The International Academic Forum (IAFOR)International | Intercultural | Interdisciplinary

Find us online
IAFOR.ORG

IAFORJAPAN@IAFOR@IAFOR.OFFICIAL

IAFORMEDIA

admin@iafor.org

Where will your ideas
take you next?

iafor.org

Contents
4

1. Introduction

6

2. ‘Positive Ageing’ and the Generational ‘Other’
2.1 The Self, the ‘Other’, and Society
2.2 Missed Opportunities

9

3. Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Human Security

12

4. Peace, Education, and Civil Society

15

5. What Can Be Done?

17

6. Conclusions and Future Outlooks

19

Conference Networking and Cultural Events

20

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024 Key Statistics

21

Conference Photographs

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

3

Introduction
In line with the International Academic Forum’s (IAFOR) mission of interdisciplinarity,
we successfully held one of our most popular interdisciplinary conferences in Tokyo,
Japan last month. The 10th Asian Conference on Education and International
Development (ACEID2024) took place alongside the 14th Asian Conference on
Psychology and Behavioural Science (ACP2024) and The 10th Asian Conference on
Gerontology and Aging (AGen2024) from March 25-29, 2024. Altogether, the joint
conferences welcomed over 700 delegates from more than 60 countries from aroundthe world.
The central theme connecting the three conference programmes focused oncommunication and education for peace. Under the rubric of peace, dialogue, andthe role of education, keynote speakers and panellists addressed issues on thegeneration of fear, threat, and violence; the interaction with the ‘other’ throughpsychological concepts and the physical threat present within international relations;the idea of saving others through Official Development Assistance (ODA); theimportance of perception of the older or generational ‘other’ and the debate on
ethics and care as we transition to an AI-dominated world.
All these concepts are fundamentally built on issues surrounding perceptions,
identity construction, and expectancy. In a panel moderated by Dr Joseph Haldane,on “Communication and Education for Peace”, Professor Brendan Howe from
Ehwa Womans University in South Korea, and Professor Dexter da Silva from Keisen
University, Japan, elaborated on this idea, setting the perspective through whichthese issues can be viewed. A key argument is based on the ‘self-other’ concept
and the process of ‘othering’, which is defined as the perception of our in-group as
positive and entitled while alienating the out-group who are seen as antagonistic,negative, and unentitled. The issue of violence is inevitably connected to perceptionsof entitlement; the more we feel we are entitled to and the less we get, the more
4

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

frustrated we become, and this frustration turns into aggression. Political exclusionand disenfranchisement, inequality, and marginalisation all flow from the view of the‘other’ group as non-conforming to the social norms of the dominant in-group withinsociety.
Professor Da Silva went as far as to suggest that different industries are using thisknowledge of human cognition to manipulate society’s behaviour. The marketing,entertainment, and media industries understand that the process of ‘othering’is naturally occurring within the three levels of social psychology; namely, social
thinking, social influences, and social relations, and these industries sociallymanipulate behaviour that leads to many crises and conflicts. In a sense, he is worried
that the field of Psychology itself is in crisis and failing society at large. Both panellists
agree that ‘otherness’ is identified as the most important government challenge ofthe 21st century and poses a significant source—and tool— for conflict.
As an organisation facilitating an academic platform specifically for diverse voices tobe heard, IAFOR has also encountered the issues inter-group conflict and the processof ‘otherness’ provoke. Dr Haldane mentioned that on many occasions, IAFOR has
been asked to de-platform individuals from certain countries or take a stance on agiven matter, drawing from sentiments of morality, justice, and ethics. ‘How can you
let someone from country X speak?’ or ‘What is IAFOR’s stand on X matter?’ areamong the very questions with which we continue to grapple.
IAFOR firmly believes there needs to be a space to discuss on-the-cusp issues
without immediately politicising them; providing a platform for international,
intercultural, and interdisciplinary dialogue requires not having a given point of viewon a given topic, yet understanding that they are inherently political. However, wemust ask ourselves; how does one stand for something, without standing for nothing?
With this provocation in mind, one of the key takeaways from this conference isthat ‘morality’, ‘justice’, or ‘ethics’ are concepts that take on very different meanings
for different people and cultures. It is difficult to reach a consensus when it comesto universal definitions. The keynote presentations and panel discussions at thisconference have illuminated this point.

