Abstract
In this chapter, my epistemological and methodological standing is clarified. I actively take various local forms of knowledge found in indigenous studies from Asia to explore a holistic view of the perception of face. Methodologically, triangulation is used and multiple methods are used for the same research participants to understand their inner world.
Moreover, I discuss the rationale and the process of the following three methods: the WAI (‘Who am I?’ test), the PAC (Personal Attitude Construct) method and participant observation. By repeatedly asking themselves, ‘Who am I?’ the participants fill out the list of identifications and choose the identity most salient to a face-threatening or honouring incident. Then, the PAC enabled me to explore research participants’ face-threatening or honouring event. Then, participant observation leads me to perceive how the participants actually negotiate their multiple identities.
The PAC method is a hybrid method of qualitative and quantitative approaches and was originated and has been widely used in Japan. The most significant aspect of the PAC is that it enables the researcher to understand participants’ inner world from the participants’ perspective. The details of the three methods will be explained in this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is described as the PAC hereafter.
- 2.
The ‘Who am I?’ test is described as the WAI hereafter unless it needs to be written without abbreviation.
- 3.
For economy and to avoid redundancy, in this chapter, hereafter I stop writing ‘face (mentsu)’. However, when research participants use the term mentsu, I will write as it is stated.
- 4.
- 5.
I modified Appendix 1 in Sueda (2002, p. 326).
- 6.
Naito (2002) recommends that we use a small-sized card such as 3 cm (in width) × 9 cm (in length).
- 7.
There are several ways of calculating the distance between two items in cluster analysis, and the Ward method is most frequently used (Takagi & Tohkeisuirikenkyujo, 1998; Taki & Taki, 1995). Some researchers including myself use HALBOU as software for the PAC, but SPSS is also used by other researchers.
- 8.
Although some scholars using the PAC method write each item on the extreme left side, Naito (2002) writes each item within the dendrogram. I also found that writing each item within the dendrogram helped both research participants and researchers interpret the clusters and followed his approach.
- 9.
I modified Appendix 3 in Sueda (2002, p. 329).
- 10.
A researcher always starts with the furthest right-hand side perpendicular, and if the dendrogram is divided by the furthest right-hand side perpendicular, the dendrogram has two clusters, while the second right-hand side perpendicular divides it into three clusters.
- 11.
I modified Appendix 4b in Sueda (2002, p. 331).
- 12.
This diagram is created based on the one in the Appendix 5 in Sueda (2002, p. 332).
- 13.
This diagram is created based on the one in Appendix 6c in Sueda (2002, p. 335).
- 14.
References
Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily communication (2nd ed.). London: Methuen.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Befu, H. (1989). The emic-etic distinction and its significance for Japanese studies. In Y. Sugimoto & R. E. Mouer (Eds.), Constructs for understanding Japan (pp. 323–343). London: Kegan Paul International.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic.
Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 147–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dunsmuir, A., & Williams, L. (1991). How to do social research. London: Collins Educational.
Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361–376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fujita, Y., & Sato, T. (1995). Nihongokyohikujisshuh wa kyohikukan o donoyohni kaeruka: PAC bunseki o mochita jisshuhsei to gakushuhsha ni taisuru jireiteki kenkyuh [How students’ teaching experience can change their view of education: The PAC research on Japanese language learners and student teachers]. Nihongo kyohiku [Japanese Language Education], 89, 13–24.
Gendlin, E. T. (1986). What comes after traditional psychotherapy research? American Psychologist, 41, 131–136.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic relations. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 199–243). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Language and social identity (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 2). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, M. (1968). Emics, etics, and the new ethnography. In M. Harris (Ed.), The rise of anthropological theory (pp. 568–604). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Ikemi, A. (1995). Kokoro no messeeji o kiku: Jikkan ga kataru shinrigaku [Listening to the message from your heart: The feelings]. Tokyo: Kohdansha.
Inoue, T. (1997). Ibunkakan rinshoh shinrigaku josetsu [Introduction to intercultural clinical psychology]. Fukuoka, Japan: Tagashuppan.
