Kretchmar-2008.pdf0as

7/27/2019 Kretchmar-2008.pdf0as

1/11

Quest, 2008, 60, -12

2008 American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education

The Utility of Silos and Bunkersin the Evolution of Kinesiology

R. Scott Kretchmar

Silos and bunkers have been allies in the development o kinesiology or nearly 50

years. Silos o specialization allow us to go toe-to-toe with researchers in parentdisciplines, compete or grants, and otherwise spread our academic wings. The

bunkers o utility and generic movement provide an important degree o legitimacy

or a subject matter that is oten denigrated as mere play and games. Neverthe-

less, both silos and bunkers introduce problems that might well stand in the way

o uture development. Silos present practical problems related to ractionation,

poor communication, and a lack o mutual respect. They also are grounded in a

research paradigm that eatures subdisciplinary independence, a paradigm that is

increasingly coming under attack. The bunker o utility might cause us to mistake

one part o the value o movement or the whole and thereby produce a prole

that is unduly health xated, sober, and serious. Our tendency to abstract move-ment rom the cultural orms o activity in which we nd it drains lie and vitality

rom skillul perormances. I conclude by recommending that silos and bunkers

will continue to be useul in the years ahead, albeit less so. I recommend a brand

o kinesiology whose silo walls are lower and more permeable, whose spirit is

more playul, and whose researchers and practitioners interact more democrati-

cally, with increasing levels o interdependence and humility and with a higher

degree o mutual respect.

Silos and bunkers are good things. Silos help to dene, orient, provide ocus

and depth and produce the quality that goes with it. You and I as philosophers,biomechanists, pedagogists, physiologists, and motor-control experts, among otherspecialties, live in these structures to one extent or another, have both shaped themand have been, in turn, shaped by them, and I thinki our election as Fellows inthe Academy is any indicationhave beneted rom them. We live in an educationalera that requires demanding levels o expertise and specialization, and honoredresidence in a silo is one important indicator that we have met those standards.

Bunkers are good too, especially when one is under attack or under threat oan attack.1 Without trying to be unduly pessimistic or dramatic about it, we arealways vulnerable in an academy that tends to value high culture, theory, and the

mind over things associated with physical activitylow culture, perormance, andthe body. So we nd saety and strength in any number o more or less sae bunkers

h i i ll l i il di d


2/11

Kretchmar

One such missile is represented by the claim that games, sport, and play areessentially trivial pursuits, the kinds o things that are done in ones ree time whenimportant duties have been taken care o. Partly in response, we constructed what

might be identied as the bunker o utility, one that is becoming increasingly orti-ed by all the evidence we have gathered about activity in relationship to health,longevity, obesity, human development, and even cognitive unctioning.

An additional bunker has been required, one that deends against two otherpotentially damaging claims. The rst is the suggestion that many o our traditionalmovement activities do not rise to the level o high culture. Games, exercise, andplay are nothing like art, sculpting, or music. The other criticism ocuses on culturalvisibility rather than status. Our traditional ocus on physical education activi-tieson exercise, sport, dance, and recreationit is said, limits our infuence. Itmakes us appear too narrow, too parochial.

Fortunately we have ound a degree o protection in what might be called thebunker o redenition. We expanded our subject matter rom culturally denedactivities commonly associated with play to all intentional and skillul activitiesrelated to any and all daily activitiesincluding, importantly, art and other ormso high culture and work (Newell, 1990). Thus, we are now comortable talkingabout kinesiology as the study o human movement or physical activity in virtuallyall o its orms and maniestations. The bottom line is this: By highlighting ourutility and redening our subject matter, we gained room to operate, spread ourwings, and show our worth in the modern university.

Nevertheless, in spite o all the protection that silos and bunkers have givenus, they have also exposed us to new problems and thus have been the object osevere criticism within kinesiology (e.g., Homan, 1985). Silos divide us, splinterthe proession, promote hierarchies, impede unity, create tension, make commu-nication within the eld dicult, and make it easier to subdivide our departmentsand send the pieces o to other administrative units.

Bunkers too have been criticized. They make us look deensive, apologetic, evenparanoid. The bunker o utility, some have said, has promoted an overemphasis onthe duty o movement at the expense o joy and serendipity (Kretchmar, in press).The bunker o redenition has won breadth at the cost o specicitythat is, it

has stimulated an expensive redirection o attention rom the activities that reallymatter to people to movement in the abstract. Some, thereore, have concluded thatthe eorts to build bunkers could have been put to better use on more oensivestrategies and have done more harm than good.

