Opinion & Perspective
The Effect of Limited-Term Contracts on
Teaching Standards at Tertiary-Level
Education in Japan
Christian Burrows
International Pacific University, Okayama
Abstract
This article argues that the introduction of limited-term contracts(sentaku ninkisei) among faculty members at Japanese universities has
directly contributed to a decline in the standard of language instruction
for university students. The main consequence of this employment
reform, indeed one of its central aims, has been to impact on job
security among foreign faculty members. This has led to some faculty
members adopting teaching activities which lack pedagogic value andmerely pander to student expectations which are often based on nonacademic criteria.

The Academic Review
The 1995 University Deliberation Council’s 4th Report (Daigaku
Shingikai), commissioned by the Ministry of Education, proposed
certain changes in relation to employment positions at Japanese
universities and colleges. These proposals were passed by the Diet
in 1997, the main aim of the legislation being to increase the use oflimited-term contracts by correcting the faults that are wrong withhigher education because of the problems caused by immediate
tenure (Ministry of Education, 1995). It is accepted that such measures
64

OnCUE Journal

are necessary to “energize and enliven” (ibid) teaching and research
practices among teaching staff who are usually given tenure statusfrom the commencement of their position and generally cannot bedismissed until reaching mandatory retirement age. By introducing
limited contracts it is argued that competition among faculty members
will be encouraged, leading to a reinvigoration of higher education.
Japanese labor law now recognizes two different types of contracts:
those for a limited term (a specific date of termination is required) andthose without any specific time limitation. Limited-term contracts can,in theory, be renewed indefinitely as long as there is mutual agreement
between the employer and the employee. This has led to fears that
university positions, especially tenured ones, which have always
existed as a means to prevent dismissal on the basis of ideologicalrather than professional grounds, will be undermined as job security
becomes more conditional on annual university approval. In addition,
the report states that this situation is also “desired” for contracts at not
only national and public universities but private ones as well. With
the passage of this law contract employment became an option forJapanese teachers as well, although protest from faculty members has
prevented most universities from implementing it. It is still the casethat many full-time Japanese academics are in tenured positions, whilemost full-time foreigners are in contracted, non-tenure track positions
despite Article 3 of the Labor Standards Law prohibiting any kind of
discrimination based on nationality.

The Effects of the Ninkisei System
Theoretically, contracted employees are protected under Japaneselabor law even if the employer wishes not to renew the contract once
it has expired. Employees who want to continue are legally entitled
to expect their contract to be renewed as the law does not allow for
dismissal due to contract expiry once renewal has occurred. “After
65

Burrows

such a contract has been repeatedly renewed, it will resemble acontract without a fixed period” (Sugeno, 1992, p. 389). This entitles
all contracted workers, including university teachers, to many of
the rights extended to tenured positions, including freedom fromarbitrary dismissal. Unfortunately, it remains unclear how many times
a contract has to be renewed before an employee can expect his/her
contract to be automatically renewed. At least four or more renewals
appears to bind the employer to continue the contract which thenoffers protection under sections of the labor law covering fair andlegal reasons for dismissal. This extends to requiring “an objective andlogical reason based upon social convention” (ibid) for the dismissalof an employee.
What happens if a dispute arises during the term of the contract
remains more nebulous. There have been several reported cases offoreign language teachers who have not had their contracts renewedon tenuous grounds ranging from, “lack of freshness” to “being too
Japanese” (Fox, Shiozawa, & Aldwinckle, 1999). Whether such criteria
constitute “social convention” remains contentious. It seems clear that
if universities are able to justify non-renewal on such grounds, despite
legal protection after having worked for several years, then job security
will become almost non-existent. Also, a system where academics canbe dismissed, through non-renewal, for any reason (e.g. age, gender,
opinions etc.) will inevitably impact on how faculty members performtheir duties and would appear highly detrimental to the quality ofteaching. As a consequence, if faculty members see that the law infact offers little protection, they will be more inclined to ingratiatethemselves with the university to reduce the prospect of non-renewal.
It is this ingratiation which is most likely to influence how they behavein the classroom. The fear of non-renewal almost ensures that teachers
are going to pay attention to how they are perceived by the students
as these will directly influence how student course evaluations arecompleted.
66

OnCUE Journal

Course Evaluations
The evaluation of university teachers by their students, introduced
after the Ministry of Education (1991) called for “Self-Check and
Evaluation” within universities, enables students to assess their teacher
on a variety of criteria. These evaluations have taken on an evengreater significance since the Ministry of Education proposed linking
them directly to negotiations on employment contracts. The University
Deliberation Council went even further by recommending that oneof the factors involved in decisions regarding contracts should be
the evaluations of teachers carried out by their students at the end ofeach semester. This means at IPU, for example, students are required
to complete an anonymous evaluation form which covers issues from“how much they benefited from the course” to “the enthusiasm of theteacher” (International Pacific University, 2007). However, a body ofresearch suggests that Japanese students use different criteria based on
cultural-personal expectations to evaluate the “standard” of the teacher
and course. Many of these criteria may be unknown or of different
priority to non-Japanese faculty members leading to evaluations which
may not strictly assess criteria directly related to the pedagogical meritsof the class. However well these teachers teach in their own terms,
they may not live up to their students’ image of a “good teacher.” If
these evaluations can influence positions then it seems unrealistic thatteachers will pay little attention to what is written, which may leadsome to adopt teaching practices which attempt to influence how they
are completed by directly addressing students’ expectations.

