Reimagining Aesthetics and Labor in the Japanese Manga Industry: A Case Study of Arts-Based Research at Artist Village Aso 096k
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article focuses on both the art of Japanese Manga and present political and social issues in Japan, especially those that are related to Japanese immigration policy. The actual case study includes interviews of short-term foreign Mangaka who are invited to try doing manga by hand by the author in Japan. The interviews do not contain much of deeper social or political analysis, nor about the philosophy of different style so drawing manga. The article, as it stands now, does not explain why a small number of short-term visitors are chosen to provide material for analyzing the several interesting research questions that are posed. Why, for instance, Japanese or long-term foreign resident art professionals have not been interviewed as informants instead as they could have provided much more information and surely would have their experiences and opinions about different types of manga art. Furthermore, it seems rather unusual that in an article focusing on Japanese manga there are very few sources by Japanese researchers or in Japanese. The biggest problem, however, is that the material obtained through the interviews and by analyzing the art work does not easily fit with the conclusions or the aims of the article. It seems that the both the aims of the research and the chosen method should be rethought - and find more evidence to support the arguments. It would also be helpful to expand the research literature to better cover the vast Japanese manga research.
Author Response
Comment 1: “The interviews do not contain much of deeper social or political analysis, nor about the philosophy of different style so drawing manga.”
Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment. However, in the original manuscript, I have clarified how Tsurumi Shunsuke’s theoretical framework informs my interpretation of the interviews. I believe that this expanded the Discussion to more explicitly articulate the philosophical dimensions and to foreground the social and political implications embedded in the participants’ reflections on manga practice.
Comment 2: “The article, as it stands now, does not explain why a small number of short-term visitors are chosen to provide material for analyzing the several interesting research questions that are posed. Why, for instance, Japanese or long-term foreign resident art professionals have not been interviewed as informants instead as they could have provided much more information and surely would have their experiences and opinions about different types of manga art.”
Response 2: I appreciate this observation. To clarify the point, the number of participants was small, but with long-term visas, not short-term visitors as you suggested in the review. Also, in the manuscript, I clarify that the study’s primary aim is to investigate how early-career international artists experience the structural tensions of transnational creative labor through ABR methods. The study site, Artist Village Aso 096k, specifically hosts international artists for intensive editorial training. Thus, this particular population was analytically appropriate because (1) these artists represent the exact demographic (early-career and international) targeted by this study, and (2) their long-term residency provides a unique window into early-career struggles, identity negotiation, and the pressures of Japan’s immigration and editorial systems. Interviewing established Japanese professionals or long-term foreign residents would have generated a fundamentally different dataset and addressed different research questions. While such perspectives are valuable in the broader field, they fall outside the methodological and analytical scope of this study.
Comment 3: “Furthermore, it seems rather unusual that in an article focusing on Japanese manga there are very few sources by Japanese researchers or in Japanese.”
Response 3: This study’s primary analytical framework emerges from Arts-Based Research (ABR), transnational creative labor studies, and materiality and embodiment studies, rather than Japanese manga itself. While there exists a rich body of Japanese-language scholarship on manga, particularly in areas such as genre analysis, reception studies, and fan cultures, these domains are not the central focus of this particular study. Because my argument engages with methodological and theoretical questions situated within global interdisciplinary debates, the citations necessarily reflect this orientation.
I would also like to note that the reviewer’s phrasing seems to imply that research on Japanese manga should primarily draw on, or perhaps be authored by, Japanese scholars. As a transnational researcher, I find this implication concerning, because it risks reproducing assumptions about cultural ownership and methodological legitimacy that have been widely critiqued in Japanese studies and area studies more broadly. My project is grounded in cross-cultural, interdisciplinary approaches, and its citation practices are aligned with its research aims. Nevertheless, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the methodological scope of the manuscript, and I have revised the Introduction to make the study’s theoretical orientation and disciplinary positioning more explicit.
Comment 4: “The biggest problem, however, is that the material obtained through the interviews and by analyzing the art work does not easily fit with the conclusions or the aims of the article.”
Response 4: I appreciate the reviewer’s call for clearer alignment. I would like to clarify that the study does not attempt to generalize the structural conditions of the entire manga industry. Instead, the argument focuses on how specific ABR activities allow participants to articulate the pressures and vulnerabilities of their transnational labor conditions. These findings do not rely on interview data alone, but on the unique affordances of the drawings themselves, which constitute the core dataset in ABR methodology. To address this comment, I have revised the “Introduction” sections to (1) More explicitly state the research question to guide readers; (2) Clarify how the drawings themselves serve as evidence, not merely supplements to interviews. I believe that these revisions strengthen the coherence between the data and interpretation.
Comment 5: “It seems that the both the aims of the research and the chosen method should be rethought - and find more evidence to support the arguments. It would also be helpful to expand the research literature to better cover the vast Japanese manga research.”
Response 5: I respectfully maintain that the aims and methods are appropriate for an ABR case study. ABR is not intended to produce large samples, objective generalizations, or standardized interviews. Instead, it generates situated, embodied, affective knowledge through artistic practice. Also, ABR prioritizes depth over breadth, emphasizing personal and political insights that may not surface through conventional interviewing alone.
