Gender And Female Characters Of A City Poses Opportunities...

The interaction of men and women in a city poses opportunities and limitations. The ideas about gender and how female and male characters are depicted in a story, together with gender behaviour, that have shifted over the years in different cities, positions and literary work. The Dubliners (1914) by James Joyce (1882-1941) demonstrate individuals trying to contest or escape paralysis in Dublin. A contrast from Langston Hughes (1902-1967) with Pushcart Man , and Jack Kerouac with the The Town and the city in the city of New York. Their work is central to demonstrate the sense of the mix of cultures, perceptions of segregation, and the restriction and possibility of the city. This essay will discuss the ways in which relations between the sexes are depicted in the set texts, and consider the literary techniques the writer used to create a particular portrayal. Dubliners (1914), by James Joyce (1882-1941) is a collection of short stories representing his home city at the start of the 20th century. Joyce s work ‘was written between 1904 and 1907 (Haslam and Hooper, 2012, p. 13). The novel consists of fifteen stories; each one unfolds lives of the different lower middle-strata. Joyce wanted to convey something definite about Dublin and Irish society. Joyce s novel demonstrates a city and a society full of contradictions, parochial ideas, and paralysis. The Dublin inhabitants are divided by the river Liffey, into North and South , rich and poor classesShow MoreRelatedFilm, Paris, Burning, By Jennie Livingston, Director Of The 1990 Documentary Film2760 Words   |  12 Pages1990 documentary film, Paris is Burning, challenges the public to revisit their judgments on race, gender, and sexuality as she provocatively attempts to unravel the dynamic world of â€Å"ball culture† in New York City â€Å"and the African-American, Latino, gay, and transgender communities involved in it† (Livingston). It was Livingston’s investigation that affirmed the link I was uncovering between the gender performance popularly described as drag and spirit possession. The act of men embodying women throughRead More Politics, Power, and Purpose in Shakespeares Measure for Measure6619 Words   |  27 Pagesthrough his neglectful gov ernment, has pretended to leave Vienna and has turned over the government to Angelo, his upright and up-tight Deputy; and that the Duke has resolved to remain in Vienna, in disguise, so that he may observe how Angelos character is revealed or transformed in the crucible of the power with which he has been invested. The Duke tells Friar Thomas, who is party to the plot: Lord Angelo is precise, Stands at a guard with envy, scarce confesses That his blood flows, orRead MoreI Know Why the Caged Bird Sings - Maya Angelou6502 Words   |  27 PagesNevertheless, it is significant that Maya manages to escape the critical, mocking church community and laugh about her liberation, even though she knows that she will be punished for it. Maya’s escape foreshadows her eventual overcoming of the limitations of her childhood. Maya’s experiences in the Store (â€Å"Store† is capitalized by Angelou) tell much about black rural small-town life during the 1930s. After the Civil War and after they had been promised land and animals with which to farm, blacksRead MoreA Passage Of India And The Relations Of Power10531 Words   |  43 Pagesthe British colonial characters in the colonised Indian peripheries reveals the nature of the power relations in dominating the Other (the Indians). Based on the Oriental discourse, this section highlights the struggle of the subjugated inferior Other in approving its identity and diminishing the British stereotypical inferior images and apathy in portraying their culture. This conflict is the sources of questions such as: 1) What is the real attitude of the British characters towards their racistRead MoreThe Effects of Family Background on Children’s Academic Performance6247 Words   |  25 Pagestechnological advances, employers are seeking applicants with strong skills which are acquired through successful academic achievement. Sadly, these skills are not fully developed in all children. For example, differences have been found between males and females, and children from poor families and those from affluent families. Studies have searched for possible reasons as to why children living in poverty suffer academically, such as neighbourhood dynamics, teachers, and school characteristics (McLoyd, 1998)Read MoreSocio-Cultural Development17197 Words   |  69 Pagescultural environment 123 Stakeholders Stakeholders Analysing the social environment also involves identifying a range of stakeholder groups with differing interests in relation to business, e.g. sections of the population deï ¬ ned by social class, gender, ethnicity, age. Values Modern societies are pluralistic or ‘cosmopolitan’, characterized by diversity of lifestyles and values. Values Introduction: what is the social and cultural environment? In broad terms, the social-cultural environmentRead MoreRacism and Ethnic Discrimination44667 Words   |  179 PagesDiscrimination in processes promoted by international cooperation agencies and development aid 48 5.4.7 Discrimination through the media 48 2 of 104 Racism and Ethnic Discrimination in Nicaragua November 2006 5.4.8 The impact of racism on gender relations 5.4.9 Migration and racism 5.4.10 Advance of the agricultural frontier 5.5 Manifestations of ethnic discrimination in the economic sphere 5.5.1 Racism and poverty 5.5.2 Inequitable budgetary distribution 5.5.3 Lack of access toRead MoreCalculus Oaper13589 Words   |  55 PagesNancy Sahli documents the crackdown on intense female friendships among college women at the turn of the present century(6) The ironic title For Her Own Good might have referred first and foremost to the economic imperative to heterosexuality and marriage and to the sanctions imposed against single women and widows--both of whom have been and still are viewed as deviant Yet, in this often enlightening Marxist-feminist overview of male prescriptions for female sanity and health, the economics of prescriptiveRead MoreEffects of Rap Music on Crime14002 Words   |  57 Pagesblack readership (i.e., Ebony and Jet), she finds rap lauded for the salutary lessons that it imparts to black youth regarding the realities of urban living; likewise, rap artists are applauded for their importance as role models and mentors to inner-city black youth. Thus, while rap has been framed negatively, as a contributor to an array of socia l problems, crime and delinquency in particular, it has also been celebrated and championed as an authentic expression of cultural resistance by underdogsRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 PagesRichard Moser, eds., The World the Sixties Made: Politics and Culture in Recent America Joanne Meyerowitz, ed., History and September 11th John McMillian and Paul Buhle, eds., The New Left Revisited David M. Scobey, Empire City: The Making and Meaning of the New York City Landscape Gerda Lerner, Fireweed: A Political Autobiography Allida M. Black, ed., Modern American Queer History Eric Sandweiss, St. Louis: The Evolution of an American Urban Landscape Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and

