Lessons from Japan: Roger Goodman on Interdisciplinary Area Studies
This term, the Oxford Institute of Social Policy is hosting a seminar series on different perspectives on social policy within Oxford. Each week features a speaker from another department whose work impacts on the study of social policy.
Roger Goodman is an anthropologist by training and now heads Oxford University’s Social Sciences Division, which spans 14 academic departments. Prior to this he was head of the Oxford School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, which brings together a range of social scientists studying the regions Africa, China, Japan, Latin America, Russia or Eastern Europe. With this fascinating background he was able to shine insight on the benefits of taking an interdisciplinary approach to research, which is a key element of both Area Studies and Social Policy. In addition, his insights from his own research on social policy in Japan provided a fascinating counterbalance to the European-focussed models which are commonly encountered by students of Social Policy.
What is Area Studies?
Area studies brings together researchers from different disciplines who have research interests in a similar geographical area. In this way it is similar to social policy which is drawing on different social science disciplines such as economics, politics and sociology. Whilst this interdisciplinary approach can bring fresh insights, Goodman emphasised that it can also bring challenges, since Area Studies departments may face extra pressure to justify their existence, and why their work can’t simply be carried out by departments organised around the mainstream disciplines. For this reason, interdisciplinary departments – like Area Studies, and perhaps Social Policy departments too - have to hold themselves to a high standard of academic principles and transparency.
The Role of the Researcher
A key part of this is self-awareness. Researchers should be aware of the role they play in their research, the social context that shapes their outlook on a research question, and their prior assumptions about the research process, which all influence the theories they adopt and the methods they use. Goodman noted that although there has been a greater appreciation of the need for self-awareness, or what has become commonly known as the ‘reflexivity’ of the researcher, researchers tend to only consider some aspects of their identity which impact on their research (such as age, gender and nationality), and neglect other factors (such as institutional affiliation, or the relationship between one’s academic discipline and society).
Applying Reflexivity: Social Policy in Japan
Goodman gave the example of some anthropological research he conducted into social policy in Japan, where he worked for a year in a child welfare institution on the outskirts of Tokyo. Adoption of children in Japan is much lower than in many other OECD countries. Many adoptions that do occur are about extending existing family networks, often by adopting young adults whom they already know, as a way of carrying on the family name. As a result, many children who are taken into the care of the state are not placed in foster or adoption homes, but spend many years in institutions.
Some key differences that Goodman noticed between institutions for children in Japan compared to many European countries were their large size, and the fact that the vast majority were privately-owned, receiving state funding for each child in care. Most were part of large welfare conglomerations which included other institutions such as care homes for the elderly. These children homes were often understaffed and relied on volunteers – like Goodman himself – to operate.
Taking a Critical View
Goodman noted that his initial reaction was to see many elements of this form of care provision as problematic. These included what he saw as a reliance on institutions, lack of concern about returning children to a ‘normal’ family environment, and a complete absence in Japan of professional social workers, with the role instead being filled by professional civil servants who rotated in from placements in other, often unrelated, areas of the public sector. But he explained how, when he thought reflexively about his underlying assumptions which informed these judgements, his perspective changed.
For example, whilst the idea of someone without a long-term professional background in social work taking on a social worker’s role may seem strange from a UK perspective, Goodman pointed out that the Japanese civil service attracts highly qualified applicants, which arguably makes a social worker’s role more prestigious, and certainly more competitive to apply to, than many such posts in Europe. In addition, for the duration of their rotation, social work administrators in Japan live within the community they are working with, and thus can develop strong links with the community, which is often not the case in Europe where social workers may travel from a more middle class neighbourhood to work in a more deprived area.
In addition, the Western-influenced focus on the importance of returning children to a ‘normal’ family unit may not necessarily be obtained by European social policy models. For example, in the UK many foster placements are transitory and short term, which is arguably more damaging to a child’s development than remaining institutionalised for a long period.
Lessons for Social Policy
These examples demonstrate how, by considering the justifications for the Japanese approach to social policy, Goodman was able to gain fresh insight into the UK system – something which students of comparative social policy can learn from. His analysis illustrates the importance of the researcher being reflexive, identifying and questioning the assumptions which underlie their observations. In doing so we can better understand not only another culture, which may be the focus of an Area Studies project, but also view policy in our own country from a fresh perspective, which may further social policy.
About the Author
Holly Metcalf is a graduate student reading for the MSc in Comparative Social Policy at the Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford. She has a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from the University of Oxford.