Abstract
Research can be characterized as an ongoing battle to understand the intrinsic complexity of the universe. For the past several hundred years, we have relied on two things to aid us in our skirmishes. The first is luck; sometimes it turns out that simple laws govern previously-mysterious behaviors, such as the motion of the planets or the relationship between electricity and magnetism. The second is increasing specialization; choosing problems and contexts sufficiently narrow so that they may prove solvable.
 
Although many academic researchers continue to hold out the possibility that the string of luck that has blessed our understanding of the physical sciences will continue with sufficient study, it is becoming increasingly evident that there are whole classes of problems whose intrinsic complexity will forever defy simple solutions. These problems are often important problems, problems involving social and technological systems that truly matter to people. The challenge presented by many of these systems is this: by decomposing them into component parts, we lose sight of the overall properties that are important to us.
 
A particularly common situation where complexity appears to evade the researcher’s ability to specialize occurs when multiple disciplines come into play. For example, a technology product (engineering) is introduced into the workforce (business) but is rejected by workers (psychology), a drug (chemistry) is employed to treat a condition (medicine) but elicits very different responses among patients (genetics?), an economic model (economics) is used as a basis for a policy (government) but leads to unexpected behaviors from certain groups (sociology), and so forth. For problems such as these, the challenge seems to be one of identifying better or best combinations, rather focusing on individual elements in isolation.
 
The case study provides an approach that can be applied to such problems. Cases are highly versatile, being equally well suited for research, for use in the classroom and for engaging research with practice. In addition, the types of situations where case studies are most appropriate tend to be precisely those complex situations where disciplines overlap. Thus, there are few research methodologies and teaching strategies that are more supportive of an interdisciplinary approach than the case method.
 
The workshop on interdisciplinary research, education and communication through case studies and methodologies will cover the following topics:
 
·         The nature of complexity and the obstacles it presents
·         Different types of case study: a taxonomy
·         Cases in the classroom
·         Interdisciplinary case research
·         Case studies and practice
·         Case writing
·         The integrative view
 
The “integrative view” of case studies considers their use as a tool for linking together students, research and practice. Beyond that, they can be used to achieve understanding within diverse groups of: students (e.g., with different backgrounds), practitioners (e.g., businesses, labor, government) and researchers (e.g., from different disciplines). Following the presentation, participants will join in a discussion of case studies and alternative means of bringing disciplines together to better serve the needs of a complex world.

Abstract
A repeated theme of past keynotes here has been an emphasis on the interaction of the problem and the analyzer. While there are clear benefits of this systemic view of second-order science, problem-solving and critical thinking, there is a tacit assumption that the analyzer and the poser of the problem are identical, or at least share a context and a conceptual framework.
 
But this may not be the case. Increasingly, it does not pertain in business and engineering ventures, software development, pedagogy, and even research projects. We briefly (and somewhat whimsically) look at the role of knowledge transfer and requirements analysis in the more general case where the poser (client) and the analyzer (researcher/developer) differ, and the further situation in which the user of the solution may differ from either.

Abstract
Cybernetics has, from its very beginnings been concerned with circularity - the circularity of feedback in biological, social, scientific and mathematical systems, the fundamental circularities behind our forms of explanation and the ever-present circularity of thought and understanding acting on itself. At a certain key point, Margaret Mead spoke of the cybernetics of cybernetics and this was taken up as a call for a second-order cybernetics by Heinz von Foerster and eventually many others. The understanding behind so-called second-order cybernetics is inherent in cybernetics itself. Along with considering a self-conscious cybernetics that includes the observer, we make the shift to a fully embodied scientific view. In this view one cannot avoid seeing the participation of the scientist as part of the science itself. This is nowhere more clear than in the biology of cognition, where a theory of cognition must wrap around and explain itself, or in economic practice where the theories of action are embodied in the participants in the economy and these participants form that economy. But this is also the case in all scientific endeavor once one is quite precise about the role of thought and concept in the practice of that science. There are no objects of study that are not combinations of percept and concept. Each place where we contact experience meaningfully is an amalagam of appropriate concept and the accuracy of perception.
 
All objects come along with a perception, a conception and an awareness. We make generalizations and theories but each act of understanding is founded in the circularity of percept and concept and thought acting upon itself. Second-order science includes its practitioners and must be fully accurate in that accounting.
 
