About the Report

In February 2009, the United States Institute of Peace 

hosted a daylong conference, “Media as Global Diplomat,” 

that explored the changing orientation of public diplomacy 

and the importance of international cross-cultural exchange 

to public diplomacy. This report explores how access to 

international study and cultural exchange could be broadened 

by combining new media with established processes and 

pedagogy for cross-cultural engagement. 

About the Authors

Sheldon Himelfarb directs USIP’s Center of Innovation on 

Media, Conflict, and Peacebuilding. Shamil Idriss is the chief 

executive officer of Soliya and senior adviser to the United 

Nations Alliance of Civilizations.

2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 272 May 2011

© 2011 by the United States Institute of Peace. 

All rights reserved.

Sheldon Himelfarb and Shamil Idriss

Exchange 2.0

Summary

•	 The orientation of U.S. public diplomacy is changing from telling America’s story to direct 

dialogue in an interconnected world. 

•	 With this shift has come a need to revitalize a core pillar of public diplomacy strategy: 

international exchanges.

•	 Although traditional exchange programs have been effective in expanding access to 

cross-cultural educational opportunities beyond those that study-abroad programs reach, 

participation remains limited.

•	 Developing the next generation of Exchange 2.0 initiatives—that is, technology-enabled 

programs embedded in curricula and with a cross-cultural educational purpose—will 

improve the number, diversity, and experience of international exchange participants.

Introduction

International cross-cultural exchange is critical for both public diplomacy and ensuring that 

young people have the skills they need to operate in an increasingly interdependent world. 

But these opportunities are accessible to only a few.

It is essential that all available tools are used to enable international cross-cultural educational opportunities. Access to international study and educational and cultural exchange 

could be broadened considerably by combining new media tools and platforms with wellestablished processes and pedagogy for deep cross-cultural engagement. Under such a 

scenario, it is entirely possible that within fifteen years it will be the norm for young people 

to have a profound international cross-cultural educational experience as part of their curriculum. With this approach, international exchanges could also become an even more vital 

and effective element of U.S. public diplomacy.

The State of International Exchange

International study and educational and cultural exchanges that involve people meeting 

face to face are widely acknowledged as being among the best ways to foster cross-cultural 

United States Institute of Peace www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT

Contents

Educational Exchange in a Changing World 2

Educational Exchange 2.0 3

Operating Models 4

Conclusion 6
2

respect and understanding. Major programs such as Fulbright,1 Erasmus,2 AFS, YFU, and 

Rotary have helped make it possible for hundreds of thousands of young people to study 

internationally, and have helped equip them with needed cross-cultural communication and 

engagement skills. Exchanges can be among the most profound and inspiring events in a 

young person’s life regardless of the ultimate career path. Those who have just completed 

them are a tremendous—and often untapped—resource for mobilization in support of 

greater cross-cultural understanding and dialogue.

As valuable as these programs are, however, they have some limitations. First, they 

reach too few students. Fewer than 2 percent of Americans enrolled in higher education 

engage in study-abroad programs each year (approximately 260,000 in 2008–09), and only 4 

percent of the higher education population in the United States are international students 

(approximately 700,000 in 2009–10). The number of study-abroad participants is similar in 

many European countries, fewer than 2 percent.3

The cost of study-abroad programs is another limiting factor. The least expensive program 

is $4,000 per student, and many cost ten times this amount. Thus, access to study abroad 

has traditionally been limited to those with fairly substantial means or access to aid. This in 

turn limits the diversity of the candidate pool and the access of low-income students.

In recent years, donors and administrators of international exchange programs have made significant efforts to address the issue of cost and expand access to education abroad. Notably, the 

Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program has awarded more than 8,800 study-abroad 

scholarships to U.S. undergraduates with financial need since its inception in 2001.4 The Fulbright 

Program has expanded its outreach to a broad array of institutions and to students with diverse 

backgrounds.5 However, there is still more work to be done, particularly in an international context.

