Opinion and Perspective

Communication and Conflict:

Japanese Views of Foreign University
Instructors
James P. Lassegard
Hosei University
Michio Tajima
Nihon University
The number of foreign, or “international”, faculty in Japan has been rising at a
steady pace over the last few decades, with the percentage of full-time foreign
faculty rising from approximately one percent of the total number in 1990 toclose to four percent in 2015 (RIE, 2016). Part of the growth in international
faculty can be attributed to the emphasis over the last couple of decades placedon English language education, as well as newer programs which allow students
to study subject content and obtain degrees in English.
According to statistics from the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications (e-Stat, 2018), 22,246 foreign instructors were working inJapanese higher education in 2018, representing a 4% increase over the previous
year. Moreover, 8,609 of these faculty were full-time, while 13,647 were classified
as part-time instructors. Aside from the fact that little is known about thisgroup, foreign instructors by definition are more mobile than domestic teaching
staff yet remain an essential component in the education of university students
in Japan.
According to Huang (1918), approximately 2,206 full-time foreign
professors are affiliated with faculties of linguistics, literature and foreign
16Communication and Conflict, OnCUE 13(1), pages 16-24

language instruction. The National Statistics School Basic Survey (MEXT,
2016) also stated that nearly half of all non-Japanese university academics
teaching at Japanese educational institutions were engaged in foreign language
education. Despite these significant numbers, most research studies conducted
on international academic mobility have been about the education andmotivating factors of foreign students, and little attention has been paid to issues
concerning foreign faculty working overseas (De Wit & Altbach, 2018; Rumbly& De Wit, 2017).
Even less research has been done on the experiences of international
faculty living and working in Japan, including their motivations for being inJapan and their relations with Japanese colleagues. Foreign faculty, whether
part-time, contract, or permanent faculty, are almost always a minority within
their organizations and have few opportunities for significant discussions withJapanese counterparts on teaching and other important administrative policy
matters at the university.

The Conference Workshop

In light of this perceived gap in research, an exploratory workshop was organized
and facilitated by the authors in November of 2018. Workshop participants were
all attending an academic society meeting (gakkai) for English studies at a large
private university in central Tokyo. The gakkai has a history of approximately
50 years, with a membership of more than 200, of which only 20 members areforeign. The purpose of this workshop was to acquire information about the
many challenges foreign instructors have working at Japanese universities. Using
focus-group type of brainstorming, we hoped that this data would provide
possible themes and insights regarding how well-integrated foreign academics,
both full-time and part-time, are into the life and fabric of Japanese universities.
The facilitators/authors primarily utilized the KJ Method to gather feedback
from workshop participants. It is a relatively well-known method similar toconcept mapping that is used to solicit opinions from various subjects during
a short period of time. It is also considered an effective ethnographic techniquein Japanese social science research (Sculpin, 1997). The authors/facilitators
17

Lassegard & Tajima

themselves are university professors, and one of the facilitators had been a regularmember of the gakkai for many years.
Participation in the workshop was voluntary. The total number ofparticipants was thirty-three, the majority (27) of whom were Japanese nationals
working either full- or part-time at universities in the Kanto area. An additional
six participants were graduate students from different countries. Twenty-two of
the participants were male and 11 were female. Participants were divided into
seven groups of approximately four or five members by the facilitators, and eachgroup was given a sheet of A3 paper and a number of Post-it notes. After a brief
explanation of the purpose of the task, groups took approximately 15 minutes
to discuss and write down on the notes their ideas and comments regarding
foreign instructors. The participants came up with a total of 67 comments inboth Japanese and English, and each small group was then given approximately
one minute to summarize what they had discussed to the larger group using theirA3 paper. This was then followed by a short debriefing by facilitators to conclude
the workshop.

Workshop Data Analysis

After the workshop, the 67 short written responses were collected, and all
Japanese responses were translated into English by the authors. The authors/facilitators analyzed them, which subsequently resulted in four main categories
of issues or thematic areas, although some themes appeared to be interrelated.
The largest category, producing 29 responses, was related to a foreign instructor’steaching, such as methods, classroom management, interaction with students,
and pedagogy. The second largest category with 21 comments involved
communication issues between foreign and Japanese instructors. The third
category comprised 14 responses dealing with the challenges foreign instructors
have in dealing with university management. Lastly, four comments dealt with alack of opportunities for foreign and Japanese instructors to share information
about their teaching, curriculum, etc. The following is a thematic analysis of thecomments.

18

Communication and Conflict, OnCUE 13(1), pages 16-24

Differences in Teaching Methodology—
Impressions and Assumptions about Foreign
Instructors (FIs) and Their Students.

