2.2 SATISFACCION LABORAL

There were many instances in which participants had access to support opportunities but decided not to discuss their writing with anybody regardless of difficulties with revision. Since participants considered asking for support to be an integral academic literacy practice of the Global Programme, the decision not to seek support was a marked and usually disfavoured practice. They gave several, sometimes contradictory, reasons to explain the instances in which they did not, and I often had to ask the same question several times. Indeed, asking participants why they had not sought support sometimes led to interviews stalling. However, in many instances it was clear that social relations strongly influenced the decision not to seek support.

Initially, participants either avoided my question or mentioned practical factors such as lack of time or differing schedules to account for their decision. For instance, Tomomi acknowledged that asking for support was a preferred practice that “other people do” but avoided giving a reason for why she did not:

103

Interviewer: So you thought other people really wanted to focus on their own essay (.) you didn’t think maybe I can help my friend, my friend can help me, this is better?

Tomomi: Yes [nervous laughter] but (1.0) Yeah, I also was busy with this draft, and if someone asked me to some improvement points, I will take a little time for the person, but (1.0) nandarou (1.0) nani (.) Other people do, and my action is different from my feeling.

(Tomomi, interview, 18.1.17) In the extract, Tomomi appears to respond to my position as a teacher on the

programme, agreeing with my characterisation of support as a way to “help my friend”. Although she mentions being “busy”, her final statement “my action is different from my feeling” avoids my question. Participants also expressed concern for inconveniencing their peers. They usually switched to Japanese, using terms such as meiwaku [inconvenience] or moushiwakenai [inexcusable], a phrase expressing regret at having asked for help. For instance, even when Tomomi felt anxiety about revising her essay alone, she was more worried about how others would feel:

Interviewer: By yourself?

Tomomi: Yeah, so I a little scary about this.

Interviewer: So you took a risk? Why didn’t you talk to your friends or consult with somebody about this?

Tomomi: Because all members also was busy, with final draft, so to spend time for me is moushiwakenai [inexcusable].

(Tomomi, interview,18.1.17) Despite her close relationship to many of her classmates, Tomomi was keen to avoid “moushiwakenai” behaviour. As the extract shows, time was a factor in these

decisions. Indeed, participants also mentioned the difficulty in making arrangements due to the differences in timetables, elective classes, extracurricular activities, part- time work, or commuting from different towns. In other words, participants

emphasised the different times and spaces in which they and their peers existed. However, it was often apparent that accounts of timetables or peer feedback camouflaged decisions which were based on social distance. In the INoP framework, social distance is represented as the strength of a tie between individuals. Tie strength

104

is a combination of time spent together, emotional intensity, intimacy or mutual confiding and reciprocal services (returns) between individuals (Granovetter, 1974). It is distinct from multiplexity, as individuals could be connected in several different ways but remain weakly-tied. Participants often accounted for not seeking support by mentioning the number of social ties but, on further questioning, referred to social distance. For instance, Tomomi compared the support she received from two classmates (referred to as “draft two’s pair” and “this pair”) during peer editing ostensibly in terms of different schedules but actually in terms of social distance and investment in the GP:

Interviewer: What was your process with your peer editing for draft two?

Tomomi: Draft two’s pair always study at library, and she is living in the dormitory, and (1.0) We do not have the same class (1.0) Only GP we have, we met. So, but this pair [she points to the introduction and conclusion draft] and me, and I, have some same class, so we, this pair and I can have opportunity to meet, but draft two’s pair and I do not have much opportunity to meet.

Interviewer: Which class is it that you have the same?

Tomomi: Economics class is same, and math class is same, but draft two’s pair only GP class.

Interviewer: What was your process with the draft two pair?

Tomomi: We write comments, different place, and in the class, we exchanged the print.

Interviewer: Did you talk in class? Tomomi: [embarrassed laughter] Interviewer: And after class?

Tomomi: I said to her, if you have some points of not understand, then you contact me. But she did not email me. Her comments was fewer than me, but I couldn’t say more comments please. I think the relation will be a little bad, or she also very busy, so this is meiwaku

105

(Tomomi, interview, 15.6.16) Tomomi accounted for her decision not to interact with “this pair” in a several ways. First, she mentioned place and timetables, emphasising different living arrangements and classes. At the end of the extract, she then absolved herself of responsibility for making contact. Finally, Tomomi then characterised the amount of her partner’s feedback as “fewer than me”, suggesting she was less invested in the class, which had discouraged Tomomi from asking for “more comments please”. Tomomi’s partner has not fully reciprocated in the peer editing process, leading Tomomi to conclude that further interaction would be meikaku [inconvenience] or make their relationship “a little bad”.

In the second example, Tomomi again initially avoids mentioning social distance, camouflaging it with a discussion of timetables and peer feedback. Tomomi and Yoko separately describe a peer editor, Hiroto, as a “new person”: he had moved up from the Intermediate to Advanced class between first and second semester. Tomomi mentioned the differences in school activities and class timetable between herself and Hiroto, but again this did not seem the real reason why she did not interact further with him. Indeed, the written feedback Hiroto gave was evaluated poorly by both Tomomi and Yoko as “so simple”, “only in English” and “only about grammar”. The root of the problem, however, appeared to be what Tomomi described as his “character”:

Interviewer: Did you discuss the comments with Hiroto?

Tomomi: No! [emphatically, laughing] He belongs to the Italian- Spain club, he also belongs to Honours activity in

Economics faculty, so he is so busy person, and I also live in my home and worked part-time job, so we did not have enough time to meet, so we only exchanged the paper. Interviewer: But with Ai you did have that time. Why was it different?

Of course, she lives near you, but when you did your peer editing with her that was on campus.

Tomomi: My (.) time schedule, my schedule and Ai’s one is same, for example the Career Class (.) Hiroto maybe have the Monday or Wednesday class, but I and Ai have the

106

Tuesday class, so the empty class is the same with Ai, so it’s easy to meet her

Interviewer: Did you meet Kotomi when you did your peer editing for the opinion essay? I can’t remember.

Tomomi: Maybe yes.

Interviewer: Did you want to talk to Hiroto more?

Tomomi: Yes (.) but to be honest I couldn’t catch Hiroto’s character now. Hiroto is a new member from this

semester, and (1.0) nandaro (1.0) I (1.0) Have never met the person like Hiroto [laughter] of course it does not mean I do not like him, he is nandaro nanteiundaro? [what, what should I say?] he is

Interviewer: Say it in Japanese. Tomomi: [Laughter]

Interviewer: It’s difficult in Japanese?!

Tomomi: On to off ga hageshi [he’s really on or off] and kyuni shaberidasutoki ni are ha kihonshizuka mitaini [suddenly talkative and suddenly totally quiet] [laughter] so I cannot understand when he have energy to speak.

(Tomomi, interview, 18.1.17) As this extract illustrates, the decision not to seek support from an individual was also a decision about social relations and social distance. As well as being a “new

member”, Hiroto was not someone Tomomi could talk to easily; the difficulty in understanding “when he have energy to speak” did not justify the potential returns of more detailed feedback. As such, the choice not to seek support indexed other choices about who to interact with socially, although also partly camouflaged by accounts of timetables and classes and quality of peer feedback. These evaluations of others were also represented in the participants’ frequent evaluations of the support they received, related in turn to participants’ response to peer feedback when revising writing. Below, I will describe how participants responded to the support they received from peers.