Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication New directions for collaboration between professors and professionals
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication New directions for collaboration between professors and professionals Misa Fujio Toyo University Transdisciplinary collaboration has become one of the most important agendas in the field of Applied Linguistics and professional communication. Investigation into transdisciplinary collaboration has been conducted at the interface of both fields through knowledge transformation and multimethod action research. In Japan, however, investigation into transdisciplinary col- laboration or transdisciplinarity still holds great potential for development. As the first step to investigate transdisciplinary collaboration, the author conducted in-depth interviews with eight Japanese business professionals who are also engaged in academic collaboration. The purpose of this study is to understand the challenges and opportunities they are currently facing in transdisciplinary collaboration and to identify shared goals that both applied linguists (academics) and business professionals can explore by focusing on shared language and knowledge transformation in business practice. The whole interview data were analysed using the Modified Grounded Theory Approach (M-GTA) (Kinoshita, 2003), in which nine basic concepts were obtained in the Open Coding Stage. These were then categorised into four larger groups in the Selective Coding Stage: (1) the current barriers for transdisciplinarity, (2) integration of theory and prac- tice, (3) sensitivity to common ground, and (4) contribution to Japanese society. After presenting these concepts, the construction of shared language as a theme of collaboration is highlighted in the Discussion section. Keywords: transdisciplinarity in Japan, business professionals engaged in academia, gaps in needs, common ground, language and power https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.20009.fuj AILA Review 34:1 (2021), pp. 79–101. ISSN 1461-0213 | E‑ISSN 1570-5595 © AILA
80 Misa Fujio
1. Introduction
Under the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis we are facing now, collaborating
across disciplines, or transdisciplinary collaboration, is becoming increasingly
important to resolve the urgent problems in our societies, politics, professional
fields and academia.
As will be elaborated on in the next section, throughout this article, the author
uses the term transdisciplinary collaboration as one “transcending beyond acad-
emia” (Perrin & Kramsch, 2018, pp. 2–3) and collaborating with business pro-
fessionals. Since the author has some business background before moving to
academia and has been investigating international business communication as
well as Applied Linguistics, she will focus on these two areas, business communi-
cation and Applied Linguistics for the current transdisciplinary research.
In Japan, although transdisciplinary collaboration, especially industry-
government-academia collaboration, has been supported by the government,
these collaborations have not developed as originally expected (Murakami, 2018),
as will be reviewed in the next section.
This fact, however, also suggests that a lot of potential remains for transdisci-
plinary collaboration between business professionals and academia, particularly
in Applied Linguistics. As revealed by one of the participants in the current study,
business professionals occasionally collaborate with scholars in Marketing, but
rarely with those in Applied Linguistics; this may be partly because the research
scope of Applied Linguistics is not clearly nor sufficiently understood by business
professionals and the important elements of Applied Linguistics, including how
to establish shared language or effectively communicate with stakeholders, might
not be given sufficient attention.
On the other hand, seminal research and projects into transdisciplinary col-
laboration in other countries have contributed to resolving problems and chal-
lenges in communication, focusing on specific business fields, such as Financial
Communication (e.g., Whitehouse, 2018).
Considering the twofold goals of Applied Linguistics research, (1) “to observe,
explain, analyse and interpret the practice and to communicate the results of its
research to practitioners” and (2) “to reflect on both the practitioner’s and the
researcher’s practice and to develop a theory of the practice that is commensurate
with its object of study” (Kramsch, 2015, p. 456), it seems meaningful to analyse
why collaborations between business professionals and applied linguists have not
been accelerated in Japan as the first step, and to disclose why business profes-
sionals do not necessarily regard collaborative research with academia as a mean-
ingful learning opportunity.Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 81
In order to reveal the underlying constraints and opportunities for transdis-
ciplinary collaboration in Japan and to identify a theme of collaboration between
business professionals and applied linguists, the author conducted eight in-depth
interviews with professionals actively involved in academia,1 all of which were
transcribed and analysed, using the M-GTA (Kinoshita, 2003). The analytical
results revealed nine basic concepts as the advantages and potential disadvantages
of transdisciplinary collaboration in Japan in the Open Coding Stage. These were
then categorised into four larger groups in the Selective Coding Stage: (1) the cur-
rent barriers for transdisciplinarity, (2) integration of theory and practice, (3) sen-
sitivity to common ground, and (4) contribution to Japanese society.
In the Discussion, after elaborating on the challenges and opportunities for
transdisciplinary collaborations in Japan, the author will discuss how the par-
ticipants, business professionals, pay attention to shared language with different
types of stakeholders, in other words, how they adjust the common ground with
their stakeholders to communicate in mutually understandable language.
2. Literature review
The following sections will outline the framework conditions of this study: trans-
disciplinarity (2.1), context and common ground (2.2), reasons for slowing down
industry-government-academia collaboration in Japan (2.3), and summary of pre-
vious studies (2.4).
2.1 Transdisciplinarity
The term transdisciplinary can be defined in two different ways: transcending
“the concept of discipline within academia” (TD1) and transcending “across and
beyond academic and non-academic disciplines and fields” (TD2) (Perrin &
Kramsch, 2018, pp. 2–3). It is also maintained that transdisciplinary collaboration
focuses on themes, not on disciplines. In other words, the research focuses on
revealing a theme, such as how to construct shared language in the current article,
transcending disciplines or established research domains such as Linguistics or
Communication Studies.
