As of 2021, the concept of “homosociality” is often used in and outside of academia to critically refer to relationships between men and the behavioral codes and unspoken rules governing those relationships in a male-centered society. However, the modern use of the term could be criticized as “overexploited use” of the homosociality concept because its description by E. K. Sedgwick, who is often credited with coining the term, seems to convey nuances different from those stated above.

In this study, I posit that the ambiguity regarding the meaning of “homosocial,” resulting from its broad overuse, should be molded and controlled instead of eliminated, and I propose guidelines for it. More specifically, by examining the use of the term by Sedgwick and other advocates, it was found that ambiguity enhances the explanatory power of the concept of homosociality, and therefore, rigid formulation of the concept is rather undesirable. I then argue that it is useful to reshape Sedgwick’s homosociality concept according to the context of one’s own description by examining post-Sedgwick usage.

This study uses conversation analysis to investigate how drawings made by artists while explaining stage design for performing arts productions are organized through interactional practices to influence how the drawings are seen. When producing theatrical art, artists often draw pictures, such as of stage design elements or animations to be projected onto the stage, to share their ideas with others. The present study analyzes how participants visualize relationships between objects using drawing practices. The findings demonstrate that drawn pictures are differentially structured as preliminary and main in combination with speech, body movements, and the arrangement of tools. Furthermore, these practices of producing pictures can be used for the hierarchization of objects with respect to the distinction between the background and foreground. In addition, the findings show that seeing multilayered structures is linked to the construction of procedures for setting the stage.

In recent years, patient and public involvement has been promoted in medical research and clinical trials, and active participation of people with illness is required in this process. In such a situation, there are unique implications for people with illness this group includes people with human T-cell leukemia virus type 1（HTLV-1）associated diseases who are discussed in this paper. The purpose of this study was to examine the implications of clinical trials for people with illness, based on analysis of narratives regarding “Chiken（治験：In Japanese, it means clinical trials for marketing approval of drugs or medical devices）” as one component of “the illness narratives” of people with HTLV-1 associated diseases.

The results revealed that “Chiken” had four implications for people with HTLV-1 associated diseases: a “means of healing and/or recovery,” “means of indicating one’s presence,” “means of expanding solidarity,” and “means of preserving heritage for the next generation.” In addition, it became clear that there were two types of conflicts regarding “Chiken” : a “conflict regarding the possibility of participation” and “conflict regarding solidarity.” It was also observed that such a narrative that associated “Chiken” with solidarity was dependent on the characteristics of the disease.

The findings of our study are important in contemporary society for understanding the perceptions of clinical trials among people with illness and for envisioning the ideal involvement of this group.