ACEID/ACP/AGen20245

‘Positive Ageing’ and the Generational ‘Other’Ageing Society is not a new phenomenon, yet society continues to struggle
with finding viable solutions for recurrent issues such as ageism, physical andpsychological well-being, and unanswered basic needs necessary for elderly care.
These issues hinder intergenerational understanding, a key element for a harmonious
society, and bar opportunities across academic and business sectors. The keynote
presentations dove straight into these issues, providing their insights for practicalsolutions as well as further academic discussions. These themes were echoed in manyof the delegates’ presentations; their solutions included integrative technologicaladvancement, raising awareness and promoting understanding among groups
within the society, and cooperation from the individual to international levels.
Interdisciplinary solutions and international cooperation are crucial in fostering
harmonious societies in response to the current needs and necessary preparation for
the future in a fast-changing world.

The Self, the ‘Other’, and Society
Ageism is an obstacle to building age-friendly environments: ‘ageing’ and its various
definitions and interpretations pose questions to individuals on how one values self
and others. In her presentation titled “On People and Ageing: Opportunities in an
Overlooked and Misunderstood Market Segment”, Dr Adela Balderas introduced
the difference between how people are considered ‘officially aged’ between 55 to
70 years old on paper, and how they perceive or value themselves with ‘subjectiveage’—how old they feel they are, think they look, act, and show engagement withthe world around them, regardless of chronological age. Dr Miriam Sang-Ah Park
highlighted in her presentation “Getting Old, Staying Young? Studying Older Adults’
Well-Being” that in contrast to the normative view of the elderly as frail, declining,and having less capacity, the individuals’ positive perceptions toward themselves
allow them to age healthier than their predecessors. These presentations highlighted
the role of ‘values’ in positive ageing and showed how one builds value by taking
care of oneself and the younger generations, and the efforts one can put in trying
to contribute, stay connected to society, and make one’s life more meaningful. Dr
Balderas also suggested that showing gratitude gives oneself value, and the public
can contribute to building values for older individuals by showing gratitude, andrecognising their previous, current, and potential contributions.
6

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

However, values are interpreted differently across cultures. One can value self either
from what one can contribute, or how one is being treated. Challenges remain in
how to bridge the different interpretations of values across society and generations
to the present-day reality, in an effort to build an inclusive, harmonious society. In
areas where cultural values predominate reality, issues in ageing societies pose wider
concerns beyond the aged themselves. Dr Merril Silverstein’s presentation “Filial
Piety and its Discontents: Variation in Evaluating Adult Children as “Filial” by Older
Parents in Rural China,” highlighted that physical impairments, physically distantrelationship with their children, and unmet expectations causes older parents tovalue their children less (less filial), in response to the younger generation’s inability
to provide psychological and monetary support. The presentation proposed amore institutionalised, long-term care policy akin to the Japanese experience, tolessen the monetary and cultural burden placed upon the younger generations. Thisshows that issues in ageing society are not to be neglected as these issues expand
beyond the aged themselves, and that it should be viewed from a multidimensional,
interdisciplinary perspective.
Mr Robert E. Claar used Japan as the case study in his presentation “Japan as aRole Model for Ultra-Aging Societies: Innovation and Sustainability in Universal
Access Healthcare” to discuss the government’s role in promoting positive ageingin an ultra-ageing society context at a macro level, citing the successful case of copay universal coverage healthcare. However, the longer life expectancy together
with low birth rates may pose challenges. Mr Claar proposed possible solutions toaddress possible hurdles, such as increasing the overall number of workers throughimmigration, growing the number of care workers through proper compensation, andthe possibility of increasing co-pay rates to prevent overutilisation of the overloaded
healthcare system. He also proposed digitisation and the creation of a politicalenvironment that allows the possibility of introducing innovative and cost-saving
technologies in healthcare service sectors.

