. The foundations of modern civilization rest very deeply in the democratic consciousness of human societies. The vision of social change and progress inspired by the writings of St Simon, Voltaire, Rousseau and Mill caused men to liberate themselves from “self-imposed tutelage,” reject dogma and doctrine as the basis of human culture, allow the ideals of liberty, autonomy and rationality to take hold on the collective life of citizens (Durant, 1985; Laski, 1930; Cowen and Shenton, 1995). The most significant consequence of this democratic epochal consciousness was the dynamic surge in the filed of science and technology. For the first time in the entire historical epochs of human societies, spirit of free inquiry and access to knowledge was freed from privileged control of temples and churches, monks and pundits. The shift in epochal consciousness of mankind from despotism, Catholicism and monarchy to democratic culture and free spirit of inquiry was not confined to Western Europe and North America, being primary centers of social and cognitive transformation in regimented weltanschauung of middle ages; eastern societies also experienced their share of global awaking of democratic outlook, albeit ironically through European colonialism and Imperial expansion in Asia, Africa and Latin America (Clark, 1997). For example, Japan embraced Western sciences during Meiji era in nineteenth century. Knowledge India underwent a political and intellectual enlightenment under the British Raj and at the democracy twilight of Moghul Rule in the later half of nineteenth century, when local Muslim and Hindu intellectuals like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan underscored the need for social, educational and political restructuring in response to Western scientific and technological advancements. The distinctly European wave of democratization swept across the former colonies of Australia, Canada, India, and Africa. Their traditional 39 worldviews were shaken and reinterpreted in the light of new challenges from the West. These societies woke up from what Iqbal (died in 1938) termed as their “intellectual stupor” spanning across three centuries of cultural and intellectual stagnation. The forces of traditionalism in culture, politics, education and economy were receding as they lost grounds of legitimacy which was rooted in the former despotic structures of political, social and cultural life. The liberal democratic vision of global awaking of mankind also took roots in new communities of democratic culture. Subsequently, waves of social, political, cultural and industrial transformations were witnessed in the eastern societies in order to catch up with the rest of modern world. The new found democratic consciousness reshaped the traditional modes of knowledge, governance and fiscal management. The social change which was brought by the European colonial rule, ultimately forced them to retreat back to their homelands, leaving behind a new cultural edifice, which carried in it the birth pangs of a new interdependent and complex global life-forms. The ideals of democratic access to knowledge, social justice and economic prosperity were no longer the cultural prerogative of West Europeans; these were now common human ideals shared by all human societies across the globe. The only exception to this world wave of social democratization was Soviet totalitarianism which eventually crumbled in 1989 with the dismemberment of Berlin Wall (Raza et al.,2006).

E-learning and spirit of knowledge democratization The technological developments of last two decades have profoundly transformed the human societies across the globe. The historical wave of democratization, which reshaped the political and economic ideals of the human societies, now effectively has taken hold on cultures and educational systems. The “knowledge revolution” and “new modes of social communications,” such as internet and wireless technology have created new social structures of knowledge creation and knowledge transmission across boundaries of human societies (Hakken, 2003; Mansell and Wehn, 1996). The society, governance, economy, culture and education have become knowledge based (Shields, 2003; Zouridis and Bekkers, 2000; Dutton and Peltu, 1999; MacIver, 2004; Carnoy et al., 1993). The social interactions and transactions now take place in what Holmes (2001) have termed as, “virtual spaces, spaces of instantaneous time” where “time is no longer a constraint” with regard to access to information and resources. Penfold (2003) has stated the spirit of new wave of democratization in the following words: As the internet grew ever more user-friendly, and became more accessible to people around the world, it was hailed in many quarters as the harbinger of democracy and freedom throughout the globe. The spread of internet communications, the possibilities for interactivity, the anarchic and non-hierarchical structure, the promise that everyone could be author, publisher, and recipient of infinite quantity of content, and the ability for communications to route around interruptions, all led to a belief that internet would change the world. METJ “Non-hierarchical” structure of cyberspace has become ostensibly, co-evolutionary 2,1 with knowledge society. The democratization of knowledge at this level means three interrelated social processes. These are: (1) Shift in the epistemological view of the world as well as knowing the world. Instead of an objectivist-dualist interpretation of the world-processes (both in physical and social sciences), a pluralistic, multiple and interdependent view of 40 the world is very much in place (Siebers, 2003). (2) Shift in the social modes of knowledge creation, knowledge dissemination and knowledge utilization from a boundaries of academic instructions to the “borderless universities” of the cyber world (Shields, 2003). (3) Shift in public access to knowledge and learning within a limited timeframe and prescribed curricula to freedom and personal autonomy to create and share knowledge and learning across human communities in divergent societies in the world.