I think that these assessments are wrong. First, such calculations are dicultto carry out, and it is probably too early in our evolution to draw such nal con-clusions. Moreover, it is dicult to argue that silos and bunkers have uniormlyand unequivocally pushed us backward. To support this point, I would underlinethe ollowing.

Without the high-quality research promoted and conducted in each o our silos

and without a clear understanding that our research and subject matter transcendgames, sport, and play, we would never have survived in many o our research-d di i tit ti W ld h tt t d th h l itti


3/11

Silos and Bunkers in the Evolution of Kinesiology

Institutes o Health (NIH), and other top-level granting agencies. Without thebenet o silos and bunkers, we would never have been considered or, let aloneincluded in, the taxonomy o doctoral and research programs by the National

Research Council (NRC).In some ways, our evolution rom a largely proessionally oriented unit popu-

lated in the main by academic generalists and pedagogical specialists2 to one thatis now listed among the NRC-recognized academic elds is remarkable. The actthat the major portion o this journey took place in less than 40 years borders onthe spectacular.

So let it be said that both the silos o specialization and the twin bunkers ohealth-grounded utility and subject-matter expansion have been helpul as theemerging eld o kinesiology attempted to dene itsel, develop its credentials,and gain an additional toe hold in our colleges and universities. The story o silosand bunkers is not one-sided, however. We live in an ambiguous and chaotic world,one in which things that work or the good might also, at the same time, bringharm and one in which even seemingly innocuous changes can stimulate dramaticconsequences.

Because o these two actorsbecause o the normative ambiguity o silosand bunkers and because mixed successes can unravel in signicant waysweneed to take a closer look at our mostly vertical subdisciplinary and proessionalspecializations and our emphases on utility and generic movement.3 I will rstexamine concerns raised about silos.

Critique of Silos

Silos might cause problems at both political and theoretical levels. The politicalproblems are relatively obvious. They include diculties in communicating romone silo to another. They raise questions about priorities, centrality, and sequenc-ing o research inormation. Who is more undamental? Who is more central? Isit the micro- or macro-tending silos that are more important? What, in act, countsas more central or important?

Silo mentality has been known to promote internecine warare. Why, it hasbeen occasionally asked, would we want to hire someone or that silo when wecould hire someone or this ar more signicant silo? Or why would we want towaste precious time in the curriculum with another biomechanics class when weneed to educate our students in something ar more signicantsomething well,like philosophy! Sometimes lines are drawn between those who have silos and thosewho are at least perceived to be without onethose who work in the more-appliedareas that inevitably all across several disciplines and have dierent purposes orthose who teach activity classes. Karl Newell (2007) addressed a number o thesedivisions last year when he discussed problems associated with a diverse aculty

with multiple agendas.He knows, as do many others in the Academy, that being a department head in a

il d i t d it h ll i h ll Ad i i t t


4/11

Kretchmar

and between those who do basic research and those who work more at the appliedlevel. Such heads typically take well-deserved sabbaticals ater a stint at the helm.Kinesiology department heads in silo-heterogeneous environments ace tensions

between theory and practice, basic and applied, discipline and proession, and asmany as seven or eight dierent silos, including those that cluster in the sciencesand others in the social sciences or humanitiesacross the grand canyon separat-ing what C.P. Snow called the two cultures. Thus, when kinesiology departmentheads announce that they will be stepping down, they oten rst seek therapy . . .and then, i and when they eel well enough, they take the sabbatical.

Even as we poke un at ourselves, many o us reside in departments that unc-tion reasonably well in spite o the stresses and strains imposed by our diversesilo identities, vocabularies, values, and commitments. Thus, it is to the potentialtheoretical liabilities that we need to turn. In some ways, these are the more inter-esting and potentially serious ones. They are interesting and serious because theydirectly aect our ability to do our research eectively and, consequently, teachour students appropriately.

All o us have read Thomas Kuhns The Structure o Scientifc Revolutionsor at least are amiliar with so-called Kuhnian paradigm shits. Kuhn argued thatparadigm shits occur when the old paradigms lead scientists to acknowledgea crisis. A novel theory emerges only ater a pronounced ailure in the normalproblem-solving activity. . . . Novel theory seems a direct response to crisis(1962/1996, p. 745).