The American Dream According to John Steinbeck Essay

John Steinbeck, author of many classic American novels, greatly influenced modern American literature. Steinbeck often referred to the Salinas Valley of California in his writing. He often referred to the settlers and the adversities they had faced during the migration to the Salinas Valley area. With novels such as Of Mice And Men and The Grapes Of Wrath, Steinbeck explained the harsh reality of the severe hardships the settlers faced to accomplish the American Dream. These novels share many similarities in regard to their themes. To understand Steinbeck’s work, we must first understand Steinbeck. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;John Steinbeck was born in Salinas, California in 1902. His father was a treasurer for the county. Steinbeck’s†¦show more content†¦From this, Steinbeck went on to write many more great American novels. These novels include Of Mice And Men and The Grapes Of Wrath which were both written in the late 1930s as well as East Of Eden, written in 1952. Steinbeck eventually earned a Nobel Peace Prize for his works. John Steinbeck died in 1968 having written countless classic novels. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;In Of Mice And Men, the main characters, George and Lennie, are poor migrant workers who travel throughout the Salinas Valley in search of work. Throughout the novel, George and Lennie are in search of the American Dream. They crave the opportunity to work, land to call their own and being their own bosses by working off of that land. George and Lennie feel that they are different than other migrant workers because they have dreams and they rely on each other. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;George and Lennie find work on a farm â€Å"bucking barley.† On this farm they meet the laborers as well as other characters of this novel including Candy (an older laborer), Crooks (the black stable hand), the boss, Curley (a short man who happens to be the bosses son), Curley’s wife (a lonely woman easily excited by the attention of men), Carlson (a ranchhand) and Slim (the local authority figure). The characters in this novel all seem to want to transform their lives and are not able to do so. Curley’s wife, a failed actress, is living day to day hoping that she will be able to fulfill herShow MoreRelatedEssay on The American Dream According to John Steinbeck968 Words   |  4 PagesThe American Dream John Steinbeck, author of many classic American novels, greatly influenced modern American literature. Steinbeck often referred to the Salinas Valley of California in his writing. He often referred to the settlers and the adversities they had faced during the migration to the Salinas Valley area. With novels such as Of Mice And Men and The Grapes Of Wrath, Steinbeck explained the harsh reality of the severe hardships the settlers faced to accomplish the American Dream. TheseRead MoreAnalysis Of The Sphinx And Of Mice And Men 1493 Words   |  6 PagesSphinx destroying itself and Oedipus to later take the throne in the city the Sphinx was guarding. In many ways, the Sphinx is analogous to the American Dream where many people are devoured by it while a small quantity ever â€Å"solve the riddle† and achieve their American Dream. In the 1937 novelette, Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck incorporates the American Dream in the setting of the Great Depression in Tyler’s Ran ch , California . During the Great Depression, many workers went into an exodus from theRead MoreThe Futility Of Dreaming By John Steinbeck942 Words   |  4 Pagesnature is to move into the future. John Steinbeck s novella, Of Mice and Men explores this theme of futile desire through various relationships and character complexes. This fictional story begins by introducing two men with a relationship built from the very foundations of love. As the novel progresses, we begin questioning innate truths. Steinbeck uses his literary prowess to entwine us within a story of loneliness, loss and morality. The characters hopes and dreams, regardless of outcome, are aRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1429 Words   |  6 Pageshave dreamed on achieving the american dream but few have achieved it. In the novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, Steinbeck writes a marvelous story about the hardship of achieving the unobtainable american dream. Steinbeck describes the elusive american d ream in Of Mice and Men by comparing and contrasting the american dream with the characters in the novel. The american dream has many interpretations depending on who you ask. Some might say the american dream came from the declaration of independenceRead MoreIs It Really A Dream?933 Words   |  4 PagesIs It Really A Dream? The American Dream is defined as â€Å"a life of personal happiness and material comfort as traditionally sought by individuals in the U.S† (Dictionary.com). This so called â€Å"dream† is an idea that has distinguished both America and her people for centuries. For generations, the American Dream has powered hope for hard-working Americans to achieve a better life - to ful-fill this dream. But over time, the idea of this dream has been criticized. In The Great Gatsby and in Of MiceRead MoreThe American Dream : The American Dream?1106 Words   |  5 Pagesaverage, Americans work 43 hours per week out of a total of 120 hours, take out the recommended sleep time and we work 43 out of 80 total hours. Therefore we work more than half the time in our daily lives. The larger part of Americans believe in The American Dream. so employees believe in working excessively for the chance of being rich, having expensive objects and being successful. The problem The American Dream i s getting less and less possible each and everyday. The American Dream is centralRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1365 Words   |  6 PagesJohn Steinbeck was an author who never wrote without a purpose, though the purpose was not always the same, there was always one. In the novella, Of Mice and Men he wrote with a meaning that was close to his heart. Steinbeck wrote this novella in the middle of the Great Depression for the purpose of showing how this was affecting the citizens of the United States. He wrote Of Mice and Men in order to show how the Great Depression was the final straw in the destruction of the American Dream. InRead MoreForeshadowing In Of Mice And Men Analysis1257 Words   |  6 PagesHow does Steinbeck Use Foreshadowing in his Text? Foreshadowing is the way an author uses clues to show the reader what happens later in the book. In 1937 John Steinbeck published the American classic, â€Å"Of Mice and Men,† a short story that tells the tale of George and Lennie, two migrant workers during the Great Depression. George, a small quick man, and his companion, Lennie, an enormous man with the mind of a child. They begin work at a ranch and come across Crooks, Candy, Slim, Curley, Curley’sRead MoreInterpretations Of The American Dream1718 Words   |  7 PagesInterpretations of American Dream There exist kinds of interpretations and instructions along the very term ‘American Dream’ ranging from its definition, the different concepts of people about it and its ultimate aim to the doubts upon its realization. Alfonzo Reyas, a Mexican humanist, says that â€Å"America is a utopia†¦ it is the figure of human hope† (qtd. In Parrington Jr. Preface). James Truslow Adams, who was firstly coined the phrase in his 1931 book The Epic of America, however, defined it as a â€Å"dream of aRead MoreThe Significance of Dreams in of Mice and Men839 Words   |  4 PagesThe Significance of Dreams in Of Mice and Men A major motif of John Steinbeck s Of Mice and Men is the American dream and the drive to attain it. The life of a ranch hand is grim, yet the characters in the novel are still vulnerable to dreams of a better life. The dream of owning land, called the American dream by some, is what motivates George and Lennie in their work on the ranch. It is their friendship that sustains this dream and makes it possible. While the dreams are credible to the

A Paper on Euthanasia Free Essays

The term ‘euthanasia’ according to the 2007 guidelines on euthanasia published by the American Veterinary Medical Association is derived from the Greek term eu meaning good and thanato meaning death, combining the two Greek words, euthanasia means good death. However, the definition was applied to animal with the concept that if animals life is to be taken, it should be done with the highest degree of respect and with an emphasis on making death as pain less and distress free as possible. For some patients who had been suffering from illness and had bed ridden for a long period of time, death is better than to live having that kind of situation. We will write a custom essay sample on A Paper on Euthanasia or any similar topic only for you Order Now Some even prayed that God take their lives, as they are themselves tired of their condition so they beg that they had better be dead. I would say that euthanasia is humane act as death is inevitable for everyone. Those who are suffering extreme pain or are brain dead with hopeless chance of survival must be given option be they wished to die. Euthanasia or painless death should be an option for the patient with terminal illness as part of their last will. Generally Euthanasia is the deliberate killing by act of omission of the immediate family member being for the patient alleged benefit. Voluntary euthanasia however means that the person has requested to be killed; physician assisted euthanasia is when doctor assisted the patient to kill him or herself. This subject is a good topic because it is a real ethical issue that the society is facing. Based on the recent development on the study of euthanasia, American doctors find it a competent way of easing a patient of the pain and struggle caused by his or her terminal illness. Ian Dowbiggin pointed out that with diagnosis and prognosis more accurate; physicians were able to with fair probability whether a patient was unlikely to recover (p. 5). Thus, according to Dowbiggin doctors â€Å"could now propose active euthanasia† particularly on patients with hopeless chance of recovery. Evaluation Everyone will surely die but the manner by which death comes differs and at a different age. Euthanasia is truly a good death because patients are first given relief from pain before administering a lethal dose of morphine or chloroform that would allow a painless death of the patient. It is quite common that despite of the modern life saving technology many people are extremely suffering from terminal illness, in which the only thing that technology can do is to prolong the patient’s life, which eventually will also end in death. I believed that the quality of death by euthanasia is one that is with dignity, as the patient’s remaining life was treated with highest degree of respect by emphasizing on painless death. Prolonging the sufferings of patient from terminal illness reduces the quality and dignity of his life and increases the level of the patient’s suffering. In the words of Shai Joshua Lavi, the purpose euthanasia society was to â€Å"relieve needless human suffering† (p. 120) Citing the ESA (Euthanasia society of America) statement, Lavi stated that euthanasia is the lawful termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary suffering under adequate safeguard. However, regardless of the quality of death by euthanasia, it remains morally a criminal act to take someone’s life. Euthanasia is humanistic argument, which view life based on secular perspective. Life is sacred and God has the right to take it back, and euthanasia is not an excuse to escape the consequence of humanity’s sin that made human body vulnerable to disease. Comparing the good and the bad side, the effectiveness and ineffectiveness, its best and its worst, the competency and in competency, and its success and unsuccessfulness, Euthanasia has been widely thought to have bad impact on society rather than good. The proponents of those who favor euthanasia emphasized that it good for terminally ill patient while the greater majority claims euthanasia is a crime on human life. Thus, efforts by proponents of euthanasia were mostly unsuccessful than success. During the earlier period prior to World War I, Dowbiggin noted that many people supports doctors administering euthanasia on terminally ill patient. Perhaps euthanasia’s best were widely recognized than its worst, however with improve technology this has been reversed. In most comparison, today’s generation oppose euthanasia, and cast their opinion against it. Evaluative Claim Looking at the positive and negative aspect of I would say that euthanasia is a better option not only for the patient but also for the love ones who are directly affected by the circumstances surrounding the patient’s illness. With out congress-enacted law on euthanasia, it will remain an ethical debate whether or not it will be allowed. However, based on reality of the situation of terminally ill patient, Euthanasia is a competent option for the benefit of the patient who wished for it. The criteria on which euthanasia has to be administered have been quite clear. Patients with terminal illness and whose chance of survival is hopeless, is suffering from extreme pain, and is begging for his or her death are qualified applicant. According to Derek Humphry, the quality of life is vital and if the body is destroyed by disease that is not worth living (p. 90). Humphry noted that it is an intensely individual decision which should not be thwarted† (p. 90) Evidence that the subject meet the criteria is that those that had assessed or had performed euthanasia in all parts of the world that had been convicted was either paroled, or released. Humphry pointed out that in some strongest places; tolerance for euthanasia appears (p. 4) Evidence suggest that the lack of specific laws of many countries regarding euthanasia, means it meets the criteria. Work Cited Dowbiggin, Ian. A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement USA: Oxford University Press, 2003 Humphry, Derek. The Good Euthanasia Guide 2004: Where, What, and Who in Choices in Dying. USA: Norris Lane Press, 2004. Lavi, Joshua Shai. A History of Euthanasia in the United States. USA: Princeton University Press, 2005. AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf   June 2007.    How to cite A Paper on Euthanasia, Papers

Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection. Answer: Introduction: Antibiotic resistance is a rising health issue at present. The most common example of antibiotic resistance is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). MRSA is a bacterium causing infections in different parts of the human body that is known to be resistant to antibiotics commonly used for treating infection with Staphylococcus, including Methicillin. Methicillin is a semisynthetic penicillin-related antibiotic that was once effective against staphylococci resistant to penicillin. With time and increased use of these antibiotics, strains of Staphylococcus species have evolved that are resistant to such antibiotics. Other examples include penicillin-resistant Enterococcus, and multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MDR-TB) (Fankhauser et al. 2015). Laxminarayan et al. (2013) point out that the eastern countries have more tendency to use antibiotics in comparison to western countries of the world. Over-the-counter antibiotics are sold widely in these countries. The restrictions imposed on the sale of antibiotics are less imposed, leading to increased cases of antibiotic resistance. The more a person uses an antibiotic, the more he becomes resistant to that drug. The underlying mechanism is that the sensitive bacteria are killed while germs that are resistant multiply and grow within the body. In an individual who has suffered infection due to organisms resistant to the antibiotic, the prognosis is marked by a longer duration of signs and symptoms of the occurring disease. The possible outcomes of the infection are adverse, as management is difficult. Consequent administration of antibiotic drugs in pursuit of understanding the best drug against the infection would lead to several health complications. The chances of recovery are less, as compared to other patients. Treatment requires multicomponent approach with inputs from different spheres of the medical field. References Fankhauser, C., Schrenzel, J., Francois, P., Pittet, D. and Harbarth, S., 2015. Secular trends of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at Geneva University Hospitals (HUG) over a 14-year period.Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control,4(1), p.O9. Laxminarayan, R., Duse, A., Wattal, C., Zaidi, A.K., Wertheim, H.F., Sumpradit, N., Vlieghe, E., Hara, G.L., Gould, I.M., Goossens, H. and Greko, C., 2013. Antibiotic resistancethe need for global solutions.The Lancet infectious diseases,13(12), pp.1057-1098.