1. There is a term, scholar-practitioners, as a similar concept. Although there are several differ-
ent definitions of scholar-practitioners, some of them put a primary focus on scholarly research
and then practical application. Therefore, the author will use the term “professionals engaged
in academia” throughout this article since the research participants in the current study focus
on their profession first and then involve themselves in academia.82 Misa Fujio
With regard to TD1, the research into transdisciplinarity has developed,
drawing on “multimethod research and knowledge transformation at the interface
of Applied Linguistics and transdisciplinary action research on professional com-
munication” (Perrin, 2018, p. 53). Although the author has the background to
contribute based on the definition TD1, she is even more interested in enabling
research projects that transcend the borders of academia and non-academia, with
a special focus on business professionals. Her interests lie in the linguistic and
communicative problems facing daily communication, the theories that can help
resolve these problems, and how to share the gained outcomes to benefit both
academia and professionals. Therefore, throughout this article, the author uses
the term TD2.
Investigating transdisciplinarity is essential to achieve the above goals since
it is different from multidisciplinarity or interdisciplinarity in that transdiscipli-
narity is “an advanced level of collaboration between disciplines”, which enables
the negotiation of “research essentials such as research questions, field access,
key concepts, methods, and roadmaps with colleagues from outside academia”
(Whitehouse, 2018, p. 83) as well as to publish the outcomes together.
Transdisciplinary research will resolve another factor that has been an obsta-
cle between business practitioners and scholars: the Ins and Outs (Alessi & Jacobs,
2016). The Ins are issues related to how to gain access to authentic data or “finding
collaborative and productive ways of gaining non-invasive access to practitioners’
discursive contexts and practices” (p. 3), while the Outs are the ways to feedback
the research outcomes or “collective insights gained from reflective evaluation of
practices which are then reformulated into suggestions or operative solutions”
(p. 4). In other words, the Ins are related to practical and ethical obstacles to get
access to authentic data and the Outs to what practitioners could gain through
transdisciplinary collaboration. Since transdisciplinarity can co-create research
questions, collect and interpret the data together, and co-publish the outcomes, it
will go beyond the concepts of the Ins and Outs mentioned above.
On the other hand, several challenges or agendas are summarised for trans-
disciplinary research in Perrin (2018): the trans-measures, the action measures,
and the research measures. The trans-measures include “getting support from
the relevant parties”, “overcoming through emergent, creative approaches”, and
“fostering communication and mutual learning in a “reciprocal dialogue” across
stakeholder groups and project partners” (p. 70). The third point, fostering com-
munication and mutual learning, is particularly related to shared goals and
timescales. The tendency that the business side seeks immediate application of
knowledge while academia needs a longer timescale for building up theories is
also revealed in the following section.Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 83
Some of the action measures, including “observing and scrutinising organisa-
tional power”, “motivating practitioners’ superiors”, and “collaborating with prac-
titioners and putting tacit knowledge to use” (pp. 72–73), are observed in the
current study, as both the current barriers and gains.
The last challenge, research measures, including “grasping the complexity of
problems”, “integrating practitioners’ views in multiperspective approaches”, and
exploiting methodological rigour in favour of “mutual enhancement of discipli-
nary epistemology” (pp. 74–75), is also a core idea of the current study, and how to
share the outcomes in a mutually beneficial way will be highlighted in the section,
Discussion.
Thus, this article will contribute to revealing some aspects of the above
research agendas, as the first step of developing transdisciplinary collaboration in
Japan between business professionals and professors, mainly in Applied Linguis-
tics, with a special focus on a shared language or how to establish mutually under-
standable and effective language.
2.2 Context and common ground
The context is a multifaceted yet essential part of communication and includes
cognitive, social and/or cultural aspects, which could give exactly the same word
a completely different meaning. Context and content are closely and inversely
related as compared to a yin and yang sign (e.g., Yamada et al., 2017), regarding
content as the light half (yang) and context as the dark one (yin).
Another important notion related to both context and content is common
ground. One of the theories is explained in Collaborative Theory by Wilkes-Gibbs
(1997), who regards communication as a collaborative process of “coordinating
individual beliefs into a mutual one” and extending “the boundaries of com-
mon ground” (p. 240). This collaborative process is called the grounding process,
which consists of the presentation phase, in which some new information is pre-
sented and of the acceptance phase, in which the respondent shows a sign of
either understanding or non-understanding. Based on the theory, specific strate-
gies for adjusting common ground according to the interlocutor’s background
knowledge are reported by Fujio (2011), including Defining Strategy (which “pro-
vides a clear definition first”), Narrowing Strategy (which “explains general things
first and then narrows the topic by addressing only one aspect of the topic”), and
Common Ground Strategy (which either “checks the interlocutor’s knowledge,
establishes shared knowledge, or discloses one’s knowledge first”) (pp. 148–150).
Although the publication (Fujio, 2011) focuses on language learners, the
same type of strategies and sensitivity will be applied to professional settings. In
professional communication, especially in business-to-business (B2B), both par-84 Misa Fujio
ties tend to have similar background knowledge, including expertise in the spe-
cific field. However, grasping common ground is not an easy process even in the
same industry or even in the same company since it varies from interlocutor to
interlocutor.