When I rst read this, I was put o by the pessimism expressed by Kuhn. Itis not particularly fattering to hear that we researchers need a crisis to change ourhabits. I was not at all convinced that we were approaching, let alone currentlyacing, a research crisis. Ater all, this is the era o the genome project, unprec-edented medical advances in extending human lie, and a ar more sophisticatedunderstanding o the human brain than we have ever had beore.

Much o this progress can be traced to Francis Bacon and the scientic revo-lution in the 17th century. The principles that gave lie to these advances seemedreasonably solidan abiding skepticism that privileges reason over aith, a relianceon measurement and demonstration, an understanding o Newtonian physics and

a vision o reality as undamentally machine-like, a reductionistic drive that looksor underlying mechanisms, and nally a belie that the whole will be understoodwhen we can gure out all or most o the requisite parts (Wallace, 2000).

O course, we have not even come close to guring everything out, and manyo the research puzzles we ace are tremendously complex, i not also overwhelm-ing. But we surely have good reason to keep on plugging. This is so because, inaddition to the many successes to which we can point, we can also make two otherclaims that would explain the oten slow and halting progress o science. First,the development o the technology required to measure everything takes time.Eventually, with better technology in place, the explanatory measurements and

data will be produced. Second, some o the problems we ace are more complexthan we originally expected. We encounter more variables, more interactions, more

di t i l l ti hi Th bl t d


5/11


These arguments seem reasonable, and they provided a degree o comort untilI reread a portion o Kuhn where he described previous paradigm shits, the mostamous o which was undoubtedly the Copernican revolution.

The situation in which we nd ourselves now might be much like the oneaced by astronomy at the time o Copernicus. The Ptolemaic systems developedin the two centuries beore Christ did a good job o calculating the positions oheavenly bodiesboth the stars and the planets. No other ancient system cameclose to the successes o the mathematical model produced by Ptolemy. However,as Kuhn points out, to be admirably successul is never, or a scientic theory,to be completely successul (1962/1996, p. 68). Diculties with the Ptolemaicsystem were only slowly recognized, calculations were just a little o, predictionswere not quite on target . . . that is, until Copernicus came along.

Thus, during the 16th century, astronomy nally acknowledged that it hadreached a crisis. This orced scientists to imagine that the earth might not actuallybe the center o things. O course, this opened up new possibilities or calcula-tionscalculations that would eliminate the previous errors. A dramatic paradigmshit occurred, and scientists began to see the world literally through new eyes. Itwas surely just as much an unsettling time as it was an exciting one.

We might be in just such a periodone that has ramications as sweeping asthose o the Copernican revolution. With Einsteins theory o relativity in 1905,with the rise o quantum mechanics, with the philosophies o ambiguity ostered bysuch intellectual giants as William James, John Dewey, and Maruice Merleau-Ponty,

and with the rise o chaos theory and dynamical systems psychology, we mightnow be standing at a point o crisis. The old mechanistic and overly rationalisticparadigms,4 while eective in their own ways and while responsible or much othe scholarly progress we have made since the dawn o the scientic revolutionsome 450 years ago, might have brought us to something o a crisis.

We might need a paradigm shit, a revolutionary vision akin to the one thatsuggested that the earth was not, in act, the center o the universe. Our new visionwill have to take into account the act that Newtonian physics and, I might add,rationalistic, mathematically oriented philosophy work very well or some problemsand with a degree o ecacy or others. But this shit will also be uncompromising

in replacing the old, mechanistic metaphor with a new one.I we suppose or a moment that a shit is about to begin or, in act as somewould argue (see, e.g., Kelso & Engstrom, 2006, and Wallace, 2000) is alreadyunderway, the utility o silos would have to be reconsidered. This is so because silovitality is predicated on at least two notions that are tethered to the old more-or-less mechanistic paradigm. First, each silo has access to a largely (not necessarilytotally) discrete part o reality. In the extent to which the new paradigm suggeststhat reality is interused, mixed, complementary, and deeply interrelated, the siloswill loose a degree o their relative autonomy. Second, each silo employs partly(not necessarily totally) distinctive research methods to measure and understand