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

7

Missed Opportunities
Opportunities within the ‘silver market’ are rising due to an increased ageing
rate, but they are often missed due to ageism and the negligence of a thoroughunderstanding of the nature of ageing society and individuals. Dr Balderas proposedthat the current Silver Economy mainly provides products and services based onstereotypical ageing, creating the ‘Silver Washing’ effect; providing products andservices that shape and mislead how the public perceives the needs of elders.
In reality, people are ageing healthier, wealthier, and more tech-savvy than everbefore. Today, older people have more free time and higher purchasing power, andidentifying the right marketing strategies will be beneficial to both the businesssector and consumers. She identified the businesses with particularly high potential in
the silver economy sector as the travel, leisure, and healthcare sectors.
Dr Bhanu Ranjan’s presentation “Transforming Mental Healthcare While Harnessing
Artificial Intelligence” provided key examples of how older adults can be better
served via the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Dr Ranjan proposed that AI
has great potential to be implemented into health services such as ageing coping
strategies, detecting potential health risks, analysing personalised treatment plans,
maintaining treatment records and reports, and providing immediate assistanceand feedback for patient-driven decisions and treatment options. The potential
business opportunities in this sector should aim at improving personalised care forpatients, increasing time-efficiency streamlining operations for service providers, andreducing healthcare costs for ageing populations at large. The challenge, Dr Ranjan
explained, is how to properly regulate the use of AI-integrated medical technologies
while making them accessible and cost-efficient. Ultimately, better mental health will
positively impact the overall population’s health, hence reducing the long-term costin multiple aspects of healthcare.
8

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, andHuman Security
In today’s digitised society, also commonly called the ‘Metaverse’, the proliferation of
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated algorithms can contribute to and exacerbate theproblem of ‘otherness’. AI has already been implemented into mass media platforms
as a tool for connection and togetherness through similar virtual and culturalexperiences among users worldwide, such as replicating and sharing dances on social
media applications such as TikTok. It is also a source of great conflict; algorithms
utilised by the very same applications are increasingly choosing what content weobserve, resulting in the curation of information which remains unregulated andcontinuously reinforced by the applications’ built-in AI.
A question raised by a delegate during the panel on “Communication and Education
for Peace” asked whether we can, as educators, psychologists, politicians, andhumans, effectively compete against AI-generated or algorithm-generated directions
which create ‘otherness’. The timely question on the regulation of AI and the curationof information that can fuel hostility and violence poses other, more fundamental
questions on ethics and human behaviour: to understand artificial intelligence, wefirst need to understand human intelligence.
In his keynote presentation on “Dealing with the New as We Get Old: AI, Aging,and Ethical Issues”, Professor Keith Miller from the University of Missouri-St. Louisin the United States stated that the concept of human intelligence remains as
elusive as when psychologists first started studying it. Professor Miller stressed that
it is difficult to define what AI is because we do not yet understand what human
intelligence is; the problem is that we are trying to create computers that emulate
human behaviour and appear ‘conscious’, without fully understanding what it means
to be human. Essentially, AI is a simulation of a brain using simplified models ofneurons that reach conclusions based on probabilistic learning methods. It does not‘understand’ as a human; it mimics human behaviour based on what is likely to comeout of the ‘average human’. It is not emotional, but is instead based on numbers andprobabilities. Without understanding where this logic comes from, how is it possible
to create AI capable of making ethical decisions?

