Introduction and Contribution

Democracies face a host of ongoing challenges, including the rise of elected autocrats, income inequality, mainstreamed forms of xenophobic nationalism, and political apathy. All of these challenges pose threats to democratic participation — elected autocrats restrict it, inequality makes it easier for oligarchs to sway election outcomes, and xenophobia can discourage cultural outsiders from voting.

Apart from practical threats to democratic participation, an established intellectual tradition has viewed participation with deep skepticism. In this view, democracy is good simply because it ensures peaceful transfers of power and protects individual rights. Collective decisions, however, cannot be meaningfully viewed as representing the “will of the people” owing to manipulation, apathy, and the high costs of acquiring political knowledge. Is this “realist” vision the best one can hope for in democratic life?

In “Can deliberation have lasting effects?,” James Fishkin, Valentin Bolotnyy, Joshua Lerner, Alice Siu, and Norman Bradburn show how a three-day deliberative experiment in late 2019 had large and long-term effects on turnout and voting behavior. Those most likely to exhibit these civic behaviors nearly a year later had come to follow politics more closely and see their political opinions as valuable. At the same time, the experiment’s effects on participants’ policy views were significant only in the short term — most deliberators eventually reverted to their previously held policy positions.

That three days of deliberation had such lasting civic effects suggests that efforts to create more inclusive forms of democratic participation are both possible and scalable. Moreover, it suggests that academic skepticism about democratic participation is not an argument against citizens’ capacities for reasonable decision-making; rather, it is an argument against our imperfect contexts of participation. Deliberative experiments may offer hope for improving these contexts.

The Deliberative Experiment and Its Effects on Policy Views

In September 2019 — one week prior to the experiment — a treatment group (i.e., those who would deliberate) of 523 registered voters from around the US and a control group of 844 voters were surveyed on their political attitudes. Members of the treatment group then deliberated on five issue domains (the economy, environment, immigration, health care, foreign policy) in small groups and on 47 policy proposals (e.g., redistributing wealth in some way). 26 of these proposals were characterized by extreme partisan polarization, meaning significant numbers of those who identified as Democrats or Republicans held the most extreme views. After the deliberations ended, both the treatment and control groups were surveyed. Then, three subsequent surveys were conducted in late 2020.

Among the treatment group, deliberation produced significant, short-term depolarization on 20 of the 26 (polarized) policy proposals. In other words, the averages for participants who identified with each party moved closer together (though not necessarily toward the center). These changes were large, sometimes 40 percentage points, as in the case of Republicans abandoning extreme positions on immigration. Meanwhile, the control group’s policy positions changed hardly at all — pointing to the key role played by deliberation. Within the five issue areas, averages among deliberators shifted leftward on all but the economy.
 

Image

Figure 1. Policy-Based Score (PBS) Changes over Time
Note: Policy-based score (PBS) is constructed for each individual based on responses to 26 questions identified as the most polarizing. The upper chart shows the participant group, and the lower chart shows the control group. T1 is the survey wave prior to the deliberations, T2 is right after the deliberations, and T3 is 10 months after, in July 2020.
 

By late 2020, however, the treatment group’s policy positions mostly reverted to their pre-deliberation levels. The differences between these two points in time were still significant compared with the control group, yet relatively small in absolute terms. These policy reversions are perhaps unsurprising: deliberators returned to an environment of heightened polarization and aggressive campaigning during the 2020 election cycle. (To be sure, and from the standpoint of finding solutions to collective problems, policy reversion is not especially concerning — the aim of deliberation is to bring citizens together to reason and compromise, which the experiment accomplished.)

A Civic Awakening?

The lack of long-term policy effects suggests that three-day deliberations may be limited in their ability to create a more encompassing, participatory society. However, the treatment group demonstrated large and persistent changes in their intention to vote (i.e., turnout) and their candidate of choice. Among the control group, Joe Biden was favored over Donald Trump by about four percentage points — very close to Biden’s actual margin in the popular vote. Among the treatment group, however, Biden was favored by 28 percentage points. The gaps in turnout were similarly large. (Note that these are intentions, not reports of actual decisions. However, Tables 6 and 7 in the article show similar effects for recollected votes after the election.)
 