A third issue is that the most common destinations for study abroad are geographically 

concentrated, which means that they tend to miss areas of the world where the need for 

deeper understanding is greatest. Consider the following examples:

•	 In both proportion of exchanges and funds spent, the most popular region for American 

students is Europe and the least popular regions are the Middle East and North Africa.6

•	 International students in the United States tend be concentrated in particular states and cities.7

•	 The number of European students who participate in the intra-European program Erasmus 

is significantly greater than those in Erasmus Mundus, which promotes exchange between 

Europe and the rest of the world.8

•	 Sponsored exchanges have gone a long way to address these trends. Geographically targeted scholarships such as the Boren Scholarships and Fellowships have helped to diversify 

the languages and cultures that Americans are exposed to through international study.9

However, many students still choose to study in languages and cultures that are similar to 

their own, and more will need to be done to foster cross-cultural understanding among a 

much broader range of the student population in the United States and around the world.

•	 Finally, those traveling abroad to study tend to be self-selected; they are already on the 

path to seeking out and exploring diverse cultures when they enroll in study-abroad programs or apply to funded exchange programs. There is a need, therefore, to introduce larger 

numbers and more diverse groups of young people to the valuable lessons to be learned 

from cross-cultural dialogues.

Educational Exchange in a Changing World

The context within which exchanges are taking place has changed profoundly. Over the past 

decade, these developments have prompted serious rethinking about the role of exchanges, 

especially as they relate to public diplomacy.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. 

Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, 

promote postconflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict 

management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with 

knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, 

D.C. • George E. Moose (Vice Chairman), Adjunct Professor 

of Practice, The George Washington University, Washington, 

D.C. • Anne H. Cahn, Former Scholar in Residence, American 

University, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. Crocker, James R. 

Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign 

Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. • Kerry 

Kennedy, President, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and 

Human Rights, Washington, D.C. • Ikram U. Khan, President, 

Quality Care Consultants, LLC, Las Vegas, NV • Stephen D. 

Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford University • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of 

Law, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA • Judy Van Rest, 

Executive Vice President, International Republican Institute, 

Washington, D.C. • Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, 

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C. 

Members Ex Officio

Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor • James N. Miller, 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy •

Ann E. Rondeau, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy; President, 

National Defense University • Richard H. Solomon, 

President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 
3

Recognition is growing that not only presidents and politicians determine whether we 

live in a safe and secure world; citizens, activists, and nonstate actors also do. The skills, 

character, and knowledge required to be a responsible and constructive leader in a globalized world therefore need to be cultivated across ever broader segments of society. Further, 

because it is increasingly imperative that citizens have global and linguistic competency (if 

they are to succeed in the twenty-first-century framework), all young people need opportunities to gain these skills. Our collective ability to solve complex global problems requires 

that many more people be exposed to the learning and knowledge that international 

exchange programs offer.

The orientation of public diplomacy is also changing. Throughout much of history, U.S. 

public diplomacy has focused on “telling America’s story,” with an emphasis on controlling and disseminating messages from one source to multiple audiences. But today, public 

diplomacy practitioners are talking more about the role of dialogue, and how to develop 

both better listening skills and a better understanding of how culture and identity define 

those with whom the United States is interacting.10 To date, U.S. administrations on both 

sides of the political spectrum have acknowledged the value of international exchanges in 

helping achieve these goals.

Educational Exchange 2.0

Technology-enabled international cross-cultural educational exchange offers a scalable, 

cost-effective, and sustainable way of addressing many of the challenges and leveraging 

many of the opportunities described and puts meaningful dialogue with young people 

around the globe within reach of every young American. Online engagement cannot, and 

should not, replace traditional exchanges and the institutions that administer them. Such 

face-to-face programs are still the optimal way for people to connect with each other 

across geographic and cultural boundaries. What technology-enabled international dialogue 

programs do is complement, and even strengthen, the benefits derived from in-person 

programs in several ways:

•	 Expand the applicant pool. Exchange 2.0 can provide the opportunity to engage in a crosscultural exchange experience for students who may otherwise be limited by finances, age, 

concerns about physical security, or other constraints.11

•	 Spark new interest in cross-cultural exchange. Web-enabled exchange can increase interest in or reduce tentativeness toward international study.12 According to a study by East 

Carolina University—which through its Global Understanding Course connects institutions 

through videoconferencing technology—students who have such an experience are more 

likely to participate in physical exchanges later in life.13 iEARN, working on the K-12 level, 

has found similar data and examples. ExchangesConnect is an open international online 

community administered by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. 

