2015 Volume 18 Pages 129-149
The purpose of this article is to carry out an empirical examination of the actual content and the role of “welfare and guidance” at postwar Japanese universities by focusing on the four training courses which had “welfare and guidance” as their theme among the courses offered by the section of welfare and guidance of the Institute for Educational Leadership (hereafter IFEL) (1949―1951), implemented during the American occupation by the then Ministry of Education and GHQ/SCAP Civil Information and Education Section (CIE).
Previous studies have pointed out that the concept of “welfare and guidance” appeared for the first time in the documentation issued by the “Institute of Welfare and Guidance” (Kosei-Hodo Kenkyukai) (1951-1952). It seemed likely, however, that some activity concerned with “welfare and guidance” got under way before the Institute of “welfare and guidance” was formed.
Therefore, relying on both Japanese and American primary sources which I unearthed and collected, I clarified the actual details of the lectures provided by the “Section of Welfare and Guidance in IFEL”. Next, I examined and analyzed the situation and the role of this section from three points of view, namely, “philosophy”, “activities”, and “diffusion”.
The results of my analysis are as follows. Firstly, the U.S. lecturers took a leading role in focusing on the new concept of “philosophy” in the training courses. Secondly, in the “Section of Welfare and Guidance in IFEL”, the nature of “welfare and guidance” is shown in the “activity content”, participated in by all the students, responsibility for which was shared by the U.S. and Japanese lecturers. Thirdly, the “Section of Welfare and Guidance in IFEL” fostered the training of the personnel who were to be responsible for “welfare and guidance” measures in postwar Japanese universities. Hence the “Section of Welfare and Guidance in IFEL” developed training courses before the “Institute of Welfare and Guidance” was established, inferring that it was an attempt to lay the foundation of “welfare and guidance” measures in the new university system.