its subject matter. In the extent to which the new paradigm suggests that reality atdierent levels is ambiguously similar as well as dierent, researchers in dier-

t il ill d t b i t th d l i th t tl bl


6/11

Kretchmar

possibilities than, say, underlying mechanisms. A point o logic or the philosophermight be conceptualized as a constraint, as will a certain genetic prole or thegeneticist and a certain social arrangement or the sociologist. All three o them

will help us understand the dynamics o behaving in human ways. And importantly,all three o them will be seen as interactive, not discrete. In this topsy-turvy world,the ascination with underlying mechanisms will be replaced by a broader searchor both underlying and overarching partial and mutually implicating causes. Themetaphor o person as mechanism and behavior as the product o one or moremechanisms might all out o avor.

However that turns out, there is some evidence that this topsy-turvy new worldo interdependency is upon us. As most o you know, the NIH recently raised ques-tions about the viability o silo-dependent research.

Health research traditionally has been organized much like a series o cottageindustries, lumping researchers into broad areas o scientic interest and thengrouping them into distinct, departmentally based specialties. But, as sciencehas advanced . . . two undamental themes are apparent: the study o humanbiology and behavior is a wonderully dynamic process, and the traditionaldivisions with health research may in some instances impede the pace o sci-entic discovery. (National Institutes o Health, 2006, p. 1)

So what are we to make o silos? First, we would never have gotten wherewe are today in research generally, and in kinesiology specically, without the

high-quality research promoted by specialization in silos. But silos bring mixedgoods. The practical problems related to divisions and splintering, and the theoreti-cal problems related to old paradigms and impending research crises orecast byKuhnboth o these realities suggest that silos, while continuing to be visible andwhile continuing to require much-needed specialization, will play a lesser role inthe years to come. Silo walls, unlike those at Jericho, will not come tumbling down(nor should they), but they will be thinner, lower, and ar more permeable.

Critique of Bunkers

The bunkers o utility and the expansive redenition o physical activity beyondsport, games, and play toward generic movement continue to serve us well. Butthey too have turned out to be mixed goods. With an emphasis on health and utilitycomes a concomitant loss o what is intrinsically valuable about movement. Whenwe sell activity as a duty, we invariably take a little luster o activity as a delight.When we ocus on xing the body, we might orget about celebrating the soul.

It is understandable that we have used health as our deault argument over theyears. Many o you know that some o our predecessors in the late 19th and early20th centuries were M.D.s Two doors rom my parents house in Oberlin lived a

Dr. Nichols. He was the head o the Physical Education Department at OberlinCollege. When I was 12, he actually stitched a gash in my leg. You see, he wasM D Doctor Nichols the kind o doctor as the old joke goes who can actually


7/11


o utility, very ew messages resonate with parents as well as messages about theirchildrens health. Federal pockets related to health are deep, and ew subjects areas likely to be eatured on the evening news as health-related research.

There is an irony in all this. The utility emphasis, in many ways, gets thingsexactly backwardin our personal lives and in the lives o most o the clientsserved by the movement proessions. We played games, and rolicked, and exercisedbecause we enjoyed these activities, because they meant something to us, because weound them to be intrinsically satisying in some way or another. Then we studiedthem and ound out that they were also good or us. To put it more graphically, theront door to our movement mansion is play, and most o the millions o peoplewho came inside and took up residence came through the ront door.

Movement is so undamental to being human that it has always had this bimodalcharacter to it. It is useul. We evolved as moving creatures, and as some excellentresearch by Booth, Chakravarthy, Gordon, and Spangenburg (2002) has shown,when we stop moving, adaptations that served us well during our hunter-gathererdays now become liabilities. We do need to keep moving. As more-sedentary crea-tures with partly maladaptive plumbing and wiring, we know that we are quirkyhuman beings too. I you are like me, we do what is rational to do only about 50%o the time . . . and that is on our good days! Otherwise, you and I ollow our muses;we stay true to our movement-related stories; against better advice, we remainweekend warriors; we answer the call o our various activity playgroundseventhough there is another e-mail to answer and yet another chapter to write.

