Japanese political science at a crossroads? normative and empirical preconditions for the integration of women and diversity into political science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Japan combines demographic challenges of decreasing childbirths and an ageing population, yet political unwillingness to use immigration to ease labour market and caregiving shortages. Paying attention to gender, diversity, and inclusion would seem to be a ‘rational’ political choice. Although Prime Minister Abe (Abe II) understands the need to appear to be responding to Japanese women qua equal citizens, women remain more an ‘object’ of LDP policy than a substantive beneficiary. To improve his image, Abe has incorporated ‘Womenomics’ into his strategy of economic revitalisation; the result has been a rather incoherent blend of ‘equal participation’ and ‘women’s utilisation’. In 2016, the dearth of diversity and anti-feminist sentiment within Japanese politics continues to be mirrored in both passive and active ways within the discursive and institutional political climate, including within academia. It is largely premature to assume a shared normative or scientific commitment to inclusion and diversity in Japan. Japanese Political Science (JPS) is no exception, and this has obvious implications for what constitutes a ‘serious’ political issue worthy of study, what gets funded, who gets hired, and the extent to which critical debates within feminist political science (FSP) on gender, race, and diversity are taken seriously. In this article, I offer a preliminary evaluation of JPS in light of three indicators: the under-representation of women in Japanese academia generally and political science specifically; the access of FPS to large-scale government funding grants (2003–2013) and its impact on the discipline; and recent efforts by feminist political scientists in Tokyo to create a ‘home’ for debates on gender, diversity, and political representation. I conclude with a hopeful expectation that increasing numbers of political scientists in Japan will begin to genuinely problematise the dearth of diversity in Japanese politics and to approach this fundamental puzzle of Japanese democratisation with the intellectual curiosity that it deserves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".