多様化している日本の若者の現実についての研究に関連するリンクです
早稲田大学 アジア国際移動研究所
研究参加についての同意書（後ほどリンクを追加致します）
A response to TIE Online’s harmful article
The pen is mightier than the sword.
– Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1839
The International Educator (TIE) recently published a powerful article. But it is powerful for the wrong reasons. The article appears to be a shortened version of a conversation that took place on Zoom. The title, Including Those Who Think Differently About Inclusion, suggests that it is intended to be inclusive; and the introduction claims to encourage “an exploration of differing ideas and perspectives” and to remind us of the “necessity of truly listening.” Yet, it achieves the opposite: TIE’s article gives legitimacy to unscientific falsehoods, unsubstantiated accusations, and a disrespectful approach to the exchange of ideas.
Despite its genuine intentions, I found the article disheartening and incredibly difficult to read. I had to make four or five attempts before I could get through to the end. The published word is a powerful thing. It can heal. But the power of the written word can also cause harm, even when it is unintentional.
The lead author, Doline Ndorimana, states that the live conversation that she had with the second author, Scott Gillette, was “respectful and productive.” However, the ensuing edited transcript of the conversation in its written form shows that those descriptors only apply to the words and expressions coming from Ndorimana but not Gillette.
As a social scientist, I found that the second author’s arguments contain many sociological terms that are either not defined or misconstrued. He also makes many claims that are not backed by evidence. Here, I will give three examples.
First, Gillette uses the word “coerce” three times in the article to make unsubstantiated accusations that DEIJ (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice) work involves coercion. According to the dictionary, “coercion” means “the action of making someone do something that they do not want to do, using force or threatening to use force” but Gillette offers no evidence to back his claim that the DEIJ workshops and seminars he attended involved the use of force or threats to make him compliant—no citations, no quotations, not even anecdotal evidence.
Second, Gilette describes DEIJ using the term “totalitarian” seven times, including the phrase “totalitarian garbage.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines “totalitarian” as follows (emphasis mine): “Of or pertaining to a system of government which tolerates only one political party, to which all other institutions are subordinated, and which usually demands the complete subservience of the individual to the State.” However, the second author provides zero evidence that “DEIJ” is a State or system of government.
Third, Gillette’s statement “I have no ‘bias’” is false. Neuroscientists, psychologists and other scholars have published extensively on how our brains are wired for bias. (See examples here, here and here.)
TIE has failed to hold their authors accountable or engage in due diligence. Despite being a publication for the education sector, TIE has failed to apply not only professional editorial standards but even basic writing standards that are taught at the middle and high school levels in the international schools they serve. For example, one of the first things I learnt in my history, social studies, and English classes was to define my terminologies and provide evidence for my claims. But the article does neither. As a result, TIE has, regardless of intent, published claims that DEIJ work is coercive and that the ideas behind it are “totalitarian garbage” and “at worst, genocidal.” By elevating Gillette to the status of coauthor, TIE legitimized his claims.
By publishing this article, TIE is lending its powerful institutional support to these claims not just as a publishing agent but also as a recruitment agency and a sister organization of the Principals’ Training Center (PTC). Both entities operate under the non-profit organization called the Overseas Assistance Schools Corporation (OSAC), where TIE’s institutional power in the international school sector is influential and far-reaching.
While I understand the intent to model how to communicate across differing views, we need to remember that not everyone has the privilege of accessing the powerful institutional support and protection available to the authors. To expect others on our campuses who do not have that support to respond in the manner that the lead author has modeled in the face of an accuser like Gillette is not always realistic. I know colleagues who have lost their jobs on account of people who hold similar views as the second author because the power imbalance went the other way.
There are alternative ways to dialogue across differing views than to argue in the abstract about terminologies and strategies as the two authors have done. I have also had many opportunities to engage with those who hold views like Gillette’s. Over time, I have learnt that demonstrating vulnerability through personalized storytelling is effective in disarming defensiveness, which is a strategy that has also been used in peace education and transformative conflict resolution studies (see here & here & here). Another method is the deep listening skills used in Nonviolent Communication (NVC) where we listen for the underlying need(s) of another person, which may be the motivating factor for the disagreement—we ask, “is it the need for respect, understanding, choice, acknowledgement of their intentions, or something else?” (See here.) The NVC method argues that even those who hold opposite views can still agree/share/relate with each other on a needs level.
As an alumni of two international schools over 12 years of schooling, I consider the international school community as the childhood village and home community that raised me. I am deeply pained to see articles like this amplify the adult voices that harmed me as a child. When I was in eighth grade, our history teacher asked us what comes to mind when we think of China as we started a chapter on its history. My classmate proudly said, with a grin on her face: “Slant eyes!” The teacher wrote it on the board. Looked at it. Then erased it and said that it might not be appropriate. But she was his favorite student, and I remember him smiling at her while she continued grinning. I felt I had no voice. As a 13-year-old child who was ethnically Chinese, I needed to feel safe by knowing that the views held by those like my classmate would never be amplified and that her harmful words would never make it to the board in the first place. When I read TIE’s article, I felt as though my voice was being drowned again by Gillette’s newfound megaphone.
