The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

Conspicuous Internationalization? Creating an International
Communication Lounge on a Japanese University Campus

Adam Gyenes

98	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  Abstract

Internationalization has become an important strategy for many Japanese universities as they
face falling enrollments. While some have successfully attracted students from overseas, others
seek different means by which to promote their international appeal, primarily as an attractorof domestic applicants. One way that this is highly visible is in the creation of international
communication lounges on campuses: mediated spaces for intercultural exchange and language
study that have developed out of the imported model of the self-access center. Thisethnographic study looks at the establishment of an International Communication Lounge(ICL) at a private university on the outskirts of Tokyo, where exchange activities, open-access
communication classes, and self-study facilities are provided to students in a casual setting.
Phillips and Ochs (2003) four stages of policy borrowing in education are utilized as aframework to gain insight into the motivations of various stakeholders in the development of
the facility. The ICL is shown to have had a positive impact on interest in international
exchange programs and on motivation to study English among the small group of students whomake use of the facility. Through this study, a microcosmic view of one university’s efforts tointernationalize their campus is provided, and there is an impetus for further discussion on thevalue and implementation of self-access communication spaces on university campuses.
Keywords: internationalization of higher education; Japanese universities; policy borrowing;
self-access language learning; study abroad.

	
  

99	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Introduction
Internationalization Outside Japan’s Elite Universities
Case studies looking at the internationalization of university education in Japan have tended tofocus on elite public and private universities, such as those that have received Ministry of
Education (MEXT) funding, first through the Global 30 Project (G30) and more recently as
Super Global Universities (SGU) (Askew, 2011; Ishikawa, 2009; Ishikura, 2015; Shimizu,
2014; Yonezawa & Shimmi 2015). Yet efforts to internationalize campuses are being madeacross the range of universities in Japan. Much like the G30/SGU universities, attracting
students from overseas has been viewed as an important goal for many other kinds ofinstitutions as well, with the bold target set by the government of 300,000 international students
studying in Japan by 2020 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015).
For elite national and private universities in Japan, the motivation to internationalize comesfrom a drive to compete with other knowledge-based economies and their universities to bringin the brightest international talents, a process which in turn, is expected to develop homegrown
students into global jinzai (globally-minded human resources) who can drive Japan’s economic
competitiveness in the 21st century. Yet outside of this small group of elite schools, for the bulkof private universities in Japan (of which there are almost six hundred), the motivation to bringan international student body onto their campuses is quite different.
Demographic changes in Japan have led to a diminishing pool of 18-year-old prospective
applicants and a surplus of university places. As projected by the Ministry of Education, thenumber of undergraduate places reached equilibrium with the number of Japanese of college
age around 2009 (as cited in Kuroki, 1999, p.17). For those not aiming for places at eliteschools, university application now involves contemplation of “the relative attractiveness ofcompeting admission offers from a large number of colleges and universities desperate to fillplaces and generate enough tuition revenue to avoid bankruptcy” (Kinmonth, 2005, p.106). For
these at risk schools, attracting students from overseas is commonly viewed as a way to makeup the deficit of domestic applicants. Yet in reality, bringing in large numbers of international
students is not without prohibitive costs, risks and challenges that prevent this from happening.
As a result, many of these institutions focus their attention instead on the visibility ofinternationalization on their campuses and other conspicuous means by which theirinternational profile can be raised, primarily as an attractor of domestic applicants.
This ethnographic study charts a project undertaken in one such university, to establish an
International Communication Lounge, as a hub of student led intercultural exchange andlanguage learning activities at Kita University (both the name of the university and the lounge
have been changed for the purposes of this study). The ICL has become an on-campus focal
point of internationalization for various stakeholders in the university administration and forstudents. Yet through the process by which this space was established, a number of questions
are raised. What role does a self-access space for language learning and international exchangeplay in the internationalization of a university campus? To what extent has the ICL come tomeet the differing purposes of university administrators and students and what contrasting
notions about internationalization does this suggest about each of them? Guided by thesequestions, this study aims to further discussion on the role of such communication spaces,
which are becoming an increasingly common fixture on campuses in Japan, and simultaneously
provides a window on the state of internationalization at a university on the periphery ofJapan’s higher education elites.

	
  

100	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Background: Kita University and Japanese University Internationalization
Kita University has two campuses: the original campus, in a rural, prefectural setting
approximately 70 kilometers from Tokyo, opened in the 1960s. A second campus wasestablished in the 2000s in a suburb on the edges of the capital. With Japan’s demographic
changes already a concern for universities at that time, the location of the second campus within
the Greater Tokyo area was chosen as a way to gain catchment. Four of university’s five
faculties were to offer their programs at both campuses, increasing the total number of students
from around 2,500, to more than five thousand, 5,343 in 2015 (data from the university’s
website). Although some degree programs face difficulty, overall the university has
successfully maintained enrolment figures, despite the crunch that is hitting universities inJapan.
However, in the same period the university has struggled to attract international students. In
fact in 2004, prior to the new campus opening, the university had 794 international students
enrolled in their undergraduate programs, making it the fourth largest international
undergraduate student body in Japan. Figures published in 2015 show that this figure has fallen
by more than half to 326 (see tables 1 and 2). To put this in context, in the same period theoverall number of international students studying in Japan has steadily increased by more than
20,000 (Japan Student Services Organization, 2015), yet the university has struggled tomaintain the size of its international student body, despite the concurrent doubling of theircapacity through the opening of a new campus.
Sources within the university suggest a major reason behind this is increased competition
among Japanese universities for international talent. They highlight the fact that it has become
easier for students from China and other Asian countries (who have traditionally made up thebulk of the university’s international student body, and continue to do so) to access places atmore prestigious schools. Students who at one time chose this university because they faced
barriers entering other schools, are no longer coming because they now have more avenues
available to them.

