To Choose, and to Be Chosen. | Fumitoshi Kato, Dean, Graduate School of Media and Governance
2020.01.14
If there are 100 faculty members, there are 100 different "research groups (seminars)," so choosing is difficult. But having a choice is a luxury. First, you should look into the "research groups" using their research themes (academic fields), methodologies, and deliverables as clues. The syllabus should be an important point of contact for learning about a "research group." It's also a good idea to take their classes, visit them, or listen to information (or rumors) from friends and upperclassmen. You choose the "research group" that seems right for you through various methods.
Regardless of the reason or what sparked their interest, I first want to express my gratitude to the students for choosing my "research group." It is a happy thing to be chosen. To put it a bit dramatically, it's because they made the decision to "discard" other possibilities for the time being and chose me. Of course, there must be students who choose with a much lighter heart, but for now, I'll try not to worry about that. In any case, I was chosen.
Students choose a "research group" from among many. And faculty members choose students from among the applicants. This, too, is an important decision. If it's a student I know through class, it's easier to judge. There are things you can learn from reports and interviews, but there are also many things you can't. In the first place, choosing is difficult because both sides will change through their activities in the "research group." You want to be chosen by those you choose. You want to choose those who have chosen you. The ideal is a relationship of "choosing and being chosen." Last fall, on a whim, I gave the students in my "research group" the following assignment.
[Assignment]
(This is a hypothetical scenario) The curriculum has been revised, and in order to complete your "Graduation Project" (in other words, to graduate),
you are now required to apply for an "advisory group" consisting of three or more faculty members.
With which three people would you like to advance your "Graduation Project"?
● List the specific names of three faculty members (limited to those who lead a "research group" at SFC).
● Explain why your proposed "advisory
group" is appropriate by introducing your own themes of interest and methodologies and explaining why you chose those three members.
By the deadline, 23 students had submitted their answers. The results were quite interesting and gave me a lot to think about. By the way, although this assignment is based on a hypothetical setting, the idea is not so far-fetched. If you go on to graduate school, you are supervised by a main advisor and sub-advisors (two or more), so you literally need an "advisory group." The undergraduate curriculum also allows students to "move" between "research groups" each semester (half-year), so some students belong to multiple "research groups" before they graduate. In some cases, students even "double up" in the same semester. Therefore, it should be better to have a few faculty members in mind rather than limiting yourself to just one.
I've briefly summarized whom the students chose. The first row shows the names (initials) of my faculty colleagues, and the second row shows the number of students who named that faculty member. For example, 9 out of the 23 respondents chose YS. As you can see, the names of HI, TK, and NM followed. I see. Whether they were aware of our existing relationships—like conducting joint research or holding joint "Graduation Project" presentations—or not, the names that came up were "within expectations." Looking at the combinations, three students "nominated" "YS & HI," and two students nominated "YS & MS."
In the end, the names of 23 of my colleagues were mentioned. There are supposed to be about 100 faculty members in charge of "research groups," so if a system like the one in this assignment were implemented and students could freely choose their faculty, it would mean that roughly one in four of my colleagues are potential members to form an "advisory group" with me.
Actually, what is noteworthy are the "unexpected" names and combinations of faculty. Who do they want to tackle their research theme with? Whose backing are they seeking? Students should be free to choose their faculty. If you look at the curriculum guide, the faculty members are loosely grouped according to their research themes. Keywords representing their "specialties" are also published. We faculty connect with colleagues because our research themes are similar or because we belong to the same academic societies. We also become close by working together in university meetings or on other duties. These are, so to speak, natural connections. The "unexpected" combinations of faculty chosen by the students flexibly transcend these existing categories and suggest new possibilities. Of course, there will be variations in their understanding of the faculty, based on the students' own assumptions and images. Some combinations might seem unreasonable. However, the combinations that students have chosen based on their own aspirations open up valuable opportunities for the faculty. They are surely touching upon a new "something" that we cannot comprehend from our own experience. It is the students who create new encounters and connections between faculty members. That is why we must prepare ourselves to accept these as-yet-unseen, "unexpected" proposals, while looking forward to being chosen.