It would not be out of place to attempt a brief reflection on each of these social (global?) processes for the emerging spirit of knowledge democratization and its possible consequences for the success and failure of contemporary project of e-learning. This emerging spirit of knowledge democratization, now fast appearing was aptly captured in a Zen verse many centuries ago in these words: The vacant sky[...] [...] No front, no back; [...] The birds’ path[...] [...] No east, no west (Shigematsu, 1981, p. 21). “No east, no west” must be the guiding thread of epistemological pluralism. No methodology of knowing the world has an a priori supremacy over the other. Different views of the world must be accepted as valid ways of understanding and communicating the reality. Similarly, the corresponding cultural stereotypes formed out of respective epistemic justifications must give way to a pluralist worldview on knowledge. The “democratization” at epistemic levels can then lead to create pedagogy based on comprehension of multiple social realities. The social structure of cyber existence points towards an epistemological Zen; where human societies must cultivate sensitivities appreciate complexity, diversity and plurality of behaviors and understandings. The world must realize that its high time to abandon the weltanschauung of “culture of competition” and power of knowledge to that of “mutual harmonies” between civilizations and cultures based on collective awareness of inherent violence unleashed by propagating the virtues of one set of values over the other (Mannheim, 1953; Iqbal, 1983). The epistemological Zen (pluralism) consequently leads to a pedagogical Zen (pluralism).What must be learned by the cybercitizens? What rules of the game must be taught in emerging information rooted social contexts. What concepts and values are to be pursued by everyone for a secure and peaceful earth? The pedagogical pluralism must make roads into the curricula and books of management, science, economics, and politics and developments studies to respond to the growing complexity of knowledge emanating from diverse social structures of the world. Even residential academic bureaucracies (modern universities) have to restructure Knowledge what they deliver as “final truth” in their classrooms lest these are “deconstructed” by democracy the fledgling e-universities of information society. This leads to the ultimate questions about knowledge democratization. Who should control and distribute knowledge in the knowledge society? How peoples’ inherent and natural “will to know” must be expressed in public and private domains of society? Should someone prescribe to persons what to know and what not to know? Should 41 governments censor information and flow of information? The answer(s) perhaps can be best read in the following passage of Laski (1930): The knowledge that an invasion of liberty will always meet with resistance from men determined upon its repulsion, this, in the last analysis, is the only true safeguard that we have. It means, I have admitted that a certain penumbra of contingent anarchy always confronts the state; but I have argued that this is entirely desirable since the secret of liberty is always, in the end, the courage to resist. The “courage to resist” provides essential foundation to free global information society. The free spirit of “will to know” cannot be censored by any law and constitution provided cybercitizens are determined to safeguard their free access to knowledge and sources of knowledge. The democratic spirit of knowledge necessitate that those societies as well individuals who are “underdeveloped” (Loader, 1998) in digital era must be helped by those who have resources to share and therefore help in creating a global will to know, which cannot be kept hostage to power politics, wealth or academic bureaucracies. Rosen (1998) states that, “every great transformation leaves behind social debris in its wake.” The social debris of the knowledge revolution constitutes dissolution of traditional modes of social communications and social relationships. It means a common global destiny or common global annihilation. In short, it means a collective human development to next and higher level of social progress, consciousness and ineterdependence, where worldviews and values have to come together to shape a peaceful and secure world for all. This emerging theme is missing from the curricula of traditional residential universities, where knowledge is controlled and manipulated by the few “chosen sons” of academia. Where cultural stereotypes about the nature of understanding and knowledge abound and where poor and the resourceless cannot have access. The dynamic expansions of information communication technologies have transformed the social structure of knowledge acquisition, knowledge creation and knowledge transmission (or at least visibly it has put the traditional academic institutions under tremendous social stress to restructure their educational priorities in order to remain relevant). Boyle (1997) has underscored the spirit of change and emerging social consequences of information shift in these words: For some, the information age simply means a shift in emphasis in the global economy, a shift from tangible to intangible goods, from things to ideas, from tractors to software. Others imagine that information age will be the age of direct democracy, as technology gives a global citizenry both the knowledge and the means of control necessary to decide the daily issues of polity. The knowledge and learning happens to be an important crucial daily activity. What, how, where and when to learn constitute significant social choices. Theses choices are now determined in large part by the new social context of knowledge society METJ (Morelli, 2001; Dutton and Peltu, 1999; Tiffin and Rajasingham, 1995; Hearn and 2,1 