In the current study, all the participants are engaged in international business.
However, some are mainly engaged in in-house communication, either in the
Japanese headquarters or the ones in the US or Europe, while others are or used
to being with customers. These different circumstances revealed various aspects
of communication with different stakeholders, as will be highlighted in the sec-
tion, Discussion.
2.3 Reasons for slowing down industry-government-academia
collaboration in Japan
In Japan, like many other counties, the importance of transdisciplinary collab-
oration in general and industry-government-academia collaboration, in particu-
lar, has been maintained and supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) and the Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (METI), as represented by the jointly formulated guideline for
enhancing collaboration activities (METI, 2016).
However, as discussed by Murakami (2018), collaborations across the three
areas have not developed as originally expected due to many underlying con-
straints in Japanese society. Murakami (2018) reported the constraints for col-
laboration, based on NISTEP 2017, an annual summary of the Japanese Science
and Technology Indicators, taken from a questionnaire of 476 university or pub-
lic organisations and 415 corporations. Considering the numbers of collabora-
tions are low even in science or medicine (whose results are more visible and
attractive for corporations), it is easy to imagine that those in humanities are
even further behind.
With regard to the academic side, three big factors are pointed out: (1) dif-
ficulty in understanding corporate needs; (2) administrative constraints at the
organisational level, including understaffed professional members who can nego-
tiate with corporations; and (3) research constraints at the organisational level,
including insufficient numbers of researchers able to meet corporate needs and
cooperative actions.
On the other hand, the corporate side answered differently depending on
the size of the organisation. Large companies answered: (1) difficulty in choosing
to promise research seeds; (2) lack of R&D strategies that can utilise outside
resources; and (3) complicated administrative and decision-making procedures
for collaborations.Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 85
The small and medium-sized companies raised three factors: (1) research
constraints at the organisational level; (2) understaffed researchers who can meet
the industry-academic collaboration; (3) lack of capital. Lastly, for venture com-
panies, lack of capital was highlighted as the largest problem.
In addition, some specific comments in Murakami (2018) should be shared,
disclosing that it is becoming more difficult for a company to formulate long-
term research topics and to incorporate research seeds from academia since the
budget for R&D is changed every year based on their business performance and
corporate needs are becoming even more short-term oriented and complicated
year by year.
All of the above findings indicate that the environment surrounding industry-
academic collaborations is becoming even more challenging unless the academic
side presents a mutually beneficial proposal to the corporate side; in the case of
Applied Linguistics, how our insights into shared language or theories built up
through a collaboration can contribute to future business and to establishing a
win-win relationship for both practitioners and academia.
2.4 Summary of previous studies
As reviewed above, there are several factors that have prevented the promotion of
transdisciplinary collaboration in Japan. Although there are disciplines in which
collaborations with industries have advanced, such as Science, Technology or
Marketing, research fields related to Applied Linguistics have not yet drawn suf-
ficient corporate attention. Therefore, in this study, the author tried to reveal the
potential obstacles and opportunities to progression as the first step.
3. Methodology
As described above, there is still a long way to go to promote transdisciplinary
collaborations in Japan between business professionals and academia, and with
Applied Linguistics in particular. In order to identify the (potential) obstacles that
may have slowed down transdisciplinary collaborations as the first step of ongo-
ing research, the author conducted eight in-depth interviews with the business
professionals who are also engaged in academia and professors who used to be
business professionals. It is very difficult to find these participants in Japan; how-
ever, the author used her academic and personal networks to secure eight partic-
ipants. Therefore, all the participants are more or less involved in international
business, regardless of their affiliation, either working for a Japanese company or
a foreign-capital company, as will be elaborated on later. All the interviews (except86 Misa Fujio
one) were conducted online from March to May in 2020 because of the spread of
coronavirus. Each interview lasted for about one hour, with ten fixed questions,
allowing flexibility based on the participant’s natural topic development. All the
comments were transcribed and analysed, using the M-GTA (Kinoshita, 2003).
3.1 Research questions
In order to grasp the obstacles and the gains facing those professionals, the fol-
lowing research questions were formulated.
1. What are the advantages and (potential) disadvantages of transdisciplinary
collaboration at the individual level?
2. What are the advantages and (potential) disadvantages of transdisciplinary
collaboration at the organisational level?
3. What kind of attention do business professionals pay to establish shared lan-
guage with different stakeholders?
3.2 In-depth interviews
Interviews and focus groups are typical methods to collect information about
individual episodes or opinions, each with different advantages (and potential
disadvantages). Basically, a focus group has advantages in discussing common
issues within a group and in collecting at-length responses in a limited time
frame, while an individual interview in probing individual experiences and in pri-
oritising in-depth information from a small number of people. Some researchers
pointed out that a focus group provides better insights when it is conducted
among a relatively homogeneous group in terms of age, gender, or nationality
(e.g., Morgan, 1997).
Considering that in the current study each participant has his or her indi-
vidual professional background and experiences, and that the interview might
cover some personal experience which the participant might not want to share
with other participants, the author chose the interview as the method for data
collection.
