LSE GROUPS Report

LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2014 – GROUP 11

1

‘Americanisation’ at the LSE:
Perceptions and Realities
Has LSE undergone a process of ‘Americanisation’? How do
perceptions and experiences of this process affect our sense of place
and identity?
Michael Tavares
Lee Yong En
Chi Li
Avision Ho
Rebecca Wong
Huang Nan Shen
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr Gordon and Dr Downing, along with their team of supervisors, for
providing us with the opportunity to carry out this research via the LSE GROUPS
programme. Additionally, we thank LSE Careers and the Annual Fund staff for their
invaluable assistance in the data collection process. We are also indebted to LSE
students and academic staff for their time in completing our surveys. Finally, this
research paper was made possible through the support and comments of our
research supervisor Dr Samonas, to whom we wish to express our greatest
appreciation.
Abstract
One’s identity is rooted in their sense of place. The transitions experienced by
individuals in Higher Education institutions (HEIs), particularly in a global university
like the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) result in an
increased malleability of our sense of identity and place. Individuals become
vulnerable to potential cultural influences such as Americanisation on a
subconscious level. This paper will examine the identity of LSE and correspondingly
if the identity of members of its community in terms of Americanisation has changed.
In recent years, the LSE has adopted features that are characteristic of high ranking
US universities. This paper hypothesizes that these changes may be seen as a form
of Americanisation. It focuses on analysing the structural features of LSE’s practices
and policies for example, LSE’s global projection, changing academic career
structure, revised alumni resources policies and postgraduate study destinations.
Analysis of these features reveals that the subjectivity of Americanisation restricts
individuals’ ability to perceive such changes as a form of Americanisation, but rather


2

a natural development in school policy. With this finding in mind, normative analysis
is performed to judge whether this trend towards Americanisation is desirable.
Keywords: identity, place, Americanisation, LSE, Higher Education
Introduction
Identity is a matter of perception stemming from a sense of place and belonging
(Clarke, 2008). Questions of identity are concerned with how communities of people
view themselves in relation to others. Founded in 1895 by social democrats, the LSE
identified itself as the launchpad for social change in British society. However, with
institutional changes such as an increasing focus on its international projection and
changing institutional structures, it appears that the School is modelling itself after its
key competitors - leading U.S. universities. This paper seeks to establish if such
changes can be construed as a form of Americanisation. In geopolitical terms, the
notion of ‘Americanisation’ is becoming increasingly ambiguous. A nuanced account
of Americanisation is required. The existing literature fails to locate the purported
processes of ‘Americanisation’ in British higher education. The recent changes made
to the academic career structure, along with the global branding of the school makes
the LSE a compelling case study. By adopting a multi-dimensional concept of
‘Americanisation’, this paper seeks to evaluate the relationship between perceptions
of ‘Americanisation’ and the ‘conscious import of certain elements of US education
policies and practices’ (Smith, Baston, Bocock and Scott, 2002). With its particular
focus on LSE, this paper acts as a springboard for further research into the
perceived and actual ‘Americanisation’ of British higher education and how this
affects the questions faced by individuals on their sense of place and identity.
Motivation for research
One such ‘element’ (Smith, Baston, Bocock and Scott, 2002) that is strongly
reminiscent of US education policies is the dominance of postgraduates in the
student population. This salient quantifiable feature that is also found in LSE was a
key motivation in this research. Figure 1 shows the five-year (2007-2011) average of
the undergraduate-graduate quotient as calculated by the number of the former
divided by that of the latter. Most top US private universities have undergraduate-
graduate quotients that are lower than unity, while all the top British universities bar
LSE (0.745) have quotients greater than unity. Unlike other indicators (eg; love
student to faculty ratio; high expenditure per student) often employed in university
ranking statistics, there does not seem to be a consensus on the optimal
‘undergraduate-postgraduate quotient’. Therefore, the difference in the quotient of
LSE and of other top British universities cannot be attributed to LSE being subject to
general UK education policy. This unique position of the LSE forms the driving force
for this research.