Heiskanen, 2003; Tansey, 2002; Milner, 2002; Braman, 1993; Kobayashi, 1991; Robins and Webster, 1999). Kenyon (2004) and Hawkins et al. (1999) have also analyzed the context and nature of social transformation caused by the new technologies in social relations of commerce and society. Robins and Webster (1999), have underscored the significance of a “government’s educational strategy” in a “network society” in order to 42 deliver peace and prosperity to its citizens. In the new social context of “network society,” e-learning has definitely emerged as an effective social choice for knowledge acquisition and knowledge transmission. The growing educational strategy of governments, particularly in developing countries of Asia and Africa revolves around it. The new “technologies of knowing” (Cheater, 1995), particularly internet and wireless connectivity, offers a hope as well as opportunity for the less-developed societies to catch up with the rest of the advanced nations of West. Despite “digital divide” (Loader, 1998; Schaeffer, 2002) between developed and less-developed countries, e-learning remains a cost-effective mode of mass education and literacy. Mansell and Wehn (1996) have highlighted this aspect of ICTs applications in new learning environments. They comment: The application of ICTs in leading to more flexible learning environments. The flexibility of interactive learning (between teachers and learners, between computer-mediated software applications and learners, and among teachers and learners themselves) is becoming a reality for some people in developing countries. In other countries, it is a technical possibility that may become a cost effective alternative to traditional forms of education in the future. The possibility of continuous informal education and lifelong learning is growing with the increased availability of ICT applications and creativity in their application to address development problems. For example, in Pakistan, a fast growing economy of the region (current growth rate is 7 percent per annum, Economic Survey of Pakistan-2007), the experiment of e-learning in public sector is well under way. The Government of Pakistan established a first internet-based e-learning Virtual University in 2004 to develop human capital to meet the increasing demands of a global economy, offering courses, instructions, evaluation and assessments using online delivery channels. The cost of tuition fee to a degree program (both at undergraduate and graduate levels) at this university is around Rs/1,300 ($24 approximately), which makes it affordable and accessible to common citizens of the country. The Virtual University delivers courses in management sciences, social sciences and information technology and computer sciences. The access to course contents, lecture material, evaluation and assessment is open to students, delivered by the university through its national networked TV channels as well as internet. It has also established affiliate campuses in several cities of the country, so that students who do not have digital access to internet and other electronic resources, can reach to these unimpeded. Likewise, Malaysia is rapidly catching up with new instructional modes of knowledge delivery in a knowledge-based environment. Multimedia University of Malaysia is an example of such innovative and accessible form of local as well as global learning in the South-East Asian region. Nonetheless e-learning institutions of the technologically advanced countries such as North America remain very costly and therefore inaccessible for someone from the developing countries of the world, trying to improve his academic and career prospects. The tuition costs of western e-learning universities range from $4,000 to 10,000 depending upon the accreditation and credibility of the former. This brings us to the most crucial question concerning the future prospects of credible Knowledge global e-learning opportunities. How should western e-learning universities be made democracy accessible to the poor and developing countries and how far these institutions be left at the forces of market economy? It seems that in order to sustain themselves economically, theses emerging e-learning institutions of the West might end up turning into parallel academic bureaucracies, competing for enrollment with the residential universities. The growing cost of digital environments of instruction and learning might also lead to 43 inaccessibility both locally and globally, consequently putting the hope of a free and democratic access to knowledge and social development in jeopardy. In an increasingly complex and interdependent global environment, the sustainability of knowledge democratization largely depends upon the advanced societies of the world, who possess unequal control both on economic and information resources. The project of knowledge democratization and resulting human economic and social uplift globally, might end up nowhere (there is a fear in less-developed countries that it might create more insecure, unequal and undemocratic world systems), due to peculiar social inequalities in the creation and distribution of world information resources (Raza et al., 2007). E-learning is a significant cultural evolution in modes of social determinants of knowledge acquisition and knowledge transfer between and across cultural boundaries. The journey from the cave inscriptions to invention of writing to scribes and printing press has been tremendous. Finally, mankind is reaching to next levels of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, from “reusable learning objects” to interactive “cyber class rooms” (Laurillard and McAndrew, 2003; Alderman and Barritt, 2004; Spronk, 2003). The globalization of knowledge and the democratic reality to share the fruits of collective human efforts appear to be writ large in the era of knowledge revolution.

