Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 38，Number 1，2017，pp01-15

Disaster Education Based on Legitimate Peripheral Participation Theory:
A New Model of Disaster Science Communication
Takuya IWAHORI*), Katsuya YAMORI**), Takumi MIYAMOTO***),
Hideyuki SHIROSHITA****), Yoshihisa IIO**)*) Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University**) Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University***) Education Center for Disaster Reduction, University of Hyogo****) Faculty of Safety Science, Kansai University（Received: Oct. 24, 2016

Accepted: Dec.16, 2016）

Abstract
It is often suggested that disaster education should not be a one-way knowledge transfer from disaster
experts to non-experts, but a bilateral interaction between the two sides. In this study, the authors propose a
new framework for disaster education based on legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) theory, in which
disaster experts and non-experts interact very closely to remove the barriers between the two sides.
Specifically, the present study introduces two practical research methods for disaster education. The first is
an attempt to convert a seismological observatory into a disaster science museum with collaboration
between seismologists (experts) and volunteer staff (non-experts). The second is an endeavor to involve
elementary school children in cutting-edge seismological research by installing a miniature seismometer attheir school. As a result, volunteer staff at the museum formed a new identity in joint practice as semiexperts who mediate between experts and non-experts. Although the schoolchildren did not reach a definite
stage as successfully as did the volunteer workers in the museum project, through this research, both theseismologists and the children realized what they had not shared, and this marked a starting point for further
risk communication. The results are discussed from the perspective of LPP theory.
Keywords: disaster education, legitimate peripheral participation, community of practice, earthquake
1. Introduction
Recent natural disaster research suggests the growing importance of the role of non-experts in disasterprevention activities. This paper analyzes the relationship between experts and non-experts during disasterprevention-related activities, with a particular focus on disaster education. The first purpose of this researchis to postulate that, in these situations, knowledge transfer is not central to learning, but that the relationshipformed between experts and non-experts constitutes learning in itself that can be interpreted as disastereducation. Consequently, this paper evaluates the effectiveness of learning that occurs among experts andnon-experts in environments where purposeful interaction on the topic of disaster preparedness is introduced.
The second purpose of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of this type of disaster education whereknowledge transfer is not central.
After a number of recent major catastrophic natural disasters in Japan, including the Great Hansin
Awaji Earthquake in 1995 and the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, we often hear statements such as“modern high-tech structures in Japan were thought to be undamageable by earthquakes, but the idea that
an elevated highway cannot collapse is a ‘safety myth’,” and “seismologists try to make excuses by saying
1

T.IWAHORI, K.YAMORI, T.MIYAMOTO, H.SHIROSHITA, Y.IIO
the size of the tsunami was totally ‘unexpected’” (as examples, see The Japan Times, 2004; Okada et al.,2011; and Nogami & Yoshida, 2014).
The terms “unexpectedness” and “safety myth” have one important aspect in common, that is, anobvious lack of mutual communication and understanding between disaster experts and non-experts. Suchphrases do not simply point to certain failures/defects in disaster science/technology in itself, but to the factthat experts have not successfully communicated with ordinary people about the limits and outcomes of
their research.
For example, Kumamoto (2011) indicated that, even before 2011, some seismologists warned of thepossibility, albeit very slight, of an unprecedentedly large tsunami in the Tohoku region based on researchon the Jogan Earthquake in 869 CE. However, this warning was not taken very seriously in the academic orgovernmental sector. As a result, the warning was not widely communicated to non-experts. This poor risk
communication generated a feeling of “unexpectedness” and “unknownness” in the aftermath of the Great
East Japan Earthquake; however, in reality, the tsunami was not unexpectedly or unprecedentedly massive.
2. Previous studies
Before the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake of 1995, disaster prevention in Japan had mostly been based on
hard engineering solutions. However, following this disaster, the importance of people-based approaches
and risk communication became widely recognized in Japan, and many actions were taken in that area.
Disaster education is one of the areas that came to prominence at the time as a people-based approach.
Disaster education is closely related to disaster risk communication. Risk communication theory
suggests a gap between experts and non-experts in which experts try to transfer knowledge to non-experts,
but these non-experts show indifference or pessimistic attitudes (Yamori, 2007). Shiroshita (2011)
demonstrated that a communication gap exists among experts as well. The uncertainty created by thesemisunderstandings can lead to unforeseen and sometimes disastrous outcomes.
The problem pointed out by Yamori (2007) and Shiroshita (2011) in disaster education is known as
the “deficiency model” in science communication theory. The “deficiency model” assumes “experts to beon the side of scientific knowledge and the general public to be on the side of no scientific knowledge, thatis, on the side that is deficient in scientific knowledge. Information is assumed to be transmitted from experts
with scientific knowledge to citizens with a lack of scientific knowledge” (Fujigaki, 2007). Figure 1
illustrates the deficiency model.

