Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program by David L. McConnell Page B
Authors: David L. McConnell
Ads: Link
Affairs, and
Foreign Affairs who were connected with the program on several occasions
during the initial fieldwork period and again during my 1993 and 1995 visits. In ten visits to CLAIR, I interviewed twelve ranking officials of
CLAIR's managerial staff and fifteen of the "program coordinators" (JET
Program alumni working in CLAIR) to learn their vantage point on forming and enacting program policy. The follow-up visits were particularly
useful for examining the learning curve of the Japanese administrators and
for systematically tracing the continuities and changes in program policies
over time.
Several other vehicles for data collection also proved quite fruitful. I attended the weeklong Tokyo orientation for new JET participants in 1989,
two midyear conferences for ALTs in 1989 and 199o, and two "renewers'
conferences" in 199o and 1993 for JET participants who were extending
their contracts. I also interviewed the JET liaisons in the German, Canadian, and American embassies in Tokyo as well as several knowledgeable
professors in Japanese universities. To gain insight into the selection pro cess, I participated in a half-day orientation for new JET participants at the
San Francisco consulate in 1988 and was fortunate to be able to serve on
the selection committee for new JET participants in Boston in 1991. I interviewed a handful of Japanese and American officials at each of these
consulates as well as several other members of the selection committees.
Finally, CLAIR officials provided me with numerous in-house surveys,
documents, and manuals that have been produced over the program's tenyear history. These include copies of most monthly newsletters sent by
CLAIR to program participants, copies of the JET Journal and the CIR Report (a quarterly compilation of short essays written by the foreign participants and their Japanese hosts), orientation manuals for new JET participants, programs for midyear and renewers' conferences, the newsletter
published by the JET participants' "support group," internal surveys, and
the monthly newsletter sent by the Ministry of Home Affairs to all local
government bodies. I have also collected international, national, and local
newspaper articles about the JET Program since its inception. Taken together, these documents provide a wealth of information from which to reconstruct the history and evolution of the program.
In short, I used the techniques of both the anthropologist and the historian to provide a realistic portrait of the JET Program that captures not only
the diverse perspectives of its many participants but also the larger whole to
which they all contributed. As with any study, there are limitations that
must be acknowledged. As an outsider, I found it difficult at times to elicit
anything beyond the knee-jerk response that Harumi Befu has so aptly captured: "To internationalize is fashionable and good, and not to do so or to resist doing so is a sign of the backwardness of a country bumpkin."59 On numerous occasions, particularly when I was visiting public offices for the first
time, I was given only the version of the JET Program designed for public
consumption. Yet I am confident that I was often able to get beyond the official, or tatemae, version. By guaranteeing anonymity, by meeting with
people at neutral places, by tagging along at drinking parties whenever possible, and by nurturing a set of relationships over the entire thirteen-year
period of research, I was able to obtain relatively frank opinions and accounts. In this regard, the extended time frame of the study clearly worked
to my benefit. I was frequently able to locate individuals, now in new posts,
who had played key roles in implementing JET; removed in space and time
from those responsibilities, they were now able to talk more freely.
Three methodological limitations bear particular mention. First, I must
apologize to readers of other nationalities for the American slant to
Foreign Affairs who were connected with the program on several occasions
during the initial fieldwork period and again during my 1993 and 1995 visits. In ten visits to CLAIR, I interviewed twelve ranking officials of
CLAIR's managerial staff and fifteen of the "program coordinators" (JET
Program alumni working in CLAIR) to learn their vantage point on forming and enacting program policy. The follow-up visits were particularly
useful for examining the learning curve of the Japanese administrators and
for systematically tracing the continuities and changes in program policies
over time.
Several other vehicles for data collection also proved quite fruitful. I attended the weeklong Tokyo orientation for new JET participants in 1989,
two midyear conferences for ALTs in 1989 and 199o, and two "renewers'
conferences" in 199o and 1993 for JET participants who were extending
their contracts. I also interviewed the JET liaisons in the German, Canadian, and American embassies in Tokyo as well as several knowledgeable
professors in Japanese universities. To gain insight into the selection pro cess, I participated in a half-day orientation for new JET participants at the
San Francisco consulate in 1988 and was fortunate to be able to serve on
the selection committee for new JET participants in Boston in 1991. I interviewed a handful of Japanese and American officials at each of these
consulates as well as several other members of the selection committees.
Finally, CLAIR officials provided me with numerous in-house surveys,
documents, and manuals that have been produced over the program's tenyear history. These include copies of most monthly newsletters sent by
CLAIR to program participants, copies of the JET Journal and the CIR Report (a quarterly compilation of short essays written by the foreign participants and their Japanese hosts), orientation manuals for new JET participants, programs for midyear and renewers' conferences, the newsletter
published by the JET participants' "support group," internal surveys, and
the monthly newsletter sent by the Ministry of Home Affairs to all local
government bodies. I have also collected international, national, and local
newspaper articles about the JET Program since its inception. Taken together, these documents provide a wealth of information from which to reconstruct the history and evolution of the program.
In short, I used the techniques of both the anthropologist and the historian to provide a realistic portrait of the JET Program that captures not only
the diverse perspectives of its many participants but also the larger whole to
which they all contributed. As with any study, there are limitations that
must be acknowledged. As an outsider, I found it difficult at times to elicit
anything beyond the knee-jerk response that Harumi Befu has so aptly captured: "To internationalize is fashionable and good, and not to do so or to resist doing so is a sign of the backwardness of a country bumpkin."59 On numerous occasions, particularly when I was visiting public offices for the first
time, I was given only the version of the JET Program designed for public
consumption. Yet I am confident that I was often able to get beyond the official, or tatemae, version. By guaranteeing anonymity, by meeting with
people at neutral places, by tagging along at drinking parties whenever possible, and by nurturing a set of relationships over the entire thirteen-year
period of research, I was able to obtain relatively frank opinions and accounts. In this regard, the extended time frame of the study clearly worked
to my benefit. I was frequently able to locate individuals, now in new posts,
who had played key roles in implementing JET; removed in space and time
from those responsibilities, they were now able to talk more freely.
Three methodological limitations bear particular mention. First, I must
apologize to readers of other nationalities for the American slant to
Similar Books