Interviews are categorised into three types (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008):
structured and standardised interviews; guided and semi-structured interviews;
and unstructured, informal, open and narrative interviews. The first type, the
structured and standardised interview, is most useful “when it is necessary to
reduce variety” and to “compare the information provided by the participants in
a systematic manner” (p. 81). The second one, the guided and semi-structured
interview, is most frequently used in interviews, and the researcher can prepare
the outline of topics while leaving the possibility to “vary the wording and order ofTransdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 87
questions in each interview” (p. 82), allowing voluntary topic development by the
participant. The third one, the unstructured, informal, open and narrative inter-
view, is beneficial for eliciting “highly individualised, contextualised and relevant
to the participant” (p. 83) narratives. On the other hand, this type of interview
may not be sufficiently systematic nor comprehensive. In order to effectively com-
pare the answers while allowing voluntary conversational development, the semi-
structured interview style was chosen for this study.
3.3 Research participants
Although it was very difficult to find business professionals who have engaged in
transdisciplinary projects with academia, the author was able to contact eight par-
ticipants through her academic and personal contacts. Many of them belong to
a Japanese academic association in the field of international business communi-
cation, which consists of both business practitioners and academia with varying
academic background from Applied Linguistics, Communication Studies to Inter-
national Trading.
All the participants have been engaged in international business to different
degrees, and all communicate both in Japanese and English on a daily basis. More
specifically, they are in an environment in which they communicate in English
with or within their headquarters and other regional branches, and in Japanese
with Japanese colleagues and customers. Therefore, there are two aspects in their
interviews in terms of stakeholders; inside the organisation (corporate employees
or their colleagues) and outside (their customers), which will be discussed further
in the Discussion.
Table 1 shows the profile of the participants. The first two (M-1 and F-1) are
now both professors; however, they used to be business professionals, and the
interviews focused on the time they were engaged in both business and academia.
The next three (M-2, M-3, and F-2) are currently in professional positions while
engaged in research. The last three (M-4, M-5, M-6) are less engaged in research,
although they are interested in and contribute to academia through occasional
lectures or data provision. With regard to their knowledge about Applied Linguis-
tics, they were not necessarily familiar with the exact research scope (except M-4,
who obtained an MA in the same field in the UK) but had a general understand-
ing of the discipline as one investigating anything related to language use. There
were also several other participants with MAs but in different disciplines, such as
MBA. The fact that they are English users in professional fields but do not analyse
language as applied linguists contributed to the current research since they were
able to share communicative problems from a practitioner’s point of view and
offer their frank opinions toward transdisciplinary collaborations with academia.88 Misa Fujio
Table 1. Profile of the participants
Head Professional
Industry Department quarters career
M-1 Finance Asset-Backed Japan 30 years
Securities
F-1 Securities/ Consulting Consulting Europe 15 years
M-2 Finance Compliance/Legal Europe 22 years
M-3 Service Licence Business US 40 years
F-2 Interpretation Independent Japan 15 years
M-4 Service Employee Engagement Japan 3 years
M-5 Health Care Global Marketing US 30 years
Manufacturer
M-6 Manufacturer Sales/After-Sales Japan 25 years
The author explained to the participants that all the data will be used only for
academic purposes and then received a consent from each participant.
In all the interviews, the following questions were asked as common and
semi-structured questions, with natural conversational development based on
each participant’s answers and personal episodes. The author facilitated the inter-
views in Japanese (which is our native language) so that the conversation could
develop more freely and naturally.
1. What industry and profession are you engaged in?
2. What languages do you use in your daily work?
3. Why did you become interested in academia or collaborations with academia?
4. What kind of advantages do you enjoy through your engagement with acade-
mia at the individual and at the organisational level?
5. What kind of disadvantages do you encounter from your engagement with
academia at the individual and at the organisational level?
6. What contributions do you think you can make through your engagement?
7. Are there any difficulties in your involvement with academia?
8. Are there any suggestions to promote industry-academia collaborations?
9. Is there anything special you keep in mind when you communicate (as a busi-
nessperson with expertise) with customers (as a layperson)?
10. Is there anything special you keep in mind when you communicate with
academia?
The first two questions were asked to grasp the participant’s background. With
regard to Question 2, most participants used to or currently use English on a dailyTransdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 89
basis, and their background implies that they must have more awareness about
communication than those without any intercultural experiences (because they
have experienced difficulties in communication using a foreign language) and
they are more suitable for in-depth interviews due to their high-level awareness of
communication.
Questions 3 to 8 are the core questions that probe the advantages and disad-
vantages of transdisciplinary collaborations. The last two (Questions 9 and 10)
were asked to probe their sensitivity to shared language.
3.4 Method of analysis
All the comments in the interviews were transcribed and analysed, using the
Modified Grounded Theory Approach (M-GTA), an approach to systematically
analyse discourse data, developed by a Japanese researcher, Kinoshita (2003),
based on the Grounded Theory Approach (GTA) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The
M-GTA shares the basic notions of GTA, including the following points.
1. Data orientation: Form basic concepts grounded on data and lead to a more
general theory;
2. Clear acknowledgement of the research scope: Define the limitations of the
data and try to explain or predict human behaviours within that limited
scope;
3. Clarification of the analytical process: Analyse all the data and limit excep-
tions by clarifying and systematising the analytical procedure.
The major difference between the original and modified versions lies in the
method of data analysis, introducing worksheets. The M-GTA uses worksheets
for clearer and simpler analysis instead of fragmenting the data as conducted in
the GTA.
