Title

A Review Essay on Internationalization
Strategies in Japanese Universities with a Focus
on English Language Support

Author(s)Rakhshandehroo, Mahboubeh; Yamamoto, Beverley
Anne

Citation

大阪大学大学院人間科学研究科紀要. 2017, 43, p.
237-260

Version Type VoR
URL

https://doi.org/10.18910/60570

rights
Note

Osaka University Knowledge Archive : OUKA
https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/
Osaka University

237

A Review Essay on Internationalization Strategies in Japanese
Universities with a Focus on English Language Support

Mahboubeh RAKHSHANDEHROO and Beverley Anne YAMAMOTO

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Internationalisation Policy and Challenges
3. A Statistical Overview of Trends in International Student Recruitment
4. The Challenges of Japanese Internationalization at Home, Improvements and Recommendations
5. Providing Programs in English as an Internationalization Strategy
6. Perceptions of the Challenges of EMI and ETPs in Japan
7. Areas Highlighted as Needing Attention
8. Conclusions

大阪大学大学院人間科学研究科紀要 43；237-260（2017）239

A Review Essay on Internationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities with a
Focus on English Language Support
Mahboubeh RAKHSHANDEHROO and Beverley Anne YAMAMOTO

1. Introduction
Worldwide many governments and higher educational institutions (HEIs) are promoting
initiatives to internationalize the higher education (HE) sector. Internationalization can be
defined as ‘policies and practices undertaken by academic systems and institutions—and evenindividuals—to cope with the global academic environment’ (Altbach and Knight, 2007: 290). In
the context of globalization and a neoliberal ‘free market’ in the HE sector, leading universities
are in competition for students and research excellence not only at a local level, but also often
regionally and globally. This competition is being filtered by the instruments of neoliberalism,
such as global and local rankings and international (but English based) citation indexes.
Internationalization may be regarded as little more than a necessary evil by some, but few would
deny that to be recognized as a top university today the institution needs to engage in the global
competition for students, researchers, faculty members, research funding and citations as a measureof research output. For leading institutions today, internationalization is inevitably a key part of themission statement.
Japan is a major player in the Asian region as well as being recognized as a strong player
globally for its research output, as reflected in the number of Japanese recipients of Nobel andother prestigious prizes and awards. It is less well represented, however, when it comes to global
rankings, which are heavily biased towards the Anglophone countries (Ishikawa, 2011: 211).
Japan also does well on international student recruitment, both in terms of regional and global
competition. Based on data from UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) for 2014, Japan was the 7th
most attractive destination for international students globally, attracting 3% (135, 803) of the total
mobile student population (UIS, 2016). The Japanese government currently has a policy in place toattract 300,000 international students to Japan by 2020; a policy which was launched in 2008. Thismeans more than doubling the current intake. If the target of 300,000 international students were to
be met, Japan would move from 7th to 3rd place as the most popular destination country, assuming
today’s figures for other countries were not to change (UIS, 2016, see country data).
In order to meet the target of 300,000 international students, the Japanese government has

240

been encouraging leading HEIs to expand their provision of courses offered in English and, evenmore ambitiously, to design entirely English-taught programs (ETPs) at both undergraduate andpostgraduate levels. Starting with the five-year Global 30 (G30) initiative launched in 2009 andcontinuing with the more recent ten-year Super (Top) Global University Project (SGU) launchedin 2014, key funding for HE is being linked to the expansion of ETPs and English medium
instruction (EMI) course offerings. In order to ensure the quality of such courses and programs,
those institutions awarded SGU funding have also been encouraged to set targets for expanding
foreign faculty. To date, foreign faculty has made up a very low proportion of all faculty andthose working in Japanese universities have overwhelmingly been restricted to language teachingpositions, even though this has been changing since the launch of the G30 project.
The reaction from commentators on internationalization in Japanese universities has beenhighly critical with concerns that the focus of government and HE strategy has been overly focusedon quantitative issues (attracting target numbers of students and foreign faculty; increasing thenumber of ETPs and EMI course offerings). It is argued that too little attention has been given
to preparation of the learning environment and the question of how students with little, if any
Japanese proficiency manage on and beyond campus; in environments that are almost exclusively
monolingual (Tsuneyoshi, 2005; Kuwamura, 2009; Hashimoto, 2013; Bradford, 2016).
This paper reviews the literature on internationalization policy and strategy for Japanese
universities focusing particularly on international student recruitment. It pays special attention to
the development of EMI and ETPs, and criticisms that policy has focused too much on quantitative
issues and largely ignored the qualitative aspects of increasing the number and diversity ofinternational students. The paper begins by outlining in greater detail government policy aimed atinternationalizing universities through setting targets for international student recruitment. Next
it offers a statistical overview of trends in international student recruitment and recent shifts thathave occurred in tandem with ETP and EMI course expansion. Following on from this, we discuss
recent policy that has specifically targeted the expansion of EMI offerings and ETPs. Finally, weoffer a critical review of the literature that has emerged in response to this shift. We conclude thatwhile significant progress has been made in creating an environment conducive to study in English
in leading Japanese universities, the gains are fragile relying largely on the dedication of key staff
and the continuation of temporary funding prioritizing increased international students and faculty
recruitment through the expansion of ETPs and EMI.

2. Overview of Internationalisation Policy and Challenges
The Japanese national government is the main actor in internationalization of both public
and private Japanese universities through different policy initiatives (Yonezawa.Y & Yonezawa.

Internationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

241

A, 2016: 193; Yonezawa & Shimmi, 2015: 174). These internationalization policy initiatives canbe divided into two main categories, internationalization abroad and internationalization at home
(Knight, 2004: 16).
2.1. Internationalization abroad
Internationalization abroad concerns policies and activities that occur overseas or acrossborders, rather than in the home university (Knight, 2004: 16). This typically involves sending
students or faculty overseas for varying periods of time to become ‘internationalized’. The
assumption is that these internationalized individuals will subsequently return to their homeinstitutions to become resources of internationalization on their own campuses.
Japan first started to send students overseas during the Meiji era (1868-1912) when elite
young men and some women were sent to Western countries to gain knowledge that would help
modernize the nation. During this period study abroad became established and returnee students
became future leaders of the country (Kuwamura, 2009: 190; Maruyama, 2011: 1). Later, after
Japan’s defeat in World War II, scholarships were created for short-term exchange, such as theFulbright and the Rotary Club scholarships (Maruyama, 2011: 2; Huang, 2006: 105).
Today, study abroad is regarded as a means of equipping young people with cross-cultural
understandings and enhancing foreign language proficiency to enable them to perform well in our
globalized world (Asaoka & Yano, 2009: 174). While the number of Japanese students studying
abroad increased considerably in the 1980s and 1990 (from 18,066 in 1983 to 82, 945 in 2004), itthen began to decline, hitting a low of 57,501 in 2011 (Yonezawa Y. and Yonezawa A., 2016: 193).
Reasons given to explain the decrease in students studying overseas since 2004, despite government
initiatives aimed at increasing the number of outbound students, are the difficulty of finding a job
in Japan after returning home; the cost associated with studying abroad; and ‘introversion among
the Japanese youth today’ (Maruyama, 2011: 5). With fewer Japanese young people going to study
overseas, attention has shifted to providing more opportunities for internationalization at home.
2.2. Internationalization at home
Knight (2004: 16-17) defines internationalization at home as policies and activities that
happen on the home campuses, which includes internationalizing curricula in order to attract
inward student mobility. In recent years the attention of the Japanese government, the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has prioritized internationalization
at home strategies in the HE sector. In this section, we offer a brief overview of the historicalbackground to inbound student mobility and then focus on recent policy seeking to internationalize
Japanese university campuses.
Japan welcomed its first international student in 1881, when a Korean national came to study

242

at Keio University. Thereafter, the number of inbound students rose quickly, reaching 10,000 by
1906 (Maruyama, 2011:2). With the country emerging as a ‘model of modernization’ following
its victories in the Sino-Japanese (1894-1895) and the Japanese-Russo (1904-1905) wars, Japan
became an attractive destination for Chinese students (Maruyama, 2011:2). The literature isrelatively silent about flows of students into Japan during the period of colonialism and military
expansion, but a government scholarship system was established after World War II in order
to compensate for wartime activities and to promote peace and understanding in the region(Maruyama, 2011:2).
The number of international students coming to Japan began to increase again during theperiod of rapid economic growth. Japan attracted 3,003 international students in 1964 and by 1976
this figure had risen to 5,671 (Yonezawa Y. & Yonezawa A., 2016: 194). In 1971, the OECD in areport entitled Reviews of National Policies for Education: Japan called on Japan, as a developed
nation, to make a greater contribution to international education by enrolling more foreign students
into Japanese universities. The response of the government was to make internationalization ofJapanese HE a ‘high priority’ (Yonezawa Y. & Yonezawa A., 2016: 194).
Yonezawa noted in 2009 that Japanese universities had relied in the postwar period on theindividual initiative of faculty members and researchers to internationalize campuses, educational
content and research (Yonezawa, 2009: 199). There has been little in the way of systematic
strategy to engineer internationalization, however conceived, in Japanese universities prior to
the 1980s. It is therefore noteworthy that since the 1980s the Japanese government has pushed
universities to internationalize, albeit with a focus largely on recruitment of international students(Ninomiya, Knight and Watanabe, 2009: 117). Indeed, since the early 1980s, the recruitment ofinternational students has played an ever more significant role in the government’s strategies forthe internationalization of Japanese universities (Lassegard, 2006: 120). By increasing the numberof international students, Japan started to open its universities and also its society to students froma diversity of different cultures and backgrounds and the term kokusaika (internationalization in
Japanese) became widely used in Japanese society and HE (Eades, Goodman, & Hada, 2005 citedin Whitsed and Volet, 2010: 150; Burgess et al., 2010: 465).
Two important government initiatives have been introduced since the 1980s to increase thenumber of international students (Huang, 2006: 102; Kuwamura, 2009: 190). The first was the
Nakasone Plan introduced in 1983 with the goal of attracting 100,000 international students toJapan by 2000. Given that in 1983 the number of international students in Japan was just 10,480
this was an ambitious plan. Nevertheless, the goal of 100,000 international students was reachedin 2003. The second initiative was introduced in 2008 by the Fukuda administration with a goal of
attracting 300,000 students to Japan by 2020.
The very ambitious target of the 300,000 International Student Plan required a new strategy

Internationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

243

for student recruitment. Attention started to focus on diversification of the international student
body to include talented students who may not feel inclined to spend a number of years learning
the Japanese language in order to pursue their studies in Japan. In order to support the 300,000
International Student Plan the Fukuda cabinet introduced the G30 program which aimed to create
platforms for internationalization at some of the leading universities. The original plan was toaward G30 funding to 30 leading universities, which would each work to expand the provisionof ETPs and further enhance internationalization on campuses. In the first round, 13 universities
were selected, all leading institutions. A second round of funding, although planned, never came tofruition as a change of administration saw a massive scaling back of the project (Bradford, 2013:
226; Yamamoto and Ishikura, fortcoming).
The G30 funding required universities to have established an overseas office if they wanted toapply and to then forward plans for developing full ETPs at undergraduate level (Yonezawa, 2009:
208; Burgess et al., 2010: 467; Hashimoto, 2013: 26-27; Brown, 2014: 52). Scholarship fundingfor G30 undergraduates was established (Ninomiya, Knight and Watanabe, 2009: 123) by directing
hitherto funding away from the graduate to undergraduate level.
Following on from this, in 2013 the government introduced the Project for the Promotion of Global
Human Resource Development (Global 30 Plus) which funded 42 universities to develop programs
to send students overseas, but also to further internationalize universities at home. This also included
support for the expansion of EMI courses and the improvement of English language classes (Brown,
2014: 52). Jinzai is the Japanese word for human resources, and the program aimed to develop Japanese
university students as global jinzai or global human resources (The British school in Tokyo, 2014).
More recently, in 2014, the Super Global University Project (SGU-later to be renamed
the Top Global University Project) was launched with the aim of enhancing the ‘international
compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan’ by providing ‘prioritized support
for top world-class and highly innovative universities that can lead the internationalization ofJapanese universities’ (JSPS, 2016). Thirty-seven universities were selected for either Type A(13 universities) or Type B (24 universities) awards and, according to category, were tasked withestablishing stronger international relationships with leading universities overseas (Brown, 2014:52), increasing educational mobility and research linkages, as well as hiring dramatically more
foreign faculty members (East Asia Forum, 2014). Project funding is for ten years.
These internationalization policies are acting as pull factors for increasing the number ofinternational students coming to study in Japan. The number of internationally mobile students
from neighbouring East Asian countries, especially China, has grown dramatically in recent years.
Japan has emerged a major destination in the region for internationally mobile students (Yonezawa
Y. & Yonezawa A., 2016: 192). The following section moves on to describe the number andcharacteristics of international students in Japan.

