Search

At present, Japanese researchers conducting social surveys encounter several difficulties such as restricted access to official registers and a decrease in current response rates. These researchers may expect these difficulties to be solved by the survey techniques or methods developed outside Japan, such as computer-assisted interviews (CAI) and Internet surveys. It is unclear whether the numerous technical differences between survey methodologies developed in Japan and elsewhere imply the backward-ness of Japan or cultural differences. This paper discusses the potential of various recent survey methods, focusing on the culture and paradigms in Japan and the UnitedStates. First, this paper presents an overview of survey techniques, such as computer-assisted personal interviewing, Internet surveys, and mixed modes. Second, it points out the fact that the existence of the registers and different survey concepts might have created the different survey paradigms. In addition, reference is made to the linguisticdifferences between the US and Japan. The results indicate that survey research is more dispersed in Japan than in the US and that survey research adapted to the uniqueness of Japanese culture is not accumulated sufficiently, although such an accumulation is required. Finally, it is stated that not only surveys, but also the concept of methodology, is not very popular in Japan. Furthermore, the development of survey research in the US is likely to be related to pragmatism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How are multiple identities of Japanese people rank-ordered? Previous studies on multiple identities almost exclusively focus on people in the USA. Little is known about the structure of multiple identities of people living in other countries. Japan is a good comparative case because it has both similar and different social contexts than the USA. Analyzing a recent survey of a nationally representative sample of Japanese adults, I examine how multiple identities are rank-ordered by their salience among the Japanese. The results suggest that among ten identities, the most salient are the family-marital status identity, the occupational identity, and the national identity, while the least salient identities are social class, religious, and political identities. This identity rank-order differs from that found in a comparable study of Americans in that the rank-orders of national and religious identities are reversed. The observed patterns also seem to contradict an emerging line of cross-cultural research that suggests national identity is less important for the Japanese than for Americans. Overall, this paper empirically demonstrates the fundamental dictum of symbolic interactionism that self reflects society, and suggests the importance of specifying and examining country-level factors to study identity structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we look at the history of social survey development in Japanese sociology. First, the history of social research in Japan before World War II is explored. Second, the introduction of survey research to Japan during the American occupation after World War II is examined, and third, the present state and roles of social survey research in Japanese sociology is discussed. Social research was introduced as an administrative tool for the government. Sociology and social research were developed under British empiricism and American pragmatism, but Japanese academia has been based on a metaphysical approach. Social research introduced as a practical tool long had difficulty in being accepted by Japanese academia. For this reason, most sociologists in universities did not use social survey research for practical purposes, but pursued qualitative methodologies for analyzing data to gain academic prestige even after Social Stratification and Mobility (SSM) and Sabro Yasuda's research projects spread social survey methods in the field of Japanese sociology. Such academics did not think that findings acquired through qualitative case studies had to be confirmed through quantitative data to serve a practical purpose, nor did they believe that quantitative data could be better understood when examined along side qualitative data. Social survey methods have been opposed by those who have favored case-study analysis methods in Japanese sociology. Needless to say, this opposition is fruitless. I propose that professional sociologists in Japanese universities should use social survey research for practical problems more frequently. This is the best way to establish sociology and social research as a science in Japanese society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]