	
  

101	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	    Table 1 & 2. Ranking of Japanese universities by number of overseas students in undergraduate
programs, 2003-4, 2014-15 (Asahi Shimbun, 2004, p.147; 2015, p.162)
Japanese universities by number ofoverseas students enrolled inundergraduate programs 2003-4

	  Japanese universities by number ofoverseas students enrolled inundergraduate programs 2014-15

1.   Ritsumeikan APU

1378

1.   Nihon Keizai

3,098

2.   Josai Kokusai1058

2.   Ritsumeikan APU

2,286

3.   Takushoku

818

3.   Waseda

1,8284.   Kita University794

4.   Osaka Sangyo

1,003

5.   Osaka Sangyo

744

5.   Nihon

951

6.   Nihon

716

6.   Meiji

827

7.   Tokyo Kokusai

700

7.   Takushoku

782

8.   Jobu

647

8.   Ritsumeikan766

9.   Kokushikan

618

9.   Meikai752

10.   Jochi

528

10.   Tokyo Kokusai611

11.   Meikai496

11.   Josai Kokusai584

12.   Toyo453

12.   Doshinsha

572

13.   Ritsumeikan

411

13.   Chuo551

14.   Chuo403

14.   Kokushikan

531

15.   Kyushu Sangyo

402

15.   Kyushu Sangyo

526

16.   Ajia

395

16.   Kansai Gakuen

464

17.   Kinki

395

17.   Keio46418.   Kyushu Kokusai394

18.   Daiichi Kogyo

441

19.   Keiai

360

19.   Hokuriku

41620.   Asahi

334	
  

20.   Toyo

414

21.   Digital Hollywood

404

22.   Ryutsu Kagaku

39823.   Shisaikan

359

24.   Osaka Keizai Houka

346

25.   Osaka Kokusai344

26.   Jochi

339

27.   Osaka

336

28.   Shobi Gakuin

332

29.   Kita University

326	
  

102	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  A comparison of tables 1 and 2 would seem to support this view. The total increase in thenumber of international students studying in Japan is clearly seen in the large numbers ofinternational students at the universities that top the 2015 table. As in 2004, all universities inthe top twenty for undergraduate students are private universities: the national universities ingeneral are more focused on recruitment of international students at graduate level (Huang,2015). Prestigious, private G30/SGU universities such as Waseda, Meiji and Keio occupy
places in the top twenty of the 2015 list, when in 2004 they had much smaller numbers ofinternational students. Nihon Keizai, which tops the list with more than three thousand
international students, has not received G30 or SGU funding, but is one university that has
actively sought to distinguish itself as a leader in international student recruitment within thepast 10 years. Within this milieu, Kita is a university that finds itself with a drastically reduced
international student body.
Although there may be other reasons than those cited for the decline, and it may be a different
story at other universities, the difficulties faced by many private universities in Japan arehighlighted by this case. Attracting students from overseas in order to make up for the fallingnumbers of domestic applicants is far from straightforward, and while internationalization is
generally considered to be synonymous with large increases of international students at
Japanese universities (Askew, 2011; Huang 2015), at many schools this is simply nothappening. Increased competition for international talent has left some universities without,and they instead seek other, innovative means to promote internationalization on theircampuses, as Kita University has done through establishing a prominent, on campus space forinternational communication.
Literature Review
Self-access Centers and Conversation Lounges in Japanese Universities
There has been a steady growth of self-access centers (SACs) at tertiary institutions in Asian
countries since the mid 1990s. They first appeared at universities in Hong Kong where they
were modeled on innovative centers at Oxford and Cambridge, and strategically introducedwith government funding in a top-down fashion (Fouser, 2003). In Japan, the development hascome later and mainly in the private university sector. The first SAC at a Japanese university
was established at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) in June 2001 (Cooker,
2010), which has also become a hub of knowledge about self-access through the Japan
Association for Self-Access Learning (JASAL). In the years since, a number of similar
facilities have opened at other Japanese Universities. JASAL currently has 32 university
centers listed in its registry (JASAL, 2016) yet there are certainly more at other universities
that have not registered their center to this list1.
SACs at tertiary institutions may have roots in language laboratories, libraries, language centersor computer rooms (Fouser, p.49), but they are distinguished from such facilities by theirprimary aim and benefit of promoting learner autonomy. Thus SACs can be defined by their
purpose of inspiring students to take responsibility for their own language development(Hadley & Brown, 2007). They can also simulate immersion in a native-speaker environmentby allowing learners to access authentic materials in their language of study, and offer
opportunities to communicate with native speakers or near-native speakers (Gardner & Miller,1999). As a result, they can motivate students by removing potential barriers to learning createdby the demands of university curricula, and help them to overcome the language anxiety that
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1

	
  

The author personally knows of four universities with self-access centers that are not listed.