244

3. A Statistical Overview of Trends in International Student Recruitment
While the 100,000 International Student Policy resulted in a gradual increase in incoming
students, recent initiatives aimed at achieving the target of 300,000 international students resulted
in a sudden upturn (Table 1). Between 2011 and 2013 there was a decline in incoming students,
largely due to the fallout of the triple disaster in the Tohoku region, thereafter the annual overall
increase in international students (HEIs and Japanese language schools) has been quite dramatic.
Nevertheless, the percentage increase in students attending HEIs accounts for a much smaller
percentage of the overall increase than those enrolled in Japanese language schools.
The majority of international students studying in Japanese HEIs and Japanese language
schools are from Asia. In 2014, 92.7 percent of students were from Asian countries (Yonezawa Y.
& Yonezawa A., 2016: 192). Japan has long been a popular destination for students from China
and South Korea, but recently there has also been an increase in students coming from South East
Asia (Table 2). While the number of students attending HEIs and Japanese language schools from
China has increased over the past 10 years, Chinese students account for a smaller percentage ofthe overall international student body today. This reflects dramatic increases in students coming toJapan to study from other Asian countries, especially Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Nepal. It is
important to note that none of the major sending countries use either Japanese or English as a first
language (L1), therefore second-language learning issues remain even with the move to expand
EMI courses and ETPs.
Table 1- The Growth and Percentage Increase in the Number of International Students in Japan, 2011-2015
Year*

Number ofAnnualstudents in HEIs increaseand Japanese
language schools

AnnualNumber ofAnnualAnnual%changestudents inincrease%changeHEIs－

138,075-3,699-2.6%-1,849-1.1%

137,756

-319

-0.2%

168,145

6,297

3.9%

135,519-2,237

-1.6%

2014

184,155

16,0109.5%

139,185

3,666

2.7%

2015

208,379

24,22413.2%

152,062

3,666

9.3%

2011

163,697－2012

161,8482013

Source: JASSO, 2016a*As of May 1 for each year
International students who come to Japan to study are often enrolling in Arts courses that arelanguage intensive. In 2005, for example, the Social Sciences were the most popular field forInternationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

245

international students, but in 2010 this had shifted to the Humanities, with the Social Sciences
coming second place. Since 2010, the Sciences have moved up to third place as the most popular
field (from 9th place in 2005) and has stayed in this position through to today. Agriculture has also
moved from being the 7th most popular major in 2005 to the 5th most popular in 2015. On the other
hand, Art, Teacher Training and Medicine have lost their popularity since 2010 (JASSO 2016b).
Local public universities accept few international students (2.6% at undergraduate level and
4.4% at graduate level in 2015). National universities receive a larger portion of graduate level
students (61.7% in 2015) and in contrast, private universities take in the majority of international
undergraduate students (81.1%) (JASSO, 2016b). This data has not changed very much over the
past 15 years. Undergraduate students are more likely to study Humanities and Social Sciences;while graduate students are more likely to study Natural Sciences and technical fields (Brown,2015). Overall, more international students are studying at undergraduate level (67,472), while
there are 41,396 graduate students in Japan (JASSO 2016b).

Table 2 – Trends in the Number of International Students and Top Sending Countries
Attending HEIs and Japanese Language Schools in Japan, 2005-2015
Year

2005

2010

2015

Number of Annual

Five major sending

Number of

students

countries

students

China

80,592

66%

Republic of Korea

15,606

13%

Taiwan4,134

3%

Malaysia

2,114

2%

Vietnam

1,745

1%

China

86,173

61%

Republic of Korea

20,202

14%

Taiwan5,297

4%Vietnam

3,597

3%

Malaysia

2,465

2%

China

94,11145%

Vietnam

38,88219%

Nepal

16,2508%

Republic of Korea

15,2797%

Taiwan7,314

4%

121,812

141,774

208,379change

3.8%

6.8%

13.2%

Data sources: JASSO, 2006, 2011, and 2016a

Percentage

246

Although some leading national universities and a few elite private universities are providing
scholarship opportunities for international students, the majority of international students in Japanare privately funded. Over the past 15 years, the number of privately financed students has increased
rapidly (from 45,439 in 2000 to 195,419 in 2015), however the number of students with Japanese
government scholarship has changed little (from 8,930 in 2000 to 9,223 in 2015) (JASSO, 2016b).

