Directory of Commonwealth Scholars and Fellows 1960 – 2002

Preface
Background to the CSFP
The Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan (CSFP) has been one of the most enduring outcomes of
Commonwealth collaboration in education. Since its establishment, at the first Conference of Commonwealth
Education Ministers in 1959, some 22,000 individuals have received awards under the Plan. Approximately 500
more benefit each year. The Plan has developed into one of the best known and prestigious award schemes in the
world.
In retrospect, the CSFP founders showed great foresight, both in their decision to establish the Plan, and in the
precise terms of reference given to it. In an age when, perhaps more than now, scholarship was valued for its own
sake, the Plan objectives stressed the need for awards to be of practical benefit to the home country of the
recipient. They stressed the need for flexibility, so that awards could include both short-term visits and high level
academic study. Above all, they recognised that needs would change over time, and that the precise form of
awards should evolve to reflect this.
What follows is the first published Directory of individual award holders. Its production is particularly timely for
several reasons. First, it coincides with the 15th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers, and the first
to take place in the United Kingdom since the Oxford Conference of 1959. We hope that, when Ministers come
to debate the progress made by the Plan (which they have done at each of the intervening meetings), it will
provide a uniquely rich source of data and inspiration.
Second, it is fitting that the publication results from collaboration between Canada and the United Kingdom.
Although the Plan was formally established at Oxford, it owed much of its origins to Canada. It was at the 1958
Conference of Commonwealth Trade Ministers – the first of its type to be held in Canada – that the concept first won
recognition. Prior to that it was Canadian universities that had been responsible for raising the concept with their
national authorities. Since that time, the two countries have consistently been the most generous supporters of awards.
Third, publication is timely because in recent years governments have taken a welcome interest in the extent to
which scholarships can be measured against their objectives, and to which their impact can be enhanced by
follow-up activity. To justify investment in scholarship schemes by ‘anecdote’ – in other words reciting details of
alumni who have risen to particular prominence – is no longer sufficient. We need both to know more about the
career progression of much wider numbers of award holders, and find ways of engaging with them on a more
regular basis. A directory of this type has a vital role to play in this process.
Nature of the Directory
Before discussing what the contents of this Directory tell us about the CSFP, it is worth pausing to recognise some
of its limitations. The pages that follow are not intended to give an accurate quantitative analysis of the
subsequent careers of award holders. Nor, given the size of the task in tracing such a large and diverse sample,
are they comprehensive.
The Directory is divided into two sections. The first contains brief profiles of some 1,800 former award holders.
This is not intended to be a ‘Who’s Who’ type of publication, which concentrates on the better-known and
prestigious alumni. Rather, we have included as many as possible of those who gave permission by the closing
date of July 31st 2003.
We cannot say with certainty whether the examples here represent an accurate ‘sample’ of all CSFP award
holders. It might be argued that some categories are easier to trace than others, and that this could lead to a bias.
Those working in particular professions, such as academic life, might have their careers more fully documented
than others, as might those working in particular geographical regions. Those who have reached the very top of
their profession might also be more in the public eye than others, although this does not necessarily mean, of
course, that such categories are more likely to participate!
vii