Somehow our eld has to nd a balance. Somehow we have to introduce ourstudents and clients to the delightul world o play while we teach them about allthe good that movement brings into existence. We academics, I would suggest, needto be dependably schizophrenicalternately (or maybe concomitantly) proessorso health and play. Quite possibly, as Ive suggested elsewhere (Kretchmar, inpress), we should actually put a priority on play. Ater all, a child at vigorous playhas an elevated heart rate just like a youngster who is dutiully going through hisor her daily exercises.

In the nal analysis, all o us want to live both healthy and meaningul lives. Inphysical activity we have a most powerul subject matter because it speaks orce-

ully to both o these nonnegotiablesboth the health and the meaning. I we aresmart, we will want to take advantage o both. I we are smart, we will not want thepower o healthul utility to overwhelm the other part o what makes lie goodthemeanings and delights that are so closely associated with our activity playgrounds.Speaking personally, as time goes on and as we enjoy a more-secure place in ouruniversities, I nd it easier to identiy mysel occasionally as a proessor o play.

The second bunkerthe one described as the move to generality and inclu-siveness by substituting human movementandphysical activity or more-culturallyspecic terms like sport, games, play, exercise, dance, and workhas expandedour subject matter in very helpul ways. As mentioned, many in the academy look

askance at activities like sport and exercise. When many o us stopped calling ourdepartments sport studies, exercise science, or sport and exercise science,

d d i t h t i ki i l


8/11

10 Kretchmar

large negative consequences down the road. Strategies that move us saely towardthe generictoward, say, movement and away rom soccer or horse racingcarryrisks. This is the case because human beings are inherently local, not generic, crea-

tures. We live a very concrete existence, at one place, not another, at one time, notanother. When we all in love, we do not all in love with the idea o a desirablepartner. We do not all in love in principle, or in general. We all in love with thatindividual, that one!

Likewise, we rarely hear anyone say that they have allen in love with move-ment. Im not even sure what that would be like! But we do understand peoplewho say they are golng anatics, skiing enthusiasts, distance runners, or that theyell in love with table tennis.

You and I are oten lampooned by the general public as eggheads, geeks, orirrelevant academics because, in addition to the act that we have trouble managingbasic lie skills like dressing ourselves, we are proessional abstractors. Given ourtraining, we can barely help ourselves. We measure the specic but convert it tothe general, the law, or the principle, that lurks beneath. We look or insights thatapply across particular cases, even universally. What we call understanding tracsalmost exclusively in the world o generalities.

Even though we have good reason to respect understanding-producing gener-alities, we always abstract rom the particular, and I would argue, we always needto return to it. As a philosopher, Im more than happy to do a phenomenology o,say, the hamburger, lay out the essence o hambergerness or all to see, and make

it absolutely clear, in principle, how and why hamburgers dier rom hot dogs.But the abstract world in which I make my living carries me only so ar beore Ihunger or the concrete experience that was the occasion or my phenomenology.So too with movement and, in my case, table tennis!

You might recall the stir that was caused 20 years ago when some sociologistspredicted that we were entering a global community, one that would be normal-ized by a common language, a common currency, and various cultural similaritiesostered by the Internet and other technologies o our inormation age. They arguedthat many o the quirks, eccentricities, and provincialisms o our local tradi-tionsincluding those related to potentially divisive religionswould melt away

under the onslaught o these globalizing orces. How wrong they were. Perhapsthey underestimated the power o the local. Perhaps they orgot that no matter howsophisticated we become, we still live rom our very feshy bodies toward a specicphysical horizon, at a specic time.

Perhaps it is time to bring our specic movement orms back out o mothballs.Times are slightly dierent, and they are encouraging. When I got out o graduateschool and went to my rst philosophy meetings, I met mainline philosophers whotold me that when they spoke at our philosophy o sport meetings and publishedin our philosophy o sport journal, they never put it on their resumes. Sport, theysaid, was not a legitimate topic or a sel-respecting philosopher. Now, less than

40 years later, the last two editors o the gold-standard journal in our eldTheJournal o the Philosophy o Sporthave been philosophers. Three o the worldst hil h C li M Gi Mi h l S d l d H G b ht ill


9/11

Silos and Bunkers in the Evolution of Kinesiology 11

other than our ownin sport business, in sport journalism, and in sport lawalltenure-track positions (one o them an endowed chair) with a mission related spe-cically to sport. When a meeting was called recently to discuss a sport studies

minor, it was chaired by a new assistant proessor in Sport Law. The invitationattracted people rom Math (sport statistics), English (sport literature), the Col-lege o Liberal Arts (the dean is doing research on the decline o women coachingwomens teams), the Penn State Press, Economics, Athletics, as well as Business,Law, and Journalism. The landscape has changed. The particular, the specic,sporthas gained legitimacy, and our colleagues are coming out o their respectiveacademic closets to say so.

