Internationalization, nationalism, and global competitiveness: a comparison of approaches to higher education in China and Japan

Abstract

This paper explores the ways in which policies for national identity formation and internationalization interact to complement and contradict each other in the context of global higher education. These themes are explored by comparing recent policies in two countries in East Asia, a part of the world currently on the rise in the global hierarchy of higher education (Altbach in Tert Educ Manag 10:3-25, 2004; Marginson in High Educ 4(1), 2011b). China and Japan are presented as case studies, with a focus on the ways the two countries have pursued both higher education internationalization and nationalist agendas through education more broadly. The paper then turns to a discussion of the factors that might explain these approaches as well as the dilemmas that arise from the interaction of these policy agendas in the context of global higher education. The paper argues that while increasing global competitiveness through HE internationalization may prove beneficial to individual nation-states in the short term, countries in East Asia should consider the potential pitfalls of becoming too singly focused on competitiveness at the expense of mutual understanding and peaceful international relations in the region. Furthermore, the continued push to create uncritical nationalistic citizens threatens to undermine the goals of internationalization and may be detrimental to efforts at HE regional cooperation and integration. The paper concludes with recommendations that the two countries consider the potential benefits of global citizenship education and the expansion of regionally focused study abroad programs to help develop graduates with the global competencies conducive to both national competitiveness and regional cooperation.

A Qualitative Exploration of On-Campus Experiences of English-Speaking Graduate International Students at a Leading Japanese University

“…Although this conflict between foreign elements and national characteristics is an ongoing challenge for many non-English-speaking developed countries (Hammond, 2016), in Japanese HE this conflict poses greater concerns as a result of Japan's long history of maintaining its homogenous background (Hirasawa, 2009). On the other hand, in Japan, the historical viewpoint that sees the English language as a foreign element (Fujimoto-Adamson, 2006;Hashimoto, 2013), and the traditional grammar-based teaching style of English, have caused challenges in the English communicative ability/desire of Japanese students and faculty (Koike & Tanaka, 1995).…”

“…Despite the government's recent efforts, an inward-looking approach to the internationalization of HE has developed diverse meanings for kokusaika, turned it into a buzzword (Aspinall, 2010;Goodman, 2007), and may be harmful for Japan's long-term internationalization goals (Aspinall, 2010;Burgess, 2012;Hammond, 2016;Ishikawa, 2011). Although there were a few successful examples of English-speaking international student on-campus support (e.g., Ishikura, 2015), many researchers have reported on a call for the government and the universities to redefine kokusaika along global lines, and to provide a better support environment for the international students and faculty (Bradford, 2016;Bradford & Brown, 2017;Brown, 2017;Goodman, 2007;Hashimoto, 2013;Heigham, 2014;Horie, 2002;Kuwamura, 2009;Tsuneyoshi, 2005;Walker, 2005).…”

Talk, silence and anxiety during one-to-one tutorials: A cross-cultural comparative study of Japan and UK undergraduates’ tolerance of silence

“…Japan's recent push towards the internationalisation of its higher education system (see Hammond 2016;Huang 2014) and the UK's continuing dependence upon the fees generated by international students, coupled to the two societies' very different cultures of learning (Cortazzi and Jin 2013), all mean that Japanese-Anglo staff-student interactions are far from uncommon nowadays and when they do occur, there is the potential for a certain amount of misunderstanding and frustration on the part of participants.…”

Untitled

“…With decreased governmental oversight, universities attempt to accomplish effective staff evaluation, partially by setting individual Key Performance Indices. Hammond (2016) suggests that pressure on higher education staff is rooted in the effort to remain internationally competitive in response to economic globalisation, which is linked back to Stakeholder Theory. For Murasawa (2015), the absence of significant results is not surprising when analysing the impact of evaluation on research input, such as grants, and output, such as publications and patents, and on teaching orientation.…”