Fig. 1. Deficiency model2

Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 38，Number 1，2017，pp01-15

3. Use of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) theory
This paper uses LPP theory to explain how learning occurs among participants who do not interact with thespecific purpose of knowledge transfer, but rather with the purpose of learning sharing and informationexchange. In LPP theory, learning is formulated as “legitimate peripheral participation in a community ofpractice.” From this definition, we introduce technical terms and the relationship between participants in thelearning process. As shown in Figure 2, in the “community of practice,” full participants and newparticipants, both of whom are categorized as peripheral participants, maintain mutual negotiation on thebasis of a central practice.
LPP theory interprets learning as identity building of each participant rather than knowledge transfer
between the two. Building an identity consists of negotiating the meaning of our membership experiencesin the community of practice.

Fig. 2. Model of learning based on legitimate
peripheral participation (LPP) theory

3.1. LPP(1) Theory
Lave et al. (1991) first proposed LPP theory, which assumes that the essence of learning is LPP in acommunity of practice.
An explanation of the technical terms in LPP theory is as follows: “Community of practice” is a groupof people involved in a specific practice; “legitimate peripheral participation” refers to an “authentic practice”
of a community of practice in a plural and diverse way that is possible to perform, and the changing of therelationship itself with the passing of time. Here, the word “legitimate” means “authentic,” “peripheral”
means “plural” and “diverse,” and “participation” literally means “participation” that is concretely
performed.
These definitions are in accordance with Yamori’s (2012) interpretation. In the present study, werevised the theory according to the definitions in the following paragraphs.
(2) Conditions of LPP
In this section, we consider the three conditions—legitimate, peripheral, and participation—for realizing
LPP. These three conditions can be integrated into the following two parts: “legitimate and peripheral” and“participation.”
The condition “legitimate and peripheral” means that there is a community of practice whose“authentic” practice involves a “diverse” form of participation by existing members. To put it another way,“legitimate and peripheral” means that a community of practice is “accessible.” Shiroshita (2010) is correct
3

T.IWAHORI, K.YAMORI, T.MIYAMOTO, H.SHIROSHITA, Y.IIO
when he says that “‘legitimacy’ is the problem of whether or not there can be participation in a practice.
‘Peripherality’ is the problem of whether or not access is allowed to a valuable activity in the practiceconcerned.” Legitimacy or what is regarded as “legitimate” is beyond the scope of our current discussion.
The other condition, “participation,” means that each specific community of practice has active
participants. It is easy to understand this condition because “participation” literally means participation.
Here, we notice that the condition of “participation” is more concrete than the condition of “accessible,”which is very abstract. Shiroshita goes on to say that “and if it is guaranteed and participation is done in acommunity of practice, learning is generated in itself.” What the passage makes clear at once is that two
conditions, “participation” and “accessible,” comprise learning in LPP.
It follows that, to realize LPP, it is necessary that a community of practice be “accessible” and haveactive participants.
(3) Concept of “peripheral”
The concept “peripheral” means “diverse” or “plural.” It is key to understanding LPP theory. It should beemphasized that it is a mistake to think of a dichotomy between “central” and “peripheral” in understanding
the theory in terms of the plurality and diversity of “peripheral” in contrast with the unity symbolized by
the concept of “central.” The idea of “peripheral” represents diversity and plurality by subcategorizing
various forms of “peripheral participation.” Since all forms of existing participation are categorized as LPP
according to the theory, the concept of “peripheral” represents a unity of the idea, in contrast to the pluralityand diversity represented by its meaning.
We can represent the constitution of learning by setting a “central practice” in a community of practice.
The term “central practice” can be defined as “a certain practice that is symbolic to a specific communityof practice.” We can set a central practice selectively from various practices that are observed in thecommunity of practice, according to the focus of analysis. By doing so, we can analyze learning arisingfrom LPP by a community of practice, whose central practice is not the transfer of knowledge and techniquesthat is generally regarded as learning.
After we select a central practice of a specific community of practice, any (legitimate) participationin the community of practice can be categorized as peripheral participation. Since the term “peripheral”
means diverse, any possible (legitimate) participation in the community of practice can be interpreted asdiverse participation.
Here, we have two distinct types of peripheral participants, namely, full participants and newparticipants. These two subcategories of peripheral participants are defined in a correlative way. According
to the central practice specified, participants who have more experience become full participants. Conversely,
people who have no experience, or at least less experience than full participants, become new participants.
By subcategorizing these two kinds of participants, we can consider peripheral participation in itself, not in
a way based on the commonly used binominal opposition of “central (participants)” and “peripheral(participants).”
All existing participants can be categorized as full or new participants. Future participants, who do
not exist in the context of central practice at the time of the distinction between full participants and newparticipants, can be excluded from the subcategories. However, they may also participate in it in the future
as new participants. Therefore, future participants may also be categorized as peripheral participants.
Various participants can be integrated into a united form of “peripheral participants.” With such acategorization, a consistent view can be seen in analyzing a participation process that changes with thepassage of time.
(4) Discourse of learning
The main point regarding the discourse of learning through LPP is continuous mutual negotiation between
full and new participants mediated by a central practice, as shown in Figure 2.
According to Lave et al. (1991), continuous negotiation between the two participants causes threedifferent kinds of change as the result of learning though LPP: new participants move toward becoming fullparticipants, while full participants come to accept the “constructively naïve perspectives or questions” that4

Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 38，Number 1，2017，pp01-15

new participants bring in from outside the community of practice as “inexperience [that is] is an asset to be
exploited.” Acting as an intermediary between full and new participants, the community of practice itself
changes.
3.2. Identity-building evaluation of learning
We are now ready to consider how to evaluate the results of learning engendered by LPP. We interpret thethree results mentioned in the previous subsection as identity building by participants.
Lave et al. (1991) believe that participation in a community brings about self-awareness of becoming
part of that community, as can be seen in the following quotation:
Moving toward full participation in practice involves not just a greater commitment of time,intensified effort, more and broader responsibilities within the community, and more difficult and risky tasks,but, more significantly, an increasing sense of identity as a master practitioner.
This idea marks a clear contrast with the traditional idea that regards the results of learning to be theacquisition of knowledge and/or techniques.
Yamori (2012) has the following to say on the matter of identity building:
We shall concentrate on the concept of “identity” stated by Lave and others. They use the word
identity not in the narrow sense of personality or ego identity of individuals, but in the sense of the role orposition that participants take in a community of practice. . . . The important point of learning is to obtainmembership in a community in which participants act cooperatively.
Relevant to this point is Takagi’s (1999) remark:In LPP theory, “to participate” corresponds to a situation in which the participant is in charge of arole of a certain practice accepted as legitimate in the community of practice. Therefore, we can interpretlearning as a change in the way of participating, that is, a change in the role the participant takes in thecommunity of practice.
From these remarks, one general point becomes very clear: The result of learning through LPP appears
as a change in the role of the participant in a community of practice. We can understand the change in therole as the participant’s change in identity. At the same time, the changes in role and identity are balancedby the change in the community of practice.
4. Case study
Theoretical assumptions are tested through case studies. Here, we introduce one scientific research project,
the Manten Seismic Observation Project, and two field studies, the Abuyama Open Laboratory and acollaborative study program between an elementary school and the Manten Seismic Observation Project.
Both case studies are characterized by the participation of non-experts in the practice of experts.
4.1. Abuyama Open Laboratory
The Abuyama Open Laboratory is an attempt to convert a seismological observatory into a disaster science
museum with collaboration between seismologists (experts) and volunteer staff (non-experts).
The Abuyama Open Museum Project started in December 2010. The core members of the project are
Yamori and Iio, who are Professors at the Abuyama Observatory, and a Planning Director at the Disaster
Reduction and Human Renovation Institution. The Abuyama Open Museum Project aims to transform the
Abuyama Observatory from a center of data collection for seismology into a museum of seismology open
5

T.IWAHORI, K.YAMORI, T.MIYAMOTO, H.SHIROSHITA, Y.IIO
to the general public.
During the startup period, the policy of the project was stated as follows: “When we think about the
future of this observatory (building institute), it is the best decision to transform the observatory into a
museum that mainly focuses on the history of seismology. With such a transformation, we believe that theobservatory could be all the more valuable, in that it would be open to the general public, be a place tocommunicate with locals, and effect various types of learning, resulting in greater satisfaction by introducing
numerous people to studies on seismology and other subjects related to the Abuyama Observatory.”
Abuyama Open Laboratory is a series of events that were carried out based on such a policy. Abuyama
Open Laboratory consists of two kinds of public events. One is monthly open houses, and the other is special
seasonal open houses. The open house schedule is announced publicly, and citizens who wish to visit
Abuyama Open Laboratory apply to participate in the event according to the schedule. In addition to a
guided tour, several seminars or courses are arranged as part of the basic open house program according to
the theme set each time such an event is held.
Abuyama Open Laboratory was held for the first time on April 3, 2011, not long after the Great East
Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011. The catastrophic disaster caused a certain unrest in Japanese society.
This mood influenced the core members, making them hesitate about whether to hold the first special open
house. Although they eventually decided to carry out the event on schedule, the scale of the event was
reduced.
Abuyama Open Laboratory’s second special open house was held on July 31, 2011. On this day,programs were arranged for children in the midst of their summer vacation and their parents. Since theprograms were favorably received and successfully completed, core members began to consider Abuyama
Open Laboratory more seriously.
The third special open house of Abuyama Open Laboratory was held on November 5, 2011. On thisday, dialogical courses between core members and participants were arranged. The main themes of the
dialogue set in the programs were the possibility of development of Abuyama Open Laboratory in the future.
As a result of the dialogue, core members shared the common purpose of introducing volunteer supporters.
A volunteer supporter training course was arranged for June 2-3, 2012 as a special open house. On
these two days, participants joined training programs necessary for leading a guided tour of the Abuyama
Open Laboratory. For example, they studied old seismometers, the history of the observatory and Mt.
Abuyama, and the accepted protocol for receiving guests. Participants who finished the training program
were authorized as volunteer supporters.
The second volunteer supporter training
course was arranged for October 20-21, 2012 asa special open house. On these two days,
volunteer supporters who had continued training
since the previous volunteer supporter training
course practiced giving guided tours to visitors
for the first time.
Hereafter, volunteer supporters began tolead guided tours of Abuyama Open Laboratory.
In the 2013 academic year, volunteer supporters
led 10 tours.
The third volunteer supporter training
course was arranged for June 22-23, 2013 as a
special open house. New volunteer supporters
Picture 1. Guided tour of the Abuyama
were recruited and participated in the training
Observatory
for visitors by volunteer supporters
noted above.

