Editors’ panel discussion
The importance of posing questions
─ dialogue with the audience
Audience member 1: I am a high school student. It is not exactly a question, but I would like to hear your thoughts. As researchers, when you are looking at numbers, where do you see humans? Where in the data do you think humans are?
Kotosaka: I have something that may be related to your question. Research in business recently has "emotion" and "temporality" as keywords. Even with the premise of the same data and mechanisms, business organizations sometimes make decisions that defy logic. If we investigate why this happens, we find hints in human emotions and sensibilities. Emotions, and decisions based on them, tend to be temporal. In other words, it can change in a minute, or a second, at the slightest thing. There is recognition that this aspect needs to be explored further. In the end, no matter how much humans try to act objectively based on data, there is the possibility that subjective judgements are being made. When individual humans gather together to form a group and make decisions as a group, emotions and temporality cannot be ignored. This is a discussion that I find interesting, and I am exploring business from this angle.
Audience member 1: I think looking at the human and not just numbers is a common thread that runs through all academic disciplines. In a book by one of my favorite mathematicians, Kiyoshi Oka (1901-1978), he says toward the beginning, "Humans are disappearing from academics." He also said, "Perhaps the goal of science is to take humans out of the equation." I felt this to be true. But I think actually it is more complicated than this, and as you mentioned, the viewpoint of emotions and sensibilities is important.
Wada: Here is another example of looking at something from a different angle. Let us say in economics, we are studying tax reductions. There will be less taxes. When this happens, how will consumer behavior change? A model of tax reductions says that everyone will consume more, everyone will be happy, and demand will increase. However, rational people thinking about the future will not increase consumption. The reason is they know taxes will increase in the future. Tax reduction will eventually be compensated by a tax increase, so not increasing consumption is a logical decision. However, in reality, we do not know if everyone is rational. Here, we focus on what percent of all consumers act rationally, and what percent do not act rationally. If we make a comparison internationally, for example between the U.S. and Japan, we find that a larger percentage of Japanese consumers do not act rationally compared to U.S. consumers. If a person gains money, becomes happy and decides to spend it, that person is not rational in terms of economics. If we look at the data in this way, it is surprising to see how very few rational people there are. This is an example of how the human factor is showing up in data.
Yamamoto: I am in charge of the academic project "Humanities Approach to Modern Society and Culture" at the Graduate School of Media and Governance. Here, numerous professors and students involved in the humanities work on various themes and hold discussions. With this background, I see that in many fields such as pedagogy and sociology, there is an increase in quantitative research, that is, collecting and analyzing numerical data. On the other hand, I see qualitative research is also evolving with an emphasis on concrete examples and exploration of questions that are difficult to quantify, such as in language and behavior. There are many students at SFC who lean toward qualitative research. For example, in addressing issues related to social withdrawal or persons with disabilities, some students analyze information gathered through repeated intimate dialogues with the subjects. I feel there is an increase in qualitative research in academia in general. At such a time, I feel it is crucial to ask how we can connect quantitative research with qualitative research. I agree that it is important to focus on the individual and the human aspect, but leaning too much toward qualitative research should be avoided. When we consider how to turn qualitative research into knowledge to be shared in society, it will be crucial to find a balance where qualitative research and quantitative research complement each other.
Audience member 1: Thank you. I feel that reality is also a subjective matter, and we need to think about whose reality it is. The person looking at a situation needs to realize this and should delve deeper into data to find the human factors.
Kamo: Yes, that is true. Considering whose reality it becomes is very important. For example, in international politics, some prevailing views were "societies follow the path of democratization as they develop economically," "democratic nations do not go to war," and "world peace can be maintained through globalization and interdependence." Developed countries that held such views promoted economic aid to developing countries. However, this way of thinking was derived from researchers in the Western developed countries and based on their past experience. In reality, economic development does not always lead to democratization, and economic interdependence does not guarantee peace. From the viewpoint of developing countries, political liberalization might not necessarily be the goal to be pursued. So, we must consider whose reality we are talking about. In this sense, it is important to look at the human aspect of things.
Audience member 2: I graduated from SFC in 2020 and am now working at a Japanese company. I feel that the reality Professor Kamo referred to earlier is exactly in line with Yukichi Fukuzawa's thoughts on the spirit of jitsugaku. What I feel now as someone who works is that academia is very lofty. Out in the world of business, there are many gritty situations. Sometimes proposals will pass just because they are popular. I feel it is very different from academia. I think SFC graduates will face this gap when they start working for companies. I would like to know what your thoughts on this are.
Kotosaka: I hold the conviction that behind every seemingly unreasonable situation, there must be some reason behind it, or at least an explanation. Let us say there is something that I think is unreasonable or not right. I try to take a viewpoint based on the assumption that if placed in the same situation, I might do the same thing.
It is important to have such a belief while broadening your views and looking at things objectively. For example, there are numerous episodes of unreasonableness described in publications such as Nikkei Business and Toyo Keizai in which management strategy decisions are not based solely on logic or potential economic value. If you look at The Nikkei's "My Resume" column or NewsPicks articles, you will find humans taking action as humans resulting in management moves that may seem unreasonable at first glance. After seeing so many examples, we may begin to understand such unreasonableness as logical. That it is the norm and its occurrence natural. We examine this in an academic sense and look at things as objectively as possible. We examine it statistically, try to see the whole picture, and seek the reasons behind this unreasonableness. If we consider there is some logic behind unreasonableness, we can feel a little bit more at ease [laughs].
Audience member 3: I work as a civil servant. At the beginning of the session, it was mentioned that seeking problems and resolving them is important but quite difficult to do and that it is important to formulate questions. I thought these points were very relevant. I often think along the same lines, so I think these are worth pursuing. However, when I see articles in business magazines featuring talks with scholars and business leaders, I cannot help but feel that business leaders in Japan are devastatingly weak in logical thinking. I believe it shows their inability to formulate questions. What do you think is the cause of this? Also, I am sure that SFC students are trained to formulate questions, but how do you think this will be put to use in the future? Please give me your thoughts on these points.
Kotosaka: In the course of my work, I have had many opportunities to have discussions and solve issues together with executives at trading companies, megabanks, automobile companies, etc. These executives have good analytical skills, are logical, and have high ethical standards and a sense of responsibility. It is not a matter of their lacking abilities or being inferior that has brought about the results of today, but the things they are looking at and the things they prioritize may have led to the unfortunate result of being a mismatch with the direction of the times. Therefore, we cannot necessarily dismiss them. I think it is vital that we objectively analyze why this mismatch occurred and use what we learn from this to move toward the future.
Shimizu: I think that SFC is, fortunately, a campus where students bring their own questions when they come here. What we do as professors is to ask them over and over if they have the correct awareness of the issues and not just their own interpretations. This is the aspect that everyone finds difficult. The students find out that what they had assumed is slightly different from reality. But if they can work through this process and move forward, it will become research that is useful to the world, gives them confidence, and is interesting to carry out. If you look at any of the seminars, they are basically doing the same thing.
Kamo: Thank you. In today's session, we were able to explore the questions, "What is policy management?" and "In what direction is policy management heading?" Being able to have this discussion was very meaningful. On behalf of those on the panel, I sincerely thank you for joining us today.