Each worksheet consists of 1) the name of the concept, that is, a coded group,
2) the definition of that concept, 3) variations or actual comments related to the
concept, and 4) theoretical memo. The concept (1 above) should be named to
show a general idea of the concept at first glance, with the definition of the con-
cept (2 above) that clarifies the concept and makes the analysis consistent or not
blurred. Then, the actual comments or variations (3 above) expressed in the inter-
views are sorted out into each worksheet. When the number of variations is too
small, it is not enough to make one concept. Lastly, in the theoretical memo (4
above), any points that should be noted are written down, including the opposite
variations, for further reference.90 Misa Fujio
4. Results
In this section, the results of the current study will be presented in order of the
analytical procedures involved in the M-GTA.
4.1 Open coding
In the first stage, Open Coding, basic concepts or small coded groups are formed
based on actual comments. More specifically, all comments are sorted into a
worksheet as a group of similar comments on a single concept.
While sorting out, the researcher reaches a point of saturation called “theo-
retical saturation”, or the point of not being able to sort any further, which is the
signal of the end of analysis.
The roughly estimated number of the minimal resulting concepts is around
ten, according to Kinoshita (2003, p. 216). In this study, the following nine con-
cepts were formed; each concept is summarised below, followed by the definition
in parentheses and the variations or actual comments (although they are limited
to only two or three because of space limitations). They were translated by the
author from Japanese into English with consideration to retaining original nui-
sance and tone and confirmed by the speaker him/herself. Some explanations
were added within brackets only for the comments that may require additional
context to understand. The following number before each concept is used only for
convenience, not showing priorities. In addition, the speaker is shown in paren-
theses after each comment.
1. Acquisition of systematic knowledge (Collaboration with academia is a good
opportunity to look back at each business case and turn their own experiences
into systematic knowledge.)
– Collaboration becomes a good opportunity to look back at best practices.
(M-5)
– Summarising past business cases using academic theory widens my per-
spectives. I want to see how my output develops into the final research
outcomes. (M-4)
2. Development of future generations (Collaboration with academia can con-
tribute to developing future generations.)
– [Through sharing my own experiences] I can contribute to sharing prac-
tical knowledge/cases with university students and professors. (M-3)Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 91
– I can share what is really happening in our company. For example, diver-
sity is not just working with foreigners, but it includes respecting and
appreciating differences that may be due to age, gender, ethnicity, disabil-
ity, and so on. (M-4)
3. No positive effects on performance appraisal (Collaboration with academia
provides no direct effects on performance appraisal.)
– Even though we collaborate with and contribute to academia, the results
are not reflected in our performance appraisal. (M-2)
– Obtaining approval for collaboration is time-consuming and compli-
cated. (M-4)
4. Huge gaps in needs between business and academia (There are huge gaps
between what academia is interested in and what professionals are expected
to attain.)
– There are huge gaps in expected outcomes. The business side wants to
know interesting cases or outcomes [beneficial to our business immedi-
ately] while academia pursues their own interests. (M-3)
– I have never experienced a win-win relationship with academia. We only
provide the data academia wants to investigate, and we didn’t even receive
any feedback. (M-3)
– Even if I read academic articles about communication, they are not
applicable to business. I want to read those using business context. (M-4)
5. Barriers to writing academic papers (The need to write academic papers
becomes a barrier for professionals to enter academia.)
– It is very hard to spare the time to write a paper while working full time.
(M-1)
– In order to enter an academic society, we need to write academic papers.
However, since we are not trained to write academic papers, it is very hard
for them to be accepted. (M-3)
6. Integration of theory and practice (Collaboration with academia contributes
to integrating theory and practice.)
– The business side can provide up-to-date tips. On the other hand, we
don’t necessarily have theoretical evidence. So, collaboration with acade-
mia is a good opportunity to combine theory and practice. (M-3)92 Misa Fujio
– When we study a theory or basis after engaging in its practical applica-
tion, we can more deeply understand the underlying theory of what we
have done. For example, although I have used the SWOT analysis on a
daily basis for many years, now I can apply it with more confidence after
learning the underlying theory. (M-6)
7. Sensitivity to common ground (Sensitivity to common ground is important
for communication either inside and outside the organisation.)
– Partly because our company aspires to have the image of an interna-
tionalised company, sometimes words imported from English are used
as they are, using Katakana (the Japanese second alphabet), such as
employee engagement [エンプロイ エンゲージメント]. But [in order to
spread the idea], I personally try to add a short explanation, such as
employee engagement is to enhance the sense of belongingness to the
organisation while corporate culture is to permeate the corporate philos-
ophy into employees. (M-4)
– When I talk to a layperson, I try to avoid our jargon in our industry. (M-3)
8. Sensitivity to cultural differences (Sensitivity to cultural differences is impor-
tant to clearly communicate and persuade both customers and colleagues
from different backgrounds).
– The headquarters in the US do not easily understand why a product
popular in the US is not accepted in the Japanese market. In order to
persuade them, the preferences of the Japanese (especially young genera-
tions) should be evidenced with some help from academia. (M-3)
– In order to gain the trust of local customers, we have to understand local
culture and use the local language. (M-1)
– In the case of interpretation, the ambiguity unique to Japanese, such as
[indirect expressions to say] “no”, I try to interpret in a way that is not too
ambiguous [for the interlocutor to understand the word “no”.] (F-2)
9. Research seeds for transdisciplinary collaborations (There are research seeds
not noticed yet but promising in the future.)
