To learn more about how and why Japanese women mobilized the law when they be-lieved they encountered workplace sex discrimination, I conducted semi-structured interviews in person. Participants also had the option to participate via videoconferencing. Prior to each in-terview, I would establish the preferred location and time with the participant, generally via email. If I was directly recruiting a prospective Japanese participant on my own, I would write a message introducing myself and the study in Japanese and English, as to allay any discrepancies in my Japanese communication. I asked the participant if she wished to conduct the interview in Japanese or English. I would also ask if she wished for an interpreter to be present. In some in-terviews, we communicated bilingually and/or the participant could understand the questions in
English but felt more comfortable replying in Japanese, as they were able to provide more de-tailed and nuanced responses.
At the interview site, I would greet the participant and briefly introduce myself. In many instances, this was already done via email or in person. If an interpreter was present, she would also introduce herself and explain her role. While I set up my recorders, I would give the partic-ipant the consent document. I explained that this document provided information about the study and their rights as a participant. I would then ask, “Do you agree to participate?” and they would say “yes,” which would be notated in my interview notes.
Also provided with the consent document was a basic demographic survey that I asked the participant to fill out. Occasionally, I orally recorded the responses in my interview notes.
One participant did not fill out the demographic survey. She did not provide an explanation, but due to her occupation as a renowned television commentator, I did not inquire further.
I would then briefly explain the study again and clearly state that their participation was voluntary, they could withdraw at any time (even after the interview concluded), and they could also refuse any question. I asked if they had any further questions or concerns. I then asked for permission to audio-record. Typically, I ran two digital audio-recorders simultaneously to cap-ture the interviews. The primary reason was in the event that one recorder failed. Another bene-fit to running two recorders at once was audio quality. At some interviews, there was quite a bit of background noise or the participant or interpreter spoke softly. I would then rearrange the recorder position closer to the individual who was speaking.
In general, I started the interviews with one question: “Tell me what it is like to be a working woman in Japan.” I then would ask her to tell me more about herself including her
edu-cational background and career, particularly her current position. In later interviews, I some-times would begin a little softer by asking the participant to tell me about herself and her job first then ask, “Tell me what it is like to be a working woman in Japan.”
By opening the interview in this manner, it gave the participant a casual opening to dis-cuss her experiences and what was on her mind in an “off the cuff” way. This approach also toned down the researcher’s assumptions, which is apparent in the abandoned interview protocol, about the participant’s knowledge on the topic. In some instances, the participant was quite knowledgeable about their legal consciousness, sex discrimination, and the law, particularly those participants who had engaged in a grievance process or litigation. In other instances, par-ticipants demonstrated only a vague awareness about the laws, legal process, or current events about the topic. I raise this as an example to demonstrate that, by stepping back as a researcher and letting the participant initially lead the discussion with a broad question, they revealed them-selves and patterns emerged on their own.
Based on the participant’s responses, I would follow with appropriate prompts or probes.
Often times, participants would immediately start talking about working conditions or a type of sex discrimination or general harassment that was on their minds. For instance, she may start talking relatively quickly about maternity harassment. Occasionally, a participant may need gen-tle probing, such as, “Are men and women treated differently in the workplace? Okay. Tell me about that.”
Rather than directly ask about discrimination or harassment, based on their discussion about men and women being treated differently in the workplace, I might then probe by saying,
“In the United States, when men and women are treated differently in the workplace, we could
call that gender or sex discrimination. Is there something like that in Japan?” In some inter-views, we had already started a discussion along those lines or it was clear that we had a mutual understanding about sex discrimination or harassment, so we could immediately and directly start down that line of questioning.
As the participant opened up more, I would begin probing whether or not she had ever been treated differently in the workplace based on her gender. In almost all instances, the answer was “yes,” and I would follow-up by asking her to tell me more about that experience or experi-ences. I could then delve into her decision-making processes and legal consciousness from that point. Sometimes I might ask, “So if I encountered this, what could I do?” Other times, I might try to compare my legal knowledge about the United States to what the participant was telling me. For instance, I might start by saying, “In the United States, if I encountered [X], I know I could go to my supervisor or human resources. I could file a complaint. In some instances, I could even file a lawsuit against my employer. Do Japanese women do that?” At other times, I would reveal my knowledge about the topic but asked for their opinion so I could learn. For in-stance, I would say, “Based on the literature I’ve read in the United States, it says that Japanese women are reluctant to litigate. Is that true?” In general, with the exception of one respondent, almost all said “yes” to which I would reply, “Why?” I couched questions this way to 1) miti-gate language barriers and legal conceptualization and 2) balance the power differential between the researcher and the participant.
I advised participants in advance that the interview would last about an hour or longer if they wanted to talk more. Most interviews lasted longer than an hour. The hour timeframe in-formed the participant of the potential length of time and gave them the agency to end the
inter-view when they found it appropriate for them. However, again, in most instances, the interinter-views lasted longer than an hour. Interviews tended to end 1) naturally in that the protocol had been exhausted and there were no further topics to cover, 2) either the participant or the researcher had a time constraint, or 3) the researcher ended the interview when conversation started to veer off topic after the protocol was exhausted. To end the interview, I might say, “Okay, thank you for your time and responses. I’m going to go ahead and stop recording now.” This allowed for a natural conversation to continue without capturing it on the recording. In one case—the partici-pant involved in the sexual harassment lawsuit—we did meet an additional time to continue an extended interview. We spoke for approximately 90 minutes the first time and about an hour the second time. At the second session, I made the decision to stop recording, as she had indicated that she had another commitment prior to the resumption of the interview. However, in our cor-dial closing conversation, she started to speak about her case and the topic again, so I resumed recording. Of course, part of the conversation is missing, but I felt it was important to capture where the conversation was heading.
It is important to note that this approach was significantly modified from my original plan. Initially, I had developed a tightly crafted interview instrument to address the four research questions in a very regimented fashion. While the interview instrument was semi-structured and inherently open-ended, I envisioned its administration in a highly technical and precise way.
However, in the process of quickly determining what was not working with participant recruit-ment, I learned that not only was some of the terminology too technical and intimidating, but that my line of questioning was too direct. Even though discussions about sex discrimination had become more prevalent in Japan, the topic was still taboo for conventional conversations. Prior
to my departure, when I discussed my research in casual conversations with Japanese women living in the United States, my pitch was generally viewed favorably, and I was frequently ad-vised that I had selected a timely and relevant topic that warranted examination. However, in one interaction with a Japanese female professional who worked in a neighboring university, I was mistakenly advised that all “gender discrimination” or “sex discrimination” was called sekuhara (sexual harassment). Thus, when I crafted my interview instrument, consent document, and other materials, I simply lumped “sex discrimination” in as sekuhara. As I would come to realize in the field, there was a very pointed difference not only between sex discrimination and sexual harassment but other types of discrimination as well, and this inaccuracy was making re-cruitment more difficult. Furthermore, I received feedback that my consent document was too
“legalistic”—a point that I spent a significant amount of time negotiating with IRB based on my understanding of Japanese research ethics (which is detailed above).
As previously mentioned, after consulting with my dissertation chair, we agreed that a new approach should be undertaken. The consent document was shortened; while it still cap-tured the essential elements of consent required by my university, it was abbreviated and in more simplistic and inviting language to lessen any confusion or concern. But the major shift was transitioning the interview protocol and administration to an approach that was more ethnograph-ic in nature.