Student Expectations
Foreign teachers in Japan are likely to encounter instances ofstudent concern or dissatisfaction whenever instructional activities
are inconsistent with preconceived beliefs about learning. Althoughstudents’ knowledge and attitude are the key to language success, their67

Burrows

knowledge about their role in the learning process has been shaped andmaintained by other beliefs they hold about themselves as students.
This knowledge has been acquired throughout their language learningand has contributed to their beliefs, insights and concepts. For many
Japanese students entering university, this has resulted in negative
attitudes towards English due to expectations of teacher-centered,rote learning, and grammar memorization. These assumptions andprejudices, which underlie their attitudes towards their role in learning
must be changed, a process termed “de-conditioning” (Holec, 1981).
Any resistance to a new teaching method will be because of these
beliefs. Consequently, when they encounter a communicative language
class they can often experience difficulty adapting to the change oflearning styles and understanding exactly what is expected of them.
Japanese students’ lack of strategic knowledge about how toapproach communicative language learning (one of the most prevalent
language teaching methodologies) can be observed in class as theyquickly complete speaking exercises as opposed to using the tasks asa means to develop their communicative and linguistic proficiency. It
is common for many Japanese students to write their answers during
speaking activities instead of using the time more productively, as they
assume their answers will be checked and that having the “correct”
answer is essential. The learner independence which the communicative
approach affords students contrasts sharply with their schooling,
throughout which they are evaluated by tests, where memorization
is emphasized at the expense of other skills, especially creativity andproblem solving. Such teacher-centered learning develops a relianceon the teacher and can lead to confusion when asked to perform
independent, creative, autonomous activities, resulting in somestudents to even question whether they should complete the speaking
exercise in English or Japanese.
A further contributing factor (admittedly for all teachers) is that someuniversity students display what has been referred to as an apathetic
68

OnCUE Journal

attitude which can manifest itself by a loss of academic interest once
they enter university (McVeigh, 2002). The resulting frustration that is
felt by teachers about the level of application of Japanese university
students is well documented. Common theories for this lack ofmotivation range from universities being a reward for studying so hardin high school, to them being a 4-year respite before the demands ofcorporate Japan. The commonly accepted explanation is that students
are aware that even with the least amount of effort graduation is almost
certainly guaranteed.
It therefore seems reasonable to assume that a combination ofthese factors has the possibility to cause frustration with the teacher
and the class, which could be reflected in the comments made in thestudent evaluations. The potential for negative feedback is probably
strong enough to force faculty members lacking job security to gosome way to (a) meeting students’ expectations, and (b) overcoming
the apathy. Concern that a lack of participation in the lesson due to lackof strategic knowledge, combined with a general lack of willingness
because of apathy may force teachers to adopt ways to appease these
two elements out of fear that they reflect a lack of interest in the course
which could also be reflected in students’ comments.

The “Nice” Teacher Syndrome
The situation is further complicated by suggestions that Japanese
students may apply different standards to Japanese and non-Japaneseteachers. There have been several recent studies which have attempted
to analyze Japanese students’ concept of a “good” teacher, all ofwhich have concluded that the criteria on which an opinion is based
differs when applied to foreign faculty members. These studies tried toquantify what attributes students thought were important for teachers
to possess, with responses implying that Japanese students perceive
non-Japanese as less “academic” than their Japanese colleagues.
Shimizu’s research focused specifically on foreign English teachers,
69

Burrows

asking university students to say which “qualities and attributes they felt
important in their foreign and Japanese English teachers” (1995, p. 7). In
the case of foreign English teachers, the two qualities students felt weremost important were how easy they were to get acquainted with (28%)
and how entertaining they were (26%). These two qualities appear torefer more to personality traits than to academic or pedagogical skills.
Hadley & Yoshioka Hadley (1996) have mentioned other common
attributes, including additional “non-scholaristic” features such as:“kindness,” “friendliness,” “cheerfulness,” “fun,” “enthusiasm,” and“humor.” This contrasts sharply with results from the assessment ofJapanese English teachers, as the most important quality mentioned was
knowledge of the subject area (34%), followed by pronunciation (33%).
Other attributes included: “being demanding,” and “professionalism,”
items which did not appear for non-Japanese teachers. Some
respondents did mention “kindness” and “sense of humor,” but theseanswers were less frequent, indicating that they were less of a priority
than for non-native English teachers.
Clearly, expectations of a “good” teacher vary in some respects
from culture to culture, so while teachers from outside Japan may notnecessarily disagree with the expectations of their Japanese students,
they may have different priorities in conceptualizing the kind of teacher
they would like to be.