Image

Table 2. Voting Intention for Participant and Control Groups, Time 4
 

These civic outcomes are especially surprising because (a) voting behavior is thought to be stable and deeply rooted in one’s psychology and social context, and (b) experimental efforts to increase turnout have been most successful when undertaken shortly before elections, as opposed to one whole year prior. The effects were most pronounced among political moderates and those without college degrees — perhaps pointing to the educative effects of deliberation.
 

Image

Figure 5. Effects on Vote Intention Captured by Predictive Modeling, by Education
Note: Middle are those participants who have Policy-Based Scores between 3 and 5 (inclusive) at Time 1. Non-middle participants are all other participants. Positive prediction error shows that, on average, participants were more likely to vote for Biden than predicted by the model. Vote intention data are collected at Time 4, in October, 2020. Full calibrated model used to construct this figure can be found in the APSR Dataverse.
 

Why did deliberation produce only short-term policy effects but long-term effects on voting behavior? The authors posit that deliberation caused an “awakening of civic capacities.” They reason that deliberation was a transformative experience in terms of stimulating political engagement and a sense of efficacy. And indeed, the treatment group was, in the long term, more likely than the control group to follow the 2020 election campaign, believe their political opinions mattered, and acquire general information about American politics. (The latter is measured in terms of knowing which party controlled the House and Senate.)
 

Image

Figure 9. Having “Political Opinions Worth Listening to”
Note: Policy-based score is constructed for each individual based on responses to 26 questions identified as the most polarizing. Responses to the question “How strongly would you disagree or agree with the following statement?”[I have opinions about politics that are worth listening to.] were collected at T1 (just before deliberations), T2 (just after), and T3 (10 months later, July 2020).
 

The authors close by discussing efforts to scale up civic engagement, such as the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform. In all, “Can deliberation have lasting effects?” provides a rigorous case for the value of deliberation in strengthening democratic participation.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

This article was written by Dr. Bert Bower, Curriculum Developer for the SPICE Latin America Project and later Founder and CEO of Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, the nation’s preeminent provider of K–12 experiential social studies materials. This is the fifth of several articles—focusing on the 50-year history of SPICE—that will be posted this year. In its early years, SPICE comprised several separate area-focused projects.

Congratulations to SPICE on 50 years of providing the nation’s schools with the most global-minded, engaging curriculum ever created. I had the pleasure of working as a curriculum developer with SPICE for 12 years, from 1976 to 1998. It was for me, as it has been for countless other educators, a truly life-changing experience.

At age 19, I transferred to Stanford and soon found myself attached to the Latin America Project of SPICE. Dr. David Grossman, Founding Director of SPICE, encouraged me to create a curriculum unit centered around a village in highland Guatemala where I had served as an Amigos de las Americas volunteer. David guided me in creating my first piece of curriculum and then encouraged me to present it at the California Council for the Social Studies. It proved to be wildly popular.

I soon discovered that teachers were hungry for materials that engaged their students and challenged them to take a global perspective. That was exactly what SPICE offered. Working with Dr. Grossman and the SPICE staff, I learned to create curriculum unlike anything offered by other companies or organizations. SPICE staff created lessons that taught students to write in Chinese, to simulate entering and interacting with others in a global village, and to travel down the Nile River. I was amazed at how lessons like these delighted and challenged students.

My years with SPICE taught me to embrace innovation in everything I developed. Imagine teaching the conquest of Mexico from multiple perspectives. Or using in-person interviews with villagers in a small Mexican town to drive home a heartfelt lesson on the hows and whys of out-migration. Or teaching about Latin America by analyzing and “stepping into” modern art from throughout the region. These lessons were as impactful in the classroom as they were exciting to teach.

Really, the most important thing I learned from Dr. Grossman and the SPICE staff was a true joie de vivre when it came to curriculum development. We had so much fun creating curriculum. Staff meetings were always insightful and filled with laughter. Close friendships were the norm at our workshops. Deep learning and global enlightenment were the celebrated outcomes of our work.

This sense of learning, wonderment, and lively esprit de corps has stayed with me ever since I left SPICE—and, as a result, has touched tens of thousands of others. Happy Birthday, SPICE!