4. The Challenges of Japanese Internationalization at Home, Improvements andRecommendations
In university world rankings Japan scores badly on indices that measure the attractivenessof universities to international students. A piece written by QS in 2012 on Japanese universities
focused specifically on addressing the question why Japanese universities were failing to attract
larger numbers of international students. In this piece it noted that Japan has a mature education
system, a very safe environment and popular culture that is regarded as extremely attractive by
young people, so the authors ask why are international students not flooding to Japan (QS Top
Universities, 2012). Although recent policy appears to have accelerated the number of students
coming to Japan from Asia, a key question addressed in the internationalization literature on
Japanese HE is how to make the country a more attractive study destination. A number ofchallenges have been identified and recommendations made for improvement. We will now turn toreview this literature.
4.1. The cost of living
While the costs of tuition for international students is regarded as quite competitive, the cost ofliving in Japan is regarded as being relatively high when compared with other countries, including
the United States (QS Top Universities, 2012). Given that many students are privately funded, thismay cause difficulties.
4.2. Spring university admission
Japan’s academic year starts in April, which is out of step with schools, colleges anduniversities in many parts of the world. This results in key admissions, enrolment and graduation
dates being out of line with most other countries. For students who intend to be globally mobile,
this can create problems if decisions have to be made regards an offer in one country before any
screening has even begun in another. Some students also have to wait for almost a year between
graduating and starting a program in a Japanese university. At the end of the program, graduation
often occurs too late for applying for jobs or graduate programs in other countries, resulting inanother gap period being required. Japanese universities are aware of this issue and some areInternationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

247

expanding programs that can accommodate autumn admissions, with The University of Tokyo being
an often cited example. At the same time, some universities are unwilling to accommodate autumn
admissions, with Kyoto University being a member of this camp (QS Top Universities, 2012).
4.3. The quality of international students
Attracting ‘high quality’ international students has been identified as desirable but anotherchallenge. There is concern that Japan is attracting students of relatively low quality (Kuwamura,
2009:189 ; Lassegard, 2006: 119 ; Horie, 2003: 77). The discourse of ‘quality’ here focuses on
the perceived readiness of students for Japanese HE studies in terms of their skills and knowledge
at the time they enter university (Lassegard, 2006: 122). While the main measures of quality fordomestic students has also been perceived skills and knowledge at entry point, high trust has beenplaced on the National Centre Test for University Admissions (Centre Test) results and hensachiscores generated by juku or institutions offering supplementary education. There is unease aboutmeasuring and ensuring quality in the case of students with diverse backgrounds offering testscores from a wide variety of systems (Yamamoto, 2016).
The discourse around perceived problems relating to student quality can be divided into twoareas: perceived problems caused by a lack of Japanese language proficiency, and/or problems
caused by insufficient academic knowledge and skills (Kuwamura, 2009: 196-197). In both casesa deficit model is employed where the concept of quality is loaded with expectations that student
will have the skills to function in the Japanese system as it is, rather than the system being adjusted
to enable incoming students to develop and realize potential. Kuwamura (2009: 196) notes that
one quality issue is that many international students do not have sufficient Japanese language
proficiency to study comfortably here. Even Chinese students, who make up the majority ofthe student body and share a similar writing system, kanji or Chinese characters, are generally
perceived to be lacking. As the statistical data above makes clear, many international students
attend Japanese language schools before enrolling at universities, yet a lack of Japanese language
proficiency continues to be regarded as an obstacle to ensuring quality education. For students
without a kanji background, issues around language loom even larger. While some may be taking
courses in English, others may be struggling to understand in regular Japanese classes where few
adjustments are made. In this regard, Kuwamura, (2009: 196-197) argues, somewhat idealistically,that there is a need to develop curricula based on each group of international students’ special
needs and requirements. With a traditional ‘chalk and talk’ method of pedagogy prevailing backed
by seminars that tend to focus on translation of texts from English to Japanese, any deficiencies ofstudents are arguably exacerbated by the lack of innovation in pedagogy to welcome international
students. Sadly, the literature tends to represent students as deficient, rather than the teaching andlearning environment offered to them.

248

4.4. Internationalization of Japanese students
Another issue raised in the literature is the perceived lack of English language skills andinternational mindedness of Japanese students (Eades et al., 2005; Mcveigh, 2002 in Yonezawa,
2009: 205). Given that for the majority of Japanese students, classes and daily communications
take place largely in their native Japanese language (Yonezawa, 2009: 210), there may be little
incentive to build on the English they have learned in school. The fact that Japanese test takers
score notoriously badly on the TOEFL test compared to their counterparts in other Asian countries
is taken as further evidence of language deficit (Miyahara & Yamamoto, 1999 cited in Pritchard,
2006: 142). The relevance of the test content of TOEFL and the artificiality of the setting forassessing English proficiency is not generally questioned.
Several reasons are offered to explain the reported problem of Japanese students’ lack ofEnglish language proficiency. Firstly, ‘bad’ English teaching in schools is held up as one issue. It
is argued that although English language education in Japanese schools has been the subject of
a number of reforms in recent years, it is noted that students still have too few opportunities for
productive use of the English language (Pritchard, 2006: 153). One recommendation is focusing
on English as an International Language (EIL) in schools, which means promoting a ‘de-AngloAmericanized’ English as a means of expressing indigenous values in international communication’(Hino, 2009: 103).Yet the practicalities of this remain unclear. It is argued that Japanese people
would be able to communicate in English more proficiently is they were expressing their own
values through a form of ‘Japanese English’ (Hino, 2009: 116).
The lack of ‘international mindedness’ of Japanese students is also raised as an issue. There arecalls for courses in intercultural understanding for Japanese students to expand their worldview(Kuwamura, 2009: 200) and enhance their understanding of other cultures (Brooks and Waters,
2011: 151). Another recommendation is to offer courses on intercultural communication thatboth domestic and international students can earn credits by taking, and then supporting Japanese
students to communicate in English in the class (Morita, 2013: 39). While sugsestions abound.
there is little. Serious theorization of what it means to be internationally minded or culturallycompetent.
4.5. Faculty and professional internationalization
The above mentioned QS Top University report also noted the failure of Japanese universities
to employ sufficient numbers of international faculty and administrators (QS Top University, 2012).
Since the first Japanese universities were established in the Meiji period, it has been recognizedthat a small body of international faculty are required to support the international dimensions ofteaching, learning and research. Even with the expansion of internationalization activities, foreignsatff continue to make up a very small proportion of all faculty. In 2012, the most recent year forInternationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