I would also like to clarify that the object of analysis is not “Japanese manga” as a genre or media system, but the creative practices of international artists who work in the manga industry. The reviewer’s comment appears to conflate these distinct analytical levels. For this reason, expanding the literature review to cover the entirety of Japanese-language manga research would not be methodologically consistent with the aims of the study. To ensure that this distinction is clearer to readers, I have added a dedicated paragraph at the end of the Introduction that explicitly states the research questions and delineates the project’s scope and methodological rationale.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorswell-done, interesting and informative
Author Response
Thank you so much for your encouraging comment!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for allowing me to read your work.
The paper presents a rich and thoughtful study that is also methodologically creative. It examines how international manga artists engage in hand-drawn, analogue comics-making as a form of reflective and resistant practice within Japan’s manga industry. It successfully bridges arts-based research (ABR) and the sociology of cultural labour, offering valuable insights into creative practice as epistemological and political engagement. The paper is particularly timely in its connection of art-making to xenophobic discourse and global precarity.
The writing is clear and polished, and the theoretical contextualisation of ABR, which draws on the work of Barone and Eisner, Leavy and Barry, is sophisticated. The integration of visual practice and qualitative reflection is also methodologically robust and innovative.
There are some areas for improvement. For example, the research questions and methodological boundaries should be clarified.
While the introduction effectively conveys the purpose and setting, the paper would benefit from a clearer statement of the research questions or hypotheses to guide the reader. Specifying the guiding question ('How can analogue comics function as a mode of resistance and care in transnational artistic labour?') early on, for instance, would strengthen the methodological focus.
The explanation of the analytical procedure should also be expanded. Although the methods section thoroughly describes the ABR activities, it remains somewhat procedural rather than analytical. The author could provide a more detailed explanation of how the data (i.e. drawings and interviews) were analysed, coded, and interpreted, providing more than just a narrative description.
Consider reorganising the 'Results' and 'Discussion' sections, as the findings ('slowness', 'irrevocability', and 'embodied storytelling') are conceptually rich but lengthy. The discussion section could explicitly link these findings to wider debates in cultural labour, affect theory and migration studies, thereby highlighting their theoretical contribution.
The researcher participated in the creative activities, so adding a short reflection on positionality, including how their presence shaped the interactions, would strengthen the qualitative account.
There are also some minor stylistic and formatting suggestions: the 'Materials and Methods' section reads like an appendix (summarising it more concisely might improve the flow), and the paper could benefit from an abstract that more explicitly states its methodological contribution to ABR and comics-based research.
Author Response
Comment 1: “The research questions and methodological boundaries should be clarified. While the introduction effectively conveys the purpose and setting, the paper would benefit from a clearer statement of the research questions or hypotheses to guide the reader.”
Response 1: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I agree that clarifying the research questions strengthens the methodological framing. In response, I have added a dedicated paragraph at the end of the Introduction that explicitly states the guiding research question and delineates the study’s methodological boundaries to better orient readers from the outset.
Comment 2: “The explanation of the analytical procedure should also be expanded. Although the methods section thoroughly describes the ABR activities, it remains somewhat procedural rather than analytical. The author could provide a more detailed explanation of how the data (i.e. drawings and interviews) were analysed, coded, and interpreted, providing more than just a narrative description.”
Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. I agree that the analytical procedure required further clarification. I have expanded the Materials and Methods section to detail how the drawings and interviews were analyzed.
Comment 3: “Consider reorganising the 'Results' and 'Discussion' sections, as the findings ('slowness', 'irrevocability', and 'embodied storytelling') are conceptually rich but lengthy. The discussion section could explicitly link these findings to wider debates in cultural labour, affect theory and migration studies, thereby highlighting their theoretical contribution.”
Response 3: Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. Given that cultural labor studies is not my primary area of expertise, I am cautious about extending the Discussion into it. However, I agree that more explicit connections strengthen the theoretical contribution of the manuscript. I have therefore revised the Discussion section to more clearly link the findings to broader debates in cultural labor, while remaining within the scope of my methodological expertise.
Comment 4: “The researcher participated in the creative activities, so adding a short reflection on positionality, including how their presence shaped the interactions, would strengthen the qualitative account.”
Response 4: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I agree that a brief reflection on my positionality strengthens the qualitative account. I have added a dedicated paragraph at the end of the Results section that discusses how my participation in the creative activities shaped the interactions and analytical process. This addition also clarifies how the drawings function as evidence within the ABR framework rather than serving merely as supplementary material to the interviews.
Comment 5: “There are also some minor stylistic and formatting suggestions: the 'Materials and Methods' section reads like an appendix (summarising it more concisely might improve the flow), and the paper could benefit from an abstract that more explicitly states its methodological contribution to ABR and comics-based research.”
Response 5: Thank you for these stylistic suggestions. I intentionally structured the Materials and Methods section with an appendix-like level of detail so that readers can clearly follow the research procedure. However, I have revised the section to detail analytical process, thereby improving the manuscript’s methodological clarity and transparency.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has greatly improved when the author has added reflections about her/his own thinking and about the interactions with the informants. Since the number of informants is low this is of particular importance. It is up to the editor to decide whether the article in its present form is fit for publication in spite of rather limited discussion about the social and political issues raised in the beginning of the article and the somewhat superficial account of the interactions with the informants. Among the merits of the article is to discuss and show alternative ways of drawing manga.