103	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  they may experience in more formal classroom settings. Self-access also appeals to institutions
because of its flexibility:
It can be used on a large scale or a small scale. It can be conducted in a classroom, in a
dedicated self-access center or elsewhere. It can be incorporated into a language course
or it can be used by learners who are not taking courses. It can function at all learninglevels … It allows individualization but also supports groups. It is not culture specific.
It is not age specific. In effect, self-access learning can benefit all language learners.
(Gardner & Miller, p.11).
However, with a recent boom of new facilities in Japan, there is a notable shift in vision whencompared with earlier SAC models. Although a priority at earlier centers had been to provide
students with a rich variety of resources such as DVDs, graded readers, or test preparationmaterials, these are notable by their absence at many newer centers, where the aim has rather
been to create communication spaces. In fact, early proponents of self-access had tried to shed“a view of self-access which likens it to quiet study or library work” (Gardner & Miller, p.14).
In several cases, self-access center administrators sought to involve students in designing thelayout of learning spaces; an exercise that gives students a sense of ownership of the space andwhich can help to overcome the preconception of a quiet study space (Taylor, 2014). Yet while
many new centers are created in the image of cafes or lounges to promote an environment of
informal or incidental learning, if self-study resources are jettisoned in the process, then there
is a danger that students “misconstrue a SAC as more of a social space than a venue forenjoyable language study” (Hadley & Brown, p.28). A question for consideration as thenumber and range of centers grows in Japan (and one that is pertinent to this study) is whether
a conversation lounge can rightfully be called a self-access center and really shares the sameaim of promoting learner autonomy.
Development of a Conversation Lounge as Policy Borrowing”
Administrators at Kita University were keenly aware of facilities such as the SAC at KUIS andthe growth of communication spaces at other universities in Japan when they decided to import
the concept to their campus. Thus the process of establishing the facility can be viewed as aform of policy borrowing, and is framed in this study through Phillips and Ochs model of ‘Four
Stages of Policy Borrowing in Education’ (2003). This model describes the transfer ofeducation policies from one setting to another through four stages of attraction, decision,
implementation and internalization/indigenization. These are visualized and elaborated in their
cyclical diagram shown in figure 1.

	
  

104	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  

!
!
!
!
!
!

Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	    Stage&1:&Cross"national'Attraction!
Impulses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

Stage&4:
Internalization/
Indigenization•••

Impact!on!
existing!system!
/!Modus&Operandi
Absorption!of!
external!
features.
Synthesis
Evaluation

Political!changes
System!Collapse
Internal!
Dissatisfaction
Negative!External!
evaluation
Novel!Configuration
Knowledge/!Skills
Innovation

Externalizing1
Potentials
•
•
•
•
•
•

Guiding!
Philosophy
Ambitions/!Goals
Strategies
Enabling!
structures
Processes
Techniques

Policy“Borrowing”
In#Education•

Adaption•

Suitability!of!

•

Theoretical•

Practical•“Quick!Fix”•“Phoney”

Stage&2:
DecisionContext•

Speed!of!Change•

Significant!Actors

Support1111111Resistance
National/!Local“Non"Decision”

Stage&3:&Implementation
Figure 1. Four stages of Policy Borrowing in Education. (Phillips & Ochs, 2003)
However, this model was developed in the field of comparative education to look at crossnational transfer, and has mostly been applied to the adaption of education systems acrossborders at the level of national policy. Phillips and Ochs conceived the model out of their own
study of transfer between England and Germany (Ochs & Phillips, 2002), and it has beenutilized in other comparative transnational studies that looked at borrowing of secondary andhigher education reforms at a national level in a number of countries (Chow, 2014; Eta, 2012;
Strouzma, 2012). Yet it has also been used at a micro level, for example to study the import of
the CEFR (Common European Frame of Reference for Languages) to an English program at aJapanese university (Rappleye, Imoto, & Horiguchi, 2011), and has been suggested as a meansof understanding how broad concepts such as learner-centered education transfer acrossborders (Schweisfurth, 2013).
Although administrators at Kita University were importing a model domestically,from otheruniversities in Japan and not directly from abroad, Phillips and Ochs cross-national transfer
model is of relevance in this case. Complexity in the field of internationalization of education
often makes it difficult to delineate clear steps in educational transfer in the current age: “acomplex sequence of ever-changing processes of regional and trans-regional, national andinternational systemization and rationalization in education, sometimes replacing, sometimes
overlapping one another” (Zymek & Zymek, 2004, p.26). Therefore, a model of educational
policy borrowing also needs to be capable of describing the indirect forms of borrowing thattake place at a micro level, often between institutions within one country. As in the case of the
ICL at Kita University, these importers may not even be aware of the outside origin of the

	
  