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

9

In fact, the question of ethical decision-making within AI was never a focal point forthe scientists who developed it. Professor Miller visually presented this staggeringrevelation by performing a search of titles on Google Scholar containing ‘AI’ and‘Ethics’ in combination. In 2014—a mere decade ago—the articles discussing
AI and Ethics were in a single-digit count. The recent call to caution regarding
the unregulated development of AI algorithms and machine learning led to the
exponential growth of research on this topic only after 2019. By that time, however,AI had already begun to play a significant role in our everyday lives.
Recently, AI has contributed to advancements in all fields, including human-centric
technologies making life more enjoyable for people, especially those with mental
health issues and the elderly. While some would see AI as a panacea, offeringsolutions to various social problems of well-being, others posit that it is merely atemporary, convenient, and expedient salve to far deeper social issues. However,having that debate is essential when considering AI’s rampant adoption into nearly
every facet of society. More importantly, even if we use AI as a temporary solutionthat is ‘better than nothing’, does this warrant its unregulated dissemination of
information?
This raised another question on the role of AI in such unregulated dissemination of
information, and the speed at which dis/misinformation can be spread. While there
are positives to the democratisation of information—as it is incredibly importantfor keeping governments honest and uncovering gross violations of humanrights—it is extremely difficult to control the flow of this information that can easily
be manipulated to do just the opposite. There are as many ethical difficulties incensorship and control as there are information spread that is unfettered and freeflowing.
Referencing another interview discussion that IAFOR held at The IAFOR International
Conference on Education (IICE2024) with Dr Kālewa Correa, the Curator of Hawai’iand the Pacific for the Smithsonian Institution’s Asian Pacific American Center, in
Hawaii earlier this year, the moderator of this panel, Dr Joseph Haldane, retraced thediscussion on “Questions of Education, Curation, and Artificial Intelligence” to offer
a possible answer to this question. At that time, Mr Correa emphasised how AI andalgorithms work according to how prompt engineers have programmed them; it isa matter of who is asking what questions as a prompt engineer. Therefore, the ones
responsible for semi-autonomous machines are the prompt engineers, who shouldbe educated in terms of political bias and inclusion, cultural awareness, and issues ofmarginalisation.

10

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

Dr Haldane shared that it is important to have good ideas go viral, because we canget multiple views on the same topic and we can triangulate the information to getan accurate perspective. Agendas can be subsequently pushed in the right way,
thus, holding truth to power and holding governments accountable. It is through thisconnectedness and sharing of the good ideas that the UN Security Council has comeunder scrutiny for not being able to handle the recent undermining of human security
properly.
As Professor Howe elaborated, the UN Security Council is the definitive source oflaws and resolutions for international conflicts. It has the power to determine if anation’s actions are a threat to international human security. The national assembly,
on the other hand, is made up of all the member states and, while it may not belegally binding, it is more legitimate in terms of global representation. Decisionmaking processes are difficult to execute within the Security Council due toideological differences within the council itself and the exercise of the veto.
However, for the first time, the United States has not exercised its veto on the UN
Security Council Resolution 2728 against Israel concerning the recent violation ofhuman rights witnessed in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. That the demand
for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the release of all hostages, and theprovision of humanitarian aid is being supported by a nation-state that usually
vetoes any decisions restraining Israel, constitutes a turn for the better, as we see thepossibility of national governments’ cooperative possibilities in international relations.
Public pressure can be applied via a supranational organisation to hold nation-statesaccountable. In the panel, Professor Howe stated that this behavioural change is
not due to the US becoming weaker as an international power; instead, a growing
global normative campaign is formed to hold Israel, Hamas, and their supporters
accountable for the violation of human rights on either side. It seems that people canapply normative, moral pressure even on the strongest states of the council.
This showcases how important it is for good ideas to go viral and create global
unity on issues that concern the ‘other’, by being able to see different perspectives
that were given a platform to be heard and seen through AI-algorithms. To make
AI choose to push ethically sound perspectives, we need to educate our prompt
engineers to recognise what is ethically sound, what constitutes a political bias, andwhat being culturally aware entails. The next section discusses why this is not an easy
endeavour.
ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