The consequences of this point of view go across the board, taking the axis of second-order cybernetics fully to a coordination of all forms of knowledge. This talk will discuss these issues of second order science in the context of topological models. Such models are an invaluable aid in sharpening the understanding of these issues of circularity and knowledge.

Abstract
In the years after World War II the field of cybernetics and several variations of systems science were created.  These fields added several dimensions to scientific investigations:  from linear to circular causality, from direction to self-organization, from reductionism to holism, from environment free to environment full investigations, and from not including the observer to including the observer.  Hence the systems sciences expanded the subjects of scientific investigations on several dimensions.  These dimensions, identified by Eric Dent, define the systems sciences relative to earlier disciplines.  They also explain why systems science has had difficulty coming together as a unified field, since different groups within systems science have emphasized different combinations of the dimensions.
 
We now seem to be witnessing a second expansion of science.  Whereas physics provides a theory of matter and energy relationships, the goal of cybernetics was to create a common language of control and communication, or of information and regulation, to aid research among social scientists, those working on information machines, and those working in the fields of design.  The current interest in reflexivity is helping to create this second expansion of science which emphasizes that theories in the social sciences have an effect on the phenomena being studied.  Apparently we now need to describe a “second order science” which describes the effects of first order theories (and second order theories as well) on the phenomena of interest.

Abstract
As institutions of higher learning make growing numbers of interdisciplinary faculty hires, establish ever more interdisciplinary units, develop interdisciplinary curricula, and pursue growth sectors such as global and online education, the ability to write effectively across disciplinary boundaries is becoming ever more vital, and ever more complex. The rapidly changing and expanding academic climate lends urgency for students, faculty, staff, and administrators not only to learn how to communicate across disciplines, but also to reflect meaningfully on why they might want to do so. Drawing on David Russell’s activity theory and other scholarship on writing transfer, this keynote address will focus on strategies for and benefits of interdisciplinary communication through writing. During the keynote, Comer will sponsor and facilitate audience participation, thereby enacting interdisciplinary conversation among participants so we can together raise questions and think more deeply about shared and distinct values, expectations, and conventions of writing across disciplines.

Abstract
Cybernetics has, from its very beginnings been concerned with circularity - the circularity of feedback in biological, social, scientific and mathematical systems, the fundamental circularities behind our forms of explanation and the ever-present circularity of thought and understanding acting on itself. At a certain key point, Margaret Mead spoke of the cybernetics of cybernetics and this was taken up as a call for a second-order cybernetics by Heinz von Foerster and eventually many others. The understanding behind so-called second-order cybernetics is inherent in cybernetics itself. Along with considering a self-conscious cybernetics that includes the observer, we make the shift to a fully embodied scientific view. In this view one cannot avoid seeing the participation of the scientist as part of the science itself. This is nowhere more clear than in the biology of cognition, where a theory of cognition must wrap around and explain itself, or in economic practice where the theories of action are embodied in the participants in the economy and these participants form that economy. But this is also the case in all scientific endeavor once one is quite precise about the role of thought and concept in the practice of that science. There are no objects of study that are not combinations of percept and concept. Each place where we contact experience meaningfully is an amalagam of appropriate concept and the accuracy of perception.
 
All objects come along with a perception, a conception and an awareness. We make generalizations and theories but each act of understanding is founded in the circularity of percept and concept and thought acting upon itself. Second-order science includes its practitioners and must be fully accurate in that accounting. The consequences of this point of view go across the board, taking the axis of second-order cybernetics fully to a coordination of all forms of knowledge. This talk will discuss these issues of second order science in the context of topological models. Such models are an invaluable aid in sharpening the understanding of these issues of circularity and knowledge.
 
This workshop will discuss these issues of second order science in the context of topological models. Such models are an invaluable aid in sharpening the understanding of these issues of circularity and knowledge. In the workshop we will work directly with topological models such as planar curves, knots, surfaces, fractals and recursive forms. This direct geometric work allows us to examine just how objects arise, now concept and perception are related and how the individual participates in the unfolding of these relationships.

Abstract
Misunderstanding often occurs in multidisciplinary field of study, because each field has its own background of thinking.  Communication training is important for students, who have a potential to develop multidisciplinary field of study.  Because each nation has its own cultural background, communication in an international seminar is not easy, either.  A cross-cultural student seminar has been designed for communication training in multidisciplinary field of study.  Students from variety of back ground have joined in the seminar.  Equations and figures are effective tools for communication in the field of science. 
The seminar works well for communication training in the multidisciplinary field of study of biomedical engineering.  The presentation refers to author’s several experiences: the student internship abroad, the cross cultural student camp, various PhD theses, various affiliations, and creating the interdisciplinary department.