Affirmative Action Essays (964 words) - Discrimination,

Affirmative Action One of the most recent civil rights policies is Affirmative action. Affirmative action is loosely defined as lower educational standards for minorities, and a certain quota of minorities is to be met by employers. Affirmative action is wrong and will not help solve the problems minorities face. The reason it is wrong is because it's discrimination. It has no place in today's society because it does more bad than good. In addition to that, most people don't enjoy the presence of affirmative action. Also, it appears that affirmative action can actually be detrimental to employees health. First of all, affirmative action is discrimination, there is no hiding it. When an employer hires anyone because he or she is a minority, even if someone else is more qualified to do the job, it is discrimination. Just because it is reverse discrimination, when whites are discriminated against and minorities are being discriminated for, doesn't make it right. Affirmative action legalizes discrimination. I thought discrimination was illegal in this country. Also , if this discrimination continues racism in the United States may become worse. Imagine what you would feel like if you couldn't get a job just because you are a white man and not a Hispanic man. The racism will become worse because of it, and that is the very thing it is trying to prevent. It is possible that because of affirmative action, racism will grow and continue to grow. In addition to that, people say affirmative action is okay because it cures past discrimination. Discrimination wasn't okay when blacks were the ones getting the short end of the stick. Therefore it's not okay when whites are discriminated against. Two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore, affirmative action doesn't make discrimination ok just because it's against blacks instead of whites. Affirmative action in college is the most discriminating thing this country has ever seen. At ivy league colleges the median GPA of applicants close to 4.0 and SATs are close to 1300, minorities are let in with GPA's less than 3.0 and SATs less than 1000. The only way for colleges to achieve ethnic proportionalism is to downplay or abandon merit criteria and to accept students from typically under represented groups, such as blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians, over better qualified students from among whites and Asian Americans. Obviously, affirmative action is allowing undereducated citizens to get into college when the people that are qualified aren't getting accepted when they should. When we passed the equal opportunities law, it didn't mean treat different races differently , it means we should treat all people as equals, affirmative action doesn't treat everyone as equals. If we lower acceptance standards for minorities, we should lower standards for everyone. Since nobody would do that we should raise the standard for minorities. In addition, if affirmative action gets its way, it will do more harm than good. Affirmative action will only work short term because if you hire a minority that's under qualified they'll eventually get fired. Also, you can only hire so many people, eventually you'll get too much under qualified people working for you and you'll eventually have to abandon affirmative action all together. Also, affirmative action doesn't work because it doesn't change anything. If there is racism in to day's modern age, then racism will always be present and affirmative action won't work. In addition if we need to discriminate against white people to give minorities jobs now, it won't change. Giving someone a job won't do any good in making the quality of life of minorities better. Just because you enroll more minorities in your college, doesn't mean you're making the playing field even. When someone isn't good enough to get into a certain college, they're out of their league when they get in. To give minorities a better life we have to fix the moral decay caused by the absence of two parent families to help minorities. Affirmative action is also insulting to minorities because they may feel they have to be helped out just to get a job. A minority that benefits form affirmative action may feel that they're inadequate for the job they were hired for. Every employee that benefits from affirmative action bears

Final exam study guide Essays

Final exam study guide Essays Final exam study guide Essay Final exam study guide Essay Be able to discuss and give examples of the three dimensions of inequality (economics, power, and prestige) Lecture 5 American ideology and education Lecture 7 Native American history and demographics Chapter 8 Key facts about sexual orientation Chapter 15 9. Issues that were discussed in the threads will be prime targets. 10. Reviewing the Tacos will also be a great preparation for the Final Exam which I have listed below for your convenience. 1 Given an example of the need to increase productivity in a cultural diversity on team building in the workplace, and formulate strategies for facilitating cooperation among members of a culturally diverse work group. 2 Given a simulated situation where a qualified minority candidate is denied employment based on the hiring managers cultural prejudice and practice of discrimination, erectly assess the situation and recommend intervention strategies to correct the situation. Given a situation in a culturally diverse workplace where tension among employees is rising and Job satisfaction is low, formulate a plan to evaluate organizational culture and strategies to increase organizational cultural competence. 4 Given a case study or simulated situation in which an individual must give directives or recommendations, such as work directives or healthcare recommendations, to an individual from a different culture, assess the potential ultra barriers to communication and compliance with the directives or recommendations and suggest methods for improving communication and ensuring compliance. :

Sati & Sutee Tradition in India - History of Sati Tradition Research Paper

Sati & Sutee Tradition in India - History of Sati Tradition - Research Paper Example Hinduism contains a collection of scriptures written for over four thousand years. Among these writing, discrepancies on widow burning led many to exalt the act while others condemned it in the name of religion. During Vishnusmriti, widows were provided with two options: celibacy or immolation. The Ninayasindu later declared sati as a widow’s essential duty; so did the Puritans of the 6th century. These texts went further to elaborate on how the act was to be performed. In the years that followed, religious leaders and followers deified women who sacrificed themselves and became sites. Regardless of the religious interpretation of the act, the practice became deeply embedded in Indian culture. This presented new challenges to people trying to eradicate it. In addition, the social value accorded to widows who sacrificed themselves presented more barriers. Widows were perceived as worthless, with very low social status making a life for them unbearable. Widows who did not want to go ahead with the practice were coerced, physically forced or threatened onto the pyre. In many cases, the male relatives played a significant role in a widow’s decision to pursue sati. The demise of sati is attributed to British ruling during the 19th century. The British colonialist had refrained from interfering with Indian tradition, culture, and practices. The British rarely tried to enforce change in Muslim or Hindu practices. The governor general to India, however, in the 19th century wondered whether the British government should take measures to eliminate static.

Efficient Markets Hypothesis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Efficient Markets Hypothesis - Essay Example The essence of the efficient markets hypothesis evolved from an earlier capital assetpricing model or CAPM based on investors’ unobservable beliefs about future returns. The CAPM predicts a linear relationship between the expected rate of return on an asset and that asset’s systematic risk, often termed â€Å"beta.† The CAPM model in turn led to the arbitrage pricing theory which is more general than the CAPM by including a set of unspecified factors which influence capital valuations. The CAPM in turn has been expanded into a broader format including such factors as the size of the company and the ratio of book value to market value; this version has gained wider support over the past ten years (Negakis, page 3). The efficient market hypothesis, as defined by Fama going back to 1970, â€Å"defines an Efficient Market as the one in which ‘security prices fully reflect all available information’†. Fama, in 1970, identified three forms of Market Efficiency. In the weak form, no investor can expect to gain from analyzing historical data as that data would already be reflected in capital asset prices. In the semi-strong form, no investor can expect to gain from analyzing publicly available information for the same reason. In the strong form, no investor can expect to gain from analyzing information from any source (Negakis, page 3). The efficient market hypothesis requires the existence of a highly-competitive market. with a large number of very-well-informed traders and in which transactions are costless. It would then not matter how many shares or other capital assets a trader sells - the price would remain unaffected by his actions as the market would already have taken them into account. The market would already reflect all available information, which would be included automatically in the price of the shares or other assets under consideration. The advent of portfolio theory has strengthened the efficient market hypothesis by focusing 3 on the valuation of an entire portfolio of many securities rather than on each one's value. In a fully-diversified portfolio, the trader or investor need not be as concerned over each security or capital asset but rather on the risk and return of the total range of those assets. According to Fama, the strong version of the efficient mar

