<論文>コロナ禍における質的調査と権利擁護 --外国人住民を対象とした生活実態調査を事例として--

Abstract

This paper outlines action research carried out in response to COVID-19 with regards to foreign residents living in and around Kyoto. This includes details of the survey procedure adopted, involving face-to-face interviews, and the qualitative research method used, focusing on food relief. Food relief was chosen as an example of a community activity involving reciprocity, and to ensure an adequate supply of information for the researcher during a time of economic downturn. The survey results, collected from nearly 600 respondents, show how the negative socio-economic/ psychological impacts of COVID-19 differed depending on foreign residents’ countries of origin, age, residence status, occupation and gender, and highlighted how a more effective support strategy, capable of responding to these various different impacts, is needed. One unexpected outcome of the research was the researcher’s own commitment to and involvement in rights advocacy - mainly coordinating support from government services. What became clear as a result of the survey was that the welfare services provided by local government, which should normally act as a safety net, are often difficult for foreign residents to access due to the language barrier and the cumbersome bureaucratic procedures involved. Undocumented workers also need food relief. However, this can raise moral and ethical questions regarding advocacy by the researcher. In some respects, these workers are victims of the rent-seeking structures associated with their lack of citizenship, but it is difficult to legitimize a separate research ethic solely for investigating and advocating on behalf of just one particular group of people. This could be seen as unethical. It would also distract from the overall research context and could promote individual reductionism. However, such commitment does not necessarily have to be provided just by the individual researcher. Multidisciplinary collaboration among lawyers when dealing with legal issues, among doctors and NGOs/NPOs when dealing with matters of livelihood support, and with other essential people in the community, can all help to overcome the academic limitation of isolationism. Advocacy is not the prerogative of fieldworkers alone.