– We may consider the possibility of creating an organisation collaborating
across universities [and disciplines] like a think-tank. (F-1)
– In order to attract professionals, academia should pay more attention to
hot topics, including the leaders in times of crisis, rather than sticking to
traditional themes. (M-3)Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 93
4.2 Selective coding
In the next stage, the Selective Coding stage, the concepts formed during the open
coding stage are categorised into larger, consolidated groups, connecting closely
related concepts together.
Figure 1. Categorisation of the nine concepts
In this study, the author categorised the nine concepts into four larger groups:
(1) the current barriers for transdisciplinarity, (2) integration of theory and prac-
tice, (3) sensitivity to common ground, and (4) contribution to Japanese society.
Figure 1 indicates that the barriers that slow down transdisciplinary collabo-
rations in Japan include both corporate and academic issues, that is, “No effects
on performance appraisal” and “Barriers to writing academic papers”, respectively,
and “Huge gaps in needs” between the two. At the same time, the “Contribution to
(Japanese) society” also came up as a larger group or category, including “Devel-
opment of future generations (human resources)” and creating “Research seeds
for transdisciplinarity.” They can be safely assumed to be the outcomes brought by
collaboration between business and academia. In between the barriers and out-
comes, the author placed two categories that lead the barriers to outcomes; “Inte-94 Misa Fujio
gration of theory and practice” and “Sensitivity to common ground.” These two
points will be highlighted in the Discussion.
4.3 Answers to research questions
At the end of this section, the answers to the research questions will be sum-
marised.
1. What are the advantages and (potential) disadvantages of transdisciplinary
collaboration at the individual level?
The advantages of the professionals engaged in academia at the individual
level include the chances to reflect on their business experiences and build up
their systematic knowledge, and to integrate theory and practice, which are
shown as the categories of Integration of theory and practice in Figure 1.
On the other hand, their disadvantages were revealed as the concept of Barri-
ers to writing academic papers. Actual comments include that “It is very hard
to spare the time to write an academic paper” and “Even if completed, it is dif-
ficult for it to be accepted by an academic association.” It is also noteworthy
that contribution to academia is not necessarily appreciated at the organisa-
tional level, as something secured in a corporate system, including perfor-
mance appraisal, as will be discussed below.
2. What are the advantages and (potential) disadvantages of transdisciplinary
collaboration at the organisational level?
At the corporate level, it seems that the potential advantages of collaboration
with academia have not been fully recognised yet, since no concept came up
related to the gains at the corporate level. In other words, there were only
a few comments in the interviews, such as “Raising one’s reputation might
improve the corporate reputation,” but not enough to form a concept. This
might be related to the fact that the corporate needs, such as the data or cases
immediately applicable to their business, are not provided by the academic
side at this moment and that a win-win relationship has not necessarily been
established yet (See 4 in the open coding).
3. What kind of attention do business professionals pay to establish shared lan-
guage with different stakeholders?
Many participants have commented on paying attention to the common
ground with the interlocutor, which came up as Sensitivity to common
ground. Their comments varied from national cultural differences to the per-
sonal communication style of individual customers. Also, it turned out that
even in the same company in Japan, there may be some gaps between the
sender and the receiver of the message. For example, the words used to createTransdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 95
an international and stylish image in their corporate philosophy may be con-
fusing from time to time for Japanese employees.
This point will be highlighted in the next section again.
5. Discussion
This section will discuss two important points. The first point will reveal the cur-
rent constraints and challenges for transdisciplinary collaborations in Japanese
business communication and to consider future collaborations. The second point
is how the participants have paid attention to the common ground in communi-
cation with different types of stakeholders.
5.1 Barriers on the corporate side, on the academic side, and gaps between
the two for transdisciplinary collaborations
The most significant contribution of this study is to have revealed several factors
that have slowed down transdisciplinary collaborations in Japan, incorporating
the practitioner’s point of view. As for the corporate side, time constraints, con-
fidentiality, and corporate system are included as the biggest constraints. In par-
ticular, the fact that the corporate performance system does not include
collaboration with academia as an evaluation item may be a key factor for future
collaborations. This also implies that involvement in academia currently depends
on the individuals with a high level of awareness of and interests in academic
activities and is not supported by the corporate system such as performance
appraisal.
The next point is that the degree of involvement in collaborations with acad-
emia depends on the company and sometimes on the understanding of the direct
supervisor. Motivating the superiors of the participant to translate the research
outcomes into actual organisational changes is an important action measure for
future transdisciplinary collaboration, as pointed out by Perrin (2018). Through
this study, the tendency became clear that, although not prohibited, collabora-
tions with academia are not necessarily backed up at the corporate level at this
moment. Therefore, the professionals wanting to work with academia have to
spend additional time and effort to be engaged in a research project.
Lastly, although some participants mentioned occasional collaborations with
professors in Marketing (e.g., M-3 and M-5) in order to analyse data, forecast tar-
get markets, and explain the different consumer preferences between the head-
quarters abroad and in Japan, no participants in the current study have ever been96 Misa Fujio
involved in a project with applied linguists (except the case the corporate side pro-
vides their authentic data to the researchers). This might imply that the benefits
that they can also gain through a collaboration with applied linguists, including
obtaining scientific data or rules for language and communication, have not nec-
essarily been conveyed to the corporate side.