Development and Economic Sustenance in the Third World Context Essay

Development and Economic Sustenance in the Third World Context - Essay Example The "Third World" is seen as being a victim to the class struggle imposed from the top. There were strong roots in dependency theory which implies that developed regions continue to exploit developing regions for sustained growth. WAD theory adopts a rather mechanistic outlook on the role of women in development. It thus states that women are and have always been part of the process of development. The participation of women in the process of development is said to be in the form of both paid and unpaid labour considered an essential part of development. (Ramji: 1997). There is also a generalized inequity in role distribution in the WAD approach which assumes that women will contribute more in their traditional roles of home and hearth with supplemental roles being added through the forces of modernization. There is an implied inferiority-superiority dyad by which the determining role for development is not accorded to women. A detailed analysis of the other approaches to development will enable clarification of this concept. The â€Å"Women in Development† approach arose from the liberal trend in feminism. It recognizes the importance of roles and status of women in the process of development. Thus women are provided with a special role and status when development assistance is provided. Active involvement of women in the implementation of assistance is also underlined by aid-giving countries as Japan. The enhancement of opportunities for participation of women is said to lead to the improvement of the status of women in society in general.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Abstract- In the Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) domain, researchers have always wondered about which principles and models to adopt for the development of collaborative applications capable to really meet the needs of their users. However, these users requirements are unpredictable and depend on several task or environment-related factors. Integrated collaborative environments are rarely open, extensible and reconfigurable enough so as to meet these requirements. This paper presents an environment, called LEICA (Loosely-coupled Environment for Integrating Collaborative Applications), allowing the integration of existing cooperative applications. LEICA adopts a loosely-coupled integration approach which is based on Web services Services technology, an event notification system, and the definition of Collaboration Policies to control the interactions among integrated applications. LEICA allows different functionalities of existing applications to be dynamically combined and controlled, enhancing therefore the flexibility. Through a case study we show how LEICA was successfully used to integrate three collaborative applications: a co-browsing tool, an instant messaging tool and a VoIP conference controller. Index Terms-Collaborative work, integrated collaborative environments, web services. INTRODUCTION Advances in networking and computing technologies, combined with the fact that companies and work teams are becoming geographically distributed, have created increased a need for communication technologies to ease distance collaboration among distributed individuals (virtual work teams). This leads to the appearing of the so-called Integrated Collaboration Environments (ICEs), having as main goal to integrate different collaborative applications together into a single easy-to-use operational environment [1]. Users needs are very frequently unpredictable and depending on several emerging factors, including the size of the workgroup, the collaborative activities to be accomplished, the intensiveness of the required communications, the coordination policy and the communication needs of the workgroup. Therefore, the possibility of dynamically integrating new functionalities to the environment appears as an important characteristic for collaborative applications [3]. Supporting the integration of new collaborative functionalities reflects how flexible the environment is while responding to unpredictable users needs. We can define this characteristic as integration flexibility that denotes the ease with which an ICE can be its functionalities in response to the users needs. Nowadays one of the main problems of ICEs is that their lack of integration flexibility and as consequence various users decide to set-up their own environments composing different collaborative applications executed independently. In this case, each application is completely isolated from others, without any possibility of coordination among them. This lack of integration can lead to a loss of control from the part of the user, since the operation environment is particularly artificial. Promoting the integration flexibility of ICEs could bring significant benefits to users, allowing different functionalities of existing applications to be dynamically combined and controlled (enhancing therefore the flexibility itself). For instance, a whiteboard application can be integrated with an instant messaging application in such a way that whenever a user joins an instant messaging room, he is automatically logged into the same whiteboard session, instead of been forced to manually login into a session of each one of these collaborative tools. Another case could be the integration of a distributed game and an audio conference application. Whenever a user avatar enters a level/place into the game, his is logged into the audio conference session associated to that level/place, so that the users can online discuss with each other. In order to achieve the integration of existing collaborative applications without having to deal with their low-level features, this work presents LEICA, a Loosely-coupled Environment for Integrating Collaborative Applications. Relying on Web services Services (WS) technologies and an event notification system, different collaborative applications can interoperate by exchanging information within the context of a global collaborative session. The loosely-coupled approach proposed by LEICA overcomes a key problem usually related to integration environments it does not require a true semantic integration of applications. Accordingly, it supports further integration possibilities, such as the integration of third party applications, enhancing, thus, flexibility. LEICA also offers flexibility in the level of the integration semantics. Based on Collaboration Policies to control the interactions between integrated applications, LEICA provides means to define how the collaboration activity supported by one collaborative application will be affected by information received from other collaborative applications. In practice, these collaborative applications interact through the notification of events which may lead to performing specific action(s) in some of these applications themselves. As we will explain later in detail, we think that once a collaborative session has been configured, the use of LEICA can improve users productivity by reducing the application-related administrative tasks, focusing precisely on the collaboration activity itself, and all that by just by interpreting the rules stated for a particular session, all this in function of some pre-established policy rules (also to be explained in detail later). In this way users will find a more natural collaboration environment from the users point of view. In order to illustrate the usability of LEICA in real-world conditions, this paper presents a case study that demonstrates the capability of LEICA to integrate collaborative applications. In this case study, LEICA was successfully used to integrate three collaborative applications: a co-browsing tool, instant messaging tool and a VoIP conference controller. The paper is structured as follows. Section II presents related work regarding the integration of CSCW systems. Section III overviews the general integration approach proposed by LEICA. Section IV explains how to specify Collaboration Policies. Section V presents the LEICAs architecture, detailing how to integrate applications in practice. Some implementation issues are considered in section VI. Section VII describes a case study illustrating the use of LEICA. Finally, in section VIII we draw some conclusions and presents directions of future work. RELATED WORK There are several works oriented to improving integration flexibility of collaborative environments. In this context, four main approaches can be identified: user-tailorable solutions; CSCW toolkits; middleware based solutions; and platforms for integration of heterogeneous collaborative systems. User-Tailorable Solutions As stated in [2], different definitions of tailorability can be found in the literature. Most of them focus on user tailorability ([3], [4], [5] [6]) defining that a tailorable application can be adapted and modified by its own users in order to meet their different requirements. In CSCW, tailorability must focus on the requirements of the group task and of the organization, in which the CSCW system is used [5]. Actually, tailorability is one of the main concerns of groupware development methods. For example, application of participatory design methods ([7] [8]) has been proposed in order to approach the user involvement during groupware development, augmenting thus the opportunities for tailoring. According to [6], tailoring can be supported in three different levels: customization, selecting among a set of predefined configuration options; integration, linking together predefined components within or between applications; extension, improving the implementation by adding new program code. Most of user-tailorable groupware tools support only the customization or integration level (e.g. [2] [9]). Note that the integration level supposes that the functionality to be integrated has been pre-developed and is available somewhere [6]. Only at the extension level users would be able to integrate new functionalities, even if they have not been anticipated by developers at design time. A method frequently used for supporting tailoring at the extension level is the component-based tailoring. For example, in [10], components are implemented using Flexibeans (an extension of the Java Beans model) and end-users tailor the system using a composition language. In [11], end-users may assemble components into larger composite components using the visual representation rather than writing lines of code. However, even at the extension level the integration flexibility is partial as the integration of existing collaborative systems or groupware would require them to be redesigned according to the system architecture. CSCW Toolkits CSCW toolkits ease the implementation of CSCW systems by providing reusable components and behaviors designed to be applicable in a range of circumstances [12]. The need for flexibility and tailorability in CSCW toolkits is well acknowledged. The Neem Platform [13] offers a generic (application-neutral) evolvable framework upon which socially and culturally aware applications are developed. Flexibility and extensibility in Neem result from its foundation on a core architectural coordination model [13]: decoupled components interact indirectly through message exchanges. Intermezzo [14] is a collaboration support environment supporting the coordination information sharing, offering fluid interactions, user awareness, session management and policy control. It addresses dynamic flexibility [12] by allowing applications to adapt not just their own behavior, but also the behavior of the toolkit in reacting to the changing dynamics of the world they run into. The Groupware Toolkit/Shared Dictionary (or GT/SD) toolkit [15][16] has been developed to support rapid development of groupware, focusing mainly on networking and data sharing aspects. GT/SDs extensibility is based on its modular design, which allows adding or modifying behavior by replacing or wrapping different components. Toolkits may represent an interesting solution for helping the development of CSCW systems, as they promote the reuse of components. But in general, CSCW toolkits offer a limited set of functionalities or they are target for some specific kind of domain. Besides, to reuse components of the toolkit, developers often need to implement very specific details of the toolkit in order to adapt it to the application needs [16][17]. Middleware based solutions The integration of heterogeneous applications has been a widely investigated subject, mainly in distributed systems area. General integration solutions based on middleware, like CCM (CORBA Component Model), .NET and Enterprise JavaBeans have been developed. Moreover, integration solutions associated with specific domains have also been proposed, such as Enterprise Application Integration systems [17][18]. The emergence of Web services WS has also led to the development of general