Experiential Learning


By Angelita B. Resurreccion
UP Diliman, 9 October 2013
Submitted To Dr Michael Tan
In Partial Fulfillment Of Requirements For The Course On Anthro 282,
Culture And Personality

  • Introduction

I remember reading this article one evening sometime in 1988 after I had put my two-year old boy to bed. My husband had brought home a photocopy from his graduate class at UP, and I remember the outrage I felt within me. How dare this Fallows guy kill my dream of a changed Philippines? Our family was away in the Netherlands during the People Power Revolution and we had come back full of enthusiasm to take part in rebuilding the nation. In fact, I had started a small school in Old Balara, an urban poor settlement across Tandang Sora behind the UP Campus, as an expression of our family’s romantic notions about helping the poor.

Today, 25 years later, I am glad I can read Fallows more soberly, having experienced a seesaw of feelings, from excitement to disappointment, within months after election of presidents who followed after Cory. Informed by formulations encountered in graduate courses in education, psychology, and anthropology over the past few years, I see that Fallows wrote from a perspective that viewed culture, power, history and education as discrete analytical categories. While his views seemed valid on the face of surface events he had written about, his article failed to help readers (particularly Filipinos) understand what was going on. Instead, he managed to infuriate Filipinos enough to be declared persona non grata. By laying the blame on culture, it was like him saying the problem with people was they were human. Fallows was like saying the problem with Filipinos was that they were brought up in the Philippines by Filipinos.
Why blame Filipinos for their culture? Is culture a cause? Or an effect? My thesis is that it is both a cause and an effect, just like much of life. It is produced, and reproduced, in all of life, particularly in schools. People like Fallows, and his country America, who introduced their brand of culture, were very much a part of the whole process.

All about Fallows

  • Fallows as author

I think Fallows, and any other author, is entitled to his own opinion. That is what makes democracy work, and that was the objective of our resistance to Marcos for a long long time during our youth. As President, Marcos declared he was the only one who had the right to say what was good for the country and everyone had to agree on the pain of disappearance from the face of the earth. In the Freedom Constitution of 1987, ratified shortly before Fallows wrote his article, opinions even of people such as those expressed by Fallows is guaranteed. As I engage myself in discourse with his article, I note two points about him.
First, I note that Fallows writes as an American. I believe those who want to know about our culture should read articles written by Filipinos. But if the reader wants to know what Americans think about our culture, then s/he should read one such as this one written by Fallows. For instance, Fallows’ understanding of the ethic of delicadeza seemed wanting from my emic perspective. I think his etic equivalents, which include saving face or vague sense of guilt, do not totally capture “delicadeza”. But if those were his understandings of the term, he should have applied them on himself, or at least apologized for his lack of kagandahang asal. In the context of Philippine culture, if you really need to say something bad, nagpapaalam ka muna, magpasintabi ka muna. As the saying goes, “Bato bato sa langit, ang tamaan wag sana magalit.” So he should have exercised delicadeza and asked permission from his Filipino readers that he was going to hurt their feelings, and whether that was all right.

But as I said, he writes as an American. So he did not seek permission. I wonder if he even informed his Filipino friends, or at least those he had bothered when he went about his data gathering, that he was going to write disparagingly about them. If he did not ask their permission, he could have suggested ways by which local readers could use what he wrote to improve their lives. So, again, he writes as an American. If his behavior is not even American, let me say that he definitely did not write like a Filipino would. We want to be of value to others, even by the way we give negative feedback. Ayaw natin makasakit ng kapwa, lalo na kung bisita lang tayo. May delicadeza tayo. As an American, Fallows probably wrote for Americans, not for Filipinos who I suspect were kind to him.
Second, as an American, he was an outsider writing about Filipinos. We were an Other, and expressed himself from a position of power. Given the historical events, it was the US that had unplucked the dictator from the country, it was their Senator Lugar whom the dictator had called by phone to consult about what to do when he was rammed into a corner by people in the streets outside his Palace. It seemed Cory Aquino was in power because of them. You immediately see Fallows’ positionality in his very first paragraph:

In the United States the coming of the Aquino government seemed to make the Philippines into a success story. The evil Marcos was out, the saintly Cory was in, the worldwide march of democracy went on. All that was left was to argue about why we stuck with our tawdry pet dictator for so long, and to support Corazon Aquino as she danced around coup attempts and worked her way out of the problems the Marcoses had caused (Emphasis mine).

