Mitsuru Nobuchika - Retiring in AY2017

When I became a full-time faculty member in the Faculty of Economics, there was an assistantship system. Unlike today, it was a time when most of the full-time faculty at Mita were graduates of the Faculty of Economics. The principle was that even as an assistant, you would not teach classes for the first three years, so I was in the fortunate position of being able to conduct research in the Doctoral Programs while also receiving a salary. The only major difference from my time as a graduate student was attending faculty meetings, but I remember that those meetings often lasted until around 7 p.m. This was because many of the professors had been involved in the student movement during the 1960 Anpo protests or had led the reforms of the Faculty of Economics following the university disputes during the 1970 Anpo protests, leading to serious and heated discussions about what was necessary to enhance education and research. From these discussions, I learned that there are diverse ways of thinking about education and research.

Around the time I was promoted to associate professor, Professor Yasuhiko Torii became the Dean, and major reforms of the curriculum and entrance examination system were advanced, along with the abolition of the assistantship system. As part of the curriculum reform, new courses were established to teach the current state of the global and Japanese economies. The goal was to get students interested in the real economy, not just theory. Previously, Hiyoshi Campus had required courses teaching the fundamental theories of microeconomics, macroeconomics, and Marxian economics. Professor Torii instructed me, "Nobuchika, you will also teach the global economy," and I was put in charge of three parallel sections of the "Global Economy" course.

The principle was that the content for all three sections should be the same, so we decided to use an introductory textbook on international economics. My specialty was analyzing the American economy based on Marxian economics, including international politics and military factors. So, while I had knowledge of the relationship between the American and world economies, I had never formally studied international economics. In my first year of teaching the course, I desperately studied the textbook, created lecture notes, and somehow managed to get through the classes. However, I often found myself thinking, "I see," as I read a book written from the perspective of a different specialized field, realizing things I thought I already knew. It was an experience that deepened my own understanding.

By the second year, I understood the concepts of international economics and began to teach using statistical tables and graphs I created myself. I would explain things like, "The textbook says this, but from another perspective, this interpretation is also possible," or "It's possible that other causal or historical relationships are influencing this economic phenomenon." It was challenging to teach my specialized course "Postwar American Military Expansion and the Economy" at Mita, a course on the fundamental theory of Marxian economics at Hiyoshi, and three large lecture sections of "Global Economy." However, the experience of teaching outside my specialty broadened my horizons and proved useful for my own research.

Furthermore, the entrance examination reform limited the scope of questions for world history and Japanese history to the modern and contemporary periods. Similar to the curriculum reform, the intention was to encourage applicants to the Faculty of Economics to be interested in the contemporary economy and society, and for high school history education to adopt such a perspective. At Professor Torii's request (or rather, a semi-compulsory directive), I also became involved in this reform, which gave me the opportunity to work with staff specializing not only in international economics but also in economic history, history of thought, econometrics, and macro and micro theory. In discussions about how to embody the spirit of the reform, ideas sometimes clashed, leading to heated debates that could create a tense atmosphere, but that was only because every member was seriously committed to this reform. Through these discussions, being exposed to the ideas, historical perspectives, and understanding of current conditions from people in diverse fields was another meaningful experience that broadened my horizons.

My experience as a teacher has been similar. When a student who had been diligently attending my lectures came to ask a question, and their expression suddenly changed to one of "I see!" upon hearing my answer, I felt the joy of teaching and was keenly reminded of my responsibility to create classes that further deepen students' interest and understanding. The discussions with students in my seminars and the discussions and interactions with alumni at OB/OG gatherings are even more intense, so I learn a great deal from them, and it has certainly been a source of motivation for my research and teaching. It has been over 40 years since I entered the Faculty of Economics. As I approach retirement and look back, I feel anew that what has supported and helped me grow is the spirit of "learning while teaching, teaching while learning," and I hope to continue living this way in the future.

(Interview conducted in December 2017)