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

In its June 20, 2026, edition, the Nikkei Shimbun's Market Beat financial analysis column, titled US Stocks Attract Japanese Money, examines how the U.S. stock market is becoming a "major league" that is increasingly attracting capital from Japanese individual investors. Several factors drive this phenomenon:

• Massive IPOs: Unprecedentedly large IPOs, as seen by SpaceX, are capturing global attention and investment.
• Structural Advantages: U.S. markets are moving fast to include new, large companies in major stock indices, which forces index-tracking funds to buy shares and creates automatic demand.
• 24-Hour Trading: U.S. exchanges like the NYSE and Nasdaq are moving toward near 24-hour trading to specifically capture Asian daytime investors, making it easier for them to participate.

The column describes how Japanese investors are increasingly bypassing domestic options to capture the immense growth driven by American AI, data infrastructure, and advanced technology IPOs. "Founders and early-stage investors prefer large-scale markets that offer price discovery, liquidity, and visibility. This is likely to accelerate the concentration of innovative companies in the United States," says Curtis Milhaupt, the William F. Baxter-Visa International Professor of Law and APARC faculty affiliate.

The article notes that the speculative nature of advanced tech sectors inevitably fuels market volatility and could pose risks for Japanese investors looking across the Pacific, urging Japanese investors to identify promising domestic companies.

Eikei University of Hiroshima (EUH) is a liberal arts institution dedicated to fostering solutions- and impact-driven leaders who create social value in today’s world. Its goal is to cultivate practical skills for solving real-world issues through active learning, international perspectives, and interdisciplinary education. SPICE’s Social Entrepreneurship course, developed and taught by Dr. Mariko Yang-Yoshihara, is an intensive program that reflects the university’s objectives by helping students recognize and address social issues through a human-centred approach. Having taken the course twice, first as a student and later as a student assistant, I gained valuable skills, perspectives, and knowledge from both experiences.

The key learnings acquired this year placed greater emphasis on interdisciplinary exchange, sharing, and combining perspectives on social issues. The course instituted an exchange between liberal arts students at EUH and STEM students at Oslo Metropolitan University (Oslomet) in Norway. The EUH students identified human-centred social issues related to technology-based themes found within Hiroshima and shared with the Oslomet students, and the Oslomet students provided solutions or prototypes in response to these problems, with a discussion exchange that was held online toward the conclusion of the course.  

I found this exchange to be very interesting and engaging, even with my role as a student assistant in this course. The difference in perspectives between liberal arts students and STEM students was quite evident during this discussion, especially through the concepts and factors emphasized in the assigned theme by both groups of students. Due to vast differences in class sizes, we, the Eikei students, were required to review multiple prototypes submitted by the Oslomet student groups. Initially, all of the prototypes provided for my group’s theme seemed similar, but my perspective significantly changed after communicating and discussing with the Oslomet student groups during the online exchange. Their overview of prototypes shared similarities from an external point of view, but their features, emphasis, and priorities were quite different. This differentiation only became evident during the interactive session through the exchange of viewpoints between students from both universities.

A cultural comparison between the two universities was also a key observation. The exchange of participants’ views on the feasibility of said prototypes within Norwegian and Japanese societies was intriguing to observe through a thorough comparison of social aspects in both countries, particularly governmental assistance, hierarchical structures, and the focus of the prototype. This further highlighted the contrasts in the same target demographics across both countries, leading to the realization that the same prototype may not have the same impact on both societies. 

Another important note was the difference in priority and emphasis between the assigned theme and problem statement for the liberal arts students and the STEM students. There was a clear distinction in focus areas between the two universities. The EUH students solely prioritized the human-centred aspect of the provided theme, while the Oslomet students, on the other hand, targeted the technological aspect. It was quite intriguing to witness STEM students and liberal arts students trying to understand each other’s perspectives on the same situation.

Interestingly, rather than observing two major groups of students taking part in this course, I noticed three different groups. The first group is the Norwegian students who had never been to Japan, who viewed the problem statement based in Hiroshima from an external perspective. The second group consists of native Japanese students currently living in Hiroshima who viewed the problem statement from an internal perspective. The third group was international students (non-Japanese students studying at Eikei, including myself) who are also currently living in Hiroshima but viewed the problem statement from a pseudo internal-external perspective. All three groups had differing opinions and thought processes, which led to a significantly interactive and dynamic session. I was able to perceive the importance of having people with differing experiences and cultures participate in a discussion, as it progressively leads to a more adaptable and inclusive long-term approach towards achieving a common objective.