and in his last :

America knows just what it will do to defend Corazon Aquino against usurpers, like those who planned the last attempted coup. We’ll say that we support a democratically chosen government, that this one is the country’s best hope, that we’ll use every tool from economic aid to public-relations pressure to help her serve out her term. But we might start thinking ahead, to what we’ll do if the anticoup campaign is successful–to what will happen when Aquino stays in, and the culture doesn’t change, and everything gets worse. (Emphasis mine)

His writings contrast to my view that the ouster of Marcos was the collective achievement of our people. America decided to benefit from our struggle by stepping in, rather than the other way around. America’s stepping in likely saved Marcos from being murdered by the people, not saving the people from Marcos. That is my opinion, and obviously, from where I write and who I am, mine is from a powerless position. In the corridors of world power, my voice and those of thousands who marched in EDSA, were probably not heard because America loomed large in Fallows’ article, and he saw events as an American accomplishment, in the global march of democracy. Of course, in 1987, America was still powerful. The democracy rhetoric, then and now, is what would appeal to an American reader (given their notions of being the greatest country on earth). Fallows chose to remain silent on the people of the Philippines rejecting Marcos as their democratic icon. I am not sure if he was ignorant of us, but as I said, we are powerless and so we did not matter. Instead, he and the US promoted the idea that the new icon Cory Aquino was theirs, after they rejected the previous one. Fallows was just being American. Every leader on the planet needed to blessed by America.

In writing about Filipinos, Fallows presented us as an Other. People like Fallows who come from a position of dominance consider it normal to take or give the right to determine what is valuable for a people, and label those in subordinate positions (Filipinos in the Philippines) as defective or substandard. Culture is a tool for making Other ( Abu-Lughod, 1991).

What Fallows may not realize is that an outsider never really stands outside, but is actually positioned within a larger political-historical context. What he has written about the Philippines are but partial pictures of Philippine society, and should be seen in the context of socio-cultural-political-historical forces which his own country and people helped produce.

Fallows’ perspectives

  • Static view of culture

In his article, Fallows’ view of culture seems to be static. Culture is reified, and made capable of causing underdevelopment, of bringing out the “the productive best in the Koreans (or the Japanese, or now even the Thais),” and in Filipinos, their “most self-destructive, self-defeating worst.” But culture is not static. Anthropologists view that culture as a social structure that powerfully impinges on people’s behaviors (for instance as a set of behaviors, customs, traditions, rules, plans, and programs, to name a few), it is nevertherless learned and can change (Abu-Lughod, 1991). Hence, it is dynamic rather than static (Hytten, 2011).

Ignoring role of history and power

Even as Fallows lays the blame for Philippine underdevelopment at the feet of culture, he could have interrogated the way history and power relations in society intersect in people’s everyday lives so that he might better understand Filipinos rather than resorting to moralizing or blaming. To do this, he could have examined how schools produce and transmit the damaged culture he wrote about. In this context, it is useful to refer to Nader’s (1997) conceptualization of the term “controlling processes” to understand why Filipinos seem to be behaving in ways that are contrary to their own interests, hence suggesting a damaged cultural frame. Controlling processes refer to the transformative nature of central ideas (such as Marcosian New Society ideology and development rhetorics) that emanate from institutions (the State, in the case of Marcos, and schools/industries, in the case of globalized US interests), operating as dynamic components of power.

Schools have been a favored site for the shaping of Philippine culture ever since the US sent the first batch of Thomasites to “educate” our people. In the case of Marcos, schools and teachers were favored intruments for implanting his ideologies for a New Society and imposing docility and acquiescence among the people.
When Fallows came to the country in 1987, a number of ideas had been encoded in the people as they went through life in or out of school, and these found their way into ways of thinking and behaving that came to be considered “natural” and “logical” as good for society (thereby creating consent). This way of thinking was described by Fallows as a damaged culture, as if there was a perfect one that was possible. Perhaps at this time, 2013, with America having a government shutdown, he knows for sure that he is not living in one. Theories of power indicate how ideologies and policies emanating from social institutions download ideas that are accepted by people (either by choice, persuasion or by coercion and compulsion).