Department of State, where members can connect with “prospective, current, and former 

exchange participants and share informal tips.”14

•	 Better prepare students for the challenges of in-person exchanges. Cross-cultural exchange 

is not inevitably positive. If those who travel abroad are culturally insensitive and misinformed, relationships may be hindered rather than advanced.15 Participating in technology-enabled cross-cultural awareness training before traveling abroad allows students to 

develop a base of knowledge about other cultures that may dispel any stereotypes and 

enhance the quality of face-to-face exchanges. Online Fulbright Teacher exchange courses 

are a good and particularly germane example. Zhen Zhai, for instance, spent 2005 and 2006 

teaching Chinese to students at Montana’s Carroll College as a Fulbright language teaching 
4

assistant. “As a curious traveler and avid photographer,” he explained, “I took thousands of 

pictures in the U.S. Putting them online and maintaining a blog, I encouraged my friends 

and students back home to see the country through my own lens and discuss my observations with me.”16

•	 Facilitate partnerships with key institutions abroad. One deterrent to American and 

European students studying abroad in the Middle East and North Africa has to do with 

academic credits.17 Some technology-enabled exchange programs allow much-needed 

interaction without requiring accreditation to be resolved or satisfied. For instance, the 

courses at some of the universities that participate in Soliya’s Connect Program (that is, 

in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or rural areas of Egypt) would not qualify for academic credit 

if a student at a U.S.-based institution were to seek to register and enroll. Through the 

Connect Program, these students learn together with—and from—their peers at these 

institutions, and vice versa.

•	 Embed the virtues of exchange with ongoing contact. Sponsored exchanges can leverage 

the investment by enabling participants to remain engaged, continue to enhance their 

language abilities and cultural understanding, and share their experiences with a broader 

audience. The U.S. State Department, for example, maintains the “Fulbright Community on 

State Alumni,” which provides an online space for current and former Fulbrighters to “share 

and discuss their experiences and work with a global audience.”18

Operating Models

As noted earlier, technology-enabled international exchange programs are not new, but 

instead woefully untapped. A review of the field yielded several examples of programs 

specifically aimed at promoting intercultural understanding—but which still occur on a 

relatively small scale. The five programs that follow are illustrative.

Soliya’s Connect Program (www.soliya.net)

Since 2003, Soliya—a global nonprofit network—has used new media technologies to foster cross-cultural understanding at the university level. Connect Program participants use 

customized videoconferencing technology to have a dialogue directly with their peers from 

around the world and engage in candid discussions of cross-cultural issues. Their interaction 

is rooted in a curriculum designed to supplement accredited coursework. Small groups of 

eight to ten students are guided through a ten-week program by pairs of trained facilitators. The explicit focus is on connecting students from the West with those in the Arab and 

Muslim world and on maximizing impact along four learning metrics: empathy, cross-cultural 

communication skills, critical thinking, and activation (or pursuit of further cross-cultural 

engagement). These four metrics are identified as the key to most closely approximating—

in the online space—the impact of physical exchanges. Facilitators are young leaders from 

more than twenty-five countries. To prepare these facilitators, Soliya offers a 24-hour facilitation training course via its Web-conferencing application. The training provides facilitators with transferable collaborative leadership and conflict resolution skills they can use in 

both Soliya’s programs and other contexts at local, regional, and global levels.

iEARN (http://iearn.org)

iEARN (International Education and Resource Network) is a nonprofit organization, launched 

in 1988, with more than 40,000 member educators and youth organizations in more than 

