Both simulation and Asia are vast areas. How does one, then, put these two together? Simulation will, of course, be familiar to readers of this journal. CHESS and GO notwithstanding, simulation has traditionally been confined to the West-a relative term, if ever there was one, and one that has been imbued with absolute value. We-Gee Kin and David-first met many years ago in Japan at the first ISAGA/ JASAG conference in 1991. It became immediately apparent to both of us that simulation was being used more and more widely in Asia, and its use has become even more widespread in the intervening years. David later had the opportunity to work at the National University of Singapore, where (with Wong Pei Yuen) we created SGX (http://sg.comp.nus.edu.sg/), a Web-mediated information clearinghouse for resources in simulation and gaming. This directory service invites active participation of experts, and we welcome your contribution. From this fruitful collaboration, we also developed the idea that perhaps there were particular traits of Asian and of Western culture and thinking that would allow us to distinguish between the two. This is what we said in our original CFP: Although simulation/gaming practice, theory and research have probably developed more explicitly in Europe and North America than in most Asian contexts, authors (especially, non-Asians) should avoid any assumption that the norm for simulation/gaming is the western (mainly America-European) model, and that other simulation/gaming methods, uses and approaches are to be seen as "different from" this western model. We still adhere to the idea that we must avoid the easy assumption that somehow the Euro-American model is the norm, however much the two continents impose their standards on the rest of the world. In the area of education, and particularly in simulation, we note some deep differences not only between Europe and the United States, but also between the Euro-American model and the Asian model. These differences can be seen in areas such as teacher-student hierarchy, attitudes to diversity, notions regarding participation, readiness of self-disclosure, and approaches to learning and fun. Now that we have actually gathered several papers in this symposium on Asian aspects of simulation, the question remains just as open as it was when we first started. Are there any real differences? Perhaps that is not even the right question to ask. The papers here do, nevertheless, provide elements that will provide an impetus for further research.