Abstract
Why music has such a power over us, why has it evolved in evolution? Does music have a fundamental cognitive function? 2400 years ago Aristotle asked: “Why music being just sounds reminds states of soul?” He asked this question alongside with “is the world finite?” and “does God exist?” Kant could not answer this question. Darwin thought that “music… is a greatest mystery.” And today evolutionary psychologists cannot agree on answers to these questions.
 
Based on mathematical-psychological ideas about cognition, I discuss a hypothesis that music has a fundamental cognitive function. This function is to unify mental mechanisms of the mind. Whereas animals have a unified mechanism of concept-emotion-behavior-vocalization, humans have differentiated function for each of these. We can independently think, talk, feel, about different things. This gives us freedom of deliberate thinking. But we have to pay for this freedom: our thoughts and actions are not automatically connected to our instinctual needs. Our mental life is not necessarily whole. It is not easy for us to maintain a clear view of the meaning and purpose of our life.
 
This is manifest in a well established psychological theory of Cognitive Dissonance, CD. CD is a psychological conflict when holding contradictory cognitions. Whereas scientists and engineers thrive on solving contradictions, most of people cannot stand them, and usually discard contradictory knowledge, even if irrationally. Ancient Greeks knew this: in Aesop fable the Fox sees high-hanging Grape, which he cannot get. This creates CD: he wants grape, but cannot get it. The Fox resolves the dissonance: The “Grape is sour.”
 
During the last 50 years thousands of experiments with children and adults repeated similar experiments. It is well known, people discard contradictory knowledge. But then, how could knowledge accumulate? How could human culture evolve?
 
I will tell about several experiments performed by my colleagues: if music plays in the background, people do not have to discard knowledge. Music helps to unify contradictory cognitions. Bach music helps unifying most difficult contradictions: between life and death, between striving for happiness and life despairs. Rap and Lady Gaga help to unify simple everyday ideas (about girls, boys, police…). Our mental life is split into pieces by our ability for language and thinking. Music unifies our soul. This is the reason it emerged in evolution, this is the reason it has such a power over us.

Abstract
This plenary keynote address is constructed on the premise that human belief dependent emotions can be triggered by story-telling or narratives. With recent technological advancements to measure neurobiological measurements of the brain, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and non-invasive brain computing interface (BCI) equipment, these technologies can allow for visualization and data collection of brain activation patterns showing unconsciously controlled responses to narratives or stories. Current game theory application to belief networks has been modeled to help explain observed behavior when material payoffs of others matters to the individual. We discuss a method of how game theory, utilizing communication packet theory, can now be modeled to belief dependent emotions and intentions measured through a new biometric tool correlating neurobiological emotional states and responses.

Abstract
Briefly described, action learning is a remarkably simple approach that involves a group of people working on real problems and learning while they do so. But action learning is more than simply "learning by doing". In a world of increasing complexity, taking action alone will not result in a learning effect per se. Based on our experience with MscBA students working on real challenges with companies like UBS, Swisscom, Swiss Post, or Swiss Federal Railways we are giving an overview of some key principles and practices. And we are presenting the results of an evaluation which gives evidence that action learning is especially helpful when it comes to dealing with complexity. Problem-solvers and innovators will need increasingly the ability to break through existing mindsets and to collectively generate new knowledge. Systems thinking, self-organized actions, constructive learning, and the perpetual formation of new knowledge are vital competencies for innovation as well as for the success of individuals and organizations. As a matter of fact the ability to learn more quickly than competitors provides a decisive and lasting competitive advantage in any given situation.

Abstract
“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe.” This Einsteinian statement remains outside of science. Still, understanding of the mind mechanisms today came close to explaining spirituality from scientific point of view.

In this workshop we discuss a theory which is a mathematical breakthrough, overcoming decades of limitations in AI, pattern recognition, neural networks, and other attempts to model the brain-mind. Solutions to engineering problems are presented that have overcome previous difficulties in terms of computational complexity. These solutions result in orders of magnitude improvement in recognition, detection, prediction, tracking, fusion, and learning situations. The mathematical foundation of the theory resulting in this breakthrough is dynamic logic, a process-logic that evolves vague-fuzzy models (statements, plans…) into crisp ones. The dynamic logic overcomes the Gödelian limitations of classical logic. When Gödel’s arguments are applied to finite systems such as computers, they prove that logical algorithms lead to practically unsolvable computational complexity. This difficulty is overcome by dynamic logic.
 