solutions for integration of distributed applications, due mainly to the use of open standards. In the CSCW domain, some middleware-based solutions have been proposed. Dustdar et al. [18][19] discuss the importance of using Web services WS in order to provide collaborative application interoperability. But in order to be integrated, collaborative applications must originally support Web servicesWS. Even if Web servicesWS represent an emerging software trend, only a limited set of collaborative applications are currently supporting these technologies. As an enhancement to traditional middleware, some SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions have also been proposed. For example, WGWSOA [19][20] uses Web ServicesWS as an access interface in order to support the reuse and the interoperability of different collaborative services. But an important drawback of WGWSOA is that collaborative services must be developed following the respective middleware architecture. It is also important to note that like WGWSOA, most middleware based solutions present technical responses to the so called syntactic interoperability [20][21]. They provide mechanisms allowing applications to communicate and interact through information exchange. But according to [21][22], the integration concept goes beyond the possibility of sharing and exchanging specific information. Applications must agree upon the meaning (or the semantics) of these exchanges. In other words, integration solutions should provide means for defining integration semantics. Thus, interoperability can be seen as a requirement for integration. The EcoSpace Project [22][23] proposes an environment that, besides being based on SOA and Web servicesWS, relies on Semantic Web technologies (WSDL-S with services ontologies) to support semantic description of collaborative services. Besides a semantic description of each service, it would be necessary a semantic description of the composition of services so as to coordinate their orchestration. However, this part of the project remains as design aspect. Moreover, using Web serviceWSs as integration technology may imply some performance loss, particularly associated to the use of SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) [23][24]. Luo et al. [24][25] claim that Web ServicesWS should be only used in situations which are really heterogeneous. They propose a service-oriented solution for the integration of collaborative applications that, instead of using SOAP, adopts a unified service bus (implemented through an open source Enterprise Service Bus). Platforms for integrating heterogeneous collaborative systems The latter latest approach to improve the integration flexibility of collaborative environments is to create platforms aiming specifically at the integration of collaborative applications. They focus on the integration of collaborative functionalities provided by these applications while trying to define any semantics behind integration. Iqbal et al. [25][26] propose an integrative framework based on the three-level model presented by [26][27]: the Ontological Model specifies shared objects, their relations and taxonomies; the Coordination Model specifies how interactions take place during system execution; and the User Interface Model specifies how the system is presented to the final user. Integration process consists firstly in identifying, for each collaborative application, the elements associated with these three models. Then, on each level the elements from different applications are grouped and merged when equivalent. As a result, common ontological, coordination and user interface models are generated. In spite of enabling a multi-level integration, this approach requires an internal knowledge of the collaborative applications so that their functionalities can be mapped into the three-level model. Accordingly, the integration of third party applications becomes a complex task. In order to avoid considering application internals during the integration process (facilitating the integration of existing applications), some integration solutions propose the so called loosely-coupled approach. This approach presents two main features: (i) once integrated to the environment, collaborative applications preserve their autonomy, i.e., they can still be used as standalone application; (ii) the integration environment remains independent of integrated applications, and accordingly, applications can be integrated and detached from the environment without compromising its behavior. This last feature is particularly important considering the integration flexibility aspect. In fact, in a loosely-coupled environment, the set of integrated applications must be easily modified according to users needs. Systems like AREA [27][28] and NESSIE [28][29] have proposed a loosely-coupled integration for supporting cross-application awareness. Both systems represent a collaborative environment where independent applications can share a common information space, implemented through an event notification system. Users can receive notifications of activity relevant events from different applications (executed by other users). An important aspect of these systems is the use of open Internet technologies (such as HTTP and CGI) to enable the integration of third party collaborative applications. However, the main drawback of both systems is that the integration semantics is statically defined collaborative applications are integrated so as to offer a common awareness of the whole collaboration activity. Another proposal also based on a loosely-coupled approach is the framework XGSP [29][30]. XGSP proposes the integration of audio and videoconferencing tools based on SIP and H.323 standards, as well as the integration of Access Grid applications [30][31]. In this framework, XGSP manager servers are in charge of controlling collaborative sessions. A different gateway is defined for each application type (i.e. SIP, H.323 and Access Grid applications). Using a signaling protocol based on Web servicesWS, these gateways are employed to mediate the communication between applications and XGSP servers. An important disadvantage of XGSP is the fact that, originally, it only allows the integration of application based on SIP, H.323 and Access Grid. Loosely-coupling is also inherent to the Web servicesWS based solutions presented in the previous section. Similarly to those solutions, LEICA represents an integration environment that proposes a loosely-coupled approach based on Web servicesWS technologies. Regarding the performance implications of SOAP, Alonso et al. [31][32] suggest that Web ServicesWS technologies should be used only to implement coarse-gained interactions, where the impact of the overhead associated to SOAP would be less important. Following the recommendations of [31][32], Web servicesWS are employed by LEICA for coarse-grained operations only. As it will be detailed in the following sections, LEICA defines a hybrid architecture where Web ServicesWS are applied as an initial mechanism for registering newly integrated applications, as well as for setting and starting up collaborative sessions. Then, during the execution of integrated collaborative sessions a different infrastructure is used to interconnect collaborative applications. Another important aspect concerns integration semantics. Unlike the previous solutions, LEICA provides users with the possibility to define the desired integration semantics for each collaborative session. The Integration Environment: LEICA LEICA aims at the integration of different collaborative applications, where integration semantics is to be defined according to user requirements. Before explaining the general integration approach and the behavior of LEICA, a possible scenario is presented to better illustrate the advantages of such integration. Integration Scenario An important domain where collaborative environments have been largely used is e-Learning. In particular, a CVE (Collaborative Virtual Environment) can be used to implement a 3D shared world representing a school building divided into: one entrance hall, classrooms, and teachers rooms. Different collaborative applications could be associated to each room: (i) a chat room associated to the entrance hall; (ii) a collaborative web browsing (it would enable teachers to guide students through lecture notes) and an audio conference tool associated to the classrooms; and (iii) a shared whiteboard associated to each of the teachers room. Un paragraphe pour montrer la situation: Utilisation des outils non integrà ©es, et lintà ©gration avec LEICA. With this integration semantics, whenever an avatar enters into a room, the respective user is automatically connected to the associated collaborative application(s). Besides, only authorized users should enter into private rooms (e.g. the teachers rooms with its whiteboard could be restricted to teachers). Another possible behavior specified by this integration semantics is some kind of floor coupling between the two applications used as a support for virtual class sessions. This way, it would be possible to assure that the user holding the Web browsing floor (i.e. the one guiding the lecture notes browsing) is the only one to have the right to speak to the class attendees. General Integration Approach As previously mentioned, and illustrated in Fig. 1, LEICA follows a hybrid architecture where Web ServicesWS are applied at the collaborative sessions start up, and an event notification system allows collaborative applications to interact through the exchange of event notifications. Two other basic components of LEICA are the Wrappers and the Session Configuration Service (SCS). The integration of a collaborative application to LEICA is achieved by attaching a Wrapper to it. Three main cases may be considered: a) open source applications, b) API-based applications, and c) applications without any available API. Integration of open source applications can achieve the tightest interaction degree, since any internal event/action can be exported/performed; it might however imply great development efforts. API-based integration is straightforward, and interaction is limited to the provided API. Applications without API are the most limitating ones, constraining to interact only through application start and stop actions. LEICAs integration approach is mainly driven by case (b), believing that developers are certainly interested in creating specific and performable collaboration tools that can be used either stand-alone or integrated with other applications (through a flexible API, being able to get a great share of the market). This is for instance the case of Skypeâ„ ¢, a successful example of communication tool that has released its API since some time ago. Fig. 2 summarizes LEICAs general integration framework. The first step of the LEICAs integration framework is the Collaborative Application Integration. For instance, in the illustrative scenario presented in III.A, the first step to integrate the CVE with the instant messenger (supporting the chat room associated to the entrance hall), the collaborative Web browser and the audio conference applications, it is necessary to create a Wrapper for each one of these applications. As detailed in Section V, these wrappers can be automatically generated by LEICAs API Factory, based on the API description of each collaborative application. The Wrappers comprise a Web services Services WS interface allowing the collaborative application to register itself with LEICA. As illustrated by Fig. 1, through the Wrappers Web servicesWS ports, the integrated application can interact with the Session Configuration Service (SCS). The SCS is a Web service Service WS used for (i) configuring new global SuperSessions and (ii) starting up SuperSessions. A SuperSession is an integrated collaborative session holding the whole collaboration activity. Within the context of a global SuperSession, different specificSessions can exist. A specificSession is a conventional collaborative session defined within the context of a collaborative application (e.g. a videoconference session, a whiteboard session, etc.). The SCS dynamically contacts each integrated application, during the SuperSession configuration process, in order to request: (i) which specific data is required to create specificSessions for this respective application (e.g. a videoconference tool could require an IP multicast address); and (ii) which kind of events it can notify, and action requests it can handle. The interaction degree among the integrated applications depends essentially on the nature of the events they are able to exchange, and actions they are able to perform. In order to create a SuperSession, a user must define its integration semantics. It is accomplished by configuring the Collaboration Policy. A Collaboration Policy is a set of rules under a condition/action model. These rules define how collaborative applications must react when receiving