6

Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 38，Number 1，2017，pp01-15

4.2. Manten Seismic Observation Project
The Manten Seismic Observation Project was an attempt to densely observe local inland earthquakes using
hundreds of small seismometers. Iio’s research group developed the latest version of the Manten
seismometer in 2008. The Manten seismometer allows offline seismic observation. It consists of a velocitytype seismograph, a data logger, and a battery. The Manten seismometer is characterized by its power
efficiency, which enables data to be recorded for up to about nine months. Another notable feature of theManten seismometer is that many units of Manten seismometers are installed at the same time near eachother, and so these are chosen for intensive observation of microearthquakes to clarify earthquake
mechanisms.
The Manten seismometer is installed at the same time at many points in nearby areas, which arechosen to allow intensive observation of microearthquakes in order to clarify the mechanisms underlying
earthquakes. For example, 82 observation points were set in the northern part of the Kinki area and 50 inwestern Tottori Prefecture; there are also observation points in eastern Shimane Prefecture, western Nagano
Prefecture, the Nobi area, the Kyushu area, and New Zealand. As of July 2014, a total of 250 observation
points using the Manten seismometer had been set to observe microearthquakes.
In Japanese, the word manten has two meanings that relate to the Manten Earthquake Recording
Project. One meaning is “tens of thousands of points,” which represents the ideal image of seismic
observation. The other meaning is “perfect score,” which means that the seismic observation project is (oneof) the best ways to observe earthquakes.
4.3. Collaborative study program between an elementary school and the Manten Seismic Observation
Project
A collaborative study program between an elementary school and the Manten Seismic Observation Project
attempted to involve elementary school children in cutting-edge seismological research by placing a
miniature seismometer in a school.
(1) Shimoyama Elementary School
Shimoyama Elementary School is located in the mountainous area of central Kyoto Prefecture. It has about
80 pupils (note: Japanese elementary schools have six grades).
A Manten seismometer was set up in Shimoyama Elementary School in 2009. Two motives combined
to lead Yamori to install a seismometer at the school site. First, it would contribute to progress of the latest
seismological research of the Manten Seismic Observation Project by adding another observation point.
Second, it would enrich disaster education within the school and aid the shared practice of seismometer
maintenance between experts and pupils.
After approval by the School Board, the plan to set up a Manten seismometer in Shimoyama
Elementary School was realized on December 8, 2009. The actual work of installing the Manten
seismometer was conducted by experts and pupils.
There is a network of Manten seismometers in the northern Kinki area. The Manten seismometer set
up in Shimoyama Elementary School was a new observation point in the network. After the installation of
the Manten seismometer, we continuously carried out disaster education. The class schedule was set as fourtimes a year, in accordance with the timing of maintenance of the Manten seismometer. The classes consistedof seismometer maintenance by the pupils and the authors, and classroom lessons with themes related to the
Manten seismometer and the Manten Earthquake Recording Project.
(2) Neu Elementary School
Neu Elementary School is located in a mountainous area of western Tottori Prefecture. It holds around 100
pupils. The Manten seismometer was set up in Neu Elementary School in 2010.
In 2000, the Western Tottori Earthquake occurred, striking Hino Town, where Neu Elementary School
is located. It was around this area where damage from the earthquake was most extensive.
In 2010, the Tottori Prefectural Government planned a series of projects in accordance with the 10year anniversary of the Western Tottori Earthquake. One of these projects aimed to promote disaster
7