Inoue, T. (1998). Kaunseringu ni okeru PAC no kohka [The effect of the PAC method in counselling]. Shinrigaku kenkyuh [Journal of Psychology], 69, 295–303.
Kakai, H. (2011). Shitsuteki kenkyuh no gaiyoh [The overview of qualitative study]. In K. Sueda, H. Kakai, K. Tasaki, & J. Saruhashi (Eds.), Komyunikeishon kenkyuhhoh [Methods in communication studies] (pp. 131–141). Kyoto, Japan: Nakanishiya.
Kitayama, S. (1994). Bunkateki jikokan to shinriteki purosesu [Cultural views of self and psychological processes]. Shakaishinrigaku kenkyu [Research in Social Psychology], 10, 153–167.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, S. (1967). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. In J. G. Manis & B. N. Meltzer (Eds.), Symbolic interaction (pp. 120–133). Boston: Allyn Bacon.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2004). Intercultural communication in context. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Matsumoto, Y. (2012). PAC bunsekihoh o tsukatta heiwagainen no naibukohsei bunseki: Shakaiteki aidentiti o hojisita kankeikouchiku eno iyoku [Internal constitution of “Peace” concept in PAC analysis: Motivation for building relationship with the social identity]. Academia [Social Science], 3, 171–179. Nanzan University.
McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1969). Issues in participant observation: A text and reader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
McCoy, M. M. (1983). Personal construct theory and methodology in intercultural research. In J. Adams-Webber & J. C. Mancuso (Eds.), Applications of personal construct theory (pp. 173–186). Toronto, Canada: Academic.
Makiyama, F. (2011). PAC bunseki niyoru shohgaisha no kazoku no taidokohzoh no kentoh [Personal Attitude Construct (PAC) Analysis of Attitudes toward families of people with disabilities]. Kawasaki Medical Welfare Journal, 20(2), 365–375.
Minoura, Y. (1999). Fiirudowahku no gihoh to jissai: Maikuro esunogurafii nyuhmon [The methods and practice of fieldwork: Introduction to micro-ethnography]. Kyoto, Japan: Mineruba Shoboh.
Nagaishi, K. (2012). Kankoku no fuhushi ni kansuru taidokouzoh: Kaigo ni taisuru Wakamonono ishiki ya taido [The structure of attitude for the Korean welfare: Consciousness and attitude of young people for the care]. Suzuka Tankidaigaku Kiyoh [Bulletin of Suzuka Junior College], 32, 117–132.
Naito, T. (1993). Gakkyu fuhdo no jireikijutsuteki kurasutah bunseki [The cluster analysis of classroom climate]. Jikken shakaishinrigaku kenkyuh [The Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology], 33, 111–121.
Naito, T. (1995). Shinshuhjin no ningenkankei no kojinbetsu imeh-ji kohzoh bunseki [The interpersonal relationship of people from Shinshuh: The PAC analysis]. Nairiku chiikibunka no jinbunkagakuteki kenkyuh II [The characteristics of inlanders and their culture] (pp. 5–26). Matsumoto, Japan: Shinshuh University.
Naito, T. (2002). PAC bunsekiho nyumon: Ko o kagakusuru shingiho eno shotai [How to use PAC analysis: An invitation to new scientific method for single cases] (2nd ed.). Kyoto, Japan: Nakanishiya.
Naito, T. (2008). PAC bunseki o kohkatekini riyoh suru tameni [For using the PAC method effectively]. In T. Naito, T. Inoue, T. Ito, & T. Kishi (Eds.), PAC bunseki kenkyuh jissenshuh I [PAC research cases Vol. 1] (pp. 1–33). Kyoto, Japan: Nakanishiya.
Omi, Y. (2012). Collectivistic individualism: Transcending a traditional opposition. Culture and Psychology, 18(3), 403–416.
Onda, A., & Itoh, R. (1999). Rinshoh shinrigaku jiten [Dictionary of Clinical Psychology]. Tokyo: Yachiyoshuppan.