249

which data is available, fulltime foreign faulty members (tenured and contract-based) accounted
for just 3.8 percent of all faculty members (MEXT, 2013). It is noted with concern in the literaturethat there has been relatively little interest in recruiting international staff, and those that have been
hired frequently face different, arguably discriminatory, treatment compared to regular faculty andadministrative staff (Kuwamura, 2009: 197). As ‘faculty members are one of the most importantand major “engines” to simulate internationalization of higher education nowadays’ (Huang, 2009:157), the literature calls for an increase in international faculty, especially given the increase in
the number of EMI courses and ETPs (Goodman, 2010 cited in Burgess et al., 2010: 470). The
Top Global University funding is attempting to address this issue and we can expect an increase inforeign faculty in leading universities in coming years.
In order to attract more foreign faculty, it is argued that a more flexible system of employment
is needed (Kuwamura, 2009: 197-198) as well as changes to the campus environment. A morediversified faculty, it is argued, would not only allow Japan to secure its place more easily in the
global knowledge economy (Yonezawa, Akiba and Hirouchi, 2009: 126) it would also aid thedevelopment of the intercultural competencies of Japanese professors at home (Kuwamura, 2009:200). Again, these terms are used with little reflection or critical understanding.
4.6. Professionals in international education field
There are not enough professionals in the field of international education it is argued(Kuwamura, 2008; Yokota et al. 2006 cited in Kuwamura, 2009: 198). As a result of a shortageof experienced staff in international student offices in universities their is inefficiency. All of thestaff of international offices, international centers, and academic professors are working with little
coordination to cover everything related to international students and internationalization processes
at Japanese universities. This causes overlap and complications of job responsibilities among staff
and faculty. It has been suggested that more professional international staff are needed, as well as
better training including professional training in international student advising, cultural exchange
and language training in order to better support the various needs of international students(Kuwamura, 2009: 198-199).
4.7. Japanese government’s control over internationalization
It is noted with concern in the literature that internationalization of HE in Japan is very muchcontrolled by the government (Kuwamura, 2009: 199; Yonezawa, 2009: 206; Yonezawa, Akiba
and Hirouchi, 2009: 138), and that the main focus of its initiatives is increasing the number ofinternational students. With the focus on quantitative issues, there has been less focus on issues
surrounding the preparation of the campus environment for increased diversity, including training
academic staff and training experts in the international education field. It is argued that these

250

qualitative aspects have been left to individual institutions to deal with. As a result, it has been
recommended that Japanese universities collaborate with their domestic and foreign counterparts,
rather than just follow along with the government’s internationalization plans (Kuwamura, 2009:200). It is suggested that Japanese universities and academics should make autonomous initiatives
for the internationalization of universities (Yonezawa, 2009: 199), and the institutions themselves
should plan to become international based on their own priorities (Tanikawa, 2012: 2). In addition,
there is underfunding of internationalization initiatives, with universities relying on short term,competitive funding awards from the government to further, often top down, internationalization
strategies (Yonezawa, 2008 cited in Yonezawa 2009: 211). Most Japanese universities including
national, local-public and some private, do not directly gain any financial benefits frominternationalization, and in most cases it is viewed as costly with few returns (Yonezawa, Akiba
and Hirouchi, 2009: 137).
4.8. Lack of attention to the intercultural dimensions of Japanese universities
It is argued that there is a lack of intercultural development in Japanese universities (Whitsed
and Volet, 2010: 147). In Japanese universities, it is argued, in/out (uchi/soto) metaphors may makeinternational students and faculty feel like outsiders (soto) and that this may limit opportunities forintercultural understanding. To transcend this perceived cultural inwardness, it is proposed that new
metaphors should be invented to promote intercultural understanding, and to decrease the notions
to otherness in the light of changing definitions of kokusaika or internationalization (Whitsed andVolet, 2010: 159-163). Yet, few concrete examples are offered for achieving such a transformation.
4.9. ‘Asianisation’ rather that ‘internationalization’
Many international students in Japan are from Asia, with the majority from neighbouring
China. Although Japan is starting to be able attract students from different parts of the world, it isargued that there continues to be a need to make more efforts to increase the diversity of Japanese
campuses (Burgess et al., 2010: 465).

5. Providing Programs in English as an Internationalization Strategy
A major strategy in international student recruitment in non-Anglophone countries is to create
courses that use English as the medium of instruction or degree programs that are taught in English(Korenov, 2012: 1). A recent report from the British Council and the University of Oxford points
out that in non-Anglophone countries worldwide, EMI is widely being used for teaching academic
disciplinary subjects such as sciences. In the report, EMI was defined as, the ‘use of the English
language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) ofInternationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

251

the majority of the population is not English’ (Dearden, 2014: 4).
In countries in both Europe and Asia, EMI courses and EPTs at HE level have increased
dramatically over the past two decades (Macaro, 2015: 4; Bradford, 2012: 1). Unlike many Asian
countries, Japan escaped colonization and was able to build its own HE traditions and develop
scholarship in the vernacular (Ishikawa, 2011). Use of English as a medium of instruction was,until recently, limited to a few liberal arts offerings at universities with direct ties to the West.
Waseda University (a leading private university) started using EMI from 1963, and Kyushu
University (a former imperial university and now a National University Corporation or NCU)
began offering some EMI courses from 1994 (Tsuneyoshi, 2005 cited in Kuwamura, 2009: 195). A
small number of universities founded by Christians, such as the International Christian University
and Sophia University, both in Tokyo, created a niche for themselves by offering of dual language
education from as early as the 1950s.
Largely in connection with short-term exchange programs, there was an increase in EMI
offerings at Japanese universities in the late 1990s and early 2000s. By 2007, EMI courses werebeing offered at 30 national, 35 private and one municipal (public) university at the undergraduatelevel, and at 42 universities (national, public and private combined) at the graduate level. Yet,
there were still few full ETPs. By 2013, about 25 universities in Japan were providing ETPs forundergraduate students (Brown, 2014: 9), but at graduate level the number was lower. In leading
research universities, developing EMI and ETPs at graduate level is regarded as important in order
to attract talented graduate students (Kuwamura, 2009: 195).
The launching of the Global 30 project in 2009 is notable as it required leading national
universities to develop full ETP provision as part of the government’s internationalization strategy.
Often without any real commitment to developing ETPs, leading universities at very short notice(around one month between details of the funding being made public and the submission date)
put together and submitted plans for undergraduate programs that would be delivered totallyin English.The 13 universities that were awarded the G30 funding in late summer 2009 weresuddenly tasked with developing their initial plans into a full degree curriculum, recruiting students
in upper secondary education directly from overseas, often with no previous experience of doing
this, hiring faculty who could teach in English and creating an environment conducive to study forstudents with no or little Japanese ability. The G30 project created considerable interest nationallyand internationally, and generated research outputs on EMI and ETPs focusing on this initiative (seefor example, Bradford, 2013; Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J. and Selzer, M., 2010; Ishikawa,M. 2011; Ishikura, 2015; Yamamoto and Ishikura, forthcoming) .
With the Japanese government’s focus largely on quantitative issues (i.e. increasing the numberof international students and EMI courses and EPT programs), it is suggested that insufficientattention has been paid to the qualitative aspects of internationalizing campuses. Some universities