11

Peace, Education, and Civil Society
One solution that is often recommended as a remedy to violence and hostility ispeace education. The concept of peace education has been well-developed for over
50 years now. It is incorporated in curricula across all levels of education worldwide,and used in NGOs’ and international agencies’ practices by taking the form ofanti-racism, conflict resolution, multiculturalism, human rights, and sustainable
development education. However, this concept is usually taught from the perspectiveof geographical areas that are in times of peace. How peace education is perceived
and conducted in practical terms in actual conflict-affected areas has not been widely
discussed. In his keynote presentation entitled “Healing the Scars of War: Teachingfor Peace through Higher Education in Divided and Conflict-Affected Contexts”,
Professor Kevin Kester from Seoul National University in South Korea discussed
why peace education is a problematic concept and not the cure-all for violence andhostility.
The prevalent position nowadays is that education can contribute to peace,
betterment, and international understanding. Educating young people who are to
become future citizens on how to lead peaceful discussions in the classroom cantranslate to stability and social cohesion, further emphasising the impact that peaceeducation can move beyond the classroom. Such impact is felt when citizens are, forexample, critically analysing the government, or opposing decisions that direct taxes
toward funding a war. In this sense, educators are at the forefront of bringing aboutsocial change.
A lesser-debated perspective is that, especially in conflict-affected areas, education
can perpetuate war, division, and violence. In the international architecture of nationstates, de facto states that arise from conflict and peacebuilding efforts operate as‘invisible spaces’. Since they are not internationally recognised as sovereign states,
they are treated by the world’s nations as if they do not exist. Therefore, they arespaces that represent the contestation between sovereignty and subjugation. Within
this contested context, policymakers have to decide whether they want to use
education for social change or sovereignty. Oftentimes, it is a question of whether
a de facto state desires unification to secure international recognition of its territory
and receive a share of limited resources, or if it desires to keep its national pride andcreate a sovereignty of its own, free from the subjugation of the ‘other’. In summary,education can create sovereign or subjugated minds.
Based on this explanation, it is easy to understand that ‘peace’ is a politically loaded
term. For some, it can mean unification, the end of violent exchanges, and theacquisition of resources that contribute to the well-being of a resource-depletedsociety, while for others it can mean freedom from oppressing norms of the ‘other’side. Instead of freedom, it can allude to subjugation or suppression depending on
the political context. Professor Kester makes this point by analysing the situation infour conflict-affected areas: China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, North andSouth Cyprus, and Somaliland and Somalia. The concepts of ‘peace’ and ‘unification’in these areas are fraught with contested interpretations and approaches, whichmakes it hard for a universal definition and curriculum of ‘peace education’ toemerge.
To further showcase the contested notion of ‘peace’, Professor Kiyotaka Takahashi
from Keisen University in Japan gave a keynote presentation on the ”Critical
Review on Changing Characteristics of Japan’s Development Assistance and Some
Responses of Civil Society”. Following Japan’s defeat during WWII, the Allied forces
occupying Japan imposed a new constitution to avoid its rearmament and fallingback into a militaristic state. Similar to the German constitution, Article 9 of its 1947
constitution states that ‘Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justiceand order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of thenation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes’.
Based on this and the haunting memory of two nuclear attacks, Japan became apacifist nation, and its society adheres to pacifist values even to this day. For thisreason, the Japanese are very careful in expressing strong political opinions andfavour harmony within and outside of Japan.
Despite the nature of Japan’s constitution and society, recently there has been apolitical push for the expansion of Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA)
to include Official Security Assistance (OSA) by exporting weapons to developing
countries. Professor Takahashi argues that this development not only signals thepotential for Japan to become a ‘normal’ country—one capable of and willingto engage in war—but also contributes to human insecurity for the people ‘onthe ground’. Professor Takahashi states that such developments in foreign policy,
combined with recent efforts to amend its pacifist constitution, endanger the
democratic system of Japan, potentially causing it to fall into totalitarianism.
In his presentation, Professor Takahashi’s main argument for why this is the caseis the Japanese society’s struggle with strong peer pressure. He argued thatpolitically loaded definitions, such as ‘peace’ or saying no to war, are seen as
an oppressive, political stance that may cause others of a different political view
to feel uncomfortable if expressed strongly in public. Such political expressions
create disharmony within society, an uncomfortable result as the Japanese respect
unity over diversity. Paradoxically, following this logic leads to no open diversity ofopinions at all, as differing opinions are generally not welcomed nor encouraged to
be expressed publicly. According to Professor Takahashi, if Japan were to becomea militaristic state once again, the expansion of ODA to include OSA would not be
met with political dialogue within society, allowing the Japanese state to suppress
freedom of expression on the basis of societal peer pressure, and create a societyof surveillance, thereby falling into totalitarianism. This reflects Dr Haldane’s earlier
question: how does one stand for something, without standing for nothing?