Brain imaging experiments demonstrated that human perception and cognition proceed according to dynamic logic, from vague-fuzzy to crisp. Imaginations with closed eyes are vague. Perceptions and cognitions occur when imaginations match retinal images of objects and situations. To see and understand the world our mind has to match mental representations to sensory percepts, and to drive these processes we have an inborn mechanism, the knowledge instinct (KI). KI drives dynamic logic of the mind; these processes are mathematically equivalent.
 
The mind contains a hierarchy of representations. At the “bottom” there are simple objects, higher up are situations, general and abstract concepts; every “higher” concept-representation unifies contents of lower levels. At the top are concepts unifying our entire knowledge; we perceive them as the meaning and purpose of our existence. KI drives our mental abilities, perception of simple objects as well as higher mental abilities of abstract symbolic thinking; it causes emotions of the beautiful and sublime; it drives evolution of cultures. Whereas dynamic logic describes these processes as causal evolution, where each step causally follows from the previous one, KI describes these processes as purposeful evolution, as evolution toward a goal, more knowledge.
 
“Everyday,” casual perception of this teleological process toward a goal is often perceived psychologically as existence of a Designer. Science explains that this process near the top of the mental hierarchy is mostly outside of subjective consciousness. This process does not belong to subjective consciousness; subjective “I” does not own this process. Just the opposite, scientifically it is more accurate to say that a subjective “I” is partly controlled by the teleological process unifying conscious and unconscious parts of our mental life. Therefore denying this process is scientifically wrong.
 
At the workshop we discuss experimental brain imaging data demonstrating that mental representations are inherently vague and often unconscious; the higher in the hierarchy the more vague and unconscious is knowledge. This is why the very existence of the meaning of life is in great doubt. At highest levels of the mental hierarchy, satisfaction of KI is perceived emotionally. We discuss similarities and differences between the highest emotions of the beautiful and sublime. Dynamic logic and the knowledge instinct unify scientific and spiritual understanding of mental life.

Abstract
This presentation presents a study of approaches to foster open innovation, including the use of crowds and social media to leverage and utilize interdisciplinary sources. Crowds are inherently interdisciplinary, and they contain experts. Wisdom can be extracted from these sources. However, the peril of bias and “group think” could be detrimental if not carefully exposed. The process of innovation benefits from a diversity of skills and perspectives. There are technology and communication trends that enable unprecedented access to information, people and even group sentiment, offering new ways to collaborate, connect producers to consumers to investors, and ultimately to innovate.  As an example, we will highlight the potential value of applying crowd-sourcing models to commercial and government environments.

Abstract
Encouraging students to reach beyond the typical constraints of a single content area and engage in interdisciplinary learning fosters critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication skills.  In The Logic of Interdisciplinary Studies, Mathison and Freeman wrote interdisciplinary studies represent an opportunity for instructors to have more authentic relations with their students and teach cognitive skills (e.g., cooperation and problem solving) that are connected to relevant 'real life' learning scenarios.  Moreover, interdisciplinary education helps to increase student achievement by promoting positive attitudes toward the subject matter, create curricular flexibility and integrate rapidly changing information with increased efficiency.
 
Through the use of interdisciplinary education, critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication skills are disbursed within and across the curriculum.  This increases the ability of students to make decisions and synthesize knowledge beyond single disciplines, increase the ability to identify, assess, and transfer significant information needed for problem solving, gain a better overall comprehension of global interdependencies, and develop multiple perspectives, points of view, and values.  From an instructor point of view, interdisciplinary education is a way to share pedagogical ideas with colleagues and to be energized by seeing one’s own discipline from a fresh new perspective.  Instructors also have a chance to model collaboration, problem solving, creativity and flexibility. Advantages and disadvantages of interdisciplinary education, examples, pedagogies that support interdisciplinary education and lessons learned will be discussed during this presentation.

Abstract
This talk will summarize research of Dr. Segall that pertains to the informatics study of the spectrum of dimensionalities for computation in both speed and magnitude of data as obtained upon the applications of supercomputing, data, text and web mining.
 