T.IWAHORI, K.YAMORI, T.MIYAMOTO, H.SHIROSHITA, Y.IIO
education at Neu Elementary School. Neu Elementary School was selected because, first, Yamori was
looking for a school in which he could carry out a disaster education project. Second, there is a connection
between the Yamori and Tottori Prefectural Governments. Third, Neu Elementary School is located within
the area of a network of Manten seismometers.
Iio planned to set a new seismometer at the site of Neu Elementary School because it is located in a
50-square-kilometer area that already contained 50 observation points. However, according to firsthandobservations, if a new Manten seismometer had been set up in that location, noise from a nearby railway, anational road, and a river would have been excessive. Therefore, a site two kilometers from the school waschosen as the installation point. On May 17, 2010, Iio and students from Neu Elementary School installed
the Manten seismometer.
Neu Elementary School has disaster education study programs other than the one in collaboration
with the Manten Seismic Observation Project. One of these is listening to experiences of the Western Tottori
Earthquake from family members, locals, and volunteer staff who have worked on the revitalization of theregion. Other examples include a presentation in a public disaster forum and an annual school recital about
what they have learned through investigative learning. The Tottori Prefecture Board of Education evaluatedthese various types of disaster education and gave an official commendation to the school in 2011.
In both of these elementary schools, we continued the disaster education program after the installationof the Manten seismometer. The disaster education program consists of three or four classes a year. The
purpose and practical significance of the program are as follows. First, in the study program, elementary
school pupils handle the maintenance of the Manten seismometer, even though they are generally thought
to be practicing disaster prevention activities. Second, it is becoming difficult for seismology experts toperiodically look after the seismometers as they spread out from the center of research.
As of July 31, 2014, we had held 17 classes at Shimoyama Elementary School and 15 at Neu
Elementary School. In this paper, we focus our attention on seven classes held in each elementary school in
the period of 2011 and 2012. We briefly summarize these classes in the paragraphs that follow. Sentencesin which the name of the elementary school is not clear represent activities that were commonly performed
in both schools.
Classes were held four times a year and attended by sixth-grade students. The class schedules werearranged in accordance with seasonal maintenance of the Manten seismometers. Each class consisted ofseismometer maintenance and classroom lessons. Maintenance of the Manten seismometers set in theelementary schools was performed by the pupils and the authors. Classroom lessons were held under themes
related to the Manten seismometer and the Manten Earthquake Recording Project. The practical purpose of
the classes was to have pupils get a proper feel for the role of an expert.

Picture 2. Maintenance of the Manten
seismometer by pupils
8

Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 38，Number 1，2017，pp01-15

The work of seismic observation was divided between the pupils and the experts as follows. The
pupils were in charge of seismometer maintenance and the experts offered support. The experts, as usual,
did the rest of work, which included reading the data of collected CompactFlash (CF) memory andevaluating underground structures by analyzing the data.
Now, let us look closely at the work of seismometer maintenance. Seismometer maintenance isdivided into three procedures: “ending procedure for seismic observation,” “exchanging batteries and CF
card memories,” and “restarting seismic observation.” Every year, in both elementary schools, about 10
sixth-grade pupils participated in seismometer maintenance. Accordingly, the pupils were divided into threegroups, with each group in charge of one of the three procedures mentioned above.
Examples of the study program are provided in the following paragraphs.
In 2011, the constitution of the study program was irregular in that it specially focused on the Great
East Japan Earthquake, which occurred just before the start of the elementary school year and shocked
Japanese society. In the first class of the year in May, the first author taught sixth-grade pupils about theGreat East Japan Earthquake and how it related to the Manten Seismic Observation Project. In the secondclass in September, pupils made handicrafts of the seismometer using PET bottles. Through the handicrafts,
they learned the basic mechanisms of the seismometer. In the third class in November, classes were held
under the theme of the role of experts who lead the Manten Earthquake Recording Project, including how
these roles relate to the pupil’s role of seismometer maintenance. In the fourth class in February, a group of
pupils and teachers from Shimoyama Elementary School visited Abuyama Observatory. Through this visit,
they deepened the knowledge that they had acquired in previous classes. Neu Elementary School is far from
Abuyama Observatory, so instead of visiting, these pupils performed group work involving the reading of
waveform data. In this group work, waveform data collected from the Manten seismometer were printed,
and pupils then distinguished the waveform data of earthquakes from those of noise such as vibrations ofpassing trains or strong rainfall.
In 2012, the constitution of the study program was basically the same as what it had been in theprevious year. The only major change from the previous year is that, in 2012, the fourth class was an online
class linking Neu Elementary School, Shimoyama Elementary School, and Abuyama Observatory througha teleconference system. We planned it specifically for Neu Elementary School because they could not visit
the faraway Abuyama Observatory. Through this class, each elementary school and Abuyama Observatory
shared information about their activities associated with the Manten Seismic Observation Project and theunique culture of each place, which allowed both the pupils and the staff of Abuyama Observatory to deepen
their understanding of the study program.
5. Discussion
In the community of practice of Abuyama Open Laboratory, seismological experts (full participants) andvolunteer supporters (new participants) maintained an ongoing mutual negotiation around guided tours of
the observatory. This resulted in the volunteer supporters building up a new identity and letting the experts
rediscover the fundamentals of their roles.
In the community of practice of the “study program in elementary schools in collaboration with the
Manten Seismic Observation Project,” an LPP analysis of the apparently passive attitude of the students
identified a constructive meaning.
According to LPP theory, participating in a community of learning where knowledge transfer is notcentral to learning, an “ideal” central participant (Fig. 5) does not respond to an expert, as argued in the
deficiency model of risk communication theory. In other words, the central participant is not negative
towards learning. Participation in the “community of practice,” where knowledge is shared rather thantransmitted in one direction from experts to non-experts, becomes a catalyst for shared learning.
5.1. Change in identity of volunteer supporters
A change in identity among volunteer supporters resulting from learning through LPP appeared in the9