252

face challenges related to finding English-speaking faculty, providing a suitable study and living
environment for students who come to Japan with little Japanese language proficiency, andassuring the quality of education (Tsuneyoshi, 2005 in Kuwamura, 2009: 195). For the increasing
number of international students in Japan studying in English, providing sufficient support andplanning for program improvements that take into account their academic, linguistic and cultural
background is seen as necessary (Andrade, 2009: 221), and there is growing recognition that there
is a need for more qualitative research for better program evaluation metrics in this area.

6. Perceptions of the Challenges of EMI and ETPs in Japan
Internationalization at home via EMI and ETPs is seen to raise particular challenges.
Tsuneyoshi (2005) divided the challenges in implementing EMI in short-term study abroad
programs in Japan into three categories: linguistic, cultural and structural. Bradford (2013: 230)
has used these categories in a new form to investigate the G30 undergraduate all-English programs.
However, Bradford points out that ‘there is overlap among these categories, and many linguistic
and cultural challenges lead to structural challenges for HEIs’ (Bradford, 2013: 230):
6.1 Linguistic challenges
Outside of university settings, English is not utilized to any significant degree in daily Japaneselife (Morita, 2010 cited in Morita 2012: 2). The majority of Japanese people use only Japanese
language for their daily communication (Seargeant, 2009 cited in Morita, 2012: 2). Therefore, even
if international students can get by only using English language at their universities, they will stillneed Japanese language for their daily life, intercultural interactions and for making friends outside
campus (Morita, 2012: 2). In reality, however, even students studying in English may find a lack ofJapanese proficiency a hurdle to overcome even on campus (Rakhshandehroo, 2014).
Bradford notes that there are ‘concerns that the quality of education is compromised when
English is a foreign instructional language for both the students and teachers. Among theseconcerns is the fact that non-native English speaking students have difficulty in coping with
content presented in English’ (Bradford, 2013: 230). With relatively few foreign faculty, it can be
hard to secure sufficient faculty who are proficient or comfortable teaching in English (Kuwamura,
2009: 195). It has been estimated that it takes four to five times more effort for Japanese professors
used to the Japanese medium to teach in English compared to Japanese (Tsuneyoshi, 2005 cited in
Bradford, 2013: 233).
The above problems are further complicated by the fact that many international students
are non-native English speakers (NNES). There are concerns that the quality of education andlearning will be lowered in EMI classrooms. It is argued that to raise the quality of EMI courses,

Internationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

253‘high standards of English language are essential’ (Andrade, 2009: 222) for both instructors andinternational students. Nevertheless, little in the way of monitoring data has been collected toevaluate what is happening on the ground.
6.2. Cultural challenges
In attempts to implement EMI, universities are receiving students and professors from morediverse backgrounds than previously. While this is part of the motivation of offering courses inEnglish, there is a strong sense in the literature that it also creates many problems. It is argued
that diverse classrooms may present significant problems and challenges for educators if there
hitherto experience is largely with teaching relatively homogeneous groups of students. Some
commentators point to the need to create interventions that would promote the intercultural andinterpersonal skills of educators and international students (Whitsed and Volet, 2011 cited in
Bradford, 2013: 233).
6.3. Structural challenges
Structural challenges include challenges related to the administration and management of
the EMI courses and ETPs. For instance, Tsuneyoshi argues that these ‘challenges lie in finding
international education professionals who can cope with the pressures of adopting English andworking with a diverse population’ (Tsuneyoshi, 2005 cited in Bradford, 2013: 233). Here she isreferring to professional administrative staff able to promote and support international education.
Japanese university systems may exhibit admistrative inflexibility when introducing significant
change in pedagogical approaches or in dealing with more diverse student populations. Tsuneyoshi
highlights a number of problems inherent in administrative systems in Japanese universities suchas the requirement for administrative staff to change job assignments on a rotating basis – usually
every two years (Tsuneyoshi, 2005 cited in Bradford, 2013: 234). Therefore, finding suitablestaff with the language and cultural skills that can work consistently and over a long-term withinternational students and faculty can be difficult (Bradford, 2013: 234).
In a recent study, Bradford (2016:9-13) sub-divided these structural challenges into two
different categories: administrative and managerial challenges, and institutional challenges.
Administrative and managerial challenges are associated with ‘English language assessment
policies’ (Rivers, 2010 cited in Bradford, 2016: 9), ‘the job rotation system of administrative staff’(Tsuneyoshi, 2005 cited in Bradford, 2016: 9), and ‘the recruitment and retention of teachingfaculty’ (Lassegard, 2006; Tsuneyoshi, 2005 cited in Bradford, 2016: 9). Institutional challenges
are related to the way the EMI ‘is perceived from the outside, how it relates to the rest of theuniversity, and how it maintains its own standards’ (Bradford, 2016: 11).

