IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v41y1995i3p375-381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nemawashi essential for conducting research in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Fetters, Michael D.

Abstract

Nemawashi is a semi-formal but systematic and sequential consensus building procedure in Japan by which the approval of a proposed idea or project is sought from every person in a significant organizational position. For foreigners planning research in Japan, this concept has important implications since the project approval process is more obscure than in many Western countries. In this paper, I discuss observations as an outsider the research environment and culture in a Japanese hospital as seen from the inside, and draw conclusions for conducting research in Japan. From May to July of 1992, I was supported by the Japan-United States Educational Commission (the Fulbright Program) to interview physicians about end of life decision-making in Japan. The proposed project sought to obtain information on the way Japanese physicians use family and patient preferences in clinical decision-making. As I initiated the project, my Japanese advisor took great pains to explain the need for nemawashi to gain approval in my host institution. He underscored the importance of carefully informing every clinical and administrative person who might be affected by the proposed project, as well as the steps necessary for obtaining their endorsement. This process alone took three weeks and personal negotiations by my advisor at six levels before final project approval was granted by the dean. For actual data collection, my advisor made personal introductions to a high ranking physician from each department which greatly facilitated the scheduling of subsequent interviews with other faculty members in that department. The personal introductions by my host professor ensured 100% participant cooperation. Based on these observations, research approval in Japan appears to be hierarchical, dependent upon a personal advocate and institution-specific. While ethics committee review may be optional, it should be considered as necessary, but not sufficient for project approval. To ignore nemawashi is to risk low levels of project cooperation since decision making in Japan is characterized as being made by the group 'from the bottom up' and personal relationships can be as important as the research content. Scholars new to research in Japan are advised to begin project arrangements as far in advance as possible, identify a personal advocate and rely upon that person to advise about project approval and implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Fetters, Michael D., 1995. "Nemawashi essential for conducting research in Japan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-381, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:3:p:375-381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00090-T
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niels G. Noorderhaven & Jos Benders & Arjan B. Keizer, 2007. "Comprehensiveness versus Pragmatism: Consensus at the Japanese–Dutch Interface," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1349-1370, December.
    2. Emil Ratter & Stanislaw Nader, 2022. "The Use of Lean Management Tools in Production Companies with Implemented Total Quality Management (TQM)," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 357-368.
    3. John P A Ioannidis, 2008. "Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-8, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:3:p:375-381. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.