information (events) notified by other integrated applications. In other words, the specification of Collaboration Policies allows defining specific integration semantics (i.e. how to coordinate integrated applications) to each SuperSession, according to the different users requirements. Once a SuperSessions has been created (and its associated configuration file is generated), it can finally be started up. The SCS firstly contacts each integrated collaborative application requesting them to create the specificSessions defined in the SuperSession. Then, during the execution of collaborative sessions the integrated application can interact through the exchange of event using the Event Notification System. According to predefined Collaboration Policies, these notifications may lead specific actions to be performed. Wrappers are in charge of managing the SuperSessions Collaboration Policy. When the Wrapper of a collaborative application receives event notifications, it verifies if the notified events enable any policy rule concerning this collaborative application. If so, the Wrapper sends action requests to the respective application. Note that LEICA is not intended to support low-level physical events (e.g. mouse click/scrolling) or high frequency synchronization events (e.g. current position of moving objects). It aims at supporting activity relevant events that carry some semantics. SuperSession Concept As previously mentioned, LEICA controls the whole collaboration activity within the context of a global SuperSession. A SuperSession model has been defined in order to precisely identify and describe its components. Based on this model, LEICA maintains concise and coherent SuperSession state information. Furthermore, a well-defined taxonomy of the components and their attributes are also implied from the model. General models for describing collaborative applications have already been proposed in the literature. Some of them [26][27] [32][33] represent a conceptual or ontological model describing the entities and relationships of individual CSCW systems. Few models aim at describing integrated CSCW systems, like OOActSM [33][34] and the conceptual model presented in [34][35]. However, these models are based on the notion of a general activity as the central abstraction, which was considered rather abstract for a detailed specification of the SuperSession. Nevertheless, these models have inspired several concepts adopted in the defined SuperSession model. The SuperSession represents a collaboration activity involving different integrated applications, a group of users and general roles associated to these users. Formally, a CIE Session CS is a tuple: SS = (SSid, CA , NA , Rl , U , SSat) where: SSid is a unique identifier; CA = {CAi } | i ÃŽ [1,I]} is a finite set of collaborative applications where CAi = (CAidi, spSi, CAati) a specific collaborative application running a set of specificSessions (sSi). CAati is a list of attributes characterizing the collaborative application. These attributes provide information about the application description, including name, type, whether it is a role-based application, its distribution architecture (client/server, multi-servers, peer-to-peer) and the type of user applications (stand-alone or webWeb-based).); NA is a finite set of non-collaborative applications (data converters, databases, web applications, etc.); Rl = {Rlk } | k ÃŽ [1,K]} is a finite set of general roles. The concept of general role refers to a group of users owning the same set of responsibilities and privileges inside LEICA; Rlk = (Rlidk , Rlatk). Rlidk is a unique role identifier; and Rlatk is a list of attributes characterizing this general role. This list provides details like roles description, membership and administration rights. Regarding the membership, it defines how the role is associated with users: it may be either (i) a static association (there is a membership list), (ii) an automatic association (there is a predicate function based on users parameters and SuperSession state) or (iii) a users choice (password protected or not).); U = {Ul } | l ÃŽ [1,L]} is a finite set of connected users; Ul = (Uidl, URlidl, Mbl, Uatl) represent a user, where Uidl is a unique identifier; URlidl is one general role associated with the user; Mbl is a finite set of membership relations; Uatl is a list of attributes (name, email, IP address, network connection, device type, etc.); Mbl.n = (mCAidl.n , mSidl.n , msRlidl.n) is a membership relation, where mCAidl.n is an application identifier; mSidl.n is a specificSession identifier; msRlidl.n is a finite set of specific roles identifiers. Thus, each membership relation indicates the participation of a connected user to a specificSession of a collaborative application (once connected to the SuperSession, a user can concurrently take part in none, one or more specificSessions of different collaborative applications); SSat is a list of attributes characterizing the SuperSession. These attributes describe information like session context (name, purpose, etc.), scheduling (if scheduled or not, duration, etc.), accessibility type (open or closed), role association type (how users are associated to a general role) and maximum number of connected users. A specificSession regards a conventional collaborative session of a collaborative application. The role of the specificSession entity (spSi.m), wich is formally represented by the tuple: spSi.m = (Sidi.m, sRli.m, pUidi.m, Rsi.m, spSati.m) is not to precisely describe each aspect of a collaborative task. Instead, it captures relevant elements like the specific roles defined for this session (sRli.m), the users participating to this session (pUidi.m.) and the shared resources accessed by these users (Rsi.m). A specific role is a tuple, sRli.m.o = (sRlidi.m.o, sRlati.m.o), where sRlidi.m.o is a specific role identifier and sRlati.m.o is a list of attributes characterizing the specific role (description and maximum number of simultaneous users). A resource is also a tuple Rsi.m.p= (urli.m.p, Rsati.m.p ), where urli.m.p is a resource locator and Rsati.m.p is a list of attributes characterizing the resource. The purpose of the resource element is simply to allow the implementation of an inter-application access control mechanism. LEICA will not need to keep the state of each resource. Thus, resources attributes just describe its type (file, device, virtual object, interface widget, etc.) and the read/write access type (exclusive or concurrent). SuperSession Configuration In order to create a SuperSession, a two step configuration process is carried out: (i) Session Management configuration and (ii) Collaboration Policy configuration. In the first configuration step, two groups of information should be specified: General Session Management information (GSMinfo): It carries management information such as scheduling, membership and general user roles.; Integrated Applications information (IAinfo): It defines the list of integrated applications to be used during this SuperSession; for each collaborative application, a list of specificSessions is defined, where specific data required by this application for creating sessions is provided (e.g. a videoconference application will be provided with an IP multicast address). Once Session Management configuration is completed, the Collaboration Polic Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Abstract- In the Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) domain, researchers have always wondered about which principles and models to adopt for the development of collaborative applications capable to really meet the needs of their users. However, these users requirements are unpredictable and depend on several task or environment-related factors. Integrated collaborative environments are rarely open, extensible and reconfigurable enough so as to meet these requirements. This paper presents an environment, called LEICA (Loosely-coupled Environment for Integrating Collaborative Applications), allowing the integration of existing cooperative applications. LEICA adopts a loosely-coupled integration approach which is based on Web services Services technology, an event notification system, and the definition of Collaboration Policies to control the interactions among integrated applications. LEICA allows different functionalities of existing applications to be dynamically combined and controlled, enhancing therefore the flexibility. Through a case study we show how LEICA was successfully used to integrate three collaborative applications: a co-browsing tool, an instant messaging tool and a VoIP conference controller. Index Terms-Collaborative work, integrated collaborative environments, web services. INTRODUCTION Advances in networking and computing technologies, combined with the fact that companies and work teams are becoming geographically distributed, have created increased a need for communication technologies to ease distance collaboration among distributed individuals (virtual work teams). This leads to the appearing of the so-called Integrated Collaboration Environments (ICEs), having as main goal to integrate different collaborative applications together into a single easy-to-use operational environment [1]. Users needs are very frequently unpredictable and depending on several emerging factors, including the size of the workgroup, the collaborative activities to be accomplished, the intensiveness of the required communications, the coordination policy and the communication needs of the workgroup. Therefore, the possibility of dynamically integrating new functionalities to the environment appears as an important characteristic for collaborative applications [3]. Supporting the integration of new collaborative functionalities reflects how flexible the environment is while responding to unpredictable users needs. We can define this characteristic as integration flexibility that denotes the ease with which an ICE can be its functionalities in response to the users needs. Nowadays one of the main problems of ICEs is that their lack of integration flexibility and as consequence various users decide to set-up their own environments composing different collaborative applications executed independently. In this case, each application is completely isolated from others, without any possibility of coordination among them. This lack of integration can lead to a loss of control from the part of the user, since the operation environment is particularly artificial. Promoting the integration flexibility of ICEs could bring significant benefits to users, allowing different functionalities of existing applications to be dynamically combined and controlled (enhancing therefore the flexibility itself). For instance, a whiteboard application can be integrated with an instant messaging application in such a way that whenever a user joins an instant messaging room, he is automatically logged into the same whiteboard session, instead of been forced to manually login into a session of each one of these collaborative tools. Another case could be the integration of a distributed game and an audio conference application. Whenever a user avatar enters a level/place into the game, his is logged into the audio conference session associated to that level/place, so that the users can online discuss with each other. In order to achieve the integration of existing collaborative applications without having to deal with their low-level features, this work presents LEICA, a Loosely-coupled Environment for Integrating Collaborative Applications. Relying on Web services Services (WS) technologies and an event notification system, different collaborative applications can interoperate by exchanging information within the context of a global collaborative session. The loosely-coupled approach proposed by LEICA overcomes a key problem usually related to integration environments it does not require a true semantic integration of applications. Accordingly, it supports further integration possibilities, such as the integration of third party applications, enhancing, thus, flexibility. LEICA also offers flexibility in the level of the integration semantics. Based on Collaboration Policies to control the interactions between integrated applications, LEICA provides means to define how the collaboration activity supported by one collaborative application will be affected by information received from other collaborative applications. In practice, these collaborative applications interact through the notification of events which may lead to performing specific action(s) in some of these applications themselves. As we will explain later in detail, we think that once a collaborative session has been configured, the use of LEICA can improve users productivity by reducing the application-related administrative tasks, focusing precisely on the collaboration activity itself, and all that by just by interpreting the rules stated for a particular session, all this in function of some