Ignoring our agency

It was Giroux (1983) who wrote that social and cultural reproduction is never complete and always meet with partially realized elements of opposition. I think that was what Fallows should have realized. His views were particular for a time in history, when Filipinos were still discovering what it meant to exercise their freedoms in a suddenly equal but definitely unequal society. By the time Fallows wrote the article in November 1987, we were not work in progress, we were work warming up to start. The Freedom Constitution was just passed.
Being an outsider, Fallows had no way of knowing what Filipinos outside of the Marcos cronies and the favored Cory elite groups did in order to interpret their world and exercise their agencies to create a better culture. At the UP Psychology Department for example, psychologists were persistently working hard to cobble a Sikolohiyang Pilipino to benefit Filipinos so that we need not use outsider lenses to define who we were and what our future would be like. Dr Virgilio Enriquez said as much.

It was around 1985 when my husband and I, plus a group of like-minded young informal settlers in Old Balara, got together to find expressions for our own Community Revolution. We put up our own school, and established a Christian fellowship that would express our basis for resisting injustices brought about by Marcos, blind obedience to church interpretations of papal dogma, the dictates of market forces as to the language of education or for tracking young people in schools. We believe that culture is what we make it, and local communities should be the ones to define what is best for their own cultures, being aware of- our heritage, our strengths and weaknesses, our hopes as a people.

In our work with the community, we have time and again proven that it pays to listen to the people we write about. They have a voice, they know what works for them in their world. We need to write from a position of equality so that we understand them and be able to unpack what it is about their lived experience that has made it difficult to see why their behaviors are not beneficial to them. They need also to listen to others who can see, for having considered their oppressions as “natural”, they cannot or feel powerless to access knowledge available only to those in positions of dominance. Fallows failed to see that when he pointed out how newspapers were available only to the few millions closest to Manila.
Instead of moralizing or blaming the poor, the goal of writers should be to understand and empower the disadvantaged. Otherwise, writing like Fallows did about people from Smokey Mountain made them double victims of their poverty.


References Cited:

Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing Against Culture. In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present (pp. 466–479). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: a critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257–293.
Hytten, K. (2011). Cultural studies in education. In Handbook of research in the social foundations of education (pp. 206–218). New York: Routledge.
Nader, L. (1997, December). Controlling processes: Tracing the dynamic components of power – ProQuest Central – ProQuest. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/pqcentral/docview/237092130/fulltextPDF/137E080D7095D204928/10?accountid=141440


The role of experience

The relevance and value of using theory-dependent or traditional pedagogies in enterprise education have often been questioned in the light of entrepreneurship being a subject dealing almost exclusively with doing and learning from experience  (Anderson & Jack, 2009).  Good practices in the field favor strategies in the “enterprise mode” of teaching, referring to pedagogies that are more learner-centered.  In this perspective, knowledge (and meanings) are constructed by the learners themselves from what they do (or experience).    Literature in enterprise education is replete with examples where educators provide all sorts of “experiences” to produce entrepreneurship knowledge in their students. Experiential learning techniques feature in enterprise education for levels 2 to 4 (technician, artisanal and artist) in Anderson and Jack’s typology of entrepreneurial roles.

Limitations of experiential learning

            The term experiential learning has been used to designate a whole range of educational strategies from kinesthetic-directed instructional activities in the classroom to special workplace projects interspersed with critical dialogue led by a teacher-facilitator in enterprise education (i.e, the mix of strategies used to develop technician, artisanal and artist roles in the typology described above).  Experiential learning has also been used as a term to distinguish the ongoing meaning making from theoretical knowledge and nondirected informal life experience from formal education ( (Fenwick, 2000).  

            Many of the things we do at the OBCCS can be classified under the genre of experiential learning.  We use images, songs, field trips,  strategy games, structured learning experiences, simulation games and actual business ventures.  One of the games, for example, is EntrePower, which tackles the empowerment of the poor.  At the start of the game,  the class is divided into squatter families and are given the objective to rise from poverty.  Then they get to explore livelihood options: get employed, start a business, or just borrow money from a loan shark.  Based on their choice, they plan their families, budget their finances, and conceptualize their business.  They either exercise or ignore savings habits and are made to deal with dire situations like house demolitions and natural disasters.

