1. As an introduction, the author comments on the present situation of Japan's schools and Japanese class-work studies. He also explains his own qualitative research, and argues the latent relationships between Japanese class-work studies and Western qualitative studies. 2. The purpose of this paper is explained. The aim is to place the Japanese class-work study in the context of Western qualitative studies, with a view to exchanging and sharing research results between both, and the tasks lying ahead, through clarifying common points and differences. 3. Background and methods of qualitative research are listed. 4. The author discusses the necessity to describe the Japanese class-work study in the context of Western qualitative studies. He compares both studies from various aspects. 5. As for the attitude and viewpoint of the research, observations in the field and failure to bring in the hypotheses are what they have in common, and the viewpoints of analysis are where they differ. 6. As for data and materials, both use linguistic records as data, but the contents of data and the existence of coding systems are different. 7. As for the processes of analysis, including subjectivity, independent of a fixed process, existence of the method of data compression, and synthesizing various materials are common ground, whereas examination of cases against the conclusion, integration of quantitative approaches, existence of systematic methods of data analysis are different. 8. As for research theories, being oriented to paradigm-shift is what the view points have in common, while the direction of paradigm-shift, the variety of origins, the relationships with various fields of social sciences, awareness and examinations of critical issues, and the broadness of the paradigm-shift constitute a difference. 9. Concerning the relationship between the researchers and the field, researchers' participation in target groups is common to both, but the existence of ambiguity between participation and non-participation constitutes a difference. 10. After those comparisons, the author discusses the background and possibilities of the above-mentioned common points. He confirms the differences and argues the necessity of translation and transmission beyond the mutual research context. 11. Finally, he defines the tasks necessary to develop this examination.
抄録全体を表示