Parker, I. (2004). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Pike, K. (1954). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior (Part I) (preliminary ed.). Glendale, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Rosenberg, S., & Gara, M. A. (1985). The multiplicity of personal identity. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 87–113.
Satoh, I. (1992). Fiirudo wahku: Sho o motte machi e deyoh [Fieldwork: Let’s go out with a book]. Tokyo: Shinyohsha.
Scheff, T. J. (1990). Microsociology: Discourse, emotion, and social structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Scheff, T. J. (1997). Emotions, the social bond, and human reality: Part/whole analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Shibutani, T. (1961). Society and personality: An interactionist approach to social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shimabukuro, T., & Naito, T. (1996). Kyohiku jisshuh no PAC bunseki [The PAC method for student teaching]. The Annual Conference of Japan Education Psychology Association Proceedings, 38, 385.
Shimoda, N. (1994). Shakairiron to shakaiteki genjitsu [Sociological theories and social reality]. Tokyo: Shinsensha.
Silverman, B. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.
Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1991). Feminist research, feminist consciousness, and experiences of sexism. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 265–283). Bloomington/Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Sueda, K. (2001). Ryuhgakutaiken no imizuke: Daigakusei no ryuhgakumae oyobi kikokugo no taizaikoku ni taisuru imehjibunseki o tohshite [An analysis of students’ images of their host countries: Application of the PAC method to intercultural training]. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 4, 57–74.
Sueda, K. (2002). Shame and pride behind face: Japanese returnees’ negotiation of multiple identities. Ph.D. thesis presented to the University of Lancaster.
Sueda, K. (2004). Aidentiti chohsei ni okeru mentsu no yakuwari [The role of face in negotiating identities: Triangulated research with Japanese returnees]. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 7, 199–219.
Sueda, K. (2011a). Approaches in communication research. In K. Sueda, H. Kakai, K. Tasaki, & J. Saruhashi, (Eds.,) Komyunikeishon kenkyuho [Research methods in communication studies] (pp. 9–17). Kyoto, Japan: Nakanishiya.
Sueda, K. (2011b). Bunka ni taisuru shiten no tayouka [Diversified perspectives to look at culture]. In K. Sueda, & H. Fukuda (Eds.), Komyunikeshongaku: Sono tenboh to shiten [Communication studies: Perspectives and prospects] (2nd ed., pp. 57–74). Tokyo: Shohakusha.
Sueda, K., & Tsai, H. (1999). Mentsu no tamensei ni kansuru ichi kohsatsu: Zainichi taiwanjin dansei no kehsu sutadii o tohshite [A multiple dimension of face]. Ibunka komyunikeishon kenkyuh [Intercultural Communication Research, Kanda Institute of Foreign Language], 11, 85–98.
Suzuki, K. (2007). Kaigai fiirudo wahku ni yoru nikkeikokusaiji no bunkateki aidentiti keisei [Cultural identity formation of intercultural children with Japanese ancestry]. Tokyo: Brain Shuppan.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differences between social groups. London: Academic.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Takagi, H., & Tohkeisuirikenkyujo. (1998). Halwin ni yoru dehta kaiseki [The data analysis with Halwin]. Kyoto, Japan: Gendaisuhgakusha.
Takahashi, J. (1998). Fiirudo kenkyuh ni okeru intabyuh [Interview in fieldwork]. In J. Takahashi, F. Watanabe, & K. Ohbuchi (Eds.), Kenkyuhhoh handobukku [A handbook of methodology] (pp. 135–148). Kyoto, Japan: Nakanishiya.
Takahashi, N. (1993). Shinborikku intarakushonizumu no hohhoh toshiteno ‘watashi wa daredaroh’ tesuto no tenkaikanohsei ni tuiteno kentoh [The question, ‘who am I?’: A methodology test of symbolic interactionism]. Shakaigaku Hyoron [Japanese Sociological Review], 44, 116–130.
