Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication: New directions for collaboration between professors and professionals

Misa Fujio
Toyo University
Abstract

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 collaboration 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 practice, (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:
Table of contents

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.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

[ p. 99 ]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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujio, M.
(2011) Communication strategies in action: The negotiation, establishment, and confirmation of common ground. Seibido.Google Scholar
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L.
(1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.Google Scholar
Kinoshita, Y.
(2003) Guraundeddo Seori Apurouchi no Jissen [Modified grounded theory approach]. Kobundo.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C.
(2015) Applied linguistics: A theory of the practice. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 454–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. L.
(1997) Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Perrin, D.
(2018) On, for, and with practitioners: A transdisciplinary approach to text production in real-life settings. AILA Review, 31, 53–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perrin, D., & Kramsch, C.
(2018) Transdisciplinarity in applied linguistics. AILA Review, 32, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svalberg, A. M.-L.
(2007) Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching, 40(4), 287–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C.
(2004) Managing people across cultures. Capstone.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, M.
(2018) The language of numbers: Transdisciplinary action research and financial communication. AILA Review, 31, 81–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, D.
(1997) Studying language use as collaboration. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. Longman.Google Scholar
Yamada, H., Kelm, O. R., & Victor, D. A.
(2017) The seven keys to communicating in Japan: An Intercultural approach. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 100 ]