130 countries. iEARN daily engages two million youth (ages 5 to 19) in virtual exchanges 
5

in which teachers and students enter online venues to meet one another and get involved 

in collaborative educational projects, using more than fifty languages and various kinds of 

multimedia interfaces. Such projects include youth from diverse communities collaborating 

on curriculum-based projects in science, math, history, music, economics, entrepreneurism, 

and family life. They can also focus on environmental topics, such as endangered species 

or deforestation. As a virtual community with local country centers, iEARN provides professional development and Ministry of Education support in a safe online environment. iEARN 

has partnered with the U.S. State Department’s Global Connections & Exchange Program, 

which has linked more than 2,500 schools with nearly 100,000 students in countries with 

significant Muslim populations—both to collaborate on social action projects and to 

offer professional development to teachers. iEARN also creates hybrid models that provide online platforms for physical exchange participants in the YES program of the State 

Department. The Adobe Youth Voices program brings the private sector into collaborative 

virtual exchanges. With 80 percent of its participants from lower-income communities 

and less-developed countries, iEARN has extensive experience in bridging technology and 

socioeconomic gaps.

Global Nomads Group (www.gng.org)

Established in 1998, Global Nomads Group (GNG) is an international NGO that creates interactive programs for young people around the world. By exploring the similarities and differences that define who we are, GNG programs provide the opportunities to build bridges 

and foster meaningful dialogue through collaborative global projects. In its twelve-year 

history, GNG has conducted programs in more than forty-five countries on all seven continents, and reached more than one million young people. GNG’s strategy is to engage and 

empower young people worldwide using media including live-interactive videoconferencing, 

streaming video, social networking, gaming, documentaries, and participatory filmmaking. 

Using these tools, GNG creates opportunities for local, regional, and global collaboration 

and communication. One such program connected children who survived the earthquake in 

Haiti with their counterparts who survived Hurricane Katrina in the United States, which 

led the majority of the American survivors to organize themselves to donate to their peers 

in Haiti.

East Carolina University’s Global Understanding Program (www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/

globalinitiatives/course.cfm)

Based in ECU’s state-of-the-art Global Classroom, this program provides a format for students 

to learn about other cultures through live videoconferencing and chat technology. The online 

description explains the program this way: “Institutions are partnered in pairs so that only 

two cultures meet at any one time. . . . Students discuss topics ranging from college life, family, the meaning of life, to stereotypes and prejudices. Each class session includes discussion 

in both small groups and one-to-one chat with reflective journaling afterwards. . . . Students 

begin to see similarities among themselves, see positives in others, and to de-emphasize 

the negative differences. This realization is key to changing negative stereotypes and understanding other cultures. Through learning about other cultures, students begin to understand 

their own culture and gain a broader perspective on life.”

These are just the most prominent examples that emerged from a scan of the field. 

Although promising, they are still relatively young; they need additional careful review in 

order to distill their experience and improve our understanding of what works, what doesn’t 

work, and why.
6

Much innovative work around intercultural understanding is being done in more niche 

settings—either using specialized platforms or aiming at specific audiences. For example, 

Second Life offers a virtual 3-D environment in which students from different countries can 

interact—such as students from Dubai Women’s College who met with a group of Korean 

students—to practice English, tour each other’s campuses, and learn about each other’s 

culture.19 The NGO Digital Democracy also has Project Einstein, a photography-based digital 

pen pal program that connects youth in refugee camps with resettled refugees and their 

classmates in the United States. To date, they have worked with refugee youth in Haiti, 

Bangladesh, South Africa, Thailand, and Burma. In neither case, however, have the programs for intercultural dialogue reached the steady state and scale of the first five programs 

mentioned.

Several questions are particularly important to consider:

•	 What is an effective target age range for participants?

•	 What should the duration of these programs be?

•	 What specific demographics should these programs target to maximize impact?

•	 Do technology-enabled exchanges require facilitators, and if so, how much training do 

these facilitators require?

•	 How essential is it for exchanges to be synchronous (real time)?

•	 What kinds of curricula enable technology-enabled programs to most closely approximate 

the learning achieved by traditional exchanges?