3

Figure 1 Frequencies appear on the y-axis while the x-axis shows the
‘Undergraduate-graduate quotient’. The full list of universities can be found in
appendix A1
Literature Review
Defining ‘identity’ and ‘place’
Identity is defined within a social context, and is often perceived to arise from a
sense of place. It is typically formed through social processes when one’s
consciousness interacts with surrounding social structures (Merrill, 1999). Current
literature reveals that identity has largely been classified into three broad categories -
social, personal and egotistical (Goffman, 1968). This research paper engages with
how the underlying values of social structures impinge upon the construction of our
personal and egotistical identities, in particular where an individual’s subjective
sense of self is shaped by various experiences (Manning, 1992). In a higher
education institution (HEI), the intensity with which an individual is subject to different
experiences forces the constant interaction between cultural, cognitive and
normative features, which affects an individual’s perception of self and his/her
surrounding environment (Scott, 2001).
However, policy makers have not wholly appreciated that institutional changes in
HEIs affect the construction and maintenance of identity (Merrill, 1999). This paper
examines to what extent Americanisation has influenced British universities, by
looking specifically at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE),
and consequently how this influence has affected the sense of identity developed by
individual members of the LSE community. Due to the specific nature of such a
research topic, there is a lack of comprehensive and empirical research in the
present literature.


4

Defining Americanisation in the context of Higher Education
The notion of Americanisation was first raised by William T. Stead in 1902, when he
argued that European nations would be forced to adopt ‘solutions’ that had
developed in the United States as the ‘modernisation laboratory’ (Kieser, 2004). A
review of current literature reveals that the definition of Americanisation has since
evolved. ‘Americanisation’, in a broad sense, is now said to encapsulate several
processes of acculturating products, values, customs, images, symbols, procedures,
and most significantly, institutions (Erker, 2000, Nolan, 1994, Zeitlin, 2000).
However, the intangible nature of Americanisation and its abstruse quantification
have given rise to great ambiguity in the application and operationalisation of the
term in academic research. Americanisation can thus be said to be viewed in
gradients (McEldowney, Gaffikin and Perry, 2009). In a stricter sense, the extent of
its manifestation is partly determined by the perception of agents who are subject to
its effects.
There is general acknowledgment that policies are the product of a ‘complex
interplay of context, ideologies, ministers and bureaucracies’ (Kogan and Hanney,
2000). Yet there is an obscure relationship between educational policy and American
cultural hegemony (Smith, Baston, Bocock and Scott, 2002). This may also be
accounted by its ill-defined nature where it is often used interchangeably with ‘multi-
culturalism’, ‘globalisation’ and has become a ‘rough synonym for standardisation’
(Abravanel, 2008).
Despite slight dissent, it is generally regarded that, from a sociological perspective,
HEIs fit into a range of public institutions (Kogan and Hanney, 2000). By receiving
funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, institutions such as
these HEIs are subject to ‘issues of structures and resources that are vested in the
hands of government’ (Kogan and Hanney, 2000). This often inhibits the scope of
activity HEIs as ‘political models’ (Baldridge, 1971) can engage in. Thus, a move
towards a structure commonly adopted by American universities in the form of
privatisation, would allow for greater autonomy in determining their own portfolio of
values based on their own ‘criteria of excellence’ (Becher and Kogan, 1992).
Bringing Americanisation into the context of Higher Education into research – The
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
Due to the specific nature of this research area, the definition of Americanisation as
the ‘conscious import of certain elements of American education policies and
practices’ (Smith, Baston, Bocock and Scott, 2002) has been adopted for this study.
With this understanding in mind, it is observed that many universities across Europe
are converging towards the structure of American HEIs. The Robbins Report,
published in 1963 by the Committee on Higher Education, observes that the British
system of higher education has shifted to place greater emphasis on economic and
consumerist values. On one level, such convergence may be national, as the UK is
subject to the Bologna Declaration, hence is more vulnerable to the continuing
Americanisation across Europe. Kieser (2004) demonstrates this in his research on
Americanisation in German higher education. It was asserted that under the
influence of alternative sub-textual models, unintended departures from traditional