Additionally, my experiences in this course resonated with my own experience as the president of the international student organization club at our university. Oftentimes, while having meetings with Academic Affairs and International Affairs at our university regarding new initiatives, changes, or plans, I always aim to gather various opinions and concerns of my international peers, representing their needs and concerns as well. These concerns or opinions are quite varied, since the international student community has students who come from different regions of the world, resulting in a wide range of perspectives. When these varied concerns are addressed, it encourages developing solutions that aim at supporting a diverse community.

Chhavvi Anilkumar reflects on her experience in the course, Social Entrepreneurship | Photo courtesy of Chhavvi Anilkumar

This course has given me important insights and perspectives that I am sure will continue to shape my views in the short- as well as the long-term future. As a person interested in diversity and multiculturalism, this course’s experience considerably strengthened my understanding of how social structures and different experiences shape the perspectives of an individual. I believe this insight will assist me in interacting with a diverse range of people in a more inclusive manner, especially when creating solutions or strategies that can cater to various demographic groups.

Facilitating such interactive sessions, observing, and understanding the differences between the given prototypes reinforces more than just the value of collaborating with individuals coming from other backgrounds. Including different groups to participate in a situation or problem with their differing perspectives and skills increases the potential of having an adaptable solution idea that could further positively impact more than just the targeted audience. Hence, courses such as Social Entrepreneurship play a significant role in encouraging and fostering collaborative initiatives and approaches that lead to developing unique, adaptable, and successful solutions.

SPICE's course on Social Entrepreneurship with Eikei University of Hiroshima is one of SPICE’s local student programs in Japan.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Introduction to Issues in International Security is a collaboration between the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE). Five CISAC scholars are featured in accessible video lectures that aim to introduce high school students to issues in international security and increase awareness of career opportunities available in the field. These scholars are Dr. Kevin Bustamante, Professor Martha Crenshaw, the Honorable Rose Gottemoeller, Professor Norman Naimark, and Dr. Megan Palmer. Free discussion guides, developed by Irene Bryant and Greg Francis of SPICE, are available for each of the lectures in this series.

For the fifth year since 2022, Dr. Ignacio Ornelas Rodriguez introduced the lectures and lessons in the discussion guides to high school students. This year the students were from Los Gatos, San Jose, Salinas, and Watsonville. The course culminated in a symposium on May 21, 2026 that was organized by Sabrina Ishimatsu. Three student groups had the opportunity to present their research projects to CISAC scholars, Dr. Harold Trinkunas, Dr. Kevin Bustamante, and Dr. Xunchao Zhang. 

The students’ research projects focused on the following topics: 

• What is Race?
• Biosecurity
• Analyzing Terrorist Incidents and Terrorism and Counterterrorism
   

The scholars provided extremely useful feedback on the students’ research projects and asked thought-provoking questions. Students from the 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 cohorts have commented on how the course taught by Ornelas Rodriguez and the feedback and questions from the CISAC scholars have helped them not only gain knowledge about international security but also to prepare for college. 

During this year’s symposium, the students were also very fortunate to listen to words of encouragement from Harvard undergraduate Alexandra Arguello and Stanford undergraduate Brianna Jimenez, 2022 and 2025 alumni, respectively, of the course taught by Ornelas Rodriguez. They also offered the following reflections for this article: 

Dr. Ornelas’s class helped prepare me for Harvard by giving me an early foundation in international security, global affairs, and the kind of critical analysis that college-level academia demands. The course taught me to engage complex issues with intellectual curiosity, connect global events to lived experiences, and ask stronger research questions. At Harvard, that preparation allowed me to approach courses in international law, comparative politics, global education, and Latin American studies with greater confidence and purpose. In many ways, the class was my first serious introduction to the academic interests that continue to shape my studies and my goal of becoming an attorney working with international populations.—Alexandra Arguello