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

13

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

14

‘It is very hard to get a universal definition of what ‘peace’ is and how it can bepractised across all contexts’, said Professor Kester in an interview with IAFOR on
the neutrality of peace. ‘It needs to be particular and located within that specificcontext’. The same is true for curriculum design, which is often controlled by national
governments. In an interview with IAFOR, Professor Brendan Howe emphasised theimportance of curricula being designed in such a way that they interact with the‘other’, bringing two sides together. For educators and practitioners, teacher andstudent exchange programmes can further enhance interactions with the ‘other’ bysituating the ‘self’ in an unknown environment.
Perhaps, this may be the closest we can get to answering this main question. This
is why interdisciplinary dialogue and analyses are important to understand specificcontexts from their unique cultural, societal, economic, and political aspects andways of perceiving contestation. IAFOR practises this by bringing people together
and familiarising delegates with the ‘other’ through interaction and experience
across boundaries of nation, culture, and discipline. As Dr Haldane mentioned in his
opening speech, it is difficult to caricaturise, dehumanise, or ‘other’ when you makethe foreign familiar.

What Can Be Done?
The presentations and panel discussions at this conference have highlighted
the importance of being able to gain an insight into the mind of the ‘other’ andunderstand various perspectives and points of view by educating ourselves.
Education is often seen as the remedy for combating hostility but, as shown byProfessor Kester, applying educational theory in praxis can be quite complicated, if
not controversial, in some contexts.
The frustration of this was reflected in a delegate’s comment that Global Citizenshipeducation is the best way to create more peace and harmony within societies andamong countries, and that having multiple identities can also help in understanding
the position of the ‘other’, but the ‘how to’ in regards to achieving it is not wellunderstood, because we do not have a clear definition of what it means to be a
global citizen.
Professor Brendan Howe agreed that it is difficult to conduct global citizenshipeducation because ‘universality’ is different for everyone. The Declaration of Human
Rights is interpreted differently by different people. Culturally and historically,
what we understand as ‘rights’ has diverged, making it difficult to decide what
is universally ‘right’. Trying to seek a universal definition of ‘global citizenship’ or‘peace’ further endangers the prevalence of a ‘Western domination’ of what universal
rights are. Instead, Professor Howe proposes asking an alternative, compellingquestion: what are universal wrongs? Instead of focusing on where our definitions
differ, we should be looking at where our definitions converge: no matter what our
background is, is there any overlapping consensus on what is unacceptable? Can weagree on what universal wrongs are instead of universal rights?
To reach an agreed definition, it is important to ‘meet the other’. We need to see
the interaction and conflict from the perspective of the ‘other’ and, while it is notnecessary to agree with others’ perspectives, we need to understand their position
and gain an insight into their mindset. According to Professor Howe, this can bedone through active listening, asking questions, questioning our thought processes,
ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

15

biases, and assumptions, and communicating with the ‘other’ to demystify them.
To this, Professor Dexter Da Silva adds the importance of psychological literacy
within global citizenship education, which includes learning about ethical behaviour,
scientific thinking, critical thinking, effective communication, and respect for diversity.
Additionally, according to Professor Miller, in order to analyse an ethical situation, it is
crucial to identify who the stakeholders are: who are the decision-makers, who might
be affected by the decisions, who gains and who loses, who has the power and who
might lose it, and what other societal constraints are there?
All these suggestions for how global citizenship education should be taught boil
down to a single, yet complex question: what is a global citizen?
IAFOR will respond to this question at our next interdisciplinary conference in May
through the introduction of a new, interactive discussion session series joining
experts and audience members in the discussion of such complex questions. ‘The
Forum’ was born out of a survey IAFOR rolled out to our members earlier this year,
and took its final shape from the question of global citizenship posed at ACEID/
ACP/AGen2024. In the survey, we asked our members what they think the key issues
are in their fields of expertise and what type of capacity building they would liketo see at future conferences. The driving force behind conducting this survey was
the observation that there is a lack of representation of ‘the people’ within global
institutions. There is an urge to step away from policy-making narratives within formal
institutions and media, and listen to what people on the receiving end of policies
have to say. As a result, IAFOR was able to capture common ideas among academics,
practitioners, and educators in our community, which differed greatly from thediscussions that are on the global institutions’ agenda.
‘The Forum’ will take place for the first time at our joint conferences on May 24, 2024,
The Asian Conference on Arts and Humanities (ACAH2024), The Asian Conference
on Cultural Studies (ACCS2024), and The Asian Conference on Social Sciences(ACSS2024), where the question of global citizenship will continue the ongoing
dialogue on peace and caring for the ‘other’.