In order to overcome these barriers, the author would like to suggest possible
measures in the order Perrin (2018) suggested as the measures for systematic
knowledge transformation beyond academia: the trans-measures, the action mea-
sures, and the research measures.
With regard to the trans-measures or how to get support from the related par-
ties, the current study revealed a key finding, that is, the practitioners’ involve-
ment in transdisciplinary collaboration is not necessarily encouraged nor secured
at the corporate level as some solid system such as performance appraisal.
However, one of the participants mentioned that, although contribution to
academia is not included in their performance appraisal, they can claim it as
cross-functional or “look-out-world” activities, that is, activities to communicate
messages towards the outside and/or bring back necessary information to the
organisation. Considering that both Japanese universities and corporations are
now paying ever-increasing attention to SDGs, we might be able to find common
objectives that may lead us to specific projects. In addition, as pointed out in the
section of Literature Review, since the corporate side tends to be more short-term
oriented with more limited financial resources, it is timely for the academic side
to take the initiative in long-term projects and call for collaborations.
As for the second point, action measures, how we can raise language aware-
ness both at the individual and organisational levels will be critical. As reviewed
by Svalberg (2007) (see also the introduction to this Special Issue), there are
five dimensions to raising language awareness: cognitive, affective, power, social,
and performance dimensions. Although communicating is sometimes taken for
granted, the corporate side will pay special attention when it is related to the
power aspect. In business, particularly, it is not only those in a higher position
who tend to speak up, but those who speak up more tend to gain power (Tanaka,
2008). When using a foreign language, the latter tendency will become more obvi-
ous, and a junior employee might acquire a status s/he would not otherwise have
had because of the linguistic power (e.g., Millar & Jensen, 2009). This seems to be
a particularly important and interesting topic for the future.
The third possibility is related to research measures. As the investigation into
transdisciplinarity has developed by drawing on action research, spiral develop-
ments based on a combination of theory and practice may be applied to the cor-
porate side. This was also revealed in the comments by M-6.Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 97
– When we study a theory or basis after engaging in its practical application, we
can more deeply understand the underlying theory of what we have done. For
example, although I have used the SWOT analysis on a daily basis for many
years, now I can apply it with more confidence, after learning the underlying
theory. (M-6)
Although this comment mentioned the SWOT theory related to business, the
same discovery can be applied to language and communication if they notice that
a transdisciplinary project can provide the basic rules to establish shared language
beneficial to their stakeholders. Thus, by appealing a spiral combination of theory
and practice, both sides may be encouraged to have more opportunities to engage
in transdisciplinary projects.
5.2 Creating shared language
As the interviewees in the current study varied in business background, their
comments on how to adjust their common ground and establish shared language
can be categorised by different interlocutors or stakeholders.
A stakeholder can be defined as “a party that has an interest in a company
and can either affect or be affected by the business” and the primary stakehold-
ers are regarded as “its investors, employees, customers, and suppliers”. However,
“with the increasing attention on corporate social responsibility, the concept has
been extended to include communities, governments, and trade associations”
(Chen, 2020).
Table 2 summarises the participants’ main comments on the difficulties in
communicating with or how they pay attention to each category of stakeholders,
depending on whether the stakeholders are Japanese or non-Japanese, and
whether they are insiders (colleagues) or outsiders (customers). When the stake-
holders are Japanese, the participants have more common ground and can com-
municate in their native language, Japanese. Similarly, when the stakeholders are
colleagues, they have more shared knowledge.
As for cases (1) and (2), the participants were both engaged in B2B and basi-
cally shared the expertise needed in the industry both inside and outside the com-
pany. However, they faced difficulties in adjusting common ground mainly due
to national cultural differences, including the value of teamwork and related busi-
ness customs such as the delay ratio of loan payment. Also, M-1, who worked
in several European countries, mentioned the importance of using the local lan-
guage rather than English and having knowledge beyond business, such as arts,
literature and philosophy, to gain trust from local customers.98 Misa Fujio
Table 2. Difficulties in adjusting common ground
Overseas business as an Inside (local 1 Conveying Japanese corporate philosophy
expat from Japanese HQs staff ) such as teamwork to local staff
(M-1, M-6) Outside (local 2 Explaining different business customs
customers)
Business in Japan Inside (Japanese 3 Use of Katakana for corporate philosophy
(M-2 – M-5) (F-1, F-2) coworkers)
Inside (HQs 4 Persuading why popular products abroad
&branches: non- cannot sell in Japan (Importance of showing
Japanese) evidence)
Outside 5 Avoiding jargon
(Japanese Not applying the same logic used in the HQs
customers) Combining logic and emotion
Similar comments were obtained for case (4) between the headquarters in
the US and ones in Tokyo, that is, how to overcome the differences in common
ground based on national cultural differences and preferences.