5

academic structures occur (Westney, 1987). This may also be motivated by
uneasiness towards suffering a ‘competitive disadvantage’ (Tiratsoo, 2004).
This paper first attempts to explore the degree to which LSE, in the broad sense of
Americanisation is subject to such implicit models and influences. The development
of the indicators used to determine the shift towards American values and practices
is elaborated upon in the ‘Methodology’ section below. This study goes on to analyse
the perception members of the LSE community have towards Americanisation while
investigating the extent to which they are subject to progressive Americanisation in
the stricter sense. This ultimately helps establish the impact HEIs have on shaping
our sense of place, identity and ultimately, our sense of self.
Methodology
Measuring Americanisation
Literature suggests that Americanisation arises in the movement towards
‘internationalisation’ across HEIs. In these terms, higher education seeks to embody
a greater homogenisation of values, behavior and perspectives (Gayol, 1996). This
is due to a shift towards what Kelly (2000) labels as a greater interest in ‘educating
for profit’. Hans de Wit (1995) acknowledges the difficulty in quantifying such a
phenomenon, as it is neither linear nor static but is a complex and cyclical process.
In a publication by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), van der Wende (1996) sets out a conceptual framework that may be
applied to case studies. This framework facilitates the incorporation of
internationalised curricula in higher education. This paper adopts the two main
aspects of this framework in determining if Americanisation at LSE has taken place:
characteristics and implementation. ‘Characteristics’ is split into ‘formal’ and
‘operational’. ‘Implementation’ is further split into ‘process’ and ‘influential factors’.
‘Formal characteristics’ look at the principled foundations of the institution while
‘operational characteristics’ address the structural foundations of HEIs. This involves
looking at teaching structures, types and groupings of students, and resources and
costs. ‘Process of implementation’ explores factors such as institutionalisation while
‘influential factors’ consider the international environment and competing institutions.
With this framework in mind, our paper pays special attention to indicators such as
LSE’s global projection, the new Academic Career Structure, revised alumni
resources policies and postgraduate study destinations. Data based on these
indicators are collected and analysed qualitatively through surveys and interviews
conducted throughout the LSE community. This qualitative data is then contrasted
against the quantitative data collected in what can be described as ‘replication and
pattern matching logic’ (Yin, 1984).
Qualitative Methodology: Perceptions of Americanisation - The Survey
Questionnaires were designed to assess the awareness of the LSE community
towards recent institutional changes in order to gauge if they would perceive such
changes as a form of Americanisation. We sought to measure the potential impact of


6

this process on students. The response options offered in the student survey were
predominantly ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Whilst blunt, we received explicit responses, which was
necessary given the indefinite nature of Americanisation (Maclean and Genn, 1979).
Other questions used the 5-point Likert scale (i.e. 1 being strongly disagree and 5
being strongly agree) to measure the extent to which participants agreed or
disagreed with aspects of Americanisation. There were also some closed and open
questions to guide participants’ responses while according greater flexibility. A
similar survey was also distributed to academics. This second survey was geared
towards evaluating other aspects of Americanisation (e.g. the influence of American
research trends). Given their experiences with administrative processes and greater
knowledge of LSE’s academic structure, academics provided crucial insights, which
went beyond those provided by the student survey. This extended to providing
normative comments on these changes in the context of the US model.
Strengths and Limitations of the Survey
As the majority of questions were closed and the bulk of our responses were
collected online we could quickly and easily encode the responses onto the
statistical programme, SPSS. Doing so meant that we could dedicate more time
towards drawing inferences from the data.
Given the nature of the topic investigated, there was an immediate concern of
defining ‘Americanisation’ for survey respondents; for instance, the open-ended
structure and direct claim of ‘Americanisation’ in Q.17. Respondents may have
quickly discerned our hypothesis (that Americanisation is taking place). This implicit
understanding may have furthered acquiescence bias (Smith, 2004) and social
desirability bias (Chung and Monroe, 2003) due to the negative connotations
attached to ‘Americanisation’. Objectivity in diction remained a problem when
designing the survey. However, such a question allowed for greater diversity of
opinion whilst directly tackling the issue of whether students perceived and
experienced processes of Americanisation at LSE.
Due to practical limitations, stratified sampling was conducted. This resulted in an
over-representation of undergraduate students, inhibiting our ability to draw cross
year conclusions. Convenience sampling was employed instead. Through using
online forms and social media, the time taken to collect data was minimised.
Judgement sampling was also used as we intentionally selected individuals who had
experienced the US education system so as to obtain informed responses. Selection
bias was particularly prevalent in the student survey as most respondents came from
our own social circles. These non-probability sampling methods resulted in our
sample being a weak representation of the population, leading to problems of
generalisation.