A supercomputer is a computer at the frontlines of current processing capacity and speed of calculations. First introduced in the 1960s, the supercomputers of the 1970s used only few processors, and in the 1990s machines with thousands of processors began to appear. By the end of the 20th century supercomputers were massively parallel computing systems composed of tens of thousands of processors. In contrast, supercomputers of the 21st century can use over 100,000 processors including those with graphic capabilities.
 
Supercomputers are used today for highly-intensive calculation tasks for projects ranging from quantum physics, weather forecasting, molecular modeling, and physical simulations. Supercomputers can be used for simulations of airplanes in wind tunnels, detonations of nuclear weapons, splitting electrons, and helping researchers study how drugs combat the swine flu virus. Supercomputing can be in the form of grid computing, in which the processing power of a large number of computers is distributed, or in the form of computer clusters, in which a large number of processors are used in close proximity to each other.
 
The IBM Sequoia, completed in 2012, is currently the fastest supercomputer at 16.32 petaflops consuming 7890 kilowatts of power. The Indian government has stated that it has committed about $940 million to develop what could become the world’s fastest supercomputer by 2017, one that would have a performance of 1 exaflop which is about 61 times faster than today’s fastest computers. [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-17/hardware/33901529_1_first-supercomputers-petaflop-fastest-supercomputer].
 
Data/Text/Web mining is the informatics methodology and systemics study of finding hidden patterns in large-scale sets of alphanumeric data/text/web respectively.
 
This presentation will also discuss the applications of data mining to the dimensionality of micro-array databases. Micro-arrays are huge collections of spots that contain massive amounts of compressed data. Micro-arrays are used by researchers in life sciences for genetics because DNA contains so much information on a micro-scale. For example, each spot of a micro-array thus could contain a unique DNA sequence. This research has also been extended to include statistical quality control of microarray gene expression data.
 
This presentation will also discuss the applications of text and web mining to linkage discovery of related documents in a repository and the use of semantic rules for identification of similar records. The results of using web mining technologies for customer and marketing surveys are also discussed.

Abstract
In recent years a series of three volumes was published (Müller 2009 – 2012) on the cognitive organization and on the structures of the New Science of Cybernetics (NSC) which can be viewed also as an unpacking or re-loading of Heinz von Foerster’s vision of Second-Order Cybernetics.
 
The lecture will be focused on the one hand on the inter-, trans- or even better: on the post-disciplinary heuristics of the new science of cybernetics. On the other hand, the lecture will demonstrate with the help of concrete examples that these inter-, trans- or post-disciplinary research strategies of the New Science of Cybernetics can and must lead to more innovative and to more robust research results simultaneously.
Literature:
 
Müller, K.H. (2009), The New Science of Cybernetics. The Evolution of Living Research Designs, vol. I: Methodology. Wien:edition echoraum
Müller, K.H. (2011), The New Science of Cybernetics. The Evolution of Living Research Designs, vol. II: Theory. Wien:edition echoraum
Müller, K.H. (2012), The New Science of Cybernetics. The Evolution of Living Research Designs, vol. III: Research and Design Rules. Wien:edition echoraum

Abstract
Our decision-making and task environments are driven by three forms of complexity: complexity as we experience it internally (e.g., difficulty, uncertainty, ambiguity), complexity as it relates to our symbolic representation of tasks and plans (e.g., number of paths, program size), and complexity as a description of the decision environment and its behavior (e.g., ruggedness, turbulence). When experiencing high levels of complexity, we respond by constructing informing systems that better connect us together and offer increasingly rapid access to more information sources. In doing so, however, we inadvertently feed a cybernetic loop that leads to ever-expanding complexity (in all three forms). Left unchecked, this loop has the potential to alter both the way we think and the environments we face in ways that we may not desire.
 
Building a better mousetrap requires us to rethink both our approach to education and to designing systems. On the education side, we need to spend less time emphasizing specific content and more on building the student’s the ability to react to complexity in ways that do not rely on making the world more complicated. On the design side, systems must increasingly emphasize adaptability as opposed to efficiency.