Dr. Ornelas’s class prepared me as a first-generation student for the academic rigor and fast-paced environment at Stanford by giving me the opportunity to learn about complex topics, develop potential solutions, and explore research-based questions. Through this experience, I gained fundamental skills and knowledge that continues to help me succeed both academically and personally. As a future physician, this class provided me with critical insight on how international security impacts health, access, and care. The class has greatly impacted my journey at Stanford, and my purpose as I pursue higher education.—Brianna Jimenez

Ornelas Rodriguez closed the symposium by extending his praise for the 2026 cohort which exceeded his expectations and commended them for adding his class to their already busy academic lives.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

"That advantage is entirely theoretical," Doshi conceded. "Unlocking its potential, though, is the central task of American statecraft in this century." In practice, that might mean Japan and South Korea investing in American shipbuilding; Taiwan building semiconductor plants in the U.S.; allies co-producing advanced weapons systems; and all parties maintaining a shared tariff or regulatory wall against China's excess industrial capacity. On the economic side, Doshi called for common investment screening, coordinated industrial policy, and an "economic Article 5" ensuring that when China uses economic coercion against one ally, all respond together.

Addressing the Skeptics
Doshi acknowledged "the new pessimism," the view that Trump-era damage to U.S. alliances has made allied scale impossible. The strain is real, he said, but not terminal, for three reasons:

1. The alternatives are worse. Spheres of influence, unrestrained multipolarity, and a China-led order all leave the U.S. and its partners poorer and less secure. 
2. Alliances have absorbed serious shocks before and survived. For example, France's withdrawal from NATO's unified command, Nixon's opening to China, the Plaza Accord. 
3. The underlying logic of interdependence persists. Allied economies are growing more dependent on U.S. markets as China buys less from them, allies are purchasing record numbers of American weapons, and even the Trump administration has not escaped the pull of allied scale, with Vice President Vance publicly calling for a trading bloc among allies to break China's chokehold on critical minerals.

Eight Principles to Achieve Allied Scale
Doshi closed with a practical blueprint — eight principles for building allied scale.

1. Turn the page on the Trump era. Persuade allies that the most damaging recent policies were products of individual leadership rather than durable features of the American political system.

2. Begin with humility. Start with small, achievable projects: a joint shipbuilding effort, a critical minerals offtake agreement, a co-production line. Build from there.

3. Build mutually beneficial bargains. Allies invest in America; America invests in allies. All extend each other more preferential terms than they do to non-market economies like China.

4. Pay attention to domestic politics. “The danger of the ‘Trump Approach’ is alienation and polarization of allied politics that makes diplomacy impossible.” Any allied scale strategy must be first grounded in domestic politics.

5. Build ad hoc coalitions. Allied scale does not mean doing everything with everyone. It means assembling the right groupings for specific challenges and opportunities.

6. Bolster credibility through congressional legislation. Executive orders are too easily reversed. Durable commitments to allies require legislative backing that is harder to undo with a change in administration.

7. Build on existing platforms. Frameworks like the Quad, AUKUS, the U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral, and the G7 already exist. Allied scale should strengthen what works, not start from scratch.

8. Articulate an affirmative vision. "Allied scale can't just be about balancing China," Doshi said. "It has to be about building the kind of world that we want to see and live in."

“That work is hard,” Doshi concluded, but “it's not impossible. And the alternatives are far more concerning than the future that I’m outlining.” Doshi ended his address on a note of optimism: a call to action for the U.S. to reforge our alliances and rebalance the world order to create a better world for not just the U.S., but for nations across the globe.

A full recording of Dr. Rush Doshi’s talk is available on YouTube and below.

This article was supported by research using Claude. All outputs were reviewed by humans and the final expression was produced by the author.

Stanford e-Tottori is a distance-learning course sponsored by the Tottori Prefectural Board of Education and the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE) at Stanford University.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Stanford e-Tottori Program, a milestone that provides an opportunity to reflect on a decade of learning, cross-cultural exchange, and partnership between Stanford University and Tottori Prefecture.

Launched in 2016, Stanford e-Tottori was the first regional program in Japan developed by SPICE. The program was created through a partnership between SPICE and the Tottori Prefectural Board of Education with the goal of helping high school students in Tottori engage in global issues, deepen their understanding of the United States and U.S.–Japan relations, and strengthen their English communication skills.