Implications
Within many university language courses, learning for a grade or asa requirement openly limits language learning to what is perceived as
the bare minimum, and the learners do not equate classroom learningwith successful acquisition. If students are socialized to associate
studying with test-taking and monotonous training, then there is little“use-value” in foreign language classroom learning (Gillette, 1998). It
almost results in a self-perpetuating vicious circle: when students see

70

OnCUE Journal

graduates who lack linguistic competence, it effects their own motivation
as they think it is (a) impossible to make significant progress and (b) notnecessary in order to graduate (Mori, 1999). This is further compoundedby grading structures weighted towards attendance, which can resultin students who possess limited linguistic proficiency achieving scoresin the 80s and 90s. It is in this environment that teachers are unlikely
to apply credible pedagogic approaches. With one eye on contract
renewal some might be more willing to engage in the type of lessons
that meet students’ expectations but do not ask the right questions
intellectually. Why would any teacher risk jeopardizing any futurecontract opportunities by adopting accepted teaching methodologies
which could increase the likelihood of receiving negative course
evaluations? It would seem that a combination of limited tenure andstudent evaluations could combine to influence teachers to attempt tomanipulate how they are perceived by students. This is already evident
at universities where teachers need little coercion to show a movie orplay games which serve no pedagogic purpose but appease students’sense of being a “good teacher.” The implication for foreign teachers inJapanese universities is clear: doing your best as a teacher may not beenough to get you a glowing evaluation from your students if they areusing criteria to judge you which differ significantly from your own.

Conclusion
Whatever your opinion is in regards to “energizing andenlivening’”education (Ministry of Education, 1995), the government’s
hope of revitalizing teaching and research by encouraging competition
among all teachers is not an unwelcome initiative. However, it seems
counterproductive to introduce a system which appears to restrict theopportunities of foreign teachers despite aims (of the legislation) “forJapan to be able to contribute to the world’s technological researchand the training of able people” (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 15)
which acknowledges will require even more foreign educators.
71

Burrows

Effects of the increased competition can already be seen in anationwide survey of foreign professors, published in The Japan Times,
which revealed that those who do the most work are the younger, lessexperienced teachers either on limited-term or part-time contracts,
rather than tenured professors. On average, the study found that
universities tend to hire older professors for the tenured and part-timegroups, and younger professors for the limited-term groups. The article
goes on to question the real motive for such changes by arguing that:
Universities appear to be employing (limited term and parttime) instructors less to improve education than to save onlabor costs. For limited-term positions, the data lead to theconclusion that universities are making deliberate efforts toemploy younger, less-experienced instructors whom they
then quickly replace within five years. (“Limited-term foreign
professors,” 2004)
It is also likely that limited-term contracts affect other areas.
Teachers will lack the motivation and the funds to conduct research ifthey are not guaranteed secure employment, and will also have to put
much energy into searching for future employment. It further impinges
upon intellectual freedom since only those on contracts can be fired
if they speak their mind. More importantly, it causes job insecurity,
which for teachers with families is a heavy burden to carry.
A more suitable system appears to be the system employed byuniversities in the USA which employ teachers on a longer term
contract (5 years being the average), with renewal being dependent on
a range of criteria (evaluations, publications, research, etc). Without
the reassurance of tenure faculty members are increasingly likely tominimize the risk of their contract not being renewed, which ultimately
influences the quality and motivation of faculty members. Faced withthe prospect of job-threatening student evaluations of their teaching72

OnCUE Journalin the next few years, non-Japanese teachers at Japanese universities
need to arm themselves with as much information about their students’
expectations as possible.

References
Fox, M.H., Shiozawa, T., & Aldwinckle, D. (1999). A new system ofuniversity tenure: Remedy or disease? The Language Teacher,23(8), 13-15, 18.
Gillette, B. (1998). The role of learner goals in L2 success. In J. Lantolf& G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language
research (pp. 195-215). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hadley, G., & Yoshioka Hadley, H. (1996). The culture of learningand the good teacher in Japan: An analysis of student views. The
Language Teacher, 20(9), 53-55.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
International Pacific University. (2007). Student evaluations.
Okayama: IPU Press.
McVeigh, B. (2002). Japanese higher education as myth. Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(1991). Shin-daigaku setchi kijun. Tokyo: Author.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(1995). Daigaku Shingikai Touhon. Tokyo: Author.
Mori, T. (1999). Dokuritsu gyousei houjinka ni hantai suru (Opposing
the dokuritsu gyousei houjinka). Joukoukai Nyu-su, 4, 1-2.
Shimizu, K. (1995). Japanese college student attitudes towards English
teachers: A survey. The Language Teacher, 19(10), 5-8.
Sugeno, K. (1992). Japanese labor law. Tokyo: University of Tokyo
Press.
Limited-term foreign professors seen cornering workload but notbenefits. (2004/12/08). The Japan Times.
73