Abstract
Communication is fundamental in scientific practice and an integral part of academic work. The practice of communication cannot be neglected by those who are trying to advance scientific research. Effective means should continuously be identified in order to open channels of communication within and among disciplines, among scientists and between scientists and the general public.¹ The increasing importance of interdisciplinary communication has been pointed out by an increasing number of researchers and scholars, as well as in conferences and roundtables on the subject. Some authors even estimate that “interdisciplinary study represents the future of the university.”² Since interdisciplinary study is “the most underthought critical, pedagogical and institutional concept in modern academy”³ it is important to think and reflect, and even do some research, on this concept or notion. Research and practice based reflections with regards to this issue are important especially because the increasing complexity and proliferation of scientific research is generating countless specialties, sub-specialties and sub-sub-specialties, with their respective special languages; which were “created for discrete local areas of research based upon the disconnected branches of science.”⁴ On the other hand, scientific, technical and societal problems are requiring multi- or inter-disciplinary consideration. Consequently, interdisciplinary communication channels are being needed with urgency, and scientific research should be integrated, not just in the context of its discipline, but also in the context of related disciplines. Much more reflection and research should be done on this issue. Research on adequate research integration and communication is urgently required, i.e. meta-research efforts should be done in order to relate research results in an adequate and more useful way. This meta-research effort might be done in the context of each particular research, and/or in the more general context of research methodology or philosophy. The purpose of this initial draft is 1) to foster informal conversations and possibly formal research, and 2) to give a very modest first step in this general context, making some reflections on the subject, reviewing some related literature and providing a very initial framework for the generation of more reflections and research on this important subject. We will try to achieve this purpose by means of presenting the most important characteristics of inter-disciplinary communication and contrasting them with intra-disciplinary communication. This essay is a short version of a larger one which will be completed in the future. Consequently, we will present a scheme summarizing the characteristics and the contrasts identified in this version of the essay and those which details are being worked out for an expanded version of this essay to be released in the near future. Our purpose in this first short version is to give a modest step in the direction of exploring the importance and the ways of inter-disciplinary communication, in order to foster more similar steps by other researchers, scholars or practitioners. This is an evolving working essay, where the process of writing it is as much a part of the object as the object, itself.

---

[1] Kolenda, N., 1997, “Introduction” in Flower, R.G., Gordon T.F., Kolenda, N. and Souder, L. (Eds.), Overcoming the Language Barrier: Problems of Interdisciplinary Dialogue; Proceedings of an International Roundtable Meeting; May 14-17, 1997; Philadelphia: The Center for Frontier Sciences, Temple University; pp.1-4.
[2] Moran, J, 2002, Interdisciplinarity; London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, p.184. (Emphasis added)
[3] Liu, A., 1989, “The Power of Formalism: The New Historicism”, English Library History 56, 4 (Winter): pp. 721-71. (Quoted by Moran, 2002)
[4] Dardick, I., 1997, “Monologues” in Flower, R.G., Gordon T.F., Kolenda, N. and Souder, L. (Eds.), Overcoming the Language Barrier: Problems of Interdisciplinary Dialogue; Proceedings of an International Roundtable Meeting; May 14-17, 1997; Philadelphia: The Center for Frontier Sciences, Temple University; p. 5.

Abstract
Inspired by the intersection of teaching for passion, learning as the goal, and culture as the final barrier, this paper explores the scholarship of teaching in the milieu of disciplinary and cultural diversity, i.e. the globe. We are students of the world, yet scholars in our own area of expertise, underscoring the difference between good teaching and scholarly teaching.
 
Good teaching promotes student learning as reflected in student satisfaction surveys and learning outcomes, while scholarship of teaching integrates the teaching and learning literature reflecting on the theory and practice of teaching, resulting in new paradigms shared through publications. Just as teaching and research complement one another so do good teaching and scholarly teaching.
 
Considering the Inter-Cultural and Inter-Disciplinary Communication for Academic Globalization, it is the communication that becomes both an enabler and disabler between individuals and across nations. Cross-cultural barriers remain the final frontier for global communication. This paper proposes that CultureActive or InterCultural Edge [ICE], cross-cultural instruments, serve as vehicles for exploring the Inter-Cultural and Inter-Disciplinary Communication commonalities and challenges in pursuit of academic globalization.

Abstract
The increasing bandwidth demand of the end-users makes the need for efficient resource management more compelling in next generation communication networks.
 
Nowadays, the mobile communications scenery is characterized by the continuous growth of new services, the provision of which poses the need for higher data rates to guarantee the quality of experience for the end-users. The advent of 4G networks promises to encounter this demand by offering increased capacity, high data rates, seamless mobility and robust reconfiguration abilities. Furthermore, the trend towards self organization and cognition in communication networks introduces the need of access points with enhanced processing capabilities in contrast to the traditional scheme of a central authority responsible for the functionality of the entire network. The forthcoming intelligent access points will continuously monitor their environment and adapt their behavior when needed, providing robustness against failure.