Over the past few years, the notion of ‘facilitation’ has been increasingly gaining attention and acceptance in Japan, especially in the context of education and training. Today, Japanese educators think and talk about facilitation, even if it is not yet clear what facilitation is. Interestingly enough, the term facilitation does not exist in the Japanese language. Even so, the term fa-shi-ri-tei-shon somehow seems important to use, and by ‘importing’ and using it, we feel more comfortable talking about certain aspects of our communication processes. Without it we may not feel able to say anything about these aspects of communication processes. Conceiving of the act of facilitation as utilizing a set of tools enables research and writing on facilitation to examine its outcomes or effectiveness rather than being limited to considerations of it as a process. This article introduces and applies the idea of social construction of technology in order to examine the notion of facilitation.
Bateson, G. ( 1996). Communication. In H. B. Mokros (Ed.), Interaction and identity (pp. 45-70). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
2.
Bredemeier, M.E., & Greenblat, C.S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games: A synthesis of findings. Simulation & Games: An International Journal, 12, 307-332.
3.
Butler, R.J., Markulis, P.M., & Strang, D.R. ( 1988). Where are we? An analysis of the methods and focus of the research on simulation and gaming. Simulation & Games: An International Journal, 19, 3-26.
4.
Crookall, D., & Saunders, D. ( 1989). Towards an integration of communication and simulation . In D. Crookall & D. Saunders (Eds.), Communication and simulation: From two fields to one theme (pp. 3-29). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
5.
Eckes, G. ( 2002). Six sigma team dynamics: The elusive key to project success . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
6.
Francis, D. ( 1987). The competent player: Some observation on game learning . In D. Crookall, C. S. Greenblat, A. Coote, J. H. G. Klabbers, & D. R. Watson (Eds.), Simulation-gaming in the late 1980s (pp. 201-206). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
7.
Francis, D. ( 1989). Game identities and activities: Some ethnomethodological observations. In D. Crookall & D. Saunders (Eds.), Communication and simulation: From two fields on one theme (pp. 53-68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
8.
Freire, P. ( 1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York : Seabury.
9.
Kato, F. ( 1996). An ‘art’ of facilitation (in Japanese). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th JASAG Annual Conference .
10.
Kato, F. ( 2003). Facilitation move and its context: A microanalytic study of an educational gaming-simulation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick .
11.
Kato, F. ( 2004). Facilitation in communication: Toward a study of educational gaming-simulation. In R. Shiratori, K. Arai, & F. Kato (Eds.), Gaming, simulations, and society: Research scope and perspective (pp. 71-80). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
12.
Mokros, H.B. ( 1996). Introduction: From information and behavior to interaction and identity. In H. B. Mokros (Eds.), Interaction and identity (pp. 1-22). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
13.
Mokros, H.B. ( 2002). A constitutive approach to identity. In H. B. Mokros (Ed.), Identity matters: Communication-based explanations and explanations (pp. 3-28). Mount Waverly, Victoria, Australia: Hampton Press.
14.
Pierfy, D. ( 1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling blocks and stepping stones. Simulation & Games: An International Journal, 8, 255-268.
15.
Pinch, T.F., & Bijker, W.E. ( 1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17-50). Cambridge : MIT Press.
16.
Randel, J.M., Morris, B.A., Wetzel, C.D., & Whitehill, B.V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal, 23, 261-276.
17.
Schön, D.A. ( 1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books .
18.
Shubik, M. ( 1989). Gaming: Theory and practice, past and future. Simulation & Games: An International Journal, 20, 184-189.
19.
Sigman, S.J., & Donnellon, A. ( 1989). Discourse rehearsal: Interaction simulating interaction . In D. Crookall & D. Saunders (Eds.), Communication and simulation: From two fields on one theme (pp. 9-81). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
20.
Ulrich, D., Kerr, S., & Ashkenas, R. ( 2002). The GE work-out: How to implement GE’s revolutionary method for busting bureaucracy and attacking organizational problems-fast . New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Watson, D.R., & Sharrock, W.W. (1987). Some social-interactional aspects of a business game for special purposes in the (L2) teaching of English . In D. Crookall, C. S. Greenblat, A. Coote, J. H. G. Klabbers, & D. R. Watson (Eds.), Simulation-gaming in the late 1980s (pp. 177-186). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
22.
Weaver, R.G., & Farrell, J.D. ( 2003). Crisis at Santa’s workshop: Using facilitation to get more done in less time. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