This category produced the largest number and variety of responses. A total of 18
responses could be considered assumptions that Japanese instructors have aboutclassroom management, including foreign instructors’ interactions with students.
Some of the more common responses included the following:“FIs cannot tell if Japanese students understand or not”
“FIs encourage more participation or student-centered classrooms”“FIs might be careless when dealing with students”“FIs cannot pronounce or remember Japanese students’ names, which leads
to a lack of communication”“FIs have a hard time dealing with and evaluating students who do notrespond in class”
A sub-category consisted of teaching assumptions or impressions of how
Japanese students behave, and how they may perceive a foreign instructor’steaching. Comments representative of this include the following:“Students find it difficult to follow instruction from FIs in English”“Some students are too shy and too reserved”“FIs do classroom activities which are not planned. It doesn’t work because
it’s not what students expect to do”“Students do too little speaking during lessons”“Students are not familiar with discussion-style activities. They should be
able to first think in Japanese and start with yes/no suggestions”
In the authors’ view, it seems likely that there may be lack of understandingor first-hand knowledge among Japanese instructors of what FIs actually do in
the English language classroom. It is appears likely that some comments werebased on information or hearsay that workshop participants have received fromstudents over the years or merely their own assumptions. Nevertheless, thesecomments convey the sense that some Japanese instructors tend to distrust or
negatively view teaching methods practiced by foreign instructors.
19

Lassegard & Tajima

Language Issues: Inside and Outside of theClassroom

The second largest category of comments, consisting of 21 responses, were related
primarily to communication in English and Japanese languages with foreign
instructors and some of the frustrations and challenges that exist. This category
can be seen as somewhat overlapping with the others. Some representative
comments were as follows:“Foreign colleagues and students who can speak Japanese still expect otherJapanese English teachers to communicate in English”“We can’t ask FIs to do exam proctoring—which requires giving explanationsin Japanese”“FIs have difficulties filling in documents in Japanese, especially something to
do with legal matters”“Office instructions are only in Japanese”“University meetings are with Japanese instructors who are not good atEnglish”
While a few of the above comments appeared sympathetic with thechallenges foreign instructors have with (particularly written) Japanese, themajority of comments implied that foreign instructors could be making more
efforts toward improving their proficiency in Japanese. An underlying sentiment
was that many Japanese instructors were frustrated at having to use English or
to help FIs understand information in Japanese. Many comments involving
language also pertained to the choice of language use in the classroom, and theassumption that Japanese students normally require explanations in Japanese tounderstand content. It may be justifiable to expect that FIs possess basic Japanese
language skills that are useful in the workplace. However, whether the use of theL1 by foreign instructors is actually effective for students’ language acquisition isanother topic altogether and outside the scope of this report.

University Management and Policy Issues

The third largest category consisted of 14 responses related to university
management and policy issues that FIs must deal with in their teaching careers. It
20

Communication and Conflict, OnCUE 13(1), pages 16-24

seems as though these comments also were often interrelated with both language
and teaching categories. Examples are shown below.
“FIs must deal with office staff who can’t communicate in English (aboutsalary, taxes, etc.)”“(There is) little university space to keep part-time teachers’ materials”“Differences in salary exist between foreign and Japanese instructors”“FIs don’t have a good understanding of school cultures in Japan”“FIs can’t help with administrative work”
These disparate comments reflect both the large amount of administrative
work that must be done at Japanese universities and the frustration that arises
when many non-native instructors cannot perform these duties, or at least not aswell as their Japanese counterparts.

Opportunities for Exchange: Community of
Learning

In this final category of comments, the issues were not so much between foreign
and Japanese instructors, but those that exist between full-time and part-time
instructors, with some representative comments including the following:“(There is) little communication with Japanese full-time teachers. Full-time
instructors should go more often to have chats in the part-time teachers’
lounge”“FIs may not have many opportunities to ask questions about Japanese
education environment”“Since courses that FIs teach are different from Japanese teachers, there
exist limitations in ways instructors can share information on curriculum,
pedagogy, etc.”
It is likely this situation is rather common within higher education settingsin other countries and is not particular to Japan. The teaching schedules
of individual faculty vary widely, and the instructor is often preoccupied
by preparing for lessons before and between classes that would preclude
opportunities for meaningful discussion of teaching, curriculum, etc.