Conclusions and Future Outlooks
Our March conference attempted to discuss ethics and care regarding theharmonious coexistence with the ‘other’ through multiple lenses. Experts in
education, psychology, ageing and gerontology, AI, and international relations
demonstrated how all global crises are interconnected and can be traced back to asingle issue: the perception of and dealing with the ‘other’ that has distinct views,
values, and life experiences. All keynotes and panellists agreed that it can be difficult
to bring people together and agree on what is right when everyone has a different
interpretation of certain values, resulting in discussions that can become highly
politicised, contested, and even volatile.
What lies ahead for education, psychology, ethics, AI, and our ageing populationin the contested and highly polarising world of the future? Professor Kevin Kester
says that the current state of affairs has caused peace educators to look inward andask themselves whether they are living up to the ideals they are preaching; whether
they are pushing for social movements and change; whether they are holding
states accountable; or whether they choose to stay silent on a given topic. Peace
educators should try to find a way to discuss these issues without taking sides, andlive up to their ethics and standards in a way that does not take sides or close down
possibilities of listening and working with others.
Professor Dexter Da Silva closed with the statement that perhaps education in itself
may not be the cure, but the method and approach of learning and educating aremuch more important. This includes individual thinking, self-learning methods,
and critical thinking. AI is a beneficial tool that can be used to educate younger
generations within a world that is becoming increasingly automated, despite its
pitfalls and dangers to the democratisation of information. To this, Professor Keith
Miller adds that it is imperative for national leaders to take initiatives to regulate
AI first within their national governments and then through international treaties.
International cooperation on political decisions is hard, but AI is an area that should
not be left unregulated.
The digital divide on issues concerning AI and technology is also a problem thatneeds to be addressed, offering AI as a public good in mind. Both Professor Miller
and Mr Robert E. Claar concurred that universal access to information and AI asa service are vital to fostering understanding of the ‘other’. Mr Claar argues that
upgrading the information technology infrastructure will increase the efficacy ofthe healthcare system in sharing patient records to be easily accessible by relevant
sectors. These big data can be utilised and analysed based on real-world evidence
to improve healthcare management, accommodating healthcare users and providers
alike. He also encouraged policies to make medical devices accessible in households
for easy access to basic healthcare, reducing the cost of hospital visits.
AI and technology remain promising solutions to issues not only within education,
but also in matters of ageing and psychology, with intercultural and intergenerational
understanding as fundamental elements. Dr Miriam Sang-Ah Park views AI as
potentially helpful in fostering positive ageing and proposes a framework to include
cultural and cross-cultural aspects in the realisation of context-based positive
ageing. Dr Adela Balderas also provided a similar approach, with a focus on intermultigenerational interactions that will reduce the level of ageism. Similarly, Dr Bhanu
Ranjan presented that humour-related generative AI, such as mobile applications,
websites, and meme generators, has significantly reduced depression, perceived
ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

17

stress, and anxiety, with an increase in self-efficacy in patients. Moreover, AI or‘robots’ help patients in opening up to talk about their mental health, in cases where
they feel less comfortable talking to a person. It can also give preliminary support
to patients who do not have the necessary resources to consult a psychologist. All
these perspectives highlight the importance of taking into consideration the different
life experiences of the generational ‘other’, including cultural differences and socioeconomic statuses. There needs to be collaboration from the ethical, legal, and social
aspects to employ the technology responsibly.
‘If AI is going to make decisions for us, we need to be made aware of it. If AI changes
our lives in a way we don’t like, we should demand that it be explained to us. Making
AI that can explain its decisions is now a sub-field of its own, but many of the current
AI decision-making programmes cannot tell us why they made a decision. This is adanger’, says Professor Miller. He urges teachers to educate young people to maketheir own ethical choices.
For this, social psychology plays a central role. Psychology, which nowadays is notdoing its intended job of understanding the human psyche in order to contributeto a peaceful communication with the ‘other’, needs to revert to its formal role ofbeing used for ethical reasons. First, we need to understand how and why influential
industries use social psychology to manipulate social behaviour. Then, education
should be about teaching social responsibility in order to mitigate the risk of usingsocial psychology knowledge to make unethical decisions.
Professor Brendan Howe concludes that ‘Education is not the grand cure, as it cancontribute to insecurity’. As Professor Kester and Professor Da Silva demonstrated,education can be used for either good or bad. It is vital that we get a greater
understanding of the delivery systems of education. Regarding the importance of
keeping the dialogue on peace and global issues open, Professor Howe says ‘It isvery important that academics tackle the big issues, because they may get to advise
policymakers and because, of course, we are educating the next generation of world
leaders. So, if we can inculcate an idea of global social responsibility in the future
leaders of this world, then we have served a decent purpose’.
As an organisation that is dedicated to encouraging interdisciplinary discussion,facilitating intercultural awareness, and promoting international exchange, IAFOR willcontinue striving to discuss often controversial political issues through non-politicised
discussions, inspiring future academic and political leadership.