However, case (3) reveals an interesting aspect of shared language that should
be adjusted even among Japanese colleagues inside the same company. The com-
pany mentioned is a highly globalised Japanese company and uses many English
words for its company philosophy, using one of the four Japanese alphabets,
Katakana, such as empowerment (エンパワーメント), or commitment (コミット
メント). Katakana is used to write down the imported words from a foreign lan-
guage, mainly English, in a Japanese way and is pronounced like in English (with
a Japanese accent because of the different phonetic styles). The company tends to
use these words partly because they want to globally share their philosophy and
partly because using English terms sounds stylish. However, since these words
have originated from English, not all employees can clearly understand the mean-
ing. That is why the participant mentioned that “[in order to spread the idea],
I personally try to add a short explanation, such as employee engagement is to
enhance the sense of belongingness to the organisation while corporate culture is
to permeate the corporate philosophy into employees.”
Thus, case (3) is connected to the Sensitivity to common ground as well as a
corporate strategy of what kind of image the company wants to establish by utilis-
ing words originated in English.
Case (5) also revealed several different factors related to shared language. First
of all, it reveals the degree of expertise. Unless the customer is an expert in the
case of B2B, the speaker should always be careful about the knowledge the cus-
tomer may have as a layperson, such as avoiding jargon. Also, one of the partic-Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 99
ipants, M-5, who had a considerable amount of experience in customer service,
maintained that he adjusts his communication style, such as the speaking speed or
the frequency of reactive tokens, conforming with the customer’s communication
style, as represented by Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (e.g., Trompenaars
& Hampden-Turner, 2004). He also adjusts the balance between verbal and visual
messages, using more pictures for younger generations who are accustomed to
short messages influenced by SNS.
Thus, the above comments disclosed diversity in stakeholders and several dif-
ferent factors to establish shared language, consisting of national/regional cultural
differences and related business customs, the degree of expertise, the corporate
image as a corporate strategy, and diversity of customers, including generation
and personal communication style.
6. Conclusion
As reviewed in the section describing previous studies, transdisciplinary collab-
orations beyond academia have not proceeded quickly in Japan. The current
research tried to reveal some of the underlying reasons as the first step, incor-
porating a viewpoint of business professionals. The in-depth interview data with
eight business professionals were analysed using M-GTA, which revealed the cur-
rent barriers to transdisciplinarity both on the corporate and academic sides as
well as the potential for collaborations. In particular, current transdisciplinary
collaboration between business professionals and academia depends on individ-
uals with a high level of academic interest, and that such collaboration is often
not supported by the corporate system such as performance appraisal. These find-
ings may hold the key to stimulating further transdisciplinary collaboration. On
the academic side, it will be important to convey the benefits to business pro-
fessionals, how underlying theories, rules of language, and data analysis meth-
ods may positively change their communication and their business outcomes as
a result. Although the current study is only one study focusing on the opportu-
nity to expand collaboration between business and applied linguists in Japan and
obviously has limitations in the size of data collection and the scope of research,
the same principles may be extended to other disciplines. There is great poten-
tial for the industry to benefit from academic input and changes brought through
transdisciplinary collaboration.100 Misa Fujio
References
Alessi, G. M., & Jacobs, G. (2016). Reflections on the Ins and Outs of business and professional
discourse research. In Alessi, G. M., & Jacobs, G. (Eds.) Ins and Outs of business and
professional discourse research. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chen, J. (2020). Stakeholder. Retrieved on 21 May 2021 from https://www.investopedia.com
/terms/s/stakeholder.asp
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative methods in business research. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028044
Fujio, M. (2011). Communication strategies in action: The negotiation, establishment, and
confirmation of common ground. Seibido.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine.
Kinoshita, Y. (2003). Guraundeddo Seori Apurouchi no Jissen [Modified grounded theory
approach]. Kobundo.
Kramsch, C. (2015). Applied linguistics: A theory of the practice. Applied Linguistics, 36(4),
454–465. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv039
METI (The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry) (2016). Guideline for enhancing
industry-academia-government collaboration activities formulated. Retrieved on 21 May
2021 from https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2016/1130_001.html
Millar, S. L., & Jensen, A. (2009). Language choice and management in Danish multinational
companies: The role of common sense. Sociolinguistica, 23, 86–103.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783484605879.86
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287
Murakami, A. (2018). Soshikiteki na sankangakurenkei wo okonau uedeno mondaiten to sono haikei
youin [Problems and underlying factors preventing systematical industry-government-
academia collaborations]. STI Horizon, 4(4), 38–43.
Perrin, D. (2018). On, for, and with practitioners: A transdisciplinary approach to text
production in real-life settings. AILA Review, 31, 53–80.
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00013.per
Perrin, D., & Kramsch, C. (2018). Transdisciplinarity in applied linguistics. AILA Review, 32,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00010.int
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching,
40(4), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004491
Tanaka, H. (2008). Communication strategies and cultural assumptions: An analysis of
French-Japanese business meetings. In S. Tietze (Ed.), International management and
language (pp.154–170). Routledge.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2004). Managing people across cultures. Capstone.
Whitehouse, M. (2018). The language of numbers: Transdisciplinary action research and
financial communication. AILA Review, 31, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00014.whi
Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1997). Studying language use as collaboration. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman
(Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives.
Longman.
Yamada, H., Kelm, O. R., & Victor, D. A. (2017). The seven keys to communicating in Japan: An
Intercultural approach. Georgetown University Press.Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication 101 Address for correspondence Misa Fujio Faculty of Business Administration Toyo University 5-28-20, Hakusan Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8606 Japan misa_f@toyo.jp
You can also read