T.IWAHORI, K.YAMORI, T.MIYAMOTO, H.SHIROSHITA, Y.IIO
following respect: the participants in Abuyama Open Laboratory took charge of the role of volunteer
supporters in collaboration with the experts.
Now, let us look closely at the discourse of learning among volunteer supporters. To begin with, at
first, as visitors, the participants attended a volunteer supporter training course until becoming qualified.
Next, these volunteer supporters continued taking voluntary training accompanied by seismology experts ina guided tour of the observatory. The relationship between the volunteer supporters and the seismology
experts corresponded to mutual negotiation (interaction) between new and full participants, as mentioned in
Chapter 3. Finally, the volunteer supporters led guided tours of the observatory for visitors.
The volunteer supporters who were at first visitors made efforts to take on the role of “volunteer
supporters” who are mainly in charge of leading guided tours for other visitors. The volunteer supporters,by performing this role while still somewhat new visitors, realized that the visitors’ own learning gives
meaning to the guided tour.
LPP theory can explain how the role of volunteer supporters in the Abuyama Open Laboratory cameinto existence through their participation. In LPP theory, the result of learning is evaluated as a participant’s
identity building; here, identity means the role or position in the community of practice. Correspondingly,
it can be assumed that the visitors’ participation in the community of practice at Abuyama Open Laboratory
resulted in identity building as volunteer supporters by taking and performing this role.
It is helpful to describe the role of volunteer supporters in Abuyama Open Laboratory before moving
on to analyze the learning process. Their main task was to lead a guided tour of Abuyama Observatory. The
guided tour is a central practice of the community of practice of Abuyama Open Laboratory. Other related
practices include event receptions, making teaching materials and event exhibits, cleaning, and participatingin voluntary training for guided tours.
Some data show the presence and scale of the activities. All data are as of July 31, 2013. First, 15
volunteer supporters continuously participated in the Abuyama Open Laboratory after qualifying. These
volunteer supporters included 12 males and three females. Most of them were between the age of 60 and 80
years, and were past retirement age. A total of 211 people participated as volunteer supporters.
An analysis of the mutual negotiation between the volunteers and the visitors (Fig. 3) shows that thevolunteer supporters took their role as their identity, thus fulfilling two theoretical conditions of LPP, namely,that volunteer supporters exist and that the community of practice of Abuyama Open Laboratory isaccessible to them. In demonstrating their expertise, the full participants have established their legitimacy.
Here, we can also think plainly that the legitimacy of the full participants means they are generally regarded
as experts in this society. To discuss legitimacy in its entirety is beyond the scope of this discussion, but wemay say in this case study that both ways of thinking influenced the practice.

Fig. 3. Mutual negotiation between experts
and volunteer supporters

10

Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 38，Number 1，2017，pp01-15

From a practical standpoint, in order for a guided tour to function effectively, a certain importantprecondition should be met; namely, those acting as volunteer supporters need to carry out guided tours thatconsist of too many visitors for experts only to handle. Another important precondition is the arrival oflaboratory visitors for guided tours that are led by volunteer supporters. Furthermore, it should be noted thatthe mutually dependent relationship between volunteer supporters and visitors can be changed through theparticipation process, because it is also possible for visitors to deepen their learning through maintaining
participation in the Abuyama Open Laboratory and becoming new volunteer supporters.
This argument can be expanded into an analysis of the mutual negotiation between experts and visitors(Fig. 4). When volunteer supporters take part in voluntary training for guided tours, they receive a transfer
of seismology knowledge from experts. Considering this relationship, we can find another aspect of the roleof volunteer supporters, that is, volunteer supporters accept the knowledge of experts and pass it on tovisitors. To realize this role, the existence of experts is necessary.

Fig. 4. Mutual negotiation between volunteer
supporters and visitors

Focusing on mutual negotiation, it is at first sight a simple transfer of knowledge or techniques. In
fact, the volunteer supporters had to not only accept knowledge of seismology from experts, but also lookfor what they needed to know or do in guided tours. This process is considered to be the sharing andexchanging of tacit knowledge. The term “tacit knowledge” is used in the sense that it is a kind of knowledge
or technique with which one can perform a certain practice, although they are usually not conscious or haveno clear perception of it (e.g., speaking or riding a bicycle).
For example, take the situation of voluntary training for guided tours. There were volunteer supporters,
experts, and an old historical seismometer. In explaining the function of a pendulum in the seismometer, theexperts used the term “natural period” (the period of one complete oscillation of a body or system) because
they thought the meaning of the term was obvious. However, the volunteer supporters replied, “What is anatural period?” because they did not know this concept. In response to the question, the experts explained
the natural period to the volunteer supporters. Later on, the volunteer supporters made a miniature pendulum,
through which they explained the natural period to visitors in a guided tour.
They knew about the existence of a pendulum in the seismometer because they had participated in
guided tours as visitors. But they did not know that the concept of the “natural period” was related to thefunction of the pendulum because they were not experts, and this idea is only common among experts. On
the other hand, the experts understood “natural period,” but they could not fully outline the concept to thevolunteer supporters. The volunteer supporters learned something they had not previously known throughmutual communication with the experts. Through learning about the existence of the concept of a natural
period, the volunteer supporters knew what they did not know before and represented their understandingof the concept by making a miniature pendulum.
An example of tacit knowledge is the concept of a “natural period” that appeared in the mutual
11

