129
8.4.4 Thoughts on the APIEL
8.4.4.1 Strengths
“Concerning the management of APIEL, what has impressed me the most is that
you have a full-time professor and administrator for this program. I think they are
professionally and academically excellent. Whatever we are doing at universities,
the most important thing seems to be the people who are operating the program. In
the case of APIEL, the leader is Professor Keisuke Hanaki, who has a global perspective and great vision for the program. Also, the performance of supporting staff
including faculty members and administrators has been excellent. If this program
did not have those people, I think it would not have been managed in such a thorough professional manner.”
“For the content, as a participating professor who looked at and examined the
participating students in the Cambodia and GPRD Unit, APIEL provided the students with good opportunities to promote ‘hands-on knowledge’ related to sustainability issues through the experience of participating in the unit. Through the
experiences, they are expected to grow into more mature leaders.”
“In particular, the students worked in groups , enhanced communication, and
engaged in vigorous discussion until late in the night with other students from different backgrounds and cultures to produce defi nite outcomes. This allowed the
students to understand others who have different opinions and learn the attitude
required of a leader to produce an outcome. Thus, the Cambodia Unit offered a very
good platform for students to foster leadership. Another strength is that the unit was
a melting pot for students of diverse nationalities, majors, and races, not only from
SNU but also UT and RUPP.”
“It is doubtful whether it is possible to fi nd facts and suggest solutions in a
period of only 2 weeks or how much meaning there could be in such a solution.
However, this program is very signifi cant in that it allows the students to genuinely
ponder the problems and become equipped with the technical capacity and passion
to solve them.”
8.4.4.2 Weaknesses
“Regarding the education program provided, there was a lack of information
concerning the site and there was realistically not enough time and process to suffi -
ciently understand what was available. As a result, we had insuffi cient responsiveness to the fi eld activities. Moreover, although the scope of the program for such a
comprehensive subject as sustainable development seemed to be adequate on the
surface, it turned out that there was limited time to engage in in-depth discussions.”
“Also, there was a disharmony between the lecture provided and the resolution
of problems in the subject. The fi eldwork had limitations, and lectures are composed and arranged according to the major subjects of the participating professors
rather than the actual subjects.”
8 Resonance in the Asian Program for Incubation of Environmental Leaders
8.4.4 Thoughts on the APIEL
8.4.4.1 Strengths
“Concerning the management of APIEL, what has impressed me the most is that
you have a full-time professor and administrator for this program. I think they are
professionally and academically excellent. Whatever we are doing at universities,
the most important thing seems to be the people who are operating the program. In
the case of APIEL, the leader is Professor Keisuke Hanaki, who has a global perspective and great vision for the program. Also, the performance of supporting staff
including faculty members and administrators has been excellent. If this program
did not have those people, I think it would not have been managed in such a thorough professional manner.”
“For the content, as a participating professor who looked at and examined the
participating students in the Cambodia and GPRD Unit, APIEL provided the students with good opportunities to promote ‘hands-on knowledge’ related to sustainability issues through the experience of participating in the unit. Through the
experiences, they are expected to grow into more mature leaders.”
“In particular, the students worked in groups , enhanced communication, and
engaged in vigorous discussion until late in the night with other students from different backgrounds and cultures to produce defi nite outcomes. This allowed the
students to understand others who have different opinions and learn the attitude
required of a leader to produce an outcome. Thus, the Cambodia Unit offered a very
good platform for students to foster leadership. Another strength is that the unit was
a melting pot for students of diverse nationalities, majors, and races, not only from
SNU but also UT and RUPP.”
“It is doubtful whether it is possible to fi nd facts and suggest solutions in a
period of only 2 weeks or how much meaning there could be in such a solution.
However, this program is very signifi cant in that it allows the students to genuinely
ponder the problems and become equipped with the technical capacity and passion
to solve them.”
8.4.4.2 Weaknesses
“Regarding the education program provided, there was a lack of information
concerning the site and there was realistically not enough time and process to suffi -
ciently understand what was available. As a result, we had insuffi cient responsiveness to the fi eld activities. Moreover, although the scope of the program for such a
comprehensive subject as sustainable development seemed to be adequate on the
surface, it turned out that there was limited time to engage in in-depth discussions.”
“Also, there was a disharmony between the lecture provided and the resolution
of problems in the subject. The fi eldwork had limitations, and lectures are composed and arranged according to the major subjects of the participating professors
rather than the actual subjects.”
8 Resonance in the Asian Program for Incubation of Environmental Leaders