             Considerable pains have been undergone to train OBCCS teachers in the pedagogy of experiential learning,  to equip them for engaging students in constructive reflections.  The Experiential Learning Cycle is used to help them students move from their personal experience,  publishing, analysis, generalizing, and application stages (Pfeiffer & Jones, 1973). 

             After examining what literature had to say about the philosophy of experiential learning, particularly as applied to enterprise education,  I am beginning to think deeply about the way we are implementing Experiential Learning at OBCCS .  For all our celebration of experiential learning as student-centered, we might actually have been implementing it in a teacher-oriented way, enacting hierarchies of epistemological authority that might be counterproductive to developing the enterprising spirit in our students.

             In experiential learning, the individual learner is viewed as able to independently reflect on lived experience and then interprets and generalizes this experience to form mental structures.  These mental structures are stored from memory as concepts that can be represented, expressed, and transferred to new situations. 

             Portraying learners as constructors of their own knowledge is from a constructivist perspective.  “Reflection as processing” relies on an old input-output metaphor of learning in which the system becomes input to itself.  It falsely presumes a cut universe in which a person is distinct from the environment and from their own experiences, and reflection is posited as an integrator, bridging such separations.    The constructivist view further considers the individual a primary actor in the process of knowledge construction, and in this dominant humanist view, the learner is assumed to be a stable, unitary self that is regulated by its own intellectual activity.  The constructivist views the learner as fundamentally autonomous from his or her environment.   Access to experience through rational reflection is assumed, as is the learner’s capacity, motivation, and power to mobilize the reflective process.  It is as if knowledge is a third substance that is created in the person’s head as it moves from one context to the next,  and it is supposed to stay constant in his or her head regardless of surroundings.  Social relations of power (such as defined by language and cultural practices) are not factored in as part of knowledge construction.  Viewed in this light, therefore,  experiential learning can actually be promoting ideas that reinforce knowledge as defined by the teacher.  Only the experience is student-centered,  the reflection part in the cycle is extracted, structured, given meaning by a facilitator /teacher who is in a position of power by virtue of language, class, gender, race, or class. 

             Contemporary theories emanating from post-modernist, feminist and anti-racist perspectives (Fenwick, 2000, calls themradical perspectives, Michelson (1996) calls them resistance theories)  have  challenged views of knowledge that promote transcendental rationality and individual cognition in line with dominant power structures.  According to these perspectives :

             Experience  is not transparent.  Far from giving us unmediated access to reality,  it is mediated by a host of social and discursive formulations that tell us what the world is like and who we are within it… Experience enters our consciousness already organized by ideology, language and material history.  This means, in turn, that experience and knowledge are neither chronologigally nor logically distinct…but are mutually determined (Michelson, 1996).  

             As an alternative view to personally constructed knowledge,  asituative perspective views knowledge as socially constructed andsituated.  This line of thinking maintains that learning is rooted in the situation in which a person participates (i.e., situated cognition), not in the head of the person as intellectual concepts produced by reflection.  Knowledge results as part of the very process of participation in the immediate situation.  The role of the educator is to help students participate meaningfully in the practices they choose to enter.  The goal is to improve participation in an activity, and students improve by becoming more attuned to constraints and affordances of different real situations.

             One can argue that the portrayal of a helping educator (in the situative perspective) contradicts certain premises of situated cognition, since the deliberate insertion of an actor with particular intentions changes the purpose and flow of the activity (trainers in the Philippines sometimes call it facipulation).  Educators cannot separate themselves (their own gender, cultures, class) from their answer to the question, “What constitutes meaningful participation in this group of students?”

             The situative perspective offers value to enterprise education in that it allows insights into how the different elements in a learning environment interact to produce particular actions and goals.  The participation metaphor also invokes themes of togetherness, solidarity, and collaboration, which could promote risk taking and inquiry, both important competencies in entrepreneurship.  Our teachers will do well to ask the questions proposed by BG Wilson and Myers (in (Fenwick, 2000, p. 255) ” Is the learning environment successful in accomplishing its learning goals?  How do the various participants, tools and objects interact together?  What meanings are constructed? How do the interactions and meanings help or hinder desired learning?” 