•	 What professional development is required to enable educators to integrate online global 

exchanges into their curriculum areas?

The final question, on all of these points, is where the ideal solution meets with the currently possible, given issues of infrastructure (which include Internet connectivity and 

bandwidth), institutional capacity and relationships, and navigation of language differences 

across cultures.

Conclusion

These questions are difficult to answer in light of the still relatively few programs dedicated to technology-enabled intercultural exchanges. Regardless, significant training and 

resources will be needed to enable educational institutions to dramatically expand their 

work in this area. To this end, we recommend a public-private partnership that would bring 

together industry practitioners, governments, and other experts on distance education to 

pursue the following challenges:

•	 Share views on how cross-cultural exchange programs can be scaled up with Web-enabled 

technologies.

•	 Assess hardware and software capabilities and needs.

•	 Share best practices on innovative educational models using new media tools.

•	 Advocate for grant programs through which educational institutions (universities, high 

schools) can apply for resources to integrate online cross-cultural educational programs 

into their curricula, and others—such as Soliya, iEARN, and Global Nomads Group—can 

expand their efforts.

•	 Develop an open source clearinghouse or repository of valuable information about crosscultural exchange and education programs.
7

Notes

1. The Fulbright Program, developed in 1946, is now considered the government’s flagship international exchange 

program. As of 2010, more than 300,000 people from more than 155 countries had participated. See http://

us.fulbrightonline.org/about_programhistory.html. 

2. The Erasmus Programme is an intra-European effort established in the late 1980s. More than 4,000 higher education 

institutions in thirty-three countries and more than 2.2 million students participate today. Erasmus Mundus, its 

international counterpart, was created in 2003. See http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc1709_en.htm

and http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/programme/documents/2010/guide_emapr10_ el.pdf. 

3. There is no comprehensive statistic on the number of U.S. students in higher education who study abroad. The 

estimate of fewer than 2 percent is based on available data: a National Center for Education Statistics report that 

19.6 million students were enrolled in U.S. higher education during the 2008–09 school year, and the Institute of 

International Education’s 2010 Open Doors report that 260,327 American students (1.32 percent) were studying 

abroad during that time. The Open Doors report, however, includes only those students enrolled in a degreegranting institution of higher education who received academic credit for study abroad. See “Opendoors 2010 fast 

facts,” http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/~/media/Files/Corporate/Open-Doors/Special-Reports/

Fast Facts 2010.ashx; Laura G. Knapp, Janice E. Kelly-Reid, and Scott A. Ginder, “Enrollment in Postsecondary 

Institutions, Fall 2008; Graduation Rates, 2002 and 2005 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2008” 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics, 2010), http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010152rev. See also Rajika Bhandari 

and Patricia Chow, Open Doors 2009: Report on International Educational Exchange (New York: Institute of 

International Education, 2009); Daniel Obst, Rajika Bhandari, and Sharon Witherell, Current Trends in U.S. Study 

Abroad & the Impact of Strategic Diversity of Initiatives (New York: Institute of International Education, 2007).

4. The Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship provides Pell Grant recipients the opportunity to participate in 

study-abroad programs worldwide. See http://www.iie.org/gilman. 

5. See the IIE Annual Report for 2009, http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/iie/ar2009/#/6; Chronicle of Higher 

Education, “Fulbright Puts Money Where Problems Are,” http://chronicle.com/article/Fulbrights-PuttingMoney/125053/. 

6. Fifty-six percent of American students studying abroad go to Europe, 6 percent to Africa, and fewer than 1 

percent to the Middle East. Even among those who do study in the Middle East, geographic concentration 

in destination is substantial: 70 percent in Israel, and the majority of the rest in Egypt, Morocco, or Jordan. 

See Bhandari and Chow, Open Doors 2009; Robert Gutierrez, Amy Hawthorne, Mary Kirk, and Christopher 

Powers, Expanding U.S. Study Abroad in the Arab World: Challenges and Opportunities (New York: Institute of 

International Education, 2009). 

