Results of the Kawasaki Survey of Foreign Residents

The results of the questionnaire-based survey of foreign residents of Kawasaki were published yesterday. Most of the results are, of course, published in Japanese, but there is an English summary. (I had nothing to do with the English part of the English summary. I feel the need to make that clear.)

I’ve been working on this survey in one way or another since 2009, and I’m still not finished, because we are currently planning the interview survey that will follow up on the results of the questionnaire.

2009 was when I applied to become a member of the Foreign Residents’ Assembly (FRA). My general purpose was to contribute to the city and my community, but my specific goal was to get the city to carry out a survey like this. I thought, and still think, that having actual data on the situation of foreign residents would be very useful. Fortunately for me, the other representatives agreed, and provided a broader base of opinions on what should go into the survey. We formally requested that the city carry out such a survey in 2012.

The city moved quite quickly, agreeing to investigate the possibility of doing a survey, and setting aside budget for it for the 2013 fiscal year. At the beginning of that fiscal year, a team was established to work on it, mostly composed of Japanese social scientists. I was added to the committee as the token minority member. We spent a year working out the details of the survey, so that we could make a concrete budget proposal to the city.

The city agreed to supply the budget, so the survey was carried out in 2014. The survey was sent out, and the results tabulated, by a contractor, but we, on the team, did the data analysis and wrote the report. I only wrote a small part of the report: the section on experiences of discrimination. In the near future, I plan to translate that section into English and post it here, along with some more commentary. I’m also going to read the whole report, because I only read it bit by bit as it was being written, and I don’t think I’ve read the whole thing yet. I’ve certainly not read the final version of some parts. I expect that there will be other things that I want to say as a result of that.

One interesting fact, that is in the summary, is that half of the children of foreigners in Kawasaki have Japanese citizenship. (That is probably because the other parent is Japanese.) Before we did the survey, we (on the FRA, I think) had asked the city how many children with foreign roots there were, and they had no idea. They knew how many had foreign citizenship, but the children with foreign parents and Japanese citizenship were invisible. We now know that there are as many Japanese children with foreign roots as there are foreign children, which has implications for educational provision.

None of the survey results specify actions that the city should take. That’s not their purpose. They are supposed to inform decision making. I expect that the FRA will make use of the results, as will the Multicultural Coexistence Promotion Policy Assessment Committee (which I am on). That’s the next step.

The publication of the report marks the success of a long project for me, but the real work starts now.

Not Even Resting

Kannagara is not dead. It’s not even resting. It’s just all been happening behind the scenes.

I know I haven’t posted anything to this blog for a long time, but I have been working on the game, along the lines I outlined previously. This has proved difficult.

It took me a while to identify the big problem, but I think I finally have. The structure I was working on was insufficiently modular. That is, it was not possible to make changes to one part of a scenario without changing the rest of the scenario to match, and each part of a scenario depended intimately on all the others. That made it impossible to write anything on a unit smaller than a single scenario.

That would have been bad enough, but as Kannagara is supposed to support long term development and growth, a “single scenario” quickly turned into a whole campaign. Designing something that large, all at once, with new mechanics, proved too difficult. If I can’t do it, then it will be impossible for other people to write for the game, or to design their own home campaigns. That, obviously, is a very bad thing. I had to find a way to make the parts of the game more modular.

I think I have now cracked this problem, at least for investigation and discovery. I have a set of mechanics that looks simple to use, and that will allow me to drop in any number of different things to be discovered. It still covers searching for evidence, and putting that evidence together to make a theory, even if you have some evidence that doesn’t fit. I have a straightforward way to deal with evidence that doesn’t fit, rather than having to design in the interactions between every possible version of the game world. It doesn’t involve complex mathematics, and normal persona statistics should stay in the 1 to 5 range, with 6 and higher for really skilled individuals.

As I have got a set of mechanics together today, tomorrow’s job is going to be putting something in those mechanics, and that something ought to be the first part of the demonstration scenario. If it all works out, I’ll move on to the mechanics for creation, and for interacting with other characters. That should be relatively easy, because I need to keep the same basic mechanical structure for all parts of the game. This is important to keep it easy to play, but also to make it easier to write.

I know this post is a bit vague, but I’m only part way through putting the first bit together. If I make progress tomorrow, I may have something a bit more concrete to post in the next week or so, but as it has been about six months since I updated the development job, I really felt the need to post something. Is my plan to finish something playable this year still realistic? I think so, but I’m not confident yet.