             Critical cultural perspectives, on the other hand, challenge the apolitical position of situated cognition.  Relations and practices related to dimensions of race, class, gender, and other personal complexities determine flows of power, which in turn determine different individuals’ ability to participate meaningfully in particular practices of systems ( (Fenwick, 2000).  The situative perspective needs to address the question of positionality, just as Ellworth (1997) put it:        

            Each time we address someone, we take up a position within knowledge, power, and desire in relation to them, and assign to them a position in relation to ourselves and to a context.” These positions are interconnected,  and in a constant flux, for they change whenever we turn to some new person or situation. 

             Critical cultural perspectives are more helpful than situative perspectives in prescribing teaching strategies in situations where relationships are unfair or dysfunctional, such as in  entrepreneurship among women, cultural minorities, or hacienda workers.

              Critical cultural perspectives  are classified under social reconstructionism  philosophy of education.  The perspective focuses on power as a core issue, and is concerned with the development ofcollective conscientization, praxis and action for social change.  This philosophical tradition addresses issues of social justice and oppression such as literacy, civil rights, labor rights, indigenous rights and gender rights, to name a few.  Built on the work of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed ,  it has been embodied in political and liberation struggles, including education.  As in progressive and humanistic thinking,  learners are seen as active creators of their own lives, histories and futures.   These three philosophies have a critical view of relations and systems of power and dominance.  They see systems of political, economic and social oppression as interlocking and symbiotic, and see the need for educational interventions to address the complex interconnections of social constructs such as race, class and gender. 

Illustration: Paying attention to gender issues as an instrument for social justice

             The social reconstructionist perspective offers tools for tracing complex power relations and their consequences.  The field has been peppered with theorizing on a variety of cross-cutting issues that affect learning in any field, including gender, ideology, race, identity, and many more.  In enterprise education,  gender and race have earned much attention.   

             A summary article entitled “Women Entrepreneurship Across Racial Lines:  Current Status, Critical Issues and Implications” (Smith-Hunter, 2004)  gives a good glimpse on the differential consequence of gender in entrepreneurship.  For example, Smith-Hunter found that among white men, the primary reason for entry into an entrepreneurial career had been the opportunity presenting itself and having the resources to undertake such an endeavor.  However, for women and minority groups (i.e., those with less power and dominance in US society), the primary reason was the systematic exclusion from lucrative, mainstream labor-market opportunities and the less than-proportionate compensation they receive for the same mainstream labor-market functions when compared to their White male counterparts.   The literature indicated that men, and in particular White men (in the case of the culture studied by Smith-Hunter), always enjoyed and continued to enjoy a favorable position not only in the labor market but also to entrepreneurial endeavors as well. 

             The situation might be different in the context of the Philippines, where it is generally believed and observed that women entrepreneurship is omnipresent (Madarang & Habito, 2007).  Compared to other Asian countries,  it appears that opportunities were equal for men and women in our country and that women entrepreneurship is socially acceptable here.  Madarang and Habito have also said that gender equality and the tradition that women supplement the family income were one of the contributing factors to entrepreneurship.  However, despite claims ofabsence of barriers to women engaging in businesses,  they said that social services available to them to continue work on their venture after starting a family were insufficient.  Apparently, when women do succeed in business, they go through new challenges that have to do with society’s expectations regarding masculine-feminine roles.  Consider this situation described by Madarang and Habito (2007):  among nascent (up to three months old) businesses, 69% were predominantly women, but the profile reverses (66% men) for established (3.5 years old) businesses.  Where did the women go?  The authors suggested that women tended to be relied upon to start a business while the husband may still be tied up in a regular job, until the business has established for the husband to take on full-time involvement.  The women in the study cited family time management as their single biggest obstacle.  Interestingly, Mindanao women appeared least impeded by any factor on their business activities,  suggesting a higher degree of independence among women in Mindanao compared to those elsewhere in the country.   Women in the lowest socio-economic segments found greatest difficulty in balancing family time management with setting up a business, with 35% citing it as a problem (against the 20% national average). 

               I n teaching entrepreneurship (or any subject for that matter) with a social reconstructionist perspective,  teachers can play a role in bringing to consciousness the unequal power relations between the sexes and the ways in which women and girls continue to be oppressed in society.  This requires more than just the challenging of sexism or sexist practices in schools.  Teachers also need to consider the dominant meanings and images of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’, and how these gendered images and stereotypes relate to, and interact with, other masculinities and femininities which are unfair and unjust.  For example,  teachers need to be conscious of how they talk about sports – do they perpetuate gendered hierarchies of power and privilege (Richardson, 2010)?  Whenever they talk about certain businesses as suitable to women and others are suitable men,  who stands to benefit from such divisions of labor?