T.IWAHORI, K.YAMORI, T.MIYAMOTO, H.SHIROSHITA, Y.IIO
communication between the experts and volunteer supporters mentioned above. The volunteer supporters
found the concept of a natural period to be something they did not know, so they asked the experts.
By explicitly indicating tacit knowledge, the volunteer supporters got a chance to learn something
new. At the same time, the volunteer supporters gained an opportunity to follow or copy remarks or
behaviors from the experts’ tacit knowledge. On the other hand, the experts had a chance to rethink a remark
or behavior that they regarded as too common or natural to require any additional explanation. At the sametime, they had the opportunity to reconsider and adjust remarks or behaviors underlying their own
framework of knowledge as an expert in accordance with the needs of the volunteer supporters in leading a
guided tour. In other words, they renewed the concept of a natural period through copying and arranging
remarks or behaviors according to the needs of the visitors. To put it plainly, they learned with each other.
The situation above indicates that the volunteer supporters performed active learning through theirrole and identity by participating in the community of practice at Abuyama Open Laboratory.
This leads to a further consideration of mutual negotiation between experts and volunteer supporters.
In the following section, we consider this relationship from an expert’s point of view.
5.2. Change in identity of experts
In this section, we consider the change in identity of an expert (Iio). The first author interviewed Iio on
January 24, 2013. The interview provided good evidence to show the change in identity.
According to the previously mentioned theoretical assumptions, we consider identity to be a result ofchange in which a full participant (Iio) comes to accept “constructively naïve perspectives or questions” thatnew participants (volunteer supporters) bring in from outside the community of practice of Abuyama Open
Laboratory in the following form: “Inexperience is an asset to be exploited.”
In the interview, the author asked Iio the following question:
Through conducting Abuyama Open Laboratory, has your view on your research changed?
Iio said to the author in response:
Even when explaining old seismometers that I no longer use for seismic observation, volunteer
supporters often ask me questions about how the item relates to useful outputs. Such interactions make me
feel that I have to output good results through my seismology research activities.
When I explain my research to people who are unfamiliar with it, I interpret it for myself beforehand
because I have to confirm or understand basic knowledge again before explaining it to others. It is necessaryfor experts to repeatedly check basic knowledge that they usually regard as obvious, and to understand it
again. Therefore, the Abuyama Open Laboratory gives me valuable and useful chances.
The author went on to ask to Iio:
Through conducting Abuyama Open Laboratory, have there been any changes in your selfperception?
Iio answered as follows:
My seismology work covers just a small area because seismology covers various fields and has been
built on the culmination of predecessors’ persistent efforts. Consequently, a lot of knowledge needs to beaccumulated before understanding and proceeding with my research.
It is difficult to explain my research to the general public in cases such as Abuyama Open Laboratory
or similar public lectures. Metaphorically speaking, let us suppose that my research is a stairway that has 10
steps. I assume that the general public understands only the first step because they don’t have basic
knowledge of seismology, so I start my explanation from the beginning level. On the other hand, I have togive my lecture within a specified time. By contrast, I can make experts understand all 10 steps because I
12

Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 38，Number 1，2017，pp01-15

assume that they not only have basic knowledge, but also know up-to-date technical terms throughcontinuous seismology research activities. However, I’m afraid that the stairway is cut off; that is to say, I
don’t think experts always have a clear understanding of basic seismology knowledge. Basic seismology
knowledge and the latest technical terms are not always shared. I therefore think it is necessary forseismology experts, including myself, to review basic seismology knowledge usually regarded as obvious
and to understand it again from time to time.
Considering the interview above, Iio’s change in identity can be explained by LPP theory as follows:First, Iio, who is theoretically a full participant of the community of practice at Abuyama Open Laboratory,
recognized new participants and gradually came to acknowledge them as volunteer supporters who weretheoretically full participants. Second, Iio interacted with volunteer supporters concerning guided tours,
which theoretically is a central practice of Abuyama Open Laboratory. Third, through this interaction, Iio
confirmed his framework of seismological knowledge and rebalanced his behavior accordingly. He also
rebalanced his behavior with the intentions of the volunteer supporters; namely, he refined his role in thecommunity of practice at Abuyama Open Laboratory, which can be explained as a change in identity.
5.3. Change in identity of pupils
In this section, we consider the result of learning through the participation of pupils in the latest seismic
observation project. It must first be acknowledged that changes in the identity of pupils emerged less clearlycompared with the volunteer supporters in the Abuyama Open Laboratory.
First, as of July 2014, more than 100 pupils of the two previously mentioned elementary schools
participated in the study program to practice seismometer maintenance, which lasted 4.5 years. While thefacts above show that the study program allowed pupils to become involved in seismometer maintenance as
an elementary part of seismic observation, it is hard to say whether the pupils refined their role inmaintenance of the seismometer voluntarily or independently to improve seismic observation activities or
improve their skills.
On the other hand, it is likely not far from the truth that the pupils were conscious of their role inseismometer maintenance because seismic observation was considered important. For example, such an
attitude appears in the following remark: “We learned not to play around near the Manten seismometer inorder to avoid having extra noises recorded by the machine.” Their behavior in making a box covering andprotecting the Manten seismometer is another example of the same point.
The most likely explanation is as follows. According to LPP theory, participating in a community oflearning where knowledge transfer is not central to learning, an “ideal” central participant (Fig. 5) does not
respond to an expert, as argued in the deficiency
model of risk communication theory. In otherwords, the central participant is not opposed tolearning. Participation in the “community ofpractice,” where knowledge is shared rather thantransmitted in one direction from experts to nonexperts, becomes a catalyst for shared learning.
This theoretical application could besignificant for the following two reasons. First,
it is possible to assume that ideal and abstract“central participants,” based on the “deficiency
model,” are set against real and concrete “fullparticipants,” based on LPP theory, and thisprovides a continuous opportunity to induce
dialogue or communication concerning what
Fig. 5. Knowledge transfer from students
knowledge or techniques should be handed
to lower-grade students
down because it is easier for new participants,
who are new to LPP theory, to share the concept
13