Concluding remarks E-learning reflects the new dynamic response to the needs of knowledge society. One can feel in it the global spirit of knowledge democratization. The knowledge democratization implies freedom and equality to access knowledge beyond cultural and social boundaries. It inspires divergent social structures to learn to live with diversities and rid themselves of ethnocentric worldviews. The epistemological pluralism would lead to the creation of pedagogical pluralism and thus to a curricula which meets the demands of a socially and economically interdependent world The success of vision of peaceful and secure world depends heavily on the democratization of world knowledge resources. A world with an unequal control of both information resources and information structures is bound to bread more social, political and economic inequalities (Raza et al.,2007). The project of e-learning can transform human societies, provided it responds to pluralities of epistemic, cultural and ethical structures. The role of western e-learning institutions is very crucial in this regard. They can enable the less-developed and economically underprivileged communities of the developing countries to move forward and seize the global opportunity for social and economic development at par with the developed world. Knowledge democratization can only take effect, if communities are placed at the heart of current discourse of free and accessible information society (Lachelier, 2006). The “research tools” of post industrial social and educational science need to be recasted and reinterpreted to meet the challenges of local diversities as well global unities (Cheater, 1995). METJ References 2,1 Alderman, L.F. Jr and Barritt, C. (2004), Creating a Reusable Learning Objects Strategy: Leveraging Information and Learning in a Knowledge Economy, Pfeiffer Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Berlin, I. (1958), Two Concepts of Liberty, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Boyle, J. (1997), Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information 44 Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Braman, S. (1993), “Harmonization of systems: the third stage of the information society”, Journal of Communications, Vol. 43 No. 3, p. 133. Carnoy, M., Castells, M., Cohen, S.S. and Cardoso, H.F. (1993), The New Global Economy in the Information Age: Reflections on Our Changing World, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA. Cheater, P.A. (1995), “Globalization and the new technologies of knowing: anthropological calculus or chaos?”, in Strathern, M. (Ed.), Shifting Contexts: Transformations in Anthropological Knowledge, Routledge, London. Clark, J.J. (1997), Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter between Asian and Western Thought, Routledge, London. Cowen, M.P. and Shenton, R.W. (1995), “The invention of development”, in Crush, J. (Ed.), Power of Development, Routledge, London. Dewey, J. (1916), Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, MacMillan, New York, NY. Durant, W. (1985), The Story of Philosophy, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Dutton, H.W. and Peltu, M. (1999), Society on Line: Information Politics in the Digital Age, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Friedrich, J.C. (1950), Constitutional Government and Democracy: Theory and Practice in Europe and America, Ginn & Co., Boston, MA. Hakken, D. (2003), The Knowledge Landscapes of Cyberspace, Routledge, New York, NY. Hawkins, R., Mansell, R. and Steinmueller, E.W. (1999), “Toward digital intermediation in the information society”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 33 No. 2, p. 383. Hearn, J. and Heiskanen, T. (2003), Information Society and the Workplace, Routledge, New York, NY. Holmes, D. (2001), Virtual Globalization: Virtual Spaces/Tourist Spaces, Routledge, London. Iqbal, M. (1983), The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Lahore. Kenyon, A. (2004), “The information society: a sceptical view”, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 40 No. 3, p. 310. Kobayashi, K. (1991), “A personal perspective: information society and information technology”, International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 223. Kuhn, S.T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL. Lachelier, P. E. (2006), “A manifesto for knowledge democracy”, paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, August. Laski, J.H. (1930), Liberty