Once again, I am deeply disappointed by the editorial decisions that TIE has made. The article does not demonstrate “growth, empathy, and understanding” as the authors claim. Instead, by publishing this article, TIE and its editorial team legitimized falsehoods.
I have raised the above concerns with TIE via email and an in-person meeting. I was unable to meet Chief Editor Shwetangna Chakrbarty and editor and lead author Doline Ndorimana due to time zone conflicts. But I was able to meet with Director Stacy Stephens and another editor. I appreciated the director’s listening posture, openness to learning, and acknowledgement of the harm that has been caused. I felt heard by her at a personal level. I also appreciated her transparency about how TIE has yet to make a decision on how to respond, which came with assurance that a response is forthcoming.
This said, myself and many in the broader community who have committed to doing DEIJ work in international education feel that too much damage has been done with this article despite its good intention. While I genuinely appreciate the efforts made by the TIE team to listen to critical feedback, I believe that nothing less than taking down the article and issuing a public apology would begin the healing process and demonstrate that TIE, as an organization, is committed to repairing the damage.
Danau Tanu, PhD
Research Fellow and Author of Growing Up in Transit
3 April 2024
Special thanks to Tanya Crossman, Teneshia Taylor and Juan Jacobs Sheblak for giving feedback and editing the Response.
Ejecting Internalised Racism
30 May 2023 – This is an online handout for Training 3 for the International School of Geneva.
- How do we exernalise the system and reject it?
- How do we separate the system from our identities?
- How do we separate our biases from our intentions?
- How do we separate the history of our people from our identities?
- What does this process look or feel like?
- What does the system impact mobility issues in Third Culture Kids?
- What small things can we do to counter the system?
Slides
The slide deck from ‘Training 3: Ejecting Internalised Racism’ is available in PDF format.
Past sessions
- Training 1: TCKs & Diversity (August 2021)
- Training 2: Creating an Inclusive International Curriculum
Resources
Growing Up in Transit: The Politics of Belonging – Danau Tanu (2018, 2020)
Inclusion via Diversity, Equity & Anti-Racism Foundation Workshop by Council of International Schools (24-26 October 2023)
Third Culture Kids: Growing Up Among Worlds, 3rd Edition – Pollock, Van Reken & Pollock (2017). (Click here for Japanese translation or English webpage.)
Tanya Crossman is author of Misunderstood: The Impact of Growing Up Overseas in the 21st Century and expert on TCKs who shared the story about the Polish student with me. See her website and list of recommended resources.
Alien Citizen: An Earth Odyssey – An award-winning film by Elizabeth Liang.
‘Third Culture Kids: The Return Home’ by Tim Brantingham in Sandwich Parenting.
Additional resources
TCKs of Asia live forums & podcast.
For more resources, see here.
日本的多元文化儿童和年轻人
我叫 Danau TANU（中文名叫陈烜兰），来自早稻田大学亚太研究中心 (WIAPS)。 今年3月份我来到日本为了对日本的多元文化青年人进行研究。
我父亲是印尼华人，母亲是日本人。 我会说一点中文但是不大好，所以以下内容大部分用日语写了。对不起，请谅解。
研究課題
尽管日本社会越来越变得多元化，对具有外国文化影响而且在日本长大的儿童和年轻人的研究还少。 因此，本研究旨在了解在日本长大的儿童和年轻人如何在许多方面受到各种文化影响。 例如通过：
- 移動・移民・転校
- 学校環境と教育
- メディア（媒体）
- 人間関係（例：家族、友人/朋友、コミュニティ等）
研究対象者
多文化背景を持ちながら日本と何らかの接点がある大人や子供*を研究対象とする(現在の年齢は問わない)。例えば、日本または海外で日本教育を受けたことがありながら、下記のいずれかに該当する方：
- 子供（１８才未満）の頃に海外で３ヶ月以上暮らしたことがある
- 親のいずれかが海外で生まれた
- 親のいずれかが日本の少数民族である
- 海外移動、学校教育、メディア、友人、家族などを通じて子供の頃（１８才未満）からバイリンガルである
- その他**
*１８才未満の方は親の許可も必要とする
**上記のカテゴリーに該当しなくても自分の背景が多文化であると思う方は是非ご連絡ください！
研究方法
