Published papers

Contemporary global migrant flows challenge national ingroup boundaries, leading to demands for greater inclusivity of those migrants in receiving societies worldwide. Utilizing the specific case of Japanese and foreigners in Japan, this study aimed to validate Komisarof's framework of workplace belonging. The framework refines understanding of how perceptions of belonging–particularly the degrees to which people see themselves accepted as members of another group’s cultural-linguistic community and as core members of their shared work organization–impact quality and effectiveness of intercultural work relations for both migrants and members of the host society. Instruments measuring both dimensions of belonging were validated first through a review of potential items by a panel of experts, followed by an exploratory factor analysis of retained items with a sample of 228 respondents (116 Japanese and 112 non-Japanese representing 24 nationalities). Relationships between four permutations of belonging, termed ontological interpretive spaces (“OIS”), and four outcome variables (job effectiveness, flourishing, organizational commitment, and intercultural competence) were hypothesized and tested. Significant effects of OIS were found for job effectiveness, flourishing, and organizational commitment, providing evidence of belonging’s effects on these crucial acculturation outcomes in intercultural work contexts.

In this study we examined what are the markers of immigrant naturalisation as seen from the perspectives of recipient nationals. Social markers are perceptual signposts that receiving nationals use in deciding whether a non-native born is a member of the destination country. In short, what should immigrants do in order to be accepted by receiving nationals as “one of us”. Cross national data on 20 indicators of “everyday nationhood” were collected from five countries – Singapore, Japan, Australia, Finland, and Canada. The markers highlight common dispositions, activities, or social norms that are associated with citizenship. Exploratory factor analysis in each sample consistently demonstrated a two-factor structure model that supports the contemporary ethnic-civic distinction, but the markers that make up each of the two dimensions vary between countries. No metric equivalence was found, and that the markers have culture-specific meanings. The framework offers a novel insight to intercultural relations. The results suggest that adaptation and social inclusion need to consider the norms and values practised in the recipient society, and how immigration may redefine intergroup boundaries.

Social markers of acceptance are socially constructed indicators of adaptation (e.g., language skills or adherence to social norms) that recipient nationals use in deciding whether to view an immigrant as a host community member. This study had two objectives: (a) to distill the markers considered important by Japanese undergraduates to accept immigrants in Japanese society and (b) to test the premises of integrated threat and social identity theories by ascertaining the effects on marker endorsement of perceived immigrant threat, contribution, relative social status, and intergroup permeability. Native-born Japanese (the term “native-born Japanese” is used throughout this article to refer to people born as Japanese citizens—differentiating them from immigrants who are Japanese citizens naturalized after birth) from 12 Japanese universities (N = 428) completed an online survey. Marker importance ratings were factor-analyzed, and three latent dimensions were found representing sociolinguistic, ethnic, and socioeconomic markers. Multiple hierarchical regressions discerned the main effects of immigrants’ perceived threat and contribution on social markers as well as their interactions with intergroup permeability and immigrant relative status. The results underscored perceived threat’s consistent role in increasing marker importance and suggested divergent paths to acceptance: Immigrants perceived as “low-status” were expected to conform to sociolinguistic and ethnic markers, whereas socioeconomic markers were stressed more for “high-status” immigrants when perceived immigrant threat increased and intergroup boundaries were considered less permeable.