Taki, Y., & Taki, H. (1995). Inshi bunseki kara kurasutah bunsekimade: Kigyoh no keieiryoku bunseki toshi no keizairyoku bunseki [From factor analysis to cluster analysis: Analysis of organizational management ability and analysis of municipal economic ability]. Tokyo: Seizansha.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. In N. R. Goldberger & J. B. Veroff (Eds.), The culture and psychology: Reader (pp. 326–365). New York: NYU Press.
Tsai, H., & Sueda, K. (1998). Zainichi taiwanjin no shinzoku ishiki: Nihonjinshinseki tono kakawari ni okeru mentsu no ishiki [The perception of Japanese relatives held by Taiwanese living in Japan]. Taiwanshi kenkyu [Journal of Taiwan Studies], 15, 44–54.
Tsuchida, Y. (2012). Shukanteki ruijido hyohtei o mochiita ninchikohzoh no dohtei shuhoh no teian [The identification technique of cognitive structure system using subjective similarity ratings]. Nihon kenchiku gakkai gijutsu hohkokushu [AIJ Journal of Technology and Design], 18(38), 225–228.
Tsushima, A., Mikami, K., & Nishizawa, Y. (2010). Shi o ishiki shiteiru kanja tono taiwabamen ni okeru kangosha no taidokohzoh ni kansuru kenkyu [A study on nurses’ attitude towards communicating with patients concerned about death]. Japanese Journal of Nursing Research, 33(5), 33–44.
Tsutsui, M., Emoto, R., Sekine, H., Ota, Y., Kai, K., Nakamura, T., et al. (2005). Nihon ni okeru kenkyuhshuhoh no hensen: Ryohteki kenkyuh Shitsuteki kenkyu toraiangureishon [Transformation of research methods in Japan: Quantitative research, qualitative research, and triangulation]. Intah nashonaru nahshingu rebyuh [International Nursing review], 28(2), 37–46.
Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self- categorization theory (pp. 42–87). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Ueda, M., Watanabe, T., & King, G. (2010). Kompuhtah ni yoru tanki ryuhgakusei no jikorikaisokushin no kokoromi [Using the computer to facilitate self-awareness of short-term exchange students]. Journal of the College of Humanities, Chubu University, 23, 91–100.
Watanabe, F., An, Y.S., & Naito, T. (1995). Kankokujin nihongo gakushuhsha to nihonjinkyohshi no jugyoukan no hikaku [The difference in perception of classroom between Korean students learning the Japanese language and Japanese teachers]. In The proceedings for the 36th annual convention of the Japanese Society of Social Psychology (pp. 360–363).
Watanabe, F., Min, G.J., Saita, I., Lee, S.H., Naito, T., An, Y.S., et al. (1994). Nihongo kyohiku to ninchiteki henyoh no kenkyuh I Japanese language teaching and cognitive modification I: How classes should be run? – A case study of Korean learners of Japanese and trainee Japanese teachers. Journal of Japanese Language Educational Methods, 1(3), 32–33.
Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Yamagishi, T. (1994). Ibunkakan shinrigaku to bunka shinrigaku [Cross-cultural psychology and cultural psychology]. Shakaishinrigaku kenkyu [Research in Social Psychology], 10, 151–152.
Yamamoto, M. (2001). Does the ‘one parent-one language’ principle work? Educational Studies, 43, 235–240 (International Christian University).
Yamamoto, M. (2007). Fukusuh no gengo to bunka ga kosasuru tokoro [The places where multiple languages and cultures interact with one another]. Ibunkakan Kyoiku [Intercultural/Transcultural Education], 26, 2–13.
Yokobayashi, M. (1998). Tankiryuhgakusei no ryuhgakuseikatsu ni kansuru imehji no henka: PAC bunseki ni yoru jireikenkyu [The changes in the image of the life abroad: The PAC research of those who studied abroad for a short period]. Kokusaigengobunkakenkyuh [Research in international language and culture], 4, 21–39. (Kagoshima Junshin Women’s University).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sueda, K. (2014). Research Methodology and Methods. In: Negotiating multiple identities. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-008-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-008-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-007-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-008-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)