T.IWAHORI, K.YAMORI, T.MIYAMOTO, H.SHIROSHITA, Y.IIO
of “central participant” than that of “full participant.” Another possibility is that, from a theoreticalperspective, the “deficiency model,” which has a negative meaning, or is at least criticized in the context ofscience communication theory, took on a positive and constructive meaning in the context of LPP theory.
Corresponding to the general concept of “expert,” the concept of “central participant,” which does not exist
but can be thought of as an object, can be all the more important.
Regarding the practical importance of this theoretical application, even if certain knowledge is foundto be valid and effective for disaster prevention activities, it is costly for the receiver to learn and master it.
Therefore, it is reasonable to carefully consider whether to hand down the knowledge or technique before
transmitting and diffusing it. From this, the “deficiency model” can be thought of as important for this
discussion. Since what knowledge or technique to hand down could be a common precondition of discussion,
any miscommunication could be potentially resolved by transferring knowledge and techniques.
In addition to the cost of transferring knowledge and techniques, this theoretical application could be
effective in solving the problem of pessimism and optimism, as stated previously.
LPP theory should therefore be concluded to be a good platform for bridging the communication gap
between experts and non-experts.
6. Conclusion
In the community of practice of Abuyama Open Laboratory, experts (full participants) and volunteer
supporters (new participants) maintained ongoing mutual negotiations concerning guided tours of theobservatory. This resulted in volunteer supporters taking on a new identity and experts rediscovering thefundamentals of their role.
In the community of practice of the collaborative study program between the elementary school andthe Manten Seismic Observation Project, a constructive meaning was identified through an LPP analysis of
the apparently passive attitude of the students. Rather than finding the deficiency model flawed as a causeof the communication gap, we found that it served as a communication bridge between experts and nonexperts.
These findings suggest that LPP theory allows disaster education to be recognized and discussed in
the context of a specific and substantive “community of practice.”
Note
This manuscript is a revised version of the paper written in Japanese, which was published in the Japanese
Journal of Natural Disaster Science vol. 34-2.
REFERENCES
Abuyama Open Museum Project. 2011. Leaflet of first special open house for public information (notpublished).
Fujigaki, Y. and Hirono, Y. 2007. Science Communication Theory. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (inJapanese).
Kumamoto, K. 2011. The Great East Japan Earthquake in reality is not “unexpected.” Tsunamachi Mitakai
Club (in Japanese).
http://www.tsunamachimitakai.com/pen/04_003.html, accessed 30 July 2016.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. (Japanese version: translated by Saeki, Y. Sangyo Tosyo.1993.)
Nogami, T. and Yoshida, F. 2014. Disaster myths after the Great East Japan Disaster and the effects of
information sources on belief in such myths. Disasters 38(2), 190-205.
Okada, N., Tao, Y. Kajitani, Y. Shi, P., and Tatano, J. 2011. The 2011 Eastern Japan Great Earthquake
14

Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 38，Number 1，2017，pp01-15

Disaster: Overview and comments. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 2(1), 34-42.
Shiroshita, H. and Yamori, K. 2011. Participatory disaster management learning built on the theory oflegitimate peripheral participation. Journal of Disaster Research 6(2), 258-270.
Takagi, K., 1999. Identity construction in legitimate peripheral participation theory. Bulletin of the Center
for Educations of Children Overseas Tokyo Gakugei University 10, 1-14 (in Japanese).
The Japan Times. 2004. Derailment mars shinkansen safety myth (Nov. 19, 2004).
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2004/11/19/national/derailment-mars-shinkansen-safetymyth/#.WEZjhtH_q74, accessed December 6, 2016.
Yamori, K., Suwa, S., and Funaki, N. 2007. Dreaming disaster education. Koyo Shobo, Kyoto (in Japanese).
Yamori, K. 2012. Improving disaster risk communication: A paradigm shift in disaster information research.
Minerva Shobo, Kyoto (in Japanese).

15