7. Ten states hosted 61 percent of all international students in the United States in 2008–09, and large cities such 

as New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Washington, DC, and Chicago in particular tend to attract them. In addition, 

the majority of these international students study at large doctoral institutions. See Bhandari and Chow, Open 

Doors 2009. 

8. During the 2008–09 school year, 198,568 European students participated in the Erasmus Programme, and some 

2,000 worldwide participated in Erasmus Mundus. See “Erasmus Student Mobility 2008/09,” Erasmus Statistics, 

http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/stat/table109.pdf and, “Statistics by Country, 2004–05 to 2008–

09,” http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/results_compendia/documents/statistics/emtotal20042009_

students.xls. 

9. Boren Scholarships and Fellowships, funded by the National Security Education Program, focus on geographic 

areas, languages, and fields of study critical to U.S. national security (broadly defined) and underrepresented in 

study abroad. Since inception, the program has awarded scholarships and fellowships to study more than 100 

languages in more than 100 countries. See http://www.borenawards.org/, http://www.alliance-exchange.org/

sites/default/files/8_NSEP_2011_FINAL.pdf. 

10. For more on this topic, see http://www.american.edu/sis/ic/2010-Cultural-Diplomacy-Conference.cfm.

11. Cost is one of the biggest barriers to cross-cultural exchange. Safety is another. Gutierrez and his colleagues note 

in Expanding U.S. Study Abroad that this is perceived as a particular problem in terms of study abroad in the Arab 

world. Additionally, the 2010 British Council report on Muslim youth exchange in Europe points out that gender 

segregation is a significant barrier to international exchange for Muslim women. Web-enabled exchange may be 

a viable alternative in such circumstances. 

12. Students may be tentative about going abroad for fear of stereotypes. According to the 2010 British Council 

report on Muslim youth exchange in Europe, anxiety about Islamophobia limits the number of Muslims who 

engage in exchange. Similarly, Americans or Europeans may avoid studying abroad in places like the Arab world 

for fear of anti-Americanism or anti-Westernism. Web-enabled exchange may reduce these anxieties, increasing 

the likelihood of future physical exchange. 

13. Rosina C. Chia, Elmer Poe, and Karl L. Wuensch, “Attitude Change after Taking a Virtual Global Understanding 

Course,” International Journal of Human and Social Sciences 4, no. 2 (2009): 75–79.

14. ExchangesConnect, “Getting Started,” U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

http://connect.state.gov/page/getting-started.

15. Gutierrez and his colleagues report that professors and administrators at Arab universities tended to 

feel that international students are not well informed about Arab culture before they arrive (Expanding U.S. 

Study Abroad).

16. U.S. Department of State, “Fulbright by Country: Zheng Zhai, Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant from 

China,” http://fulbright.state.gov/participating-countries/east-asia-and-the-pacific/china/zheng.html.

17. Gutierrez et al., Expanding U.S. Study Abroad.

18. U.S. Department of State, “State Alumni: Online Community,” http://fulbright.state.gov/alumni/state-alumni.

19. Tom Peter, “Study Abroad through Second Life: Virtual College Campuses Host International Student Exchanges,” 

Christian Science Monitor, July 2, 2008. 
United States 

Institute of Peace

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.

Of Related Interest

•	 Afghanistan Media Assessment by Eran Fraenkel, Emrys Schoemaker, and Sheldon Himelfarb 

(Peaceworks, December 2010)

•	 Make It Theirs: The Imperative of Local Ownership in Communications and Media Initiatives 

by Simon Haselock (Special Report, October 2010)

•	 Crowdsourcing Crisis Information in Disaster-Affected Haiti by Jessica Heinzelman and Carol 

Waters (Special Report, October 2010)

•	 Advancing New Media Research by Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, and John Sides 

(Special Report, September 2010)

•	 Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics by Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, 

John Sides, John Kelly, and Ethan Zuckerman (Peaceworks, September 2010)

•	 Media and Peacebuilding in Afghanistan by Sheldon Himelfarb (Peace Brief, March 2010)