When the program began, none of us could have imagined that it would still be thriving 10 years later. Over the past decade, approximately 250 students from across Tottori Prefecture have participated in the program. Through weekly assignments, online discussions, virtual classroom sessions, guest lectures, and independent research projects, students have explored topics ranging from education and entrepreneurship to sustainability, diversity, leadership, and U.S.–Japan relations.

Having taught every cohort since the program’s founding, I have had the privilege of working with an extraordinary group of students. Each year, I am impressed by their curiosity, thoughtfulness, and willingness to engage with complex issues. Although students enter the program with varying levels of English proficiency and different academic interests, they consistently demonstrate a desire to learn, challenge themselves, and better understand perspectives beyond their own.

One of the defining features of the program has been the students’ final research projects. At the end of each course, students select a topic of personal interest, conduct independent research, and present their findings in English. Over the years, they have investigated subjects as diverse as artificial intelligence, environmental sustainability, education systems, cultural identity, social welfare, entrepreneurship, history, and international relations. These presentations have provided students with opportunities not only to strengthen their research and communication skills but also to share their passions and interests with others.

The success of Stanford e-Tottori also helped to lay the foundation for SPICE’s broader expansion of regional programs throughout Japan. What began as SPICE’s first regional program has grown into a network of educational partnerships that now serve students in prefectures and cities across the country. Today, SPICE offers regional programs in Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Oita, Tottori, and Yamaguchi prefectures, as well as in the cities of Kagoshima, Kawasaki, and Kobe.

One of the greatest joys of the program has been seeing students experience California and Stanford University firsthand. Each year, two top-performing students are invited to Stanford as honorees in recognition of their outstanding achievement in the course. During their visits, students participate in award ceremonies, tour the Stanford campus, meet Stanford faculty and staff, and connect with fellow students from other SPICE regional programs.

These visits have also provided opportunities for students to glimpse into American high school life firsthand. Over the years, I have had the pleasure of accompanying students to local schools, where they have attended classes and met with American students. I am especially grateful to local educators, including Yoko Sase of The Nueva School in Hillsborough and Matt Hall of Gunn High School in Palo Alto, who have generously welcomed our students into their classrooms and school communities.

The Stanford e-Tottori Program would not exist without the vision, dedication, and support of many individuals and organizations. I am especially grateful to Takeshi Homma, whose passion for education, entrepreneurship, and international exchange helped inspire the creation of the program 10 years ago. Since its inception, Homma-san has remained a steadfast supporter, generously sharing his experiences and insights with students through annual guest lectures on entrepreneurship, innovation, and global citizenship.

I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Governor Shinji Hirai for his longstanding commitment to international education and global engagement. His support of educational exchange between Tottori and Stanford has helped create opportunities for hundreds of students to broaden their horizons and develop a deeper understanding of the United States and U.S.–Japan relations.

I am deeply grateful to the Tottori Prefectural Board of Education for its partnership and commitment to providing meaningful international educational opportunities for students. Over the years, I have had the pleasure of working with many dedicated educators and teacher consultants whose efforts have been essential to the program’s success, including Koji Tsubaki, Takuya Fukushima, Tomoya Minohara, Shuichi Hata, Natsu Odahara, and Satoru Hamahashi. Their enthusiasm, professionalism, and unwavering support have helped make the Stanford e-Tottori Program a rewarding experience for students throughout Tottori Prefecture. 

As I reflect on the past 10 years, what stands out most are not the individual lessons, assignments, or presentations, but the relationships that have developed through the program. Education is ultimately about people, and one of the greatest rewards of teaching Stanford e-Tottori has been the opportunity to learn from and work with so many talented students, teachers, and colleagues in both Japan and the United States.

As Stanford e-Tottori enters its second decade, I am excited to see what the future holds. I look forward to continuing to learn alongside future generations of students and to strengthening the bonds of friendship and understanding that have connected Stanford and Tottori over the past 10 years.

Congratulations to all of the students, educators, and partners who have been part of the Stanford e-Tottori story. Thank you for making the past 10 years such a remarkable journey.

Stanford e-Tottori is one of SPICE’s local student programs in Japan.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.