pre-established policy rules (also to be explained in detail later). In this way users will find a more natural collaboration environment from the users point of view. In order to illustrate the usability of LEICA in real-world conditions, this paper presents a case study that demonstrates the capability of LEICA to integrate collaborative applications. In this case study, LEICA was successfully used to integrate three collaborative applications: a co-browsing tool, instant messaging tool and a VoIP conference controller. The paper is structured as follows. Section II presents related work regarding the integration of CSCW systems. Section III overviews the general integration approach proposed by LEICA. Section IV explains how to specify Collaboration Policies. Section V presents the LEICAs architecture, detailing how to integrate applications in practice. Some implementation issues are considered in section VI. Section VII describes a case study illustrating the use of LEICA. Finally, in section VIII we draw some conclusions and presents directions of future work. RELATED WORK There are several works oriented to improving integration flexibility of collaborative environments. In this context, four main approaches can be identified: user-tailorable solutions; CSCW toolkits; middleware based solutions; and platforms for integration of heterogeneous collaborative systems. User-Tailorable Solutions As stated in [2], different definitions of tailorability can be found in the literature. Most of them focus on user tailorability ([3], [4], [5] [6]) defining that a tailorable application can be adapted and modified by its own users in order to meet their different requirements. In CSCW, tailorability must focus on the requirements of the group task and of the organization, in which the CSCW system is used [5]. Actually, tailorability is one of the main concerns of groupware development methods. For example, application of participatory design methods ([7] [8]) has been proposed in order to approach the user involvement during groupware development, augmenting thus the opportunities for tailoring. According to [6], tailoring can be supported in three different levels: customization, selecting among a set of predefined configuration options; integration, linking together predefined components within or between applications; extension, improving the implementation by adding new program code. Most of user-tailorable groupware tools support only the customization or integration level (e.g. [2] [9]). Note that the integration level supposes that the functionality to be integrated has been pre-developed and is available somewhere [6]. Only at the extension level users would be able to integrate new functionalities, even if they have not been anticipated by developers at design time. A method frequently used for supporting tailoring at the extension level is the component-based tailoring. For example, in [10], components are implemented using Flexibeans (an extension of the Java Beans model) and end-users tailor the system using a composition language. In [11], end-users may assemble components into larger composite components using the visual representation rather than writing lines of code. However, even at the extension level the integration flexibility is partial as the integration of existing collaborative systems or groupware would require them to be redesigned according to the system architecture. CSCW Toolkits CSCW toolkits ease the implementation of CSCW systems by providing reusable components and behaviors designed to be applicable in a range of circumstances [12]. The need for flexibility and tailorability in CSCW toolkits is well acknowledged. The Neem Platform [13] offers a generic (application-neutral) evolvable framework upon which socially and culturally aware applications are developed. Flexibility and extensibility in Neem result from its foundation on a core architectural coordination model [13]: decoupled components interact indirectly through message exchanges. Intermezzo [14] is a collaboration support environment supporting the coordination information sharing, offering fluid interactions, user awareness, session management and policy control. It addresses dynamic flexibility [12] by allowing applications to adapt not just their own behavior, but also the behavior of the toolkit in reacting to the changing dynamics of the world they run into. The Groupware Toolkit/Shared Dictionary (or GT/SD) toolkit [15][16] has been developed to support rapid development of groupware, focusing mainly on networking and data sharing aspects. GT/SDs extensibility is based on its modular design, which allows adding or modifying behavior by replacing or wrapping different components. Toolkits may represent an interesting solution for helping the development of CSCW systems, as they promote the reuse of components. But in general, CSCW toolkits offer a limited set of functionalities or they are target for some specific kind of domain. Besides, to reuse components of the toolkit, developers often need to implement very specific details of the toolkit in order to adapt it to the application needs [16][17]. Middleware based solutions The integration of heterogeneous applications has been a widely investigated subject, mainly in distributed systems area. General integration solutions based on middleware, like CCM (CORBA Component Model), .NET and Enterprise JavaBeans have been developed. Moreover, integration solutions associated with specific domains have also been proposed, such as Enterprise Application Integration systems [17][18]. The emergence of Web services WS has also led to the development of general solutions for integration of distributed applications, due mainly to the use of open standards. In the CSCW domain, some middleware-based solutions have been proposed. Dustdar et al. [18][19] discuss the importance of using Web services WS in order to provide collaborative application interoperability. But in order to be integrated, collaborative applications must originally support Web servicesWS. Even if Web servicesWS represent an emerging software trend, only a limited set of collaborative applications are currently supporting these technologies. As an enhancement to traditional middleware, some SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions have also been proposed. For example, WGWSOA [19][20] uses Web ServicesWS as an access interface in order to support the reuse and the interoperability of different collaborative services. But an important drawback of WGWSOA is that collaborative services must be developed following the respective middleware architecture. It is also important to note that like WGWSOA, most middleware based solutions present technical responses to the so called syntactic interoperability [20][21]. They provide mechanisms allowing applications to communicate and interact through information exchange. But according to [21][22], the integration concept goes beyond the possibility of sharing and exchanging specific information. Applications must agree upon the meaning (or the semantics) of these exchanges. In other words, integration solutions should provide means for defining integration semantics. Thus, interoperability can be seen as a requirement for integration. The EcoSpace Project [22][23] proposes an environment that, besides being based on SOA and Web servicesWS, relies on Semantic Web technologies (WSDL-S with services ontologies) to support semantic description of collaborative services. Besides a semantic description of each service, it would be necessary a semantic description of the composition of services so as to coordinate their orchestration. However, this part of the project remains as design aspect. Moreover, using Web serviceWSs as integration technology may imply some performance loss, particularly associated to the use of SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) [23][24]. Luo et al. [24][25] claim that Web ServicesWS should be only used in situations which are really heterogeneous. They propose a service-oriented solution for the integration of collaborative applications that, instead of using SOAP, adopts a unified service bus (implemented through an open source Enterprise Service Bus). Platforms for integrating heterogeneous collaborative systems The latter latest approach to improve the integration flexibility of collaborative environments is to create platforms aiming specifically at the integration of collaborative applications. They focus on the integration of collaborative functionalities provided by these applications while trying to define any semantics behind integration. Iqbal et al. [25][26] propose an integrative framework based on the three-level model presented by [26][27]: the Ontological Model specifies shared objects, their relations and taxonomies; the Coordination Model specifies how interactions take place during system execution; and the User Interface Model specifies how the system is presented to the final user. Integration process consists firstly in identifying, for each collaborative application, the elements associated with these three models. Then, on each level the elements from different applications are grouped and merged when equivalent. As a result, common ontological, coordination and user interface models are generated. In spite of enabling a multi-level integration, this approach requires an internal knowledge of the collaborative applications so that their functionalities can be mapped into the three-level model. Accordingly, the integration of third party applications becomes a complex task. In order to avoid considering application internals during the integration process (facilitating the integration of existing applications), some integration solutions propose the so called loosely-coupled approach. This approach presents two main features: (i) once integrated to the environment, collaborative applications preserve their autonomy, i.e., they can still be used as standalone application; (ii) the integration environment remains independent of integrated applications, and accordingly, applications can be integrated and detached from the environment without compromising its behavior. This last feature is particularly important considering the integration flexibility aspect. In fact, in a loosely-coupled environment, the set of integrated applications must be easily modified according to users needs. Systems like AREA [27][28] and NESSIE [28][29] have proposed a loosely-coupled integration for supporting cross-application awareness. Both systems represent a collaborative environment where independent applications can share a common information space, implemented through an event notification system. Users can receive notifications of activity relevant events from different applications (executed by other users). An important aspect of these systems is the use of open Internet technologies (such as HTTP and CGI) to enable the integration of third party collaborative applications. However, the main drawback of both systems is that the integration semantics is statically defined collaborative applications are integrated so as to offer a common awareness of the whole collaboration activity. Another proposal also based on a loosely-coupled approach is the framework XGSP [29][30]. XGSP proposes the integration of audio and videoconferencing tools based on SIP and H.323 standards, as well as the integration of Access Grid applications [30][31]. In this framework, XGSP manager servers are in charge of controlling collaborative sessions. A different gateway is defined for each application type (i.e. SIP, H.323 and Access Grid applications). Using a signaling protocol based on Web servicesWS, these gateways are employed to mediate the communication between applications and XGSP servers. An important disadvantage of XGSP is the fact that, originally, it only allows the integration of application based on SIP, H.323 and Access Grid. Loosely-coupling is also inherent to the Web servicesWS based solutions presented in the previous section. Similarly to those solutions, LEICA represents an integration environment that proposes a loosely-coupled approach based on Web servicesWS technologies. Regarding the performance implications of SOAP, Alonso et al. [31][32] suggest that Web ServicesWS technologies should be used only to implement coarse-gained interactions, where the impact of the overhead associated to SOAP would be less important. Following the recommendations of [31][32], Web servicesWS are employed by LEICA for coarse-grained operations only. As it will be detailed in the following sections, LEICA defines a hybrid architecture where Web ServicesWS are applied as an initial mechanism for registering newly integrated applications, as well as for setting and starting up collaborative sessions. Then, during the execution of integrated collaborative sessions a different infrastructure is used to interconnect collaborative applications. Another important aspect concerns integration semantics. Unlike the previous solutions, LEICA provides users with the possibility to define the desired integration semantics for each collaborative session. The Integration Environment: LEICA LEICA aims at the integration of different collaborative applications, where integration semantics is to be defined according to user requirements. Before explaining the general integration approach and the behavior of LEICA, a possible scenario is presented to better illustrate the advantages of such integration. Integration Scenario An important domain where collaborative environments have been largely used is e-Learning. In particular, a CVE (Collaborative Virtual Environment) can be used to implement a 3D shared world representing a school building divided into: one entrance hall, classrooms, and teachers rooms. Different collaborative applications could be associated to each room: (i) a chat room associated to the entrance hall; (ii) a collaborative web browsing (it would enable teachers to guide students through lecture notes) and an audio conference tool associated to the classrooms; and (iii) a shared whiteboard associated to each of the teachers room. Un paragraphe pour montrer la situation: Utilisation des outils non integrà ©es, et lintà ©gration avec LEICA. With this integration semantics, whenever an avatar enters into a room, the respective user is automatically connected to the associated collaborative application(s). Besides, only authorized users should enter into private rooms (e.g. the teachers rooms with its whiteboard could be restricted to teachers). Another possible behavior specified by this integration semantics is some kind of floor coupling between the two applications used as a support for virtual class sessions. This way, it would be possible to assure that the user holding the Web browsing floor (i.e. the one guiding the lecture notes browsing) is the only one to have the right to speak to the class attendees. General Integration Approach As previously mentioned, and illustrated in Fig. 1, LEICA follows a hybrid architecture where Web ServicesWS are applied at the collaborative sessions start up, and an event notification system allows collaborative applications to interact through the exchange of event notifications. Two other basic components of LEICA are the Wrappers and the Session Configuration Service (SCS). The integration of a collaborative application to LEICA is achieved by attaching a Wrapper to it. Three main cases may be considered: a) open source applications, b) API-based applications, and c) applications without any available API. Integration of open source applications can achieve the tightest interaction degree, since any internal event/action can be exported/performed; it might however imply great development efforts. API-based integration is straightforward, and interaction is limited to the provided API. Applications without API are the most limitating ones, constraining to interact only through application start and stop actions. LEICAs integration approach is mainly driven by case (b), believing that developers are certainly interested in creating specific and performable collaboration tools that can be used either stand-alone or integrated with other applications (through a flexible API, being able to get a great share of the market). This is for instance the case of Skypeâ„ ¢, a successful example of communication tool that has released its API since some time ago. Fig. 2 summarizes LEICAs general integration framework. The first step of the LEICAs integration framework is the Collaborative Application Integration. For instance, in the illustrative scenario presented in III.A, the first step to integrate the CVE with the instant messenger (supporting the chat room associated to the entrance hall), the collaborative Web browser and the audio conference applications, it is necessary to create a Wrapper for each one of these applications. As detailed in Section V, these wrappers can be automatically generated by LEICAs API Factory, based on the API description of each collaborative application. The Wrappers comprise a Web services Services WS interface allowing the collaborative application to register itself with LEICA. As illustrated by Fig. 1, through the Wrappers Web servicesWS ports, the integrated application can interact with the Session Configuration Service (SCS). The SCS is a Web service Service WS used for (i) configuring new global SuperSessions and (ii) starting up SuperSessions. A SuperSession is an integrated collaborative session holding the whole collaboration activity. Within the context of a global SuperSession, different specificSessions can exist. A specificSession is a conventional collaborative session defined within the context of a collaborative application (e.g. a videoconference session, a whiteboard session, etc.). The SCS dynamically contacts each integrated application, during the SuperSession configuration process, in order to request: (i) which specific data is required to create specificSessions for this respective application (e.g. a videoconference tool could require an IP multicast address); and (ii) which kind of events it can notify, and action requests it can handle. The interaction degree among the integrated applications depends essentially on the nature of the events they are able to exchange, and actions they are able to perform. In order to create a SuperSession, a user must define its integration semantics. It is accomplished by configuring the Collaboration Policy. A Collaboration Policy is a set of rules under a condition/action model. These rules define how collaborative applications must react when receiving information (events) notified by other integrated applications. In other words, the specification of Collaboration Policies allows defining specific integration semantics (i.e. how to coordinate integrated applications) to each SuperSession, according to the different users requirements. Once a SuperSessions has been created (and its associated configuration file is generated), it can finally be started up. The SCS firstly contacts each integrated collaborative application requesting them to create the specificSessions defined in the SuperSession. Then, during the execution of collaborative sessions the integrated application can interact through the exchange of event using the Event Notification System. According to predefined Collaboration Policies, these notifications may lead specific actions to be performed. Wrappers are in charge of managing the SuperSessions Collaboration Policy. When the Wrapper of a collaborative application receives event notifications, it verifies if the notified events enable any policy rule concerning this collaborative application. If so, the Wrapper sends action requests to the respective application. Note that LEICA is not intended to support low-level physical events (e.g. mouse click/scrolling) or high frequency synchronization events (e.g. current position of moving objects). It aims at supporting activity relevant events that carry some semantics. SuperSession Concept As previously mentioned, LEICA controls the whole collaboration activity within the context of a global SuperSession. A SuperSession model has been defined in order to precisely identify and describe its components. Based on this model, LEICA maintains concise and coherent SuperSession state information. Furthermore, a well-defined taxonomy of the components and their attributes are also implied from the model. General models for describing collaborative applications have already been proposed in the literature. Some of them [26][27] [32][33] represent a conceptual or ontological model describing the entities and relationships of individual CSCW systems. Few models aim at describing integrated CSCW systems, like OOActSM [33][34] and the conceptual model presented in [34][35]. However, these models are based on the notion of a general activity as the central abstraction, which was considered rather abstract for a detailed specification of the SuperSession. Nevertheless, these models have inspired several concepts adopted in the defined SuperSession model. The SuperSession represents a collaboration activity involving different integrated applications, a group of users and general roles associated to these users. Formally, a CIE Session CS is a tuple: SS = (SSid, CA , NA , Rl , U , SSat) where: SSid is a unique identifier; CA = {CAi } | i ÃŽ [1,I]} is a finite set of collaborative applications where CAi = (CAidi, spSi, CAati) a specific collaborative application running a set of specificSessions (sSi). CAati is a list of attributes characterizing the collaborative application. These attributes provide information about the application description, including name, type, whether it is a role-based application, its distribution architecture (client/server, multi-servers, peer-to-peer) and the type of user applications (stand-alone or webWeb-based).); NA is a finite set of non-collaborative applications (data converters, databases, web applications, etc.); Rl = {Rlk } | k ÃŽ [1,K]} is a finite set of general roles. The concept of general role refers to a group of users owning the same set of responsibilities and privileges inside LEICA; Rlk = (Rlidk , Rlatk). Rlidk is a unique role identifier; and Rlatk is a list of attributes characterizing this general role. This list provides details like roles description, membership and administration rights. Regarding the membership, it defines how the role is associated with users: it may be either (i) a static association (there is a membership list), (ii) an automatic association (there is a predicate function based on users parameters and SuperSession state) or (iii) a users choice (password protected or not).); U = {Ul } | l ÃŽ [1,L]} is a finite set of connected users; Ul = (Uidl, URlidl, Mbl, Uatl) represent a user, where Uidl is a unique identifier; URlidl is one general role associated with the user; Mbl is a finite set of membership relations; Uatl is a list of attributes (name, email, IP address, network connection, device type, etc.); Mbl.n = (mCAidl.n , mSidl.n , msRlidl.n) is a membership relation, where mCAidl.n is an application identifier; mSidl.n is a specificSession identifier; msRlidl.n is a finite set of specific roles identifiers. Thus, each membership relation indicates the participation of a connected user to a specificSession of a collaborative application (once connected to the SuperSession, a user can concurrently take part in none, one or more specificSessions of different collaborative applications); SSat is a list of attributes characterizing the SuperSession. These attributes describe information like session context (name, purpose, etc.), scheduling (if scheduled or not, duration, etc.), accessibility type (open or closed), role association type (how users are associated to a general role) and maximum number of connected users. A specificSession regards a conventional collaborative session of a collaborative application. The role of the specificSession entity (spSi.m), wich is formally represented by the tuple: spSi.m = (Sidi.m, sRli.m, pUidi.m, Rsi.m, spSati.m) is not to precisely describe each aspect of a collaborative task. Instead, it captures relevant elements like the specific roles defined for this session (sRli.m), the users participating to this session (pUidi.m.) and the shared resources accessed by these users (Rsi.m). A specific role is a tuple, sRli.m.o = (sRlidi.m.o, sRlati.m.o), where sRlidi.m.o is a specific role identifier and sRlati.m.o is a list of attributes characterizing the specific role (description and maximum number of simultaneous users). A resource is also a tuple Rsi.m.p= (urli.m.p, Rsati.m.p ), where urli.m.p is a resource locator and Rsati.m.p is a list of attributes characterizing the resource. The purpose of the resource element is simply to allow the implementation of an inter-application access control mechanism. LEICA will not need to keep the state of each resource. Thus, resources attributes just describe its type (file, device, virtual object, interface widget, etc.) and the read/write access type (exclusive or concurrent). SuperSession Configuration In order to create a SuperSession, a two step configuration process is carried out: (i) Session Management configuration and (ii) Collaboration Policy configuration. In the first configuration step, two groups of information should be specified: General Session Management information (GSMinfo): It carries management information such as scheduling, membership and general user roles.; Integrated Applications information (IAinfo): It defines the list of integrated applications to be used during this SuperSession; for each collaborative application, a list of specificSessions is defined, where specific data required by this application for creating sessions is provided (e.g. a videoconference application will be provided with an IP multicast address). Once Session Management configuration is completed, the Collaboration Polic