105	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  policy they choose to import, but are nonetheless bringing in foreign concepts as they makeefforts to internationalize.
Methodology
As one of the few native English teachers among the university faculty, I was asked to join the
project team to establish the International Communication Lounge at Kita University. My
direct involvement provided an opportunity to conduct ethnographic research as a participantobserver or participant as observer. Primarily a participant actively engaged in the work of the
project, the viewpoint is necessarily subjective. Nevertheless, my status as a relative newcomerat the university and the only non-Japanese member of the project allowed a shift to thepositionality of an outside observer in approaching the research questions, with the aim ofgathering qualitative data and writing a detailed narrative description of the process.
From the spring of 2014 when initial meetings took place to discuss the possibility of opening
the lounge, through to the summer of 2015, when plans had been fully implemented; records
were kept of all interactions with others involved in the project during meetings and events
held in the facility, as well as many informal discussions and conversations with staff andstudents. These field notes were then used to map out the establishment process across the first
three stages of Phillips and Ochs model: attraction, decision, and implementation.
In order to evaluate the manner in which the fourth “internalization/indigenization” stage ofthe model had been achieved, semi-structured interviews were conducted in July 2016 withfour key members of the project team, and with a focus group of four students who frequently
used the ICL. Interviewees were selected as representatives of the different stakeholders within
the university who had an interest in the ICL. These interviews help to triangulate the analysis
of previously collected observation data, and are referred to in all four parts of the analysis, as
the interview subjects were asked to reflect on the establishment process, as well as offer theirown evaluation of the role of the ICL and the importance of internationalization within theuniversity. Additionally, as a result of one of the interviews, data about study abroad program
participation was made available, and is included in the findings. Details of the interviewees
are provided in the table below:

	
  

106	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Table 3. Research interview information
Interview

Interviewees

Description

Interview A

ICL administrator

Staff member responsible for day-to-day running of ICL.
Responsible for promoting the center among the student
body and the main liaison for students who use the center.

Interview B

Admissions
staff

officeRepresentative of the university admissions office, involved
in initial meetings to establish the ICL.

Interview C

ICL English instructor

Part-time instructor who conducts extracurricular English
conversation lessons in the ICL

Interview D

DeputychiefInternational
exchange CenterofProfessor who heads the committee of the international
exchange center. Assigned to the position one year after the
ICL had opened, following the retirement of anotherprofessor (referred to as Professor M.).

Interview E

Focus group of four
students.

Members of the student group that organizes events in the
ICL and frequent participants in extracurricular English
classes. All four major in tourism studies, and the group
included one freshman, sophomore, junior and senior. They
are referred to as “freshman student”, “sophomore student”
and so on. All four of them had experience of studying
abroad.

All interviews were conducted in English, but as all of the interview subjects except interview
C were speaking English as a second language, there was some editing for legibility whentranscribing the interview data.
Findings
Stage I: Attraction
When Kita University opened a new campus in 2005, the design of the building included alarge ‘English and Internet café’, which students could use for self-study. However, save forproviding a few computers and English language newspapers, there was little intervention
made to moderate the use of this space, and it received little attention from students for its
intended purposes. In spring 2014, three sections of the university came together with the aimof renovating it: the international exchange center, admissions office, and English faculty. It
was renamed as the International Communication Lounge and activities that would attract
students to use the facility were discussed. Referring back to figure three, the main impulses
from Phillips and Ochs’s model that motivated each of the three sections can be considered asinternal dissatisfaction and negative external evaluation.
The international exchange center’s internal dissatisfaction stemmed from low interest in study
abroad programs among students. The center has exchange agreements in place with
universities in countries including the United States, China, Korea and Portugal. However, few
students at Kita took advantage of these opportunities, and in particular, no student had everbeen sent to the USA as an exchange student. A handful of students each year participated in
	
  

107	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  short-term study abroad programs of up to one month. By increasing student interest in study
abroad through the ICL, and providing English classes in the space to help students prepare fortests such as TOEFL, they hoped to promote both long and short-term exchange programs:
Professor M. … He especially wanted some students to go to the USA as an exchange
student, but the students … they need to pass the English exam to be an exchange
student. So he decided that we will make a place for, how do you say that … students
who want to go abroad, so they can study English if they want or whenever they want.
(Interview A)
For the admissions office, the impulse was a perceived negative external evaluation, especiallyin the eyes of potential students and their parents who might visit on open-campus days.
Members of the office were aware of similar spaces at other Japanese universities, yet notedthat many of those universities they were in direct competition with lacked such facilities. Thus,
developing the visual impact of the ICL as a prominent and vibrant part of the campus was a
strategy whereby they could distinguish Kita from local competitors and make the campus
appeal to prospective students with interest in languages and international exchange:
I guess for nyuushi (admissions) it is for parents of high school students. They reallywant that their son or daughter will have international skills. Like, not only studying
their major, but learning English and some skills to be able to work in an international
environment. They really want their children to be that kind of person. Probably fornyuushi, it is a good thing to attract those high school students. (Interview A).
For nyuushi, it’s a kind of promotion, and we have a tourism department, so it is very
attractive for high school students who want to major in tourism. I think it is the mostimportant for us that we could connect it to the department. (Interview B).
My personal involvement was as a representative of English teachers, for whom internaldissatisfaction stemmed from the difficulty of reforming the university’s English curriculum.
Although the university has no language majors, languages are given importance within the
curricula of all departments and English classes are a requirement for all first and second year
students in every department. This however, results in large classes of between 40-60 students
with varying levels of ability and motivation, as more than a thousand students must beprocessed through several required English courses each year. Motivating students to be willingto communicate in class under these circumstances can be a challenge, and it can also be
difficult for those students who do have ability and an interest to fully benefit from the classes,
as students attested to during the focus group interview:
I sometimes feel those [required] classes are too easy or it is just useful to revise my
English … My major is international tourism, but I think it’s not enough to touch theinternational, because almost all students are Japanese and can’t speak English well in
the class. So I wonder about is it is really international? I think it is not so international.
(Interview E, freshman student)Interviewee: It was difficult for me to ask a question [in required classes]. That is thedifference.
Interviewer: Why do you think it was difficult to ask questions?
Interviewee: The atmosphere is like… very strict. If I say something then everyone will
pay attention to me. (Interview E, sophomore student)
	
  

108	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  While many English teachers among the faculty are interested in reforming the English
programs, institutional constraints make it difficult to enact the large structural changes thatwould be needed for any significant impact. The ambition therefore, with the ICL was toprovide small, student-centered classes that are a supplement and alternative to the compulsory
classes in the English curriculum to benefit those students with high motivation who were being
let down by the curriculum.
Stage II: Decision
From these initial impulses that were discussed informally in spring 2014, the three sections
came together to make plans to renovate the English and Internet café and launch theInternational Community Lounge from September.
The Four Stages Model suggests four possible reasons that bear on the decision to import aforeign model: theoretical, practical, quick fix, or phoney:
Is it used to illustrate a theoretical solution to improve the situation at home, or toinnovate reform? Is the foreign education policy or practice discussed as a realistic andpractical solution, or as a ‘quick fix’? Or is it used in the decision-making process as a‘phoney’ solution to ‘scandalise’ or ‘glorify’ current practices at home? (Ochs andPhillips, 2004, p.10-11)
Given some of the impulses discussed in the previous section, it could be construed that thedecision to open the ICL was a quick fix, or phoney decision. Rather than tackling the problems
that were the causes of dissatisfaction with the English curriculum, was this just an attempt topaper over cracks? Was the purpose to create an image or façade of internationalization forparents of prospective students, rather than something that would genuinely benefit students?
While the respective incentives of each stakeholder can be interpreted in this way, the mostbasic reason for the decision was the fact that a space already existed on the campus and was
not being used. For this reason, it can be said that ultimately the decision to establish the ICL
was made for practical reasons. As noted in the literature review, self-access centers operate
on a principle of autonomous learner participation. Therefore, once the decision was made toopen the ICL in the autumn semester, the major concern for all stakeholders was how students
could be attracted to the space, and motivated to continue to use it:
Before we had the space called English café there, but actually if we go there we could
just see some students eating or sleeping or chatting with their friends in Japanese ... So
we really wanted to change this atmosphere when we opened the ICL and we worried
how we can get students to go there. (Interview A)
Stage III: Implementation
The ICL was officially opened in September 2014, for the start of the fall semester. The room
was divided into two sections: a lounge area with sofas, computers in private booths, a selectionof English language magazines and television screens that stream English language content;
and a study area with a whiteboard and round tables to accommodate small group classes.
The first semester was something of a trial period in which the aim was to promote the space
widely on campus and gauge how many students could be expected to participate in classes
and events. From the start of the 2015 academic year, plans would be consolidated.

	
  

109	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  Three activities were trialed in the first semester. First, a native English instructor was hired
part-time to provide English communication classes three evenings a week. These classes wereextra-curricular, but were provided for free and were open-access. At first these classes werequite unstructured, as it was difficult to gauge how many students would be interested andwhether they would keep attending. There were numerous challenges as the instructor noted:
I didn’t know how many students were going to be there week to week. We had lots ofstudents show up for the initial introduction classes, and then far fewer actually coming
to the lessons, and also a real mixture of levels in the classes which made it moredifficult to prepare for… there was no real way to prepare for it in the beginning.
(Interview C).
Once it was clear that there were enough students to make it viable to run the classes, acurriculum could be developed and these challenges were dealt with:
We ironed those things out and there is more structure now as well, and that helps
students because they know what to expect as well. Now we have split it into threelevels so we have a beginner class that is really for beginners… Separating the
beginners and the intermediate has encouraged more students to keep coming.
Interview C).
Secondly, a committee of student volunteers was formed and initially tasked with arranging
themed lunchtime events and parties. Over time, these events have become more ambitious andfrequent and include a weekly English lunch, lessons run by students, an annual speech contest
and excursions to sightseeing spots in Tokyo where students volunteer to assist tourists. The
committee has also gradually taken over the responsibility of recruiting students to the ICL,and taken control of the space, making requests to the university administration about how thespace is used:
They really wanted to have a place to learn by themselves: collecting and eating andlearning together like that. So their first request was to use the ICL only for themselves,
without other students. A space only for ICL students… Then they said they want tohave someone always in the ICL to help for English or learning English, like a staff
member. (Interview A).
Thirdly, online conversation lessons were provided on computers in the center. Students could
sign up for these and access these lessons via a video conferencing software platform.
However, these did not prove to be popular and were phased out from the 2015 academic year.
Referring back to the third stage of the model, the transition from decision to implementationis met with support and resistance. In this case, the establishment of the ICL happened quickly
and with little resistance. In a sense, this was possible because the motivations of the threemajor stakeholders supported each other. Before the ICL was established, without the mutual
benefits that were garnered from it, their agendas each faced significant resistance within theuniversity. Reforming the university English curriculum for example, to create smaller, morecommunicative classes has met with resistance to treating English differently from otheruniversity classes, and as a result institutional constraints limit and shape what is possible
within university language classes.
However, these barriers do not apply in the context of the ICL, where greater freedom andflexibility are allowed, due to the classes being held outside of the curriculum, and this wasmade possible because of the agendas of the other two stakeholders. Likewise, the admissions

	
  

110	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  office and international exchange center were constrained in their ambitions to attract
internationally minded students or to promote exchange programs, but were able to further
these aims through their mutually supportive agendas.
Stage IV: Internalization/ Indigenization
Criteria for attainment of this fourth stage of Phillips and Ochs model include synthesis,
absorption or impact on the existing system. In order to evaluate these impacts, semi-structured
interviews were conducted as a follow-up to the initial study, two years after the ICL opened.
Two themes that emerged from these interviews were the effect of the ICL on student
motivation to study English, and to study abroad.
Motivation to study English
On average between twenty and thirty students a week join the English classes and events in
the ICL, and there was some concern that this was not enough, and that more could be donebroaden the appeal of the ICL and engage students:
I hope that more students are interested in the ICL or English or the opportunities,
because we prepare opportunities, but the students don’t respond very much to ouraction. I think we can do more. (Interview D).
However, there was recognition that the student committee had a positive impact onmaintaining the motivation of the group of students who use the ICL:The committee is really important for ICL. Because the students … how do you say
that? This is really difficult to keep their motivation for learning English because
English is a language and today if I learn ten words, probably tomorrow I will not use
these ten words. When they join the group they have an opportunity to use English with
their senior or when they go to a volunteer activity. The opportunity is really important.
(Interview A).
As well as motivating each other, individual students show the self-motivation to take chargeof their own learning that self-access centers aim to promote:The biggest stand out student in terms of utilizing my being there would have to be K.
He was already one of the best students in terms of ability, on top of that he is very
motivated and if no-one else is around when he shows up he is always ready with a listof specific things he wants to talk about like grammar points or vocabulary or someother problem. There is him, and one or two others like that. (Interview C).
However, for the majority of students this is not the case:
A lot of them are still quite intimidated by learning English. Without a teacher there I
don’t know how many would be there off of their own backs. (Interview C).
Therefore, while some students show the characteristics of self-motivated, autonomous
learners and are attracted to the space, it is questionable whether the ICL as a conversation
lounge actually develops these characteristics in students. Perhaps if the space had dedicatedfull-time staff, or a library of self-study materials as traditional self-access centers do, learnerautonomy would be promoted more effectively. Nevertheless, it has become a gathering place
for students with an interest in English, and as a social space, it has created an atmosphere inwhich they motivate one another.

	
  

111	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	    Motivation to study abroad
Data on the number of students studying abroad each year was made available as a result of
one of the interviews, and is shown in table 4:
Table 4. Annual student participation in study abroad programs (university’s own data usedwith permission)
2007

2008

2009 201020112012 2013

2014

2015

Long-term university exchange
Programs (up to 1 year)

1

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

Independently arranged study
abroad (2 to 6 months)

3

4

5

0

2

1

6

7

3

Short-term programs (up to
one month)

1

3

4

4

16

9

4

20

17

Total

5

8

11

6

19

13

11

28

21

While participation in long-term exchange programs remains limited to one or two students ayear, the table shows a notable rise in the number of students participating in short-term study
abroad programs of up to one month since the ICL opened in 2014. However, given that there
are only two years showing this increase, those interviewed were hesitant to attribute this riseto the effect of the ICL:Many students go and went abroad who are studying in ICL. It means if someone comesto the ICL they are interested to go abroad. But the number of students … although thenumber of students studying abroad increased in the last two years, I cannot say if it isreally because of the ICL. (Interview A).
We should take into consideration that the number of students studying at this campus
increased since 2007, so perhaps we cannot say if the ratio is larger. (Interview D).
Changes in the data over a longer period are needed before a positive effect on the number ofstudents studying abroad can be claimed as a result of the opening of the ICL. However, what
can be claimed is that the ICL has given students who are interested in studying abroad a place
to meet and gather information from one another:
After I enrolled in the university I found out about that ICL system. I thought it sounds
good, so I tried to go. And I can practice conversation there and develop my English.
Also, I was able to share information about how to go abroad or how to improve English
skills. There are motivated students in the ICL so they made me more motivated ... I
wanted to go abroad but I just didn’t know how to go abroad. After I went to ICL I met
one older student, and he taught me a lot about how to go abroad, so then I went to thePhilippines last year. (Interview E, sophomore student).

	
  

112	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Discussion
Utilizing Phillips and Ochs model of four stages of policy borrowing in education as a lensthrough which to view qualitative data about the establishment of an international
communication lounge provided some insights into the broader questions about
internationalization that preface this study, and certain conclusions can be drawn about them.
What role does a self-access space for language learning and international exchange playin the internationalization of a university campus?
It can be concluded the main impact of the ICL becoming “internalized” on the campus has
been to bring together students with an interest in languages and study abroad, where they
motivate each other and exchange information. Indirectly, the agendas of the three major
stakeholders have created a cycle of attraction: Students with an interest in languages andforeign cultures are attracted to the university by this prominent international space; they areprovided with classes to improve their English communication skills and a social environmentthat encourages them to communicate, and become interested in studying abroad. This in turnraises the international profile and visibility of internationalization on the campus, which is an
attractor of new students.
The visual representation of Phillips and Ochs model (figure 1) also represents policy
borrowing as a cycle, in order to illustrate the fact that once a system or program becomesinternalized or absorbed, then in turn it becomes a catalyst for new impulses for change. These
impulses can be the new knowledge and skills that administrators have gathered from theestablishment process, and also new internal dissatisfactions, as they look to broaden the appealof the ICL and increase student participation in classes and events, or develop the facilities tosupport autonomous learning more effectively.
To what extent has the ICL come to meet the differing purposes of university
administrators and students, and what contrasting notions about internationalization
does this suggest about each of them?
Insights relevant to this question emerged from the interview data, as all interviewees wereasked why they thought it was important for the university to be more international. Theiranswers provide insights on their differing viewpoints as stakeholders. For the administrator
who works closely with students on a day-to-day basis in the ICL, internationalization of theuniversity gives students a more broad-minded way of thinking, and is linked to cross-cultural
understanding:This goes for all universities in Japan I think, but after graduating university they reallyneed the way to think about something… I want them to have a skill to think aboutsomething not only for the Japanese person, but for everybody. The ICL is really helpful
for that kind of thinking. Like, many students are there and many countries students are
there and they have an opportunity to talk with them. Many students haven’t been to
somewhere outside of Japan in our university. Learning other countries language is not
only the way to understand what do you say, but also why do you think so. (Interview
A).
For the representative of the admissions office the benefits of internationalization are moreclosely related to the employability of students, who need direct experiences, in order todevelop their identity:

	
  

113	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Interviewee: The ultimate goal of university is that finally we have to work … jobhunting. So the activities of ICL should become the advantage for students when they
are job-hunting.
Interviewer: So you would like the ICL to support students, for example for TOEIC?
Interviewee: TOEIC is important but it is more important for them to understand othercountries’ cultures and they can get their Japanese identity as well. In the future wehave to work with the other countries so we have to get used to the circumstances orsituation. We should challenge them to have more experiences. (Interview B).
For the professor who heads the international exchange center, internationalization is of
intrinsic value as a learning experience:
It is basically a very natural thing to me. It is a basic thing to be open. Globalizationmeans normalization for me. It is very natural … If you see people, you learn. If you
see different people you learn more. So as university students or teachers or staff, an
opportunity to see a more global world is a learning opportunity, so why not? … If they
speak and understand English, they can get more opportunities, they can understandmore deeply how the others see the world. So it is just important. It is very natural forme. (Interview D).
While the perspective and emphasis of each stakeholder is slightly different, there is a common
theme running through the three quotations and they are all essentially saying something very
similar: All of them view internationalization as an asset to students in the future, not simply
in terms of gaining language skills or higher test scores, but through experiences that broaden
their perspective and give them a stronger understanding of their identity in the world.
Conclusion
The question in the title of this paper,“conspicuous internationalization?” was the spark forundertaking this research, and essentially it is a question of whether this communication lounge
was developed to internationalize the university campus or just to give the appearance ofinternationalization: a kind of tatemae internationalization to appropriate a Japanese term forcontrasting a person’s true feelings with displayed behavior. A narrative was constructed
through Phillips and Ochs model of education policy borrowing, which gave insights into theimpulses, decision-making, implementation and internalization of the ICL. While some of theimpulses for this may have been superficial: to create a highly visible international space on
the campus; the ICL has developed into a hub for students who are attracted byinternationalization, where they can improve their language skills, gather information about
studying abroad, and motivate one other.
This narrative is limited by the subjectivity inherent in a participant observer approach, yet it
is an approach that has generated a rich, qualitative description of the process, which would be
useful to other university administrators in Japan or elsewhere interested in developing similar
spaces. Although it has been possible to map out the complete cycle of the establishment
process in the two-year period covered by this study, the conclusions are somewhat tentative,
and potential areas for future research would be to look at the longer-term effect that this space
has on study abroad rates or actions that are taken by administrators to promote autonomous
learning. Furthermore, as demographic changes in Japan start to affect universities in Japan
more severely, the strategies and stances that are taken towards internationalization will be aninteresting area for future research.

	
  

114	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

References
Asahi Shimbun (2004). Daigaku rankingu: 2004 (University Rankings: 2004). Tokyo: Asahi
Shimbun Shuppan.
Asahi Shimbun (2015). Daigaku rankingu: 2016 (University Rankings: 2016). Tokyo: Asahi
Shinbun Shuppan.
Askew, D. (2011). The Japanese university and internationalization: The global 30 project,foreign students, and institutional survival. Asia Pacific World, 2(1), 95–120.
https://doi.org/10.3167/apw.2011020106
Chow, A. (2014, June 15). Replanting the flower in different soil? A critical analysis of
education borrowing in Hong Kong. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from International
Journal of Education, http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ije/article/view/5815
Cooker, L. (2010). Some self-access principles. Studies in Self-Access Learning, 1(1), 5–9.
Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/jun10/cooker
Eta, E. A. (2012, September). EERA: Educational borrowing in practice: The implementationof the Bologna process in Cameroon. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://www.eeraecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/6/contribution/16000
Fouser, R. J. (2003). Self-Access Centers (SAC) in university-level foreign language
education: Theoretical and practical considerations. MM News (Kyoto University
Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Committee for Multimedia
Education),6(1),47–69.
Retrieved
August
20,
2016,
from
http://fouser.yuldo.net/writing/miyako/unit02/unit2paper.pdf
Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: From theory to practice (3rd ed.).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, R. (2007). The concept of kokusaika and Japanese educational reform.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 71–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720601133413
Hadley, G., & Brown, H. (2007). Improved language learning through self-access. Nigata
University of International and Information Studies Journal of Research, 10, 27–35.
Retrieved
August
20,
2016,
from
http://cc.nuis.ac.jp/library/files/kiyou/vol10/10_hadley.pdf
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Huang, F. (2015). The internationalization of Japan’s academy across research and nonresearch universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(4), 379–393.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315574102
Ishikawa, M. (2009). University rankings, global models, and emerging hegemony: Criticalanalysis from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 159–173.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308330853
Ishikura, Y. (2015). Realizing internationalization at home through English-medium courses
at a Japanese university: Strategies to maximize student learning. Higher Learning
Research Communications, 5(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i1.237
115	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

Japan Association for Self-Access Learning (JASAL). (2016). Japan language learning spaces
registry.
Retrieved
August
20,
2016,
from
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rCh3Vt6zzVy0U_zik39wpqc9CPGLbrkO7oG1
vH1pClc/edit#gid=0
Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO). (2015). International students in Japan 2014JASSO.
Retrieved
August
20,
2016,
from
http://www.jasso.go.jp/statistics/intl_student/data14_g_e.html
Kinmonth, E. H. (2005). From selection to seduction: The impact of demographic change on
private higher education in Japan. In J. S. Eades, R. Goodman, & Y. Hada (Eds.), The“big bang” in Japanese higher education: The 2004 reforms and the dynamics of change(Japanese Society Series). Victoria: Trans Pacific Press.
Kuroki, H. (1999). Meisō suru daigaku (Universities loosing direction). Tokyo: Ronsōsha.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2015, April ). Study in Japan comprehensive guide. Retrieved
August 20, 2016, from http://www.studyjapan.go.jp/en/toj/toj09e.html
Ochs, K., & Phillips, D. (2002). Comparative studies and “cross-national attraction” ineducation: A typology for the analysis of English interest in educational policy andprovision in Germany. Educational Studies, 28(4), 325–339.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569022000042372
Ochs, K., & Phillips, D. (2004). Processes of educational borrowing in historical context. In D.
Phillips & K. Ochs (Eds.), Educational policy borrowing: historical perspectives (pp. 10–11). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory
and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006032000162020
Rappleye, J., Imoto, Y., & Horiguchi, S. (2011). Towards “thick description” of educationaltransfer: Understanding a Japanese institution’s “import” of European language policy.
Comparative Education, 47(4), 411–432.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.559698
Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred education in international perspective: Whosepedagogy for whose development? London: Routledge.
Shimizu, T. (2014). Internationalization of general education in Japanese universities - Thecase of The University of Tokyo. The Korean Association of General Education.
Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Article/NODE02509944
Stroumza, C. (2012). Loyola eCommons policy-borrowing and globalization challenging
French universities in the 21st century. Retrieved August 20, 2016, fromhttp://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1728&context=luc_theses
Taylor, C. (2014). The transformation of a foreign language conversation lounge: An action
research project. Bulletin of Shotoku Gakuen University, 53, 1–16. Retrieved August 20,
2016, from http://www.shotoku.ac.jp/data/facilities/library/publication/gaigo53-1.pdf
Yonezawa, A., & Shimmi, Y. (2015). Transformation of university governance throughinternationalization: Challenges for top universities and government policies in Japan.
Higher Education, 70(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9863-0

116	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

Zymek, B., & Zymek, R. (2004). Traditional- national- international: explaining theinconsistency of educational borrowers. In D. Phillips & K. Ochs (Eds.), Educational
policy borrowing: Historical perspectives (pp. 25–35). Oxford: Symposium Books.

117