21Lassegard & Tajima

Analysis and Discussion

This workshop presented a rare opportunity for mostly Japanese university
instructors to express what they felt or thought about foreign instructors.
The fact that so many of the comments could be considered negative was not
anticipated by the facilitators/authors. However, it is not very often that we hearcandid comments from our colleagues, and this workshop provided an insightful
opportunity to learn about and discuss some of the challenges for both foreign
and Japanese instructors. Moreover, we believe that the comments made byparticipants can be considered a fairly representative sample of perspectives heldby many other Japanese instructors.
Regardless of category, language usage was often mentioned by respondents
as a troublesome area, and many of the comments were directed at foreign
language instructors’ lack of Japanese language proficiency, or a preference to use
their native language, in most cases English. Many foreign instructors can speak
Japanese well enough to navigate through most administrative requirements of
the job, although far fewer may have high reading or writing ability. Perhaps thiscan be considered unavoidable due to the amount of commitment required forforeign instructors to become proficient in written Japanese.
The most constructive comments were arguably those in the fourthcategory—concerning the lack of opportunities for foreign and Japanese
instructors to share information about classes, curriculum, teaching methods,
and student issues. It has been apparent from our experience doing research
and working in higher education that exchange interactions between
Japanese and foreign academics do not often take place organically. Without
systematic institutional or organizational motivation and support, such faculty
development (FD) is not likely to occur. Supporting FIs to learn Japanese andfor Japanese office staff to improve their English can also be an important part ofsuch FD, but it seems clear that there needs to be conscious efforts made towardenhancing the understanding of cross-cultural differences and communication
between Japanese and foreign employees (Komisarof, 2016).
Another common practice at many universities has been for full-time faculty
to provide administrative assistance and guidance to foreign (mostly part22

Communication and Conflict, OnCUE 13(1), pages 16-24time) faculty and act as a de facto mediator in some circumstances. In light ofthe comments from this workshop, this practice may have to be reexamined. Inorder to provide more consistent support, there may be benefits in empowering
administrative staff to take on more of the day-to-day issues of supporting foreign
instructors. Lastly, finding ways to better synthesize and communicate sharedcurricular goals and basic university policies must be a part of this endeavor.
If more time and a comprehensive research instrument were available, perhaps
many of these comments could be substantiated and explored further, providing
not only problems, but potential solutions to improve the communication
between foreign and Japanese instructors. Promoting collegial relations between
the foreign minority and Japanese majority in the workplace is only one aspect of
the issues concerning foreign faculty at universities. Themes such as satisfaction
with work environments, cross-cultural adjustment issues, and how universities
can better accept and integrate foreign faculty into the university community arealso worthy of further investigation.

Acknowledgement

This report is part of research outcomes from the project “International Facultyin Japanese Higher Education” (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)#JP19K02570) funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

References

De Wit, H. & Altbach, P. G. (2018, August 11). Dramatic instability ininternational higher education: The sudden rise in nationalism andpopulism in many countries has implications for higher education. Inside
HigherEd. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/world-view/dramaticinstability-international-higher-education.
E-Stat (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication) Tokei de miru nihon( Japan seen through statistics). https://www.e-stat.go.jp/stat-search/files
Huang, F. (2018). International faculty at Japanese universities: theirdemographic characteristics and work roles. Asia Pacific Education Review,
19(2), 263–272.
23

Lassegard & Tajima

Komisarof, A. (2016). Organizational membership negotiated, denied, andgained. In A. Komisarof & Z. Hua (Eds.), Crossing boundaries (pp. 23–39).
Routledge.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).
(2016). Gakko kihon chosa (School basic survey) 2016. http://www.mext.
go.jp/b_menu/toukei/chousa01/kihon/1267995.htm
RIE. (2016). Number of Foreign Faculty (academic staff ) [Universities] By
job classification. Hiroshima. https://rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/en/statistics/
synthesis/.
Rumbly, L. E., & De Wit, H. (2017). International faculty mobility: Crucial
and understudied. International Higher Education, 88(Winter), 6–8.
Sculpin, R. (1997). The KJ method: A technique for deriving data fromJapanese ethnology. Human Organization, 56(2), 233–237.

Author biosJames P. Lassegard is Professor at Hosei University. He holds an M.A. from the
University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in Educational Sociology from Nagoya
University. His main research interests include intercultural education andcommunication, student and faculty international mobility and exchange.
<j.lassegard@hosei.ac.jp>
Michio Tajima is Associate Professor at Nihon University. He holds an M.A. from
Rikkyo University in English and American literature and TESOL qualificationfrom Surrey University. His research interests include English for Specific Purposes,
language learner motivation, and teacher education. <tajima.michio@nihon-u.
ac.jp>
Received: June 19, 2019
Accepted: May 5, 202024