人類学研究（社会学に似ている）でよく使われるインタビューや「参与観察」方法を採用する。
インタビュー
研究参加者のご都合に合わせて下記のように行われる。
- 時間
1.5〜２時間（参加者のご都合に合わせる） - 日時・場所
参加者のご都合に合わせる（オンライン可） - 内容・形式
正式な形式はなく、参加者のライフ・ストーリを始め、上記の研究課題に関連する参加者の経験や感じ方等について気軽な感んじで聞いていく。 - 録音・許可
参加者の許可を得た上で録音をさせていただく。もし参加者が１８才未満である場合は保護者の許可も必要となる。 - プライバシー・匿名性
インタビューは書き写して分析した後、一部出版物に引用されることもあるが、その場合はプライバシーを守るために基本的に仮名が使われる。だが参加者が本名を使って欲しいと言われた場合は参加者の要求に合わせる。 - コロナ対策
マスクの着用や距離を保つなど、通常のコロナ感染拡大防止に向けた取組をする。なお、参加者のご希望に合わせて追加対策を行う。（研究者は３回摂取済み）
インタビュー過程について：気持ちよく、そして自由に自分の話をすることができてインタビューが楽しいと言われる方がしばしばいる。答えたくない質問に答える必要はないし、インタビューに同意した後でもインタビューの途中や終了後に気が変わった場合は 途中でやめたい・録音を削除してほしいと要求することもできる。その場合、 気が変わった理由を説明する必要もない。参加者がなるべく気持ちよくインタビューに望めるようにしている。
参与観察（必須でない）
人類学では「参与観察」と呼ばれる研究方法が採用されることもある。 つまり、参加者が友人や家族等と過ごす時、または学校や職場で過ごす時の「実際の生活」を研究者が参加者と交流しながら観察することを意味する。 こういった交流により参加者の経験や物の感じ方をより深く理解できる様になるのである。 もちろん、参加者の許可無しでは行われない上、参与観察は必須ではない。インタビューだけに応じたいという方に対しては参与観察は行われない。
参加方法
「参加したい」または「研究についてもっと知りたい・質問がある」と思った方は下記の連絡用紙をご記入くださればこちらから連絡いたします。または、下記の問い合わせ先までお気軽に直接ご連絡ください。
研究結果・アウトプット
多文化アイデンティティと教育に関する学問に貢献するため、データを転写し、分析した後、学術雑誌（人類学、社会学、移民研究、教育関連の雑誌等）に調査結果を出版し公開する。また、より多くの人に多文化になりつつある日本とその教育のあり方をを理解して頂くため、調査結果を新聞や雑誌の記事（教育関連の雑誌等）として出版し公開する。データの量と今後の研究資金調達の機会に応じて、調査結果を本として出版する可能性もある。英語で出版することが多いかと思いますが（日本における英語雑誌や新聞での記載を含む）、できる限り日本語でも出版したい。
研究所属
早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター（WIAPS） 特別研究員
国際交流基金 長期研究員
タヌ・ダナウ博士 (Danau Tanu, Ph.D.)
お問い合わせ
ご質問がある方はお気軽にご連絡ください：
Thank you!
Transitions & the Hidden Curriculum – SPAN Symposium
How does mobility and structural racism intersect in international schools and affect students?
This is the e-handout for the online presentation for the SPAN Symposium held on 5-6 March 2022. It includes a list of resources mentioned in the presentation and additional resources.
Core topics
- How does the hidden curriculum of structural racism show up in international schools?
- What happens when a child’s identity mirrors are distorted?
- What does internalized racism look like for international school students?
- How do the hidden narratives told by school staff impact students?
- How does transition issues related to mobility intersect with issues of structural racism?
Main text
Growing Up in Transit: The Politics of Belonging at an International School. Danau Tanu, 2018.
Resources mentioned in the presentation (in order of appearance)
Safe Passage: How mobility affects people & what international schools should do about it. Doug Ota, 2014.
Third Culture Kids: Growing Up Among Worlds, 3rd Edition. David Pollock, Dr. Ruth E. Van Reken and Michael Pollock, 2017.
Children At Promise: 9 principles to help kids thrive in an at risk world. By Dr. Tim Stuart, 2003.
‘Third Culture Kids: The Return Home’ by Tim Brantingham in Sandwich Parenting.
Additional resources
TCKs of Asia live forums & Third Culture Stories podcast. Highly recommended for those who want to better understand the experiences of Asian third culture kids. Topics covered:
- cultural loss and shame due to the impact of cultural hierarchies on identity (Season 2, Episode 3: Mixed Loyalties – When Choosing is Difficult);
- hidden loss of language and intimacy with parents (Season 2, Episode 1: A Foreigner in My Own Family);
- internalized racism at the point of repatriation (Season 1, Episode 2: Language & Power).
If your children are living away from the family with guardians or in a dorm, see also: Third Culture Kids & Parachute Kids – Building Their Resilience with experts Dr. Tim Stuart and Dr. Jang Eun Cho. Co-hosted by Dr. Danau Tanu & Sundae Bean.
Misunderstood: The Impact of Growing Up Overseas in the 21st Century. Tanya Crossman, 2016. See also www.tanyacrossman.com
For more resources, see here.