in the Modern State, Harper & Brothers, New York, NY. Lasswell, D.H. (1941), Democracy through Public Opinion, George Banta Publishing Company, Menasha, WI. Laurillard, D. and McAndrew, P. (2003), “Reusable educational software; a basis for generic Knowledge learning activities”, in Littlejohn, A. (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to E-learning, Kogan Page, London. democracy Lipset, M.S. (1960), Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics, Doubleday, Garden City, NY. Loader, D.B. (1998), Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency and Policy in the Information Society, Routledge, London. MacIver, J.W. Jr (2004), “A human rights perspective on digital divide”, in Schuler, D. (Ed.), 45 Community Practice in the Network Society: Local Action, Global Interaction, Routledge, New York, NY. Mannheim, K. (1952), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Mannheim, K. (1953), Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology, 1st ed., Vol. VIII, Routledge, London, p. 319. Mansell, R. and Wehn, U. (1996), Knowledge Societies: Information Technology for Sustainable Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Milner, M.E. (2002), Delivering the Vision: Public Services for the Information Society and the Knowledge Economy, Routledge, London. Morelli, N. (2001), “The space of telework; physical and virtual configurations for remote work”, in Holmes, D. (Ed.), Virtual Globalization: Virtual Spaces/Tourist Spaces, Routledge, London. Penfold, C. (2003), “Global technology meets local environment: state attempts to control internet content”, in Ho, K.C., Kluver, R. and Yang, K.C. (Eds), Asia.Com: Asia Encounters the Internet, RoutledgeCurzon, New York, NY. Polanyi, M. (1983), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Popper, K.R. (1962), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Basic Books, New York, NY. Raza, A., Kuasar, A.R. and Paul, D. (2006), “Culture, cognition and knowledge-based development”, Journal of Knowledge Management., Vol. 10 No. 5, p. 137. Raza, A., Kuasar, A.R. and Paul, D. (2007), “The social democratization of knowledge; some critical reflections on e-learning”, Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 64. Robins, K. and Webster, F. (1999), Times of Techno Culture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life, Routledge, London. Rosen, C.B. (1998), Winners and Losers of the Information Revolution: Psychological Change and Its Discontents, Praeger, Westport, CT. Schaeffer, T.R. (2002), Sociology, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Shields, R. (2003), The Virtual, Routledge, London. Shigematsu, S. (1981), Zen Forest: Sayings of the Masters, Weatherhill, New York, NY. Siebers, H. (2003), “Management of knowledge and social transformation: a case study from Guatemala”, in Pottier, J., Bicker, A. and Sillitoe, P. (Eds), Development and Local Knowledge: New Approaches to Natural Resources Management, Conservation, and Agriculture, Routledge, New York, NY. Spronk, B. (2003), “Open classrooms and globalization: connections and reflections”, in Bradley, J. (Ed.), The Open Classroom: Distance Learning in and Out of Schools, Kogan Page, London. Tansey, D.S. (2002), Business, Information Technology and Society, Routledge, New York, NY. METJ Tiffin, J. and Rajasingham, L. (1995), In Search of the Virtual Class: Education in an Information 2,1 Society, Routledge, New York, NY. Voegelin, E. (1975) in Hallowell, J.H. (Ed.), From Enlightenment to Revolution, Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Zouridis, S. and Bekkers, V. (2000), “Electronic service delivery and the democratic relationship between government and its citizens”, in Hoff, J., Horrocks, I. and Tops, P. (Eds), 46 Democratic Governance and New Technology; Technologically Mediated Innovations in Political Practice in Western Europe, Routledge, London.

Further reading Esposito, L.J. and Voll, D.J. (1996), Islam and Democracy, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Qureshi, I.H. (1967), The Struggle for Pakistan, University of Karachi Press, Karachi. Stammers, N. (2001), “Social democracy and global governance”, in van den Anker, C. and Martell, L. (Eds), Social Democracy: Global and National Perspectives, Palgrave, New York, NY. Stromberg, N.R. (1996), Democracy: A Short, Analytical History, M.E. Sharpe Inc., Armonk, NY.

Corresponding author Ahmad Raza can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints