Aikido Article

International Journal of Intercultural Relations
24 (2000) 741–761
Training in culture: the case of aikido education

and meaning-making outcomes in Japan
and the United States
C. Jeffrey Dykhuizen*
Lakeland College Japan
Abstract
This study investigated whether a relationship existed between instructional style and points
of emphasis in the training context of the martial art aikido and the perceptions which
practitioners of aikido generated for aikido-related concepts. The findings were gathered
within and compared across aikido training settings in two cultures } Japan and the United
States. Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data gathered for this investigation
revealed several potent differences between the manner in which Japanese and American
aikido practitioners represented their understandings of aikido-related concepts. Differences in
the manner in which aikido practitioners in Japan and the United States represented their
understandings of aikido reflected the teaching emphasis observed in the respective cultures. It
was concluded that aikido instructors represented the values of their own culture in the
context of aikido training, and thus served as important mediating forces influencing the
meaning which practitioners generated for aikido. An additional finding revealed that in
neither culture were participants able to accurately represent how practitioners in the ‘‘other’’
culture structured their understandings of aikido. It was reasoned that both cultural groups
generated faulty perceptions of how the ‘‘other’’ group understood aikido because they
utilized a similar pattern of projection, using their own meanings of aikido to represent the
understandings of practitioners in the ‘‘other’’ cultural group. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Keywords: Aikido; Cultural diffusion; Education; Cross-cultural studies; Psychology; Semiotics
*Correspondence address. 9320 Ravine Ridge, Caledonia, MI, 49316, USA.

E-mail address: cjdyk@yahoo.com (C. J. Dykhuizen).
0147-1767/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 7 - 1 7 6 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 9 - 8
742 C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761
1. Introduction
When persons from different cultures come into contact, there is an inevitable
exchange of cultural elements. Generally, the meaning and function of a cultural artifact
or practice is altered as it is transferred from one culture to another (Hunter & Whitten,
1976). Developments in transportation and communications technology in the
contemporary world have resulted in information being shared between cultures at
ever-increasing rates. It is therefore becoming increasingly important to have a clear
understanding of the process of information transfer across cultures. This study
investigated the process by which an artifact from one culture was received into another.
In the past several decades the Asian martial arts have become quite popular and
extensively practiced in the United States (Trulson, 1986). Several authors (Min,
1979; Back & Kim, 1984) have suggested that there are differences in martial arts
instruction in American and Japanese dojos (training halls). It has been argued that
the process of recontextualizing the martial arts into the culture of the United States
has resulted in new understandings of the martial arts (Columbus & Rice, 1991;
Trulson, 1986; Deshimaru in Wertz, 1984). The majority of the research which has
generated these findings, however, has involved hard, linear, combat-oriented
martial arts. Aikido, which was used as an example in this study, is a relatively new,
soft, spiritually based martial art.
1.1. The nature of aikido
Aikido is a soft, circular Japanese martial way which is commonly translated into
English as ‘‘the way of harmony’’. In aikido, the goal of training is to generate a
balance of body, mind, and spirit (Ueshiba, 1984). This is accomplished by training
to centralize and extend ‘‘ki’’ or vital energy, and to coordinate it harmoniously
with the surrounding circumstances (Ratti & Westerbrook, 1973, p. 359). Aikido’s
founder, Morihei Ueshiba, believed that violence and aggression could be guided, led
or turned aside by the harmonious coordination of spirit. The manifestations of this
principle can be observed in watching an aikido practitioner whirl and spin, leading
the aggressor’s force to a harmonious, non-violent outcome. From its inception,
aikido has emphasized a spiritual component (Ueshiba, 1984; Saotome, 1993), and
this emphasis has differentiated aikido from other, more combative martial arts.
Aikido was founded by Morihei Ueshiba in Japan in 1942 (Crawford, 1992;
Ueshiba, 1984) and it is practiced widely in Japan by persons of both genders and
various ages. Aikido was first introduced in the United States in 1953, and it is
currently estimated that there are approximately 1000 aikido dojos in the continental
United States (Pranin, 1991). Aikido has recently received attention due to the
success of Steven Segal’s movies.
1.2. Research questions
This study sought to clarify whether, and if so how the meaning of aikido was
altered in its diffusion to the United States. Although the investigation was broadly
C. J. Dykhuizen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 741–761 743
contextualized within the field of cultural diffusion, it specifically explored the

relationship between the presentation and instruction of aikido, and students’
understandings of it. Three interrelated research questions guided the inquiry.
(1) How is the instruction and practice of aikido in the United States different than
the instruction and practice of aikido in Japan?
(2) What differences, if any, exist between what aikido means to practitioners in the
United States and Japan?
(3) In what manner are differences in instruction and practice related to differences
in the meaning which aikido has to practitioners in different cultures?
1.3. Culture as a research variable
In this research project, as in many cross-cultural studies, culture ‘‘entails some

sort of ‘treatment’ or ‘condition’’’ (Berry, Poortinga, Segall & Dasen, 1992, p. 220).
When culture serves as an antecedent or independent variable, individuals’ beliefs
and behaviors are dependent variables (Berry, 1980). By comparing the manner in
which aikido practitioners in Japan and the United States structured their
understandings of aikido-related concepts, this project compared the dependent
variables of different ‘‘treatment’’ groups.
The terms America (employed to parsimoniously refer to the United States) and
Japan were used in this project to refer to specific research settings, and not to entire
nation-states. As pointed out by Berry et al. (1992), the contrast between large
cultural populations ‘‘is rarely of more psychological interest than between the
people of two small groups within the two areas’’ (p. 228). This investigation took
place within the socially constructed world within which specific groups of aikido
practitioners trained.
2. Methodology
2.1. Multiple case study design and mixed-methods methodology
A multiple-case study comparative research design using mixed methods was used
to conduct this investigation. The multiple-case study design accommodated an
essential feature of this study } across case analysis. Yin (1984) stated that in the
multiple case study design, the use of multiple sources of data aids in the generation
of ‘‘more convincing and accurate’’ findings. The comparative nature of the
investigation’s research design was facilitated by being structured within a format of
constant–comparative analysis (Glasser & Strauss, 1967).
Berry and his colleagues (1992) have stated that for cross-cultural comparative
studies, ‘‘an important strategy is to use more than one method of measurement’’
(p. 223). Both qualitative and quantitative data gathering and analysis strategies
were used in this comparative investigation. Data were gathered using in-depth
interviews with participants (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992;
Yin, 1984), participant–observation (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Glesne & Peshkin,
1992; Yin, 1984), direct, structured observation (Yin, 1984; LeCompte & Preissle,
1993) semantic differentials (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957), and a
demographic questionnaire. Berry and his colleagues (1992) have asserted that by
using more than one method of measurement, ‘‘one can have more confidence in a
finding’’ (p. 223).
2.2. Semantic differentials
The semantic differential (Osgood et al., 1957) is a quantitative tool which

measures the meaning of concepts. The semantic differential is a fitting tool to use in
gathering data cross-culturally, particularly between populations speaking different
languages. One reason for this is that the semantic differential utilizes the principles
of synesthesia. Synesthesia is the act of using descriptors from one sensory mode to
describe a sensation experienced through another sense. For example, when someone
says, ‘‘That’s a hot suit.’’ when referring to the color and style of someone’s outfit,
they are using the principles of synesthesia. Instruction in aikido uses a variety of
sensory modes to convey teachings } visual, tactile, aural, kinesthetic, etc. Because
practitioners acquire information about aikido from a variety of sensory modes, the
semantic differential was chosen as a tool to gather data on this topic.
The concepts measured in this study were deliberately selected for purposes of
comparison } to compare the manner in which two different cultural groups
structure the meaning of a shared activity, aikido. Concepts were also selected to
evaluate participants’ perceptions of how members of the ‘‘other’’ group perceives
aikido. The concepts whose meaning was measured were: (a) ‘‘ ‘Ki’ is’’; (b) ‘‘ ‘Aikido’
is’’; (c) ‘‘Aikido practitioners in the United States think aikido is’’; and (d) ‘‘Aikido
practitioners in Japan think aikido is’’.
Twelve descriptive scales were used to generate a semantic differential for the four
concepts. The descriptive scales, comprised of pairs of polar adjectives, were selected
from scales published in Osgood et al. (1957). Scales were selected for use in this
study based upon several criteria, the primary criteria being that the scales were
relevant to the martial arts-related concepts under investigation. Additionally, scales
were given selection priority if they had also been shown to account for a large
amount of variance in previous studies presented in Osgood et al. (1957).
2.3. Back-translation
In cross-cultural comparative studies translation is a factor which must be

addressed. This research project used the back-translation technique described by
Brislin (1980). In this study, back-translation consisted of a bilingual person
translating the tool from one language (English) to another (Japanese), after which
another bilingual person independently translated the tool back to the original
language. The first and third versions of the documents were then compared for
consistency. This technique has the advantage of ‘‘decentering’’ the material away
from the semantic bias of the original language. The result of the process of
decentering ‘‘means that the research project is not centered around any one culture
or language’’ (Brislin, 1980, p. 433). The questions used to guide interviews, as well
as the semantic differentials used in this study were back-translated.
2.4. Participants
All participants in the study were adult practitioners of aikido in dojos in Japan
and the United States. Several of the practitioners in each culture who participated in
this study were instructors. In each culture, data was gathered only from participants
who were ‘native’ to that culture; for example, in Japan data was gathered only
among Japanese aikido practitioners, and in the United States only from American
practitioners. Data was not collected among non-Japanese aikido practitioners
training in Japan, nor among non-Americans training in dojos in the United States.
2.5. Quantitative population
The quantitative population in this study consisted of aikido practitioners who

trained at dojos in the research settings, and who volunteered to participate in filling
out a semantic differential packet. One hundred twenty aikido practitioners training
at 12 dojos in the Japanese research setting completed the quantitative measures. In
the research area in the United states, 128 aikido practitioners training at nine dojos
participated in completing the forms. A minimum of 120 participants training in
each culture was required to maintain the statistical integrity of the semantic
differential.
2.6. Qualitative interview participants
In-depth, structured interviews with aikido practitioners were conducted in Japan

and the United States. The majority of interview participants were drawn from
among practitioners training in aikido dojos which served as the participant
observation sites in the study. After a minimum of two months of training with
participants, individual practitioners were approached if their beliefs, attitudes
and training practices were judged to be representative of other individuals at the
same level of expertise training in dojos in that research setting. In this sense,
interview participants were selected purposively. In several cases, instructors
teaching at sites in the research area where systematic observation was conducted
were also approached for interviews. All practitioners who were asked volunteered
to participate in the interviewing process.
Interviews with Japanese participants were conducted in Japanese. Although the
primary researcher is functionally fluent in spoken Japanese, interviews in Japan
preceded with a native Japanese speaker present to ensure that the flow and focus of
the inquiry was maintained. The interviews were audio-taped, translated in the case
of the Japanese interviews, and transcribed to text for analysis.
Participants possessed a variety of demographic characteristics and experiences.

Ten Japanese interview participants, eight males and two females, participated in
interviews between June and August, 1995. All were actively engaged in aikido
training at aikido dojos at the time the interviews were conducted. Their ages ranged
from 20 to 55 years. One participant had been training for just over one year, while
two others had been training for over 40 years. Participants had aikido rankings
ranging from fourth kyu (pre-black belt ranking) to eighth dan (black belt ranking).
There were three instructors, all of whom were male, among Japanese interview
participants.
Seven participants, one of whom was female, were interviewed in the research area
in the United States. They ranged in age from 20 to 50. Their aikido experience
ranged from slightly less than one year to more than 25, and they had ranks ranging
from fifth kyu to fourth dan. Three of the participants in the United States were male
instructors. One had seven, one five, and the other three years teaching experience.
3. Findings
This section presents the findings of the study. The findings concerning the
instructional emphasis observed and experienced while training in aikido dojos is
presented first. This is followed by a section describing practitioners’ perceptions of
aikido-related concepts, and a comparison of these perceptions across cultures. The
implications of the findings are addressed in the discussion section.
3.1. Instructional style and content emphasis observed at the participant

observation sites
Participant observation was conducted on two sites simultaneously for a three

month period in the Japanese research area. Participant observation occurred at one
site in the United States for a total period of six months. Dojos were selected for
participant observation if they (a) provided training in Aikikai-affiliated aikido,
(b) granted access, (c) were accessible to the researcher in terms of commuting time,
and (d) were representative of aikido dojos in the research areas. For this investigation,
participant observation included involvement in all aspects of training, maintenance,
and after training activities both inside and outside the dojo. Field notes were taken to
record observations, experiences, and conversations with informants which occurred
before, during, and after training sessions. The following section provides a brief
description of the teaching emphasis observed and experienced at each of the
participant observation sites. Pseudonyms are used to refer to all persons and places.
3.2. Participant observation sites in Japan
3.2.1. Akiyama dojo

Akiyama dojo was a small dojo, both in size of training area and number of
students. Typically, 8–10 students trained during each of the three-night a week
classes. Classes were very structured, beginning with a bow to shomen (the front of
the dojo), continuing through a short meditation session, group warm-ups, and
specific instruction in and practice of aikido techniques. All activities at Akiyama
dojo, including partner selection and technique training, were scripted, even
ritualized, and Akiyama sensei (teacher; instructor) insured that the behavioral
patterns were strictly adhered to.
Akiyama sensei placed emphasis on kokyu ho (breathing method) during training.
A seated, meditative version of the exercise was performed at the beginning and end
of each training session. During kokyu ho, Akiyama sensei instructed students to
keep their posture straight, their chins pulled in, and their breath slow: ‘‘When
inhaling, concentrate on the incoming breath, bringing ki energy into your tanden
(center point), then hold it there. When exhaling, force ki out through every part of
your body; do not try to keep ki in your body’’. We were instructed to literally
‘‘watch’’ our breathing (Fieldnotes, June, 1995).
Akiyama sensei also provided specific instruction on the ‘‘proper’’ positioning of
the hands, feet, and hips when performing aikido movements. For example, we were
told to hold the bokken (a wooden training sword) with our hands on the top of the
hilt, gripping only with the two smallest fingers. ‘‘Hold the bokken straight in front of
you, the butt two fists from your hara (belly)’’. He stated that the cut had to originate
in the hara, and that ki should ‘‘flow through the bokken’’. He insisted that the only
way to get a smooth, fast, yet powerful cut ‘‘was to concentrate ki through the tip of
the ken (colloquial for ‘‘bokken’’). The hips are also important, because speed and
power come from the hara’’ (Fieldnotes, June 3, 1995). These comments exemplify
Akiyama sensei’s consistent emphasis on ki control and extension as it related to
coordinating breathing and bodily movement, as well as the precise manner in which
he gave specific instruction.
3.2.2. Sakamoto dojo

Sakamoto sensei, the instructor at the second participant observation site in
Japan, also placed emphasis upon aspects of spirit and energy in aikido, although
such imagery was employed in a context of educating toward practical applica-
tion of aikido principles and techniques to martial situations. Approximately
25–30 practitioners participated in each of the twice-a-week training sessions. I
observed that the aikido practiced at Sakamoto dojo was sharp, clean, and in many
ways ‘‘harder’’ than the aikido observed at the majority of dojos visited in the
Japanese research setting. Although demonstrations of and instruction in the
performance of specific aikido techniques was provided by Sakamoto sensei, the
practice sessions were less formally structured than at Akiyama dojo, and students
freely chose partners with whom they trained at mutually agreed-upon levels of
rigor.
Occasionally, individuals would receive personal instruction from Sakamoto
sensei during a training session. For instance, once while instructing me to work on
body movements, he told me to ‘‘Move with your whole body, not just your feet.
Don’t show your opponent where you are moving, don’t show him your heart. Feel
from hara’’ (Fieldnotes, June 10, 1995). He continued giving individualized
instruction during pair-work, telling me to ‘‘Look at the eyes (of your partner), only
at the eyes. Don’t look at the weapon or your hands. Eyes. Capture the spirit of your
opponent’’ (Fieldnotes, June 10, 1995). As his comment illustrates, although
Sakamoto sensei taught within a context which emphasized martial engagement, he
did occasionally refer to spirit to illustrate his instructional points.
3.3. The American participant observation site: White Hall dojo
At the American participant observation site, labeled White Hall dojo because
there was more than one regular instructor, there was an easily discernable ‘‘script’’
of dojo procedures for activities (such as opening and closing class procedures,
partner selection, and technique demonstration). Unlike instruction in the Japanese
settings, however, there was no recognizable systematic approach to teaching specific
techniques or movements. This coincides with the two American instructors’
descriptions of their teaching styles as ‘‘idea-driven’’.
Both Frank and William, the two primary instructors at the dojo, taught from a
non-scripted, thematic framework which emphasized the basic principles of aikido.
As William stated during an interview: ‘‘Usually for teaching, I just come in with an
idea. And we explore the idea, and we try to make as many connections as possible
with the various techniques based on an idea’’ (Interview, November 8, 1995, p. 9).
Among the ‘‘ideas’’ around which training sessions frequently revolved at White Hall
dojo were: being centered, extension, establishing and maintaining a connection with
the training partner, and circularity.
Additionally, both instructors placed emphasis upon the application of aikido
principles for martial effectiveness. For example, while giving an explanation to the
class, Frank stated that, ‘‘Aikido must be able to work against anybody from any
martial art. Aikido is a martial art. Otherwise you’re just dancing around and feeling
good’’ (Fieldnotes, January 6, 1996). This statement reflects an instructional style
aimed at generating an understanding of aikido as a martial activity, and not
primarily as a practice designed for psychological or spiritual development.
White Hall dojo instructors rarely spoke of energy when providing explanations,
and they were never heard to mention ki during a training session. Instead, their
explanations generally focused on the principles upon which aikido’s dynamic
movements were founded, as exemplified in their utilization of terms such as
‘‘centering’’, and ‘‘connection’’. The instructors taught martial practicality in a
manner which did not deny, but certainly did not give primacy to, psychological or
spiritual considerations.
3.4. Practitioners’ perceptions of aikido-related concepts: integrated findings

from the semantic differential and interview data
This project utilized the constant comparative method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967);
analysis of interview and participant observation data were on-going throughout the
study. The findings generated from the analysis of these data were integrated with
the empirical findings which emerged from the analysis of the semantic differential
data. The findings generated from the analysis of the semantic differential data
provide a structured representation of participants’ understandings of aikido-related
concepts, while the qualitative findings generate a fuller, more detailed description of
participants’ dynamic and personal understandings of aikido.
A principle component analysis (factor analysis) with verimax rotation was
applied to analyze the semantic differential data. The data collected from aikido
practitioners in Japan and the United States were treated separately, and items
loading at 0.60 or higher were retained to represent the factors extracted from the
analysis. The findings are presented below.
3.5. Concept 1: Ki is
‘‘Ki ’’ is typically translated into English as ‘‘spirit’’, ‘‘mind’’, ‘‘will’’, and ‘‘intrinsic
or inner energy’’ (O’Neill, 1973; Ratti & Westerbrook, 1973). Three distinct factors
for ‘‘ki is’’ were extracted from the Japanese semantic differential data, while only
two factors were extracted from the American data. This indicates that Japanese
practitioners structured their understanding of ki in a more complex manner than
American practitioners.
An examination of the items comprising the factors for each group reveals further
differences in how members of the two cultural groups constructed meaning for the
same concept. For clarity, the items comprising a factor are not presented here as
polar adjective pairs, but as single adjectives, in accordance with the positive or
negative sign extracted during analysis. It should be also noted that the first factor
extracted during analysis typically serves as the ‘‘central’’ factor around which the
meaning for a particular concept is structured. The first factor extracted from the
Japanese data consisted of the five items ‘‘kind’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘peaceful’’, ‘‘soft’’, and
‘‘rounded’’. These items connoted a sense of ethical fluidness, characterizing
harmony. The second factor consisted of the items ‘‘strong’’, ‘‘deep’’ and ‘‘active’’,
and the third factor of the items ‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘tenacious’’ (Table 1).
The first factor extracted from data gathered among participants in the United
States consisted of the items ‘‘cruel’’, ‘‘ferocious’’, ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘tenacious’’. The
connotative quality of this factor was intrusive, even aggressive. No factor extracted
from the Japanese data carried a similar quality of meaning. The second factor
contained the items ‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘strong’’, ‘‘deep’’, ‘‘tenacious’’, and
‘‘active’’. The two factors extracted from the American data seemed to exist on a
semantic continuum; a continuum which ranged from ‘aggression’, to a sense of
aesthetic movement.
The meaning of ki was less differentiated by the American aikido practitioners
than by their Japanese counterparts, indicating that American practitioners had a
less complex understanding of the concept. This is not surprising, as the kanji
(Chinese character) ‘‘ki’’ is found in words and phrases used everyday in Japanese
society; for example, the word for weather, ‘‘tenki’’, contains the kanji for ‘‘heaven’’
and ‘‘ki’’. The analysis of the Japanese interview data also revealed that ki plays an
important role in Japanese participants’ conceptions of aikido. For example, a
female aikidoist stated, ‘‘If you don’t have harmonious ki, you can’t do aikido’’
Table 1
Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept: ki is)
Factors
1 2 3
Loadings
Japan
Beautiful/ugly 0.43 0.59 ÿ 0.35
Kind/cruel 0.74 0.20 ÿ 0.18
Graceful/awkward 0.81 0.25 ÿ 0.20
Peaceful/ferocious 0.80 0.14 ÿ 0.01
Hard/soft ÿ 0.85 ÿ 0.23 ÿ 0.01
Heavy/light 0.08 0.05 0.78
Strong/weak 0.40 0.63 0.15
Deep/shallow 0.16 0.85 ÿ 0.06
Tenacious/yielding ÿ 0.12 ÿ 0.09 0.69
Active/passive 0.22 0.74 0.14
Complex/simple ÿ 0.14 0.39 0.50
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.81 ÿ 0.13 ÿ 0.04
Factors
1 2
Loadings
USA
Beautiful/ugly ÿ 0.35 0.72
Kind/cruel ÿ 0.76 0.37
Graceful/awkward ÿ 0.26 0.72
Peaceful/ferocious ÿ 0.72 0.26
Hard/soft 0.72 ÿ 0.20
Heavy/light 0.53 ÿ 0.05
Strong/weak ÿ 0.25 0.64
Deep/shallow ÿ 0.15 0.73
Tenacious/yielding 0.69 0.03
Active/passive 0.19 0.67
Complex/simple 0.56 ÿ 0.07
Angular/rounded 0.55 ÿ 0.36
(Participant interview, June 29, 1995, p. 3). Not only does her statement illuminate
the central importance of the practice and philosophy of harmony to aikido,
but it contextualizes this idea in the concept of ki. For English speakers, however,
‘‘ki’’ is a foreign concept. Although Americans training in aikido have more
opportunities to refine their understanding of ‘‘ki’’ than do non-aikido practicing
Americans, the lesser differentiation of the concept among American participants
may simply be due to their relative unfamiliarity with the concept. It was also
found that in the educational settings American instructors referred to ki less
frequently during training sessions than did instructors teaching in the Japanese
settings.
3.6. Concept 2: Aikido is
Among the concepts whose meaning was measured using the semantic differential,
the structure and connotative quality for the concept ‘‘aikido is’’ were the most
similar between cultural groups. Three factors were extracted from the semantic
differential data gathered in Japan, although one factor loaded above 0.60 on only a
single item. Three distinct factors were extracted from the American data. This
indicates that American practitioners’ understandings of aikido were structured with
slightly greater differentiation than their Japanese counterparts’.
The slightly greater differentiation with which American participants structured
their understandings of aikido may be related to the difference between the
educational backgrounds of the two cultural groups. Analysis of the demographic
data revealed that American participants averaged a greater amount of post-
secondary education } about three years for Americans, and one year for Japanese
participants. It is also interesting to note that 21.1% of American participants
held degrees at the master’s level or above, while only 1.7% of Japanese practitioners
held degrees at a similar level. In addition, informants and interview participants in
the United States research setting reported having done a great deal of reading
about aikido philosophy, and many admitted having ‘‘libraries’’ of literature
about aikido } they actively studied about aikido in addition to training. As one
American instructor stated, aikido ‘‘attracts people who are well-educated’’
(Fieldnotes, November 16, 1995). These findings may account for the slightly
greater complexity with which American participants structured their under-
standings of aikido.
The first factor extracted from the Japanese data contained the five items
‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘kind’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘peaceful’’, and ‘‘rounded’’. This factor is very
similar to the ‘‘harmony’’ factor for the concept ‘‘Ki is’’. The first factor extracted
from the American data contained the items ‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘graceful’’, and ‘‘strong’’,
connoting a sense of powerful aesthetic movement.
The ‘‘beautiful’’ and ‘‘graceful’’ items around which practitioners training at
aikido dojos in both cultural research settings structured their understandings of
aikido may be accounted for by its universal representation as a means of personal
development emphasizing harmony. Aikido is consistently referred to in English as
‘‘the way of harmony’’ (Ueshiba, 1984) (Table 2).
There were differences in nuance, however, between the second factors extracted
from the data gathered among the two cultural groups. The second factor extracted
from the Japanese data contained the items ‘‘heavy’’, ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘active’’,
connoting a quality of strength and assertion. The second factor extracted from the
American data was comprised of the items ‘‘cruel’’, ‘‘ferocious’’, ‘‘tenacious’’, and
‘‘active’’. These items connote a sense of wild, unrestrained aggression.
Although the structure of the meaning for both groups were similar, differences in
nuance were apparent. The differences between the manner in which the two cultural
groups constructed meaning for aikido become clearer through an examination
of the qualitative interview data. Among the distinguishing properties which
Japanese participants consistently used to characterized aikido were harmony, ki, an
Table 2
Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 2:
Aikido is)
Factors
1 2 3
Loadings
Japan
Beautiful/ugly 0.69 0.27 0.02
Kind/cruel 0.80 ÿ 0.05 ÿ 0.02
Graceful/awkward 0.79 0.14 0.10
Peaceful/ferocious 0.78 ÿ 0.13 ÿ 0.13
Hard/soft ÿ 0.56 ÿ 0.33 0.22
Heavy/light ÿ 0.01 0.61 0.06
Strong/weak 0.13 0.79 ÿ 0.10
Deep/shallow 0.51 0.47 0.03
Active/passive 0.19 0.74 ÿ 0.02
Complex/simple 0.02 0.47 0.44
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.78 ÿ 0.20 0.22
USA
Beautiful/ugly 0.77 ÿ 0.16 0.21
Kind/cruel 0.32 ÿ 0.62 0.001
Graceful/awkward 0.79 ÿ 0.03 ÿ 0.10
Hard/soft ÿ 0.15 0.32 0.65
Heavy/light ÿ 0.17 0.48 0.29
Strong/weak 0.74 0.22 ÿ 0.02
Deep/shallow 0.57 ÿ 0.18 ÿ 0.04
Tenacious/yielding 0.07 0.64 0.37
Complex/simple 0.07 ÿ 0.02 0.80
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.51 0.20 0.30
emphasis on non-competition, and a recognition of aikido as an activity of personal

development.
Harmony emerged from the Japanese interview data, as it did from the
semantic differential data, as the central and defining property of aikido for
Japanese practitioners. As one sensei stated, ‘‘In aikido you harmonize with your
opponent. There are no unreasonable or excessive movements. You harmonize with
your opponent naturally’’ (Interview, July 2, 1995, p. 1). Harmony, practitioners
asserted, is physically expressed in the circularity of movements in aikido, and the
movements exemplify aikido’s philosophical position of unforced, naturally fluid
interaction.
Several properties which served to structure American participants’ under-
standings of aikido also consistently rose to the theoretical surface during analysis of
the American interview data. These characteristic representations were: aikido as a
martial art, aikido as tradition, technique as philosophy manifest, and aikido as a

means of self-development. The most prominently represented property among
American participants’ descriptions of their understandings of aikido was a
recognition of it as a martial art. The central position of this property converges
with the ‘‘aggression’’ factor which was consistently extracted from the American
semantic differential data. William, an instructor at White Hall dojo, was very
straightforward in describing his conception of the nature of aikido.
William: I think that, well first, aikido is a martial art, and I want there to be no
confusion. It is a martial art, and when you’re starting to learn it you need to learn it
as a martial art. (Interview, November 8, 1995, p. 15)
The manner in which William expressed his understandings of the nature of
aikido exemplifies the emphasis on martial practicality found in training sessions in
the American settings. The practice of aikido in the research areas in the
United States was grounded in issues of physical defense against attack, and this
martial aspect emerged strongly from American participants’ representations of
aikido.
3.7. Concept 3: Aikido practitioners in the United States think aikido is
Three factors were extracted for this concept from the data collected from both
cultural groups. From the Japanese data, the first factor contained the seven items
‘‘beautiful, ‘‘kind’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘soft’’, ‘‘deep’’, ‘‘complex’’ and ‘‘rounded’’, connot-
ing an sense of profound, gentle harmony. The second factor was comprised of the
items ‘‘ferocious’’, ‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘tenacious’’, connoting a sense of persistent wildness
approaching aggression. The third factor contained the items ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘active’’,
connoting assertiveness.
The first factor extracted from the data gathered among aikido practitioners in the
United States contained five items: ‘‘ferocious’’, ‘‘hard’’, ‘‘heavy’’, ‘‘tenacious’’, and
‘‘active’’. This factor, central to structuring American practitioners’ understanding
of concept three, characterizes aggression. The second factor contained the items
‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘graceful’’, and ‘‘deep’’, and the third factor loaded above 0.60 on the
single item ‘‘complex’’ (Table 3).
Although the difference in the complexity of the meaning of this concept between
the two cultural groups was slight, the quality of the first and central factors
extracted from the data between groups was very different. Japanese aikido
practitioners structured their understandings of how American aikido practitioners
perceive aikido around a central factor of harmony, although there was a secondary
element of aggression. American practitioners structured their understandings of
how American aikido practitioners (the cultural group to whom they belong) per-
ceive aikido around a central factor of aggression. The quality which characterized
the first factor for each cultural group was polarized in the opposite semantic
direction–harmony for Japanese practitioners and aggression for practitioners in the
United States.
Table 3
Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 3: Aikido
practitioners in the United States think Aikido is)
Factors
1 2 3
Loadings
Japan
Beautiful/ugly 0.73 ÿ 0.02 0.29
Kind/cruel 0.62 0.54 ÿ 0.04
Graceful/awkward 0.82 ÿ 0.28 ÿ 0.08
Hard/soft ÿ 0.77 0.40 0.05
Heavy/light ÿ 0.03 0.67 0.08
Strong/weak 0.18 0.25 0.80
Deep/shallow 0.67 ÿ 0.06 0.38
Tenacious/yielding ÿ 0.14 0.72 0.10
Active/passive ÿ 0.05 0.02 0.90
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.69 0.56 0.15
USA
Beautiful/ugly ÿ 0.08 0.76 0.23
Kind/cruel ÿ 0.50 0.53 0.12
Graceful/awkward ÿ 0.23 0.60 0.004
Peaceful/ferocious ÿ 0.69 0.46 ÿ 0.19
Hard/soft 0.76 ÿ 0.22 0.07
Heavy/light 0.71 ÿ 0.26 0.02
Strong/weak 0.36 0.57 ÿ 0.45
Deep/shallow ÿ 0.02 0.74 ÿ 0.03
Tenacious/yielding 0.83 ÿ 0.08 0.01
Angular/rounded 0.32 ÿ 0.57 ÿ 0.23
3.8. Concept 4: Aikido practitioners in Japan think aikido is
Three factors were extracted from the Japanese data for this concept, yet only two
clear factors were extracted from the American data. This indicates a differentiation
in the complexity of the structure of meaning } Japanese participants perceived of
Japanese aikidoists understanding aikido in a more complex manner than American
participants perceived Japanese aikidoists understanding aikido.
Factor one extracted from the Japanese data was comprised of six items:
‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘kind’’, ‘‘graceful’’, ‘‘peaceful’’, ‘‘soft’’ and ‘‘rounded’’. Again, in com-
bination these items connotate harmony. The second factor contained the two items
‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘strong’’, which express a feeling of strength or muscularity. The final
factor contained the items ‘‘deep’’ and ‘‘complex’’, connoting a sense of knowledge
or wisdom (Table 4).
Table 4
Results of the principle component analysis of the semantic differential data by culture (Concept 4: Aikido
practitioners in Japan think aikido is)
Factors
1 2 3
Loadings
Japan
Beautiful/ugly 0.72 0.20 0.11
Kind/cruel 0.60 ÿ 0.20 0.48
Graceful/awkward 0.76 0.15 0.07
Peaceful/ferocious 0.72 0.14 ÿ 0.07
Hard/soft ÿ 0.79 ÿ 0.14 0.05
Heavy/light 0.01 0.83 ÿ 0.001
Strong/weak 0.28 0.68 0.20
Deep/shallow 0.28 0.36 0.60
Active/passive 0.47 0.54 0.24
Angular/rounded ÿ 0.78 ÿ 0.13 ÿ 0.10
Factors
1 2
Loadings
USA
Beautiful/ugly ÿ 0.20 0.74
Kind/cruel ÿ 0.71 0.34
Graceful/awkward ÿ 0.18 0.76
Peaceful/ferocious ÿ 0.80 0.31
Hard/soft 0.78 ÿ 0.003
Heavy/light 0.71 ÿ 0.17
Strong/weak 0.19 0.65
Deep/shallow 0.12 0.71
Tenacious/yielding 0.66 ÿ 0.06
Active/passive 0.67 0.26
Complex/simple 0.60 0.06
Angular/rounded 0.27 ÿ 0.58
For the United States data, six items comprised factor one: ‘‘cruel’’, ‘‘ferocious’’,
‘‘hard’’, ‘‘heavy’’, ‘‘tenacious’’, ‘‘active’’, and ‘‘complex’’. With the exception of the
item ‘‘complex’’, this factor represents a sense of massive, invasive aggression, even
violence. The second factor, comprised of the items ‘‘beautiful’’, ‘‘graceful’’,
‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘deep’’, connoted sense of aesthetically distinguished, fluid power.
Hence, in addition to the wild aggression present in the first factor, a sense of wise
aesthetic was also connoted.
As was the case for concept three, the connotative directionality of the items
comprising the first factor extracted from each cultural groups’ data existed at
opposite poles } harmony for Japanese, aggressiveness for the Americans. These
findings consistently emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data as well }
Japanese aikido practitioners structured their understandings of aikido around a
property of ‘‘harmony’’, whereas American aikido practitioners represented their
understandings of aikido-related concepts with a property connoting ‘‘aggression’’
and emphasized aikido’s martial aspect.
4. Discussion
As the above findings make clear, the meaning generated to represent aikido-
related concepts was different between cultures. Within Geertz’s (1983) theoretical
framework, differences in conceptual representation are affected by differences in the
contexts within which they were formed. For example, the symbols, gestures, words,
and explanatory examples which are available for use in describing an activity in one
culture are different from those available in another. Additionally, the elements
available for descriptive use are patterned differently between cultures. There are
many forces influencing the meaning generated to represent an activity in any given
culture } language, social structure, and mass media are obvious examples. In this
study, investigation was focused on discovering whether differences between the
instructional emphasis and explanatory methods utilized by instructors in the
Japanese and American settings existed, and, once discovered, upon examining how
these differences were reflected in practitioners’ representations of the properties of
aikido.
4.1. Instructors as mediators of culture in the meaning-making process
In the case of a physically and psychologically intimate activity such as aikido,

interpersonal interaction, including the language and manner of instruction and
practice, is an especially potent force affecting meaning-making. Rogers (1983)
stated that individuals are important ‘‘channels’’ of diffusion. As channeling agents,
aikido instructors are active in selecting and interpreting aikido techniques,
principles, and philosophy. Instructors are functioning within a single cultural
context while they represent aikido to their students, and are thus limited in the
choice of tools (words, modes of interaction, available explanatory examples) from
which they can draw. Instructors represent their interpretations of aikido to their
students from within the meaning-making system of the culture within which they
were socialized and function, and the values which predominate in that culture are
reflected in the instructors’ words and actions. In this manner, culture, channeled
through aikido instructors’ personal understandings and interpretations, is the
primary factor influencing practitioners’ perceptions of aikido and themselves as
aikido practitioners.
Given that ‘‘the Western mind typically thinks of martial arts as a kind of Asian
version of such fighting sports as boxing or wrestling’’ (Hershey, 1994, p. 53), it is not
surprising that factors connoting aggression were consistently extracted from the
analysis of the semantic differential and interview data gathered among aikido
practitioners in the United States. The ‘‘aggression’’ construct was prominently and
consistently used by American participants’ to describe aikido-related concepts.
America is generally understood as being a society within which violence is not
uncommon, and this conception is continually being reinforced by the media’s daily
representation of images of violence in its reports of occurrences in the United
States. In addition, the prominent use of the ‘‘aggression’’ concept by American
participants was almost certainly influenced by the manner in which martial arts are
typically represented in the mass-media in the United States, exemplified in the
recent popular and violent movies starring the aikidoist Steven Segal. Aikido
instructors in the American research setting, however, while recognizing and
teaching aikido as a martial art, were never observed to deliberately teach
aggression. A statement by Frank, an instructor at White Hall dojo, clarifies the
subtle usefulness of aggression:
‘‘I think that by studying aggression and resolution..., if all you ever do is deny
aggression, you know nothing about it. So by putting yourself in situations you can
study yourself. If I come at you with a shomen uchi (overhead strike) very, very easy,
very light, you can do a very easy non-aggressive ikkyo (a first-control technique).
But I turn up the heat, and start getting stronger, and harder and harder, and your
aggressive nature starts to rise to the surface. So now your practice is to learn to
loose that aggressive nature. (Interview, December 12, 1995, p. 10).
As Frank’s comment indicates, aikido was taught and practiced in the United
States research setting simultaneously as a martial art and form of personal
development. In such a setting, training occurs from within a context which neither
denies nor encourages aggression, but rather utilizes it as a means for personal
development.
Instructors, working within a cultural framework which they and their students
are familiar with, serve to actively shape the patterns by which their students come to
structure meaning for concepts. American instructors for example, generated a
training atmosphere which emphasized martial practicality, and the analysis of
American practitioners’ perceptions of aikido-related concepts reflected the values of
this climate.
In Japan, instructors tended to emphasize social harmony, a cultural value which
was also reflected in the analysis of the data concerning Japanese participant’s
perceptions of aikido. In the training setting, this value became manifest in activities
such as the cooperative participation of all members during the after-training dojo
clean-up effort. Another aspect of this value was also represented by stressing that
the individual attempt to adapt him or herself to the situation–to blend with the
various circumstantial forces } and not try to change the situation to fit his or her
intentions. The following example, observed while performing systematic observa-
tion at a dojo in the Japanese research setting, also illustrates the non-discursive,
kinesetic teaching style readily observable in Japan. The instructor, a female sensei,
noticed a pair of students having trouble while the class practiced the aikido
technique she had just demonstrated. She walked to the pair, stopped, and stood
near them. She stood watching them slowly performing the technique. At a
particular point in their movements, she situated herself next to the student
performing the technique, and made her posture similar to his. Noticing the sensei,
they stopped in mid-technique. Then, while the students watched, she adjusted her
position. As the student adjusted his position to match hers, his training partner lost
his balance, and he followed through and finished the technique smiling. Both
students then sat down in seiza (a seated posture) and bowed to the instructor, who,
after performing a standing bow, continued wandering through the dojo, observing
pairs of students work. She had never spoken a word. (Fieldnotes, July 9, 1995).
The above examples illustrate how aikido instructors in both cultures reflect
cultural values in a manner which can serve to shape practitioners’ understandings of
aikido. The interpretive analysis of the findings from this study indicate that there is
an influential relationship between differences in the instructional emphasis in
Japanese and American aikido dojos and between-group differences in the structure
and quality of meaning for the aikido-related concepts.
4.2. A common pattern across cultures: consistency in speculating

about ‘‘others’’ thoughts
A within- and between-group comparison of the patterns of assigning meaning to

concepts three and four illuminates the assumptions made across cultures, and thus
addresses a deep and salient concern for the psychology of cross-cultural
interactions. As discussed in the previous section, cultural forces, represented within
and mediated through the instructional setting, exert an influence which can
reasonably account for differences in the structure and ‘‘flavor’’ of perceptions of
aikido-related concepts. A comparative examination of findings from concepts three
and four, however, indicates that the cultural context within which individuals
function also serves to mediate their perceptions of how persons outside of that
context understand a common activity.
An examination of the findings from the analysis of semantic differential data for
concepts three and four reveals that both Japanese and American participants
perceive that practitioners in the ‘‘other’’ culture understand aikido in the same way
which they think practitioners in their own culture understand aikido. Yet both
cultural groups, similarly assuming that the ‘‘other’’ group ‘‘thinks’’ as their group
does, are mistaken. Japanese practitioners perceive that both Japanese and American
practitioners ‘‘think’’ of aikido as centered around a construct of harmony, while
American practitioners perceive that both Japanese and American aikido practi-
tioners’ understandings of aikido was centered around a factor of aggression. These
findings indicate that what we believe an activity means to persons in different
cultures, and what it actually means to them can be quite different.
Aikidoists, like all persons functioning within a specific culture, interpret and form
meanings for activities within a cultural system. The meaning-making conventions of
the cultural system place conceptual limitations upon its members. Aikido practi-
tioners, enculturated into and training within a specific cultural setting, were unable
to accurately depict how aikidoists in another culture conceived of aikido } they
assumed their counterparts’ understandings were the same as their own. This finding
supports the assertion that even when conceptualizing about a non-discursive, bodily
experienced cultural activity, people constantly ‘‘think from’’ the culture within
which they have been socialized and function. People tend to have difficulty in
conceiving how others may perceive of the same activity. Due to the difficulty, and
arguably the impossibility, of disembedding ourselves from the meaning-making
system of our primary culture, we assume that ‘‘others’’ perceive of a shared portion
of the world in the same way as ‘‘we’’ do. This finding, which emerged with clarity
and power, is important because it illustrates a common psychological pattern used
to generate conceptions of how persons from other cultural backgrounds perceive of
common activities. At a structural level, both cultural groups shared the speculative
pattern of assuming that their counterparts in the ‘‘other’’ culture understood the
concepts in the same way as themselves.
4.3. Cross-cultural assumptions of understandings for shared, non-discursive activities
The finding that both groups assumed that their counterparts training in the
‘‘other’’ culture perceived of aikido in a manner similar to practitioners in their own
culture may be due to the non-discursive nature of training in aikido. Aikido is a
martial art, a bodily activity, and it is reasonable to assume that the physical
experience of training would be the same regardless of culture. My own training in
aikido dojos in both Japan and the United States, as well as reports by informants
who have trained in both cultures, necessitate the assertion that the bodily experience
of performing aikido techniques is virtually identical in both cultures. Donovan
Waite, a prominent American aikido instructor in New York who has trained under
internationally respected instructors in a variety of cultural settings, concurs. When
asked whether he observed ‘‘the nature of aikido practice’’ to change as he traveled
from culture to culture, he replied, ‘‘The culture makes the practice different, because
its mentally different . . . . Aikido technique itself does not seem to differ from culture
to culture’’ (Waite, 1996, p. 12). It is perhaps because practitioners assume that the
physical experience of performing aikido techniques is the same regardless of culture
that they think their counterparts in other cultures conceptualize aikido-related
concepts in the same manner as themselves.
4.4. Conclusion: Implications for education
The results from this investigation indicate that differences exist between the
instructional styles and points of emphasis in aikido dojos in Japan and the United
States, and that the meaning which aikido has to practitioners training in these two
cultural settings is quite different. A comparative analysis of the specific structuring
of the meaning of aikido-related concepts among practitioners in America and Japan
sheds light upon the results of the process of transferring knowledge across cultures.
Cultural activities are value-laden, and as the activities move from one culture to
another, the value changes. In the case of the example used in this study, new
understandings for aikido were created within the cultural context of dojos in the
United States. American aikido instructors, functioning within a context of inter-
personal learning, were a central culture-mediating force influencing the meaning