254

7. Areas Highlighted as Needing Attention
In order to confront the challenges in implementing EMI, Bradford concludes with thefollowing recommendations:‘Japan should direct attention to solving linguistic, cultural and structural challenges.
Both students and faculty involved in the EMI programs should receive support tohelp overcome linguistic and cultural challenges. Valuable elements of this support
could be language and academic skills classes for students, and intercultural
teaching skills classes for faculty. In addition, faculty should ensure their continued
engagement with the international academic community through participationin conferences and international collaborations. In order to address structural
challenges, universities should adjust administration practices, including thoserelated to administrative staff and faculty employment, to enable positive outcomesfor EMI programs’ (Bradford, 2013: 235, emphasis added).
In terms of Japanese universities’ support, Ishikawa (2011: 207-209) points out that fromthe late 1980s to 2000s in Asian countries the policies concerning the support of international
students underwent a shift from paternalism (traditional aid approach) to global competitiveness(trade approach). While paternalism may appear student friendly initially, the student is often left
in the position of having to rely on the benevolence of others to steer his or her way through theuniversity system. The global competitiveness model positions the students as a client and services
are provided to ensure they can autonomously pursue their studies. Ishikawa makes the criticalobservation that in 2011 Japanese universities had still not moved away from the paternalistic
model, especially the national universities. She argues that taking a trade perspective would
lead to more efficient and suitable support for autonomous students than the paternalistic model
which guides students ‘like parents’ (Ishikawa, 2011: 209). Based on Ishikawa’s model (2011),
we can perhaps expect a shift in Japanese universities’ support systems to provide a setting whereinternational students have greater autonomy.

8. Conclusions
In the context of a shortage of literature on international student support, especially language
support, in Japanese universities, and with the rapid increase of the number of international
students in the recent years, this paper builds on the existing literature on the internationalizationof Japanese universities. We began by identifying the background to internationalization policy in
the HE sector in Japan, and followed this by giving an overview of the challenges that have been

Internationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

255

identified in the literature along with recommendations. We offered a specific focus on policy
around EMI and ETPs as strategies to diversify international student recruitment. We then critically
discussed the challenges identified in the literature.
We have argued in this paper that the 300,000 International Student plan is an ambitious
and that by introducing EMI and ETPs a particular set of challenges has been created that key
stakeholders need to address. These challenges have been identified in the literature as cultural,
linguistic and structural. The top down approach to internationalization and the inflexibility ofsome university administrative systems are seen to create specific structural challenges that cannot
be addressed sufficiently with goodwill and hard work. We note the shortage of literature on
international student experiences, especially those studying in English, and their specific needs inJapanese universities. We call for more evaluative research on the efficacy and appropriatenessof current support mechanisms. In this regard, this paper calls for more research that reflects theexperiences of all key stakeholders so we can evaluate not only how current internationalization
policies are impacting students, but also faculty and administrative staff.
Finally, we end on a relatively optimistic note, pointing to the extent to which the challenges
raised by the introduction of EMI and ETPs have created a dynamic towards internationalization in
the sense of opening up Japanese universities, with all they have to offer, to a more diverse student
and faculty body, who will be able to work, contribute and enjoy, hopefully, in this more inclusive
environment that is in the making.

References
Altbach, P. and Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations andrealities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), pp.290-305.
Andrade, M. (2009). Increasing accountability: Faculty perspectives on the English language
competence of nonnative English speakers. Journal of Studies in International Education,
14(3), pp.221-239.
Asaoka, T. and Yano, J. (2009). The contribution of ‘study abroad’ programs to Japaneseinternationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), pp.174-188.
Bradford, A. (2013). English-medium degree programs in Japanese universities: learning from theEuropean experience. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2(3), pp.225-240.
Bradford, A. (2016). Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing English-medium
instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 20(4), pp.339-356.
Brooks, R. and Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization ofhigher education. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

256

Brown, H. (2014). Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate English-medium
instruction programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1),pp.50-63.
Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J. and Selzer, M. (2010). The Global 30 Project and Japanesehigher education reform: an example of a ‘closing in’ or an ‘opening up’? Globalisation,
Societies and Education, 8(4), pp.461-475.
East Asia Forum. (2014). Japanese universities reach for global status. Available at: http://www.
eastasiaforum.org/2014/12/30/japanese-universities-reach-for-global-status/ [Accessed 20 Dec.
2015].
Hashimoto, K. (2013). English-only, but not a medium-of-instruction policy: The Japanese wayof internationalising education for both domestic and overseas students. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 14(1), pp.16-33.
Hino, N. (2009). The teaching of English as an international language in Japan an answer to thedilemma of indigenous values and global needs in the expanding circle. AILA Review, 22(1),pp.103-119.
Horie, M. (2002). The internationalization of higher education in Japan in the 1990s: A
reconsideration. Higher Education, 43(1), pp.65-84.
Huang, F. (2006). Internationalization of university curricula in Japan: Major policies and practicesince the 1980s. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(2), pp.102-118.
Huang, F. (2009). The internationalization of the academic profession in Japan: A quantitative
perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), pp.143-158.
Ishikawa, M. (2011). Redefining internationalization in higher education: Global 30 and the makingof global universities in Japan. In Willis, D. B. and Rappleye, J. Reimagining Japanese education:
Borders, transfers, circulations, and the comparative, Oxford Symposium Books pp.193-223.
Ishikura, Y. (2015) Realizing internationalization at home through English-medium courses at
a Japanese university: strategies to maximize student learning. Higher Learning ResearchCommunications, 5(1).
JASSO (Japan Student Services Organization). (2006). International students in Japan 2006.
[online] Available at: http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2006/index.html[Accessed 8 Sep. 2016].
JASSO (2011). International students in Japan 2011. [online] Available at: http://www.jasso.go.jp/
en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2011/index.html [Accessed 8 Sep. 2016].
JASSO (2016a). International students in Japan 2015. Available at: http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/
about/statistics/intl_student/data2015.html [Accessed 5 Aug. 2016].
JASSO (2016b). Results of an annual survey of international students in Japan:
http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2015/index.html [Accessed 1 Oct. 2016].

Internationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

257

JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science). (2016) Top Global University Project. Available
at: https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-tgu/index.html [Accessed 1October. 2016].
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal ofStudies in International Education, 8(1), pp.5-31.
Korenev, A. (2012). Creating an international academic program in English. Benefits andchallenges.: On the examples of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Hokkaido University.
高等教育ジャーナル : 高等教育と生涯学習 = Journal of Higher Education and Lifelong
Learning, 19, pp.1-8.
Kuwamura, A. (2009). The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese Higher
Education through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 13(2), pp.189-202.
Lassegard, J. (2006). International student quality and Japanese higher education reform. Journal ofStudies in International Education, 10(2), pp.119-140.
Maruyama, H. (2011). International student policy of Japan. Education in Japan, National Institutefor Educational Policy Research. Available at: www.nier.go.jp/English/educationjapan/
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2013), ‘1.9 Universities
and junior colleges: Full-time teachers by type of position (university)’, Statistical Abstract 2012
edition. Tokyo: MEXT. Available at: http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afield
file/2013/08/13/1302968_13.pdf . [Accessed 4 Jan. 2016].
Morita, L. (2012). English and intercultural interaction in the internationalisation of a Japanese
university. Journal of Intercultural Communication (30).
Morita, L. (2013). Japanese university students’ attitudes towards globalisation, intercultural
Contexts and English. World Journal of English Language, 3(4), pp. 31-41.
Morizumi, F. (2015). 日本における EMI －現状と課題－ EMI in Japan: Current status and its
implications. Educational Studies, 57, pp.119-128.
Nakayama, Y. (1982). International English for Japanese people: Suggesting multinationalization.
TESL Reporter, 15(4), pp.63-72.
Ninomiya, A., Knight, J. and Watanabe, A. (2009). The past, present, and future ofinternationalization in Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), pp.117-124.
OECD (1971) Reviews of National Policies for Education. Japan. OECD.
Pritchard, R. (2006). The changing self-perceptions of Japanese university students of English.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(2), pp.141-156.
QS Top Universities. (2012). Japanese universities: A new era of internationalization. Available
at: http://www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/asia/japan/japanese-universities-new-erainternationalization [Accessed 1 Oct. 2016].
Rakhshandehroo, M. (2014). A study of sources of English language support for international

258

students who are studying in the English language on higher degree programs in Japan.
Proceedings of the 66th Annual Meeting of the Japan Society of Educational Sociology (66),pp.372-373. Available at: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009892912. [Accessed 1 Oct, 2016].
Rivers, D.J. (2010). Ideologies of internationalisation and the treatment of diversity within Japanesehigher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(5), pp.441-454.
Tanikawa, M. (2012). Japanese universities go global, but slowly. Nytimes.com. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/asia/30iht-educlede30.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[Accessed 9 Feb. 2015].
The Bntish School in Tokyo. (2014) No longer a country for old men? Available at : http://www.bst.
ac.jp/principalsblong/tag/shinzo-abe/ [Accessed 3 Oct. 2016]
The Japan Times. (2016). 2015 saw 13% surge in foreign students in Japan, aided by more Nepalese,Vietnamese. The Japan Times. Available at: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/01/
national/social-issues/2015-saw-13-surge-foreign-students-japan-aided-nepalese-vietnamese/#.
V9C7KfmLSUk [Accessed 8 Sep. 2016].
Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005). Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities ofstudy abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(1),pp.65-86.
UIS (UNESCO Institute of Statistics). (2016). Global flow of tertiary-level students. Available at:
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-student-flow-viz.aspx [Accessed 4
Aug. 2016].
Whitsed, C. and Volet, S. (2010). Fostering the intercultural dimensions of internationalisationin higher education: Metaphors and challenges in the Japanese context. Journal of Studies inInternational Education, 15(2), pp.146-170.
Yamamoto, B. A. 2017. Diversifying admissions through top-down entrance examination reformin Japanese elite universties. What is happening on the ground? In Mountford-Zimdars. A
and Harrison, N. Access to Higher Education. Theoreticnl Perspectives and Contemporary
Challenges. London: Routledge with The Society for Higher Education Research.
Yamamoto, B. A. and Ishikura. Y. (forthcoming). A pebble that creates great waves? Global 30classes and internationalization of the student body. In Bradford, A. and Brown, H. EnglishMedium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education: Policy, Challenges, and Outcomes. Bristol:Multilingual Matters.
Yonezawa, A. (2009). The internationalization of Japanese higher education: Policy debates andrealities. 名古屋高等教育研究 (9), pp.199-218.
Yonezawa, A., Akiba, H. and Hirouchi, D. (2009). Japanese university leaders' perceptions ofinternationalization: The role of government in review and support. Journal of Studies inInternational Education, 13(2), pp.125-142.

Internationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities

259

Yonezawa, A. and Shimmi, Y. (2015). Transformation of university governance throughinternationalization: Challenges for top universities and government policies in Japan. Higher
Education, 70(2), pp.173-186.
Yonezawa, Y. and Yonezawa, A. (2016). Internationalization of higher education as a response to
globalization: Japan’s policy challenges since the 1980s. In Healey, E. and Arunachalam D. (Eds.)
Creating Social Cohesion in an Interdependent World : Experiences of Australia and Japan,
pp. 191-204. Palgrave Macmillan US.

260

A Review Essay on Internationalization Strategies in Japanese Universities
with a Focus on English Language Support
Mahboubeh RAKHSHANDEHROO and Beverley Anne YAMAMOTOThis paper offers a review of the English-language literature on internationalization policy
since the 1980s in Japanese universities focusing particularly on the use of English Medium
Istruction (EMI) as a strategy for ‘internationalization at home’. The paper begins by offering abroad overview of government policy aimed at internationalizing universities. Next we give astatistical overview of trends in international student recruitment, highlighting recent shifts thatcoincide with English Taught Program (ETP) and EMI course expansion. From this, we explore in
greater depth the Global 30 and Super Global University policies that have specifically targeted the
expansion of EMI courses and ETPs. Finally, we critically review the literature that has emergedin response to this shift. The conclusion we draw from this review is that while significant progresshas been made in creating an environment conducive to study in English in leading Japanese
universities, the gains are fragile relying largely on the dedication of key staff and the continuationof temporary funding prioritizing increased international students and faculty recruitment throughthe expansion of ETPs and EMI.
Key words:Internationalization at home, English-medium Instruction, English taught programs,
higher education policy