7

Some survey questions overlooked non-academic factors. Indeed, the survey fails to
elucidate whether students and academics are attracted by the cost of LSE tuition
fees (relative to that of top US universities) or the geographical benefits of LSE.
Finally, there were several respondents who did not know what Americanisation was.
Given the absence of consensus, subjective interpretations of Americanisation
remained a consistent undercurrent throughout. However, this consistent subjectivity
of Americanisation provided great insight into trends, which will be further elaborated
in Findings and Analysis.
Quantitative Methodology: The Realities of Americanisation - Proxy Variables
To evaluate whether the Americanisation of the LSE is desirable, we sought to
establish the effect of Americanisation on the destination of undergraduate students
at the LSE.
As Americanisation is an intangible concept by construction, it is hard to obtain a
robust measure of Americanisation. To overcome this hurdle, proxy variables were
employed:
● The aggressiveness of fundraising activities (as measured by the percentage
fundraising activities takes up in the total income of the school).
● The proportion of fund contributed by American Alumni (as measured by the
relative size of the Centennial Fund).
The validity of the first proxy comes from the rationale that most top US private
universities maintain strong relationships with alumni and the alumni in return gives
back generously. As a result, the portion of income generated by fundraising
activities is considerable compared to most British top universities. The logic behind
the second proxy is a direct result of the Centennial Fund being a US exclusive fund,
that is to say, donors of US origin wishing to donate to the Annual Fund will have to
donate directly to the Centennial Fund. This gives us a measure of American
influence in the LSE.
There exist two competing hypotheses for the effects of Americanisation of the LSE:
● Hypothesis 1: We can view the Americanisation of the LSE as a 'treatment' to
the students, which will make them more compatible to the US higher
education system, thereby increasing their chances in getting into
postgraduate programmes in the US.
● Hypothesis 2: It might be the case that the LSE, in undergoing the process of
Americanisation, has become so similar to its counterparts in the US that
students are indifferent between completing postgraduate studies in the US
and staying at LSE to do so.
To evaluate the two competing hypotheses, we obtain the ratios that are related to
graduate destinations:


8

● The retention rate of LSE graduates in choosing to continue their
postgraduate studies at LSE
● The outgoing US rate for LSE graduates pursuing further study in the US.
To uncover the causal relationship between Americanisation and Graduate
destinations, we need to run the ideal regression (Equation 1). The dependent
variable 𝑦! measures graduate destinations. A dynamic model is used as the
graduate destinations are likely to be correlated overtime. 𝑧! measures the
Americanisation while 𝐴! includes controls. 𝑢! is the error term.
Due to the time horizon of our research, it was not possible to collect enough data to
run the regression displayed in equation (1). Furthermore, the lack of measurable
control variables makes it unfeasible to make any causal inferences. Instead, we
analyse the data collected and test whether there are any trends present using the
Mann-Kendall test (Mann, 1945) and the traditional t-test.
Findings and Analysis
The Perception of Americanisation
One of our most significant findings regards the ambivalence amongst both LSE staff
and students. In most cases, respondents replied with the option ‘Neutral’. These
findings suggest that either students or staff are indifferent to processes of
Americanisation, or alternatively, that a process of conscious Americanisation is not
taking place. For instance, regarding whether LSE should have a British director or
not (Figure 2), most of the respondents appear neutral.
Figure 2