Conference Networking and Cultural Events
While formal presentations are the backbone of IAFOR conferences, the value of
informal, yet intellectual, interaction among delegates is not overlooked. Networking
events within our conference programmes provide designated spaces for open
discussion, forming professional connections, and inspiring collaboration. Cultural
events directly integrate the culture of the chosen venue at every conference,
providing delegates an opportunity to engage with cultural practices alongside peers
and new colleagues.
The conference Welcome Reception was held following the first of two poster
sessions on March 25, and featured a special demonstration of karate, a traditional
Japanese martial art, by the Karate Club at Waseda University. This performancenot only showcased a series of katas—detailed patterns of movements or ‘drills’—
but also a choreographed fight sequence exhibiting the katas in action. This is thesecond time we have collaborated with Waseda University to organise a culturalexperience, and we look forward to doing so again. For the next conference tobe held in Tokyo this May, we have two cultural events planned which are moreinteractive: a Kimono Dressing Demonstration with kimono instructor Satoko
Yamada, and a Haiku Workshop with instructors Hana Fujimoto and Emiko Miyashita.
These will be separated into their own sessions, allowing delegates the chance toexperience Japanese culture hands-on. IAFOR’s aim in organising such events is toallow delegates to take on the equalised role of ‘learner’ together, dissolving any
preconceptions of hierarchy, for example, between expert and early-career academic.
We also form valuable ties with renowned individuals and cultural organisations in thecities in which we operate our programmes.
The Conference Dinner provides a more relaxed setting for networking within ourconference programme. Offering such opportunities within our programmes is crucial
for new and repeating delegates to assimilate to our growing network of delegates.
This is especially true now that IAFOR is establishing more spaces for direct dialogue
about pressing, on-the-cusp topics with the forthcoming integration of ‘The Forum’.
The Conference Dinner at Shunju Tameike Sanno in Akasaka was a sold out event,and was well-received by delegates who attended. We plan to hold the upcoming
ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024 Conference Dinner in May at Shunju Tameike Sanno once more.
ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

19

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024
Key Statistics

international
interculturalinterdisciplinary

7 4 7 DELEGATESFROM 63 COUNTRIES
戸

183

，

OnsitePresenters←悶戸o 448『六9oOnlinePresenters

52% University Professor
29% University Student
9% Other
7% Public Sector/Practitioner
2% Independent Scholar
1% Private Sectort

Top Five S reams!.Aging and Gerontology (56)
2. Mental Health (50)
3. Psychology and Education (42)4.Teaching Experiences, Pedagogy, Practice & Praxis (40)
5. Learning Experiences, Student Learning & Learner Diversity (40)

恢り
587

Total
Presentations

願
凡R、Q

251
Hours ofContent

476

Institutions andOrg anisations

55% Doctoral Degree
34% Masters Degree
11% Bachelors Degree

一ー
ー
ー
色
一ー
ー
Keyword Frequency Across Titles

圏

72%
Abstract
AcceptanceMultiple Authored vs.
Single Authored Submissionsーinternational I intercultural I interdisciplinaryConference
Photographs

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

21

22

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

23

24

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

25

26

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

ACEID/ACP/AGen2024

27

2404-II
ISSN: 2759-4939