We might have glimpsed this more inclusive uture when Jane Clark led acontingent o Academy members to Washington about two years ago to makeour case or inclusion as an NRC-rated academic eld. The overall message thatshe delivered, one that a number o you had a hand in crating, was a message ounity in diversity (Thomas et al., 2007). The night beore the nal presentation,we deleted our silo-specic identities rom a key document. In other words, wepresented our research as coming rom kinesiology, not a loose conederation osubdisciplines. Moreover, even in the ace o being misunderstood as an appliedeld, we celebrated our diversity, including our proessional programs. We wrotein our unpublished working documents that Kinesiolgy supports and inormsproessional practice in any number o areassuch as education, coaching, andsports medicine. We are proud o this and would hope that (much o) our research

has practical ramications.

Conclusions

The evolution o kinesiology continues. The playing o less-dominant roles bysilos promises more collaboration, greater interdependency, and a deepened senseo mutual respect. As we rely less on the bunker o utility, we become more play-ul and remember that physical activities might be just as important as jewels thatadorn our lives as they are as tools that serve any number o other ends. Finally,as it becomes less politically important to convert our popular cultural activities

into generic movement orms, we will grow more comortable with the ull rangeo our research and teachingrom the highly abstract and generic to the verylocal and idiosyncratic. With the advent o inclusive organizations such as theAmerican Kinesiology Association, it could be that we are on the cusp o the newera o unity and strengthpartly in spite o silos and bunkers, but also, partlybecause o them.

Notes

1. I do not want to say that our emphasis on health and our redenition were only deensive or

bunkering strategies. They can be considered oensive strategies, as well. I do claim, however,that the bunker metaphor is useul here because deense and saety have always been priority

h d i h i ll d i i i


10/11

12 Kretchmar

3. Newell (1990) did not claim that physical activity should be studied and otherwise encoun-

tered as generic. He was interested in nding a term that would unction more inclusivelyboth

or bench scientists and or scholars o culture. Nevertheless, the eect has been to decontextualize

physical activity and provide a handy, more-abstract notion o what we are about.4. By overly rationalistic paradigms I mean philosophic approaches that would cleanly divide

things into exclusive categories, on the model o mathematics. Some brands o analytic philoso-

phy have moved in this direction and provide a philosophic analogue to the linear precision o

Newtonian physics.

References

Booth, F., Chakravarthy, M., Gordon, S., & Spangenburg, E. (2002). Waging war on physicalinactivity: Using modern molecular ammunition against an ancient enemy.Journal o

Applied Physiology,93, 330.Homan, S. (1985). Specialization and ragmentation = extermination: A ormula or the

demise o graduate education.Journal o Health, Physical Education,Recreation andDance,35, 1922.

Kelso, S., & Engstrom, D. (2006.) The complementary nature. Cambridge/London, UK:MIT Press.

Kretchmar, R.S. (in press). The increasing utility o elementary physical education: A mixedblessing and unique challenge.Elementary School Journal.

Kuhn, T. (1962/1996). The structure o scientifc revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago & London:University o Chicago Press.

National Institutes o Health (NIH). (Nov. 2006). NIH roadmap or medical research.Retrieved March 20, 2007, rom http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/interdisciplinary/

Newell, K.M. (1990). Kinesiology: Activity ocus, knowledge types and degree programs.Quest,42, 243268.

Newell, K.M. (2007). Kinesiology: Challenges o multiple agendas. Quest,59, 524.Thomas, J.R., Clark, J.E., Feltz, D.L., Kretchmar, R.S., Morrow, J.R., Reeve, G.T., et al.

(2007). The academy promotes, unies, and evaluates doctoral education in kinesiol-ogy. Quest,59, 174194.

Wallace, B.A. (2000). The taboo o subjectivity: Toward a new science o consciousness. Oxord/New York: Oxord University Press.


11/11

Kretchmar-2008.pdf0as

Documents

Transcript of Kretchmar-2008.pdf0as