which practitioners in that culture generated for aikido-related concepts.
The finding that practitioners in both cultures tended to think that their
counterparts in the ‘‘other’’ culture perceived of aikido in the same manner as
practitioners in their own culture has broad implications for education and training
in cross-cultural situations. There can, for example, be no certainty that an
educational practice demonstrated to be an effective teaching method in one cultural
setting will be effective in producing similar outcomes in other cultural settings. For
example, an instructional strategy which has been shown to be effective in generating
an understanding of a subject, say reading, in an educational setting in Argentina
may be perceived quite differently, and therefore be quite ineffective, in a classroom
in Morocco. The ineffectiveness of the strategy may not be due to any fault in the
technique, but rather to how it is perceived in the new cultural setting. School
children (and teachers) in Morocco may even learn to dread reading class as a result
of the indiscriminant implementation of an educational strategy shown to be
effective in Argentina.
Interpretation of the results of this study within an educational framework
illuminates the likelihood of our being far less effective in communicating meaning
cross-culturally than we assume. As educators, we must be careful in the
assumptions we make concerning shared understandings, even at the non-discursive
level: what we think we are communicating may be quite different from what is being
received. Cultures are ‘‘sharing’’ practices at a greater rate now than they have ever
before in history. The results of this inquiry indicate, however, that cultural groups
which share the experience of a cultural activity do not necessarily understand or
represent the experience similarly.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Kenneth Cushner at Kent State

University, who provided valuable advice and suggestions on the construction of this
paper.
References
Back, A., & Kim, D. (1984). The future course of the Eastern martial arts. Quest, 36, 7–14.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segal, M. A., & Dasne, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research
and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In Triandis, & Berry, Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology: Vol. 2, methodology (pp. 1–28). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis, & Berry,
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 2, methodology (pp. 389–443). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Columbus, P., & Rice, D. (1991). Psychological research on the martial arts: An addendum to Fuller’s
review. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 64, 127–135.
Crawford, A. (1992,). The martial yen: American participation in the aikido tradition. Journal of Asian
Martial Arts, 1(4), 28–43.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Glasser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. London: Longman
Publishing Group.
Hershey, L. (1994). Shotokan karate as non-discursive intercultural exchange. Journal of Asian Martial
Arts, 3(3), 53–61.
Hunter, D., & Whitten, P. (1976). Encyclopedia of anthropology. New York: Harper & Rowe.
LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research ((2nd ed).).
New York: Academic Press.
Min, K. (1979). Martial arts in the American educational setting. Quest, 31(1), 97–106.
O’Neill, P. G. (1973). Essential kanji. New York: Weatherhill.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Pranin, S. A. (1991). The aiki news encyclopedia of aikido. Tokyo, Japan: Aiki News.
Ratti, O., & Westerbrook, A. (1973). Secrets of the samurai: The martial arts of feudal Japan. Rutland, VT:
Charles E. Tuttle Co.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). The diffusion of Innovations ((3rd ed).). New York: The Free Press.
Saotome, M. (1993). Aikido and the Harmony of Nature. Boston: Shombala Publications Inc.
Trulson, M. (1986). Martial arts training: A novel ‘‘cure’’ for juvenile delinquency. Human Relations,
39(12), 1131–1140.
Ueshiba, K. (1984). The Spirit of Aikido. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Waite, D. (1996). Interview. Aikido Today Magazine, 10(1), 9–13.
Wertz, S. K. (1984). Review of the zen way to martial arts. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 11, 94–103.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Aikido Article

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Aikido Article

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Training in culture: the case of aikido education

Keywords: Aikido; Cultural diffusion; Education; Cross-cultural studies; Psychology; Semiotics

*Correspondence address. 9320 Ravine Ridge, Caledonia, MI, 49316, USA.

1.1. The nature of aikido

1.2. Research questions

contextualized within the field of cultural diffusion, it specifically explored the

1.3. Culture as a research variable

In this research project, as in many cross-cultural studies, culture ‘‘entails some

2.1. Multiple case study design and mixed-methods methodology

2.2. Semantic differentials

The semantic differential (Osgood et al., 1957) is a quantitative tool which

In cross-cultural comparative studies translation is a factor which must be

2.5. Quantitative population

The quantitative population in this study consisted of aikido practitioners who

2.6. Qualitative interview participants

In-depth, structured interviews with aikido practitioners were conducted in Japan

Participants possessed a variety of demographic characteristics and experiences.

3.1. Instructional style and content emphasis observed at the participant

Participant observation was conducted on two sites simultaneously for a three

3.2. Participant observation sites in Japan

3.2.1. Akiyama dojo

3.2.2. Sakamoto dojo

3.3. The American participant observation site: White Hall dojo

3.4. Practitioners’ perceptions of aikido-related concepts: integrated findings

3.6. Concept 2: Aikido is

emphasis on non-competition, and a recognition of aikido as an activity of personal

martial art, aikido as tradition, technique as philosophy manifest, and aikido as a

3.7. Concept 3: Aikido practitioners in the United States think aikido is

3.8. Concept 4: Aikido practitioners in Japan think aikido is

4.1. Instructors as mediators of culture in the meaning-making process

In the case of a physically and psychologically intimate activity such as aikido,

4.2. A common pattern across cultures: consistency in speculating

A within- and between-group comparison of the patterns of assigning meaning to

4.3. Cross-cultural assumptions of understandings for shared, non-discursive activities

4.4. Conclusion: Implications for education

personal learning, were a central culture-mediating force influencing the meaning

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Kenneth Cushner at Kent State

Você também pode gostar