            I believe that critical social science offers a powerful frame on which to build our schools’ philosophy.  We share its assumption that contemporary society is oppressive in that it systematically encourages the development of certain societal groups at the expense of others.  We know that without reforms, teaching our young people the contents of the traditional curriculum will not, despite their best efforts, make them competitive with graduates from middle class or upper class neighborhoods.  Our departures from the usual DepEd curriculum with a slant for enterprise education have only meant more work for all of us at the OBCCS, work which have gone unpaid and unrecognized, but which we undertake anyway for the joy of liberating a few children to appropriate the fruits of education for themselves.   There is a twinge of discomfort in knowing that this perspective comes with feminist philosophical assumptions (Fay, 1977; Lather, 1991),  but nonetheless,  we recognize that even such a discomfort is part of the process of liberation. The end of critical social science is to expose the ways in which social and cultural realities may be hindering the human potential of all people.

                  Social reconstructionism is a philosophy that underscores the role of teachers in leading the young in programs of social engineering and reform.  Many social reconstructionists may difer on particulars (such as those described between situative and critical cultural theorists above) but they do agree on certain premises, namely :  (1) All philosophies, ideologies, and theories are culturally based and are conditioned by our living at a given time and in a particular place (thus, the concept of positional and situated identities in Martin and Gunten’s 2002 article).  (2) Culture is dynamic and therefore in a constant process of growth and change, (thus, Morgaine (1994) refers to fluidity of identities and meaningsand (3) people can refashion or reshape culture so that it promotes human growth and development (thus, the potential role of education for social change and activism as exemplified by Deuchar’s enterprise for life model (2008).

               Critical educators say that teachers’ and students’ identities are negotiated, contested and mediated in and through the process of schooling.  Because teachers are positioned by their gender, identity and social class, their biographical references are often reflected in their practice.  It is realistic to assume that teachers construct their voice as a function of position.  Van Gunten and Martin quote Maher and Tetrault (1994) as saying ” the concept of positionality points to the contextual and relational factors as crucial for defining not only our identities but also our knowledge as teachers and teacher educators and students in any given situation.”



Academic.cengage.com/resource_uploads. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2010, from academic.cengage.com: academic.cengage.com/resource_uploads/…/0534644678_46440.doc

Anderson, A. R., & Jack, S. L. (2009). Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional artisan? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , 15 (2): 259-273.

Deuchar, R. (2008:11(1)). ‘All you need is an idea!’: the impact of values-based participation on pupils’ attitudes towards social activism and enterprise. Improving Schools , 19-32.

Fenwick, T. J. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: a review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly , 243-272.

Madarang, I. J., & Habito, C. F. (2007). Global Entreprepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Philippine Report 2006-2007. Makati City: Philippine Center for Entrepreneurship.

Richardson, E. M. (2010). Soccer World Cup 2010: the trouble with sportocracy and education. Retrieved March 10, 20101, from FOTIM – Foundation of Tertiary Institutions of the Northern Metropolis:http://www.fotim.ac.za/fotim_conferences/genderconf/papers/richardson_paper.pdf

OECD/CERI. (1989). Towards an enterprising culture – a challenge for education and training. Paris: OECD.

Powell, D. H. (2009, March 18). Educate a woman, create a nation.Retrieved March 29, 2010, from cnn.com/world: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/13/powell.women/index.html

Richardson, E. M. (2010). Soccer World Cup 2010: the trouble with sportocracy and education. Retrieved March 10, 20101, from FOTIM – Foundation of Tertiary Institutions of the Northern Metropolis: http://www.fotim.ac.za/fotim_conferences/genderconf/papers/richardson_paper.pdf

Smith-Hunter, A. (2004). Women Entrepreneurship Across Racial Lines: Current Status, Critical Issues, and Future Implications.Journal of Hispanic Higher Education , 3: 363-381.

Van Gunten, D. M., & Martin, R. J. (2002). Reflected identities: applying positionality and multicultural social reconstrtuction in teacher education. Journeal of Teacher Education , Vol 53 (1).

Walter, P. (2009). Philosophies of adult environmental education.Adult Education Quarterly , 3-24