9

Figure 4 Figure 5
The ambivalence amongst students is evident amongst academic staff (Figure 3).
Over 40% of the sampled academic staff were ‘Neutral’ when it came to considering
whether Americanisation is taking place at LSE. However, the large number of
responses which stated ‘Neutral’ may be more a result of the difficulty of defining
‘Americanisation’. The difficulties we experienced with defining ‘Americanisation’ are
noted above, under the ‘Methodology’ section of this report.
On the other hand, indicators regarding the incorporation of General Course
students in Figure 4, and the global branding of the school, Figure 5, tell a different
story. Given the make-up of the General Students cohort (they are largely derive
from U.S. institutions of higher education), one can assume that the LSE, and
particularly home students, more than accommodates incoming U.S. students.
Similarly, the global projection of LSE is captured by the majority of student
respondents ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’ with the proposition that the ‘LSE
should remain true to its British roots’.
Figure 3


10

Figure 6
This latter finding is also highlighted in data, which confirmed our assumption that
LSE is now dependent on multiple identities, Figure 6. An additive model, whereby
British, international, American are mutually compatible becomes apparent. Indeed,
Martha Nussbaums’ additive model, whereby concentric circles replace a singular
mode of identity and place (Nussbaum, 1996).
On the other hand, both academics and students largely agree that LSE continues to
compete and model itself with high ranking British universities. Indeed, under 20% of
sampled academics claim that the top 10 US universities (according to the Times
Higher Education Guide) are not LSE’s utmost rivals, Figure 7. Similarly, a significant
proportion of students ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’ that ‘LSE models itself on the
top 10 universities’, Figure 8. Ultimately, both students and academics continue to
regard the LSE’s research and graduates as integral to British society. In these
terms, the LSE remains habituated in British academia.
Figure 7 Figure 8


11

The Effects of Americanisation
Both the Mann-Kendall test and the t-test fail to reject at traditional significance
levels the null hypothesis that there is no trend present in the ratio of Centennial
Fund to Annual Fund.(𝐻!: 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑏[𝑦! > 𝑦!] = 0.5 ,where 𝑖 > 𝑗 for the M-K test whilst
𝐻!: 𝛽 = 0 for the t-test where 𝛽 is the coefficient for the time variable.) Structural
breaks might contribute the sudden drop in the ratios as they coincide with the
financial crisis that hit the US economy of 2007-2008.
Similarly, both the Mann-Kendall test and the t-test fail to reject at traditional
significance levels the null hypothesis that there is no trend present in the retention
rates and the outgoing US rates. However, this might be due to the lack of data
points.
As a consequence, we are unable to establish a causal relationship between the
rates and Americanisation.


12

Conclusion
As a consequence of the lack of data, we were unable to draw any solid inferences
on the extent of Americanisation tangibly perceived by the members of the LSE
community. To a large extent, the indefinite nature of Americanisation, even when
evaluated on the stricter sense limited the scope of methodology. With respect to
qualitative data collection, survey respondents and interviewees generally
acknowledge the existence of structural processes but fail to place these subtle
changes in a grander scheme of Americanisation. This apparent ambivalence on
issues of Americanisation may be derived from an inability to pinpoint specific and
isolated features of this phenomenon. Alternatively, perhaps survey respondents are
indifferent to processes of Americanisation. Indeed, both academics and students
can be said to prioritise personal advancement, irrespective of the perceived or
actual Americanisation of the School. For quantitative data collection, there was a
lack of conclusive data for LSE’s retention rates and the outgoing US rates. More
data, some of which may be sensitive information, is needed to conduct further
research. Only then can solid analysis be made on whether a causal relationship
exists between retention rates and outgoing US rates and whether the weak positive
trend seen for the Centennial/Annual Fund will be stronger or weaker over a greater
time period. Despite a lack of conscious perception of processes of Americanisation
by the LSE community, this does not necessarily translate that such processes are
inactive or non-existent. For future research, the distinction between perceptions and
realities needs to be maintained. In this case, research into the actual or perceived
Americanisation of LSE can also be examined in the wider context of British higher
education.


13

Bibliography
Abravanel, G. (2008). English by Example: FR Leavis and the Americanization of
Modern England. Modernism/modernity, 15(4), 685-701.
Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university: Research in the
sociology of complex organizations. New York: Wiley.
Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1980). Process and structure in higher education. London:
Heinemann.
Clarke, S. (2008). Culture and identity. The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Analysis,
510-529
Erker, P. (2000). The long shadow of Americanization: The German rubber industry
and the radial tyre revolution. In J. Zeitlin & G. Herrigel (Eds.), Americanization and
its limits: Reworking United States technology and management in post-war Europe
and Japan (pp. 298-315). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon
and Schuster.
James, E. (1978). Product mix and cost disaggregation: A reinterpretation of the
economics of higher education. Journal of Human Resources, 157-186.
Kieser, A. (2004). The Americanization of academic management education in
Germany. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 90-97.
Kogan, M., & Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming Higher Education. Higher Education
Policy Series 50. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd., 325 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106.
Mann, H (1945). ‘Nonparametric Tests Against Trend’. Vol.13,No. 3 ( Econometrica,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 245-259.
Manning, P. (1992). Erving Goffman and modern sociology. Stanford University
Press.
McEldowney, M., Gaffikin, F., & Perry, D. C. (2009). Discourses of the contemporary
urban campus in Europe: intimations of Americanisation?. Globalisation, Societies
and Education, 7(2), 131-149.
Merrill, B. (1999). Gender, Change and Identity: Mature Women Students in
Universities. Ashgate Publishing Company, Old Post Road, Brookfield, VT 05036.


14

Nussbaum, M. (1996). For love of country. Debating the limits of patriotism. Boston:
Beacon Press..
Nolan, M. (1994). Visions of modernity: American business and the modernization of
Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, D., Baston, L., Bocock, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Americanization and UK higher
education: towards a history of transatlantic influence on policy and practice. Journal
of Education Policy, 17(4), 443-461.
Stead, W. T. (1902). The Americanization of the world, or, The trend of the twentieth
century. " Review of Reviews".
Tiratsoo, N. (2004). The “Americanization” of management education in
Britain.Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 118-126.
Westney, D. E., & Westney, D. E. (1987). Imitation and innovation: The transfer of
Western organizational patterns to Meiji Japan (p. 147203). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Zeitlin, J. (2000). Introduction. In J. Zeitlin & G. Herrigel (Eds.), Americanization and
its limits: Reworking United States technology and management in post-war Europe
and Japan (pp. 1-50). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.


15

Appendix I
5 - Year Average of Undergraduate - Postgraduate Quotients for Top US and
UK Universities


16

For John Hopkins, data was not available for 2007. Also data is collected for the
Homewood campus only. Data for 2012 shows that the trend of graduate
students being more than undergraduates still exists.
http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=johns+hopkins&s=all&id=162928#enrolmt

Likewise for Duke, data was unavailable for 07,08 and 09.

For Chicago, the official website shows that the number of undergraduate and
graduate students is 5692 and 9502 respectively. This data is for the period 2013-
2014 but extrapolating this we can conclude that the quotient will follow the
general pattern established thus far. Extrapolation is justified here as the general
trend for all the previous case was that the quotient will remain roughly the same
with a variation less than one."


17


18


19

Appendix II
Surveys
Survey for students


20


21


22


23


24

Survey for Academics


25


26


27

Appendix III
Bar and Pie Chart Analysis
Survey for Students


28


29


30


31


32


33


34


35


36


37

Survey for Academics


38


39


40


41

Appendix IV
M-K test for Retention Rates
Number of obs = 3
Kendall's tau-a = 1.0000
Kendall's tau-b = 1.0000
Kendall's score = 3
SE of score = 1.915
Test of Ho: time and Retentionrate_01 are independent
Prob > |z| = 0.2963 (continuity corrected)
M-K test for US Rates
Number of obs = 3
Kendall's tau-a = -0.3333
Kendall's tau-b = -0.3333
Kendall's score = -1
SE of score = 1.915
Test of Ho: time and US_01 are independent
M-K test for Centennial Fund/Annual Fund ratio
Number of obs = 5
Kendall's tau-a = 0.2000
Kendall's tau-b = 0.2000
Kendall's score = 2
SE of score = 4.082
Test of Ho: time and Cen are independent


42

LSE GROUPS Report

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a LSE GROUPS Report

Semelhante a LSE GROUPS Report (20)

LSE GROUPS Report