Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The internationalization of higher education as a site of self-positioning : intersecting imaginations… Tsukada, Hanae 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_spring_tsukada_hanae.pdf [ 2.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0103382.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0103382-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0103382-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0103382-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0103382-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0103382-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0103382-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0103382-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0103382.ris

Full Text

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION AS A SITE OF  SELF-POSITIONING: INTERSECTING IMAGINATIONS OF CHINESE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITIES IN JAPAN    by   Hanae Tsukada   B.A., Niigata University, 1997 M.A., University of Minnesota, 2002   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 	 	 in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES   (Educational Studies)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)    November 2013   ? Hanae Tsukada, 2013   ii  Abstract  This study examines the construction of Chinese international students? identities in the context of the internationalization of two Japanese higher education institutions. It employs a case study design. Two Japanese higher education institutions were selected because they had large international student bodies and English-medium programs. Both of these characteristics are central to recent Japanese internationalization policies and programs. At each institution, interviews were conducted with: 1) Chinese international undergraduate students; and 2) faculty and staff members who held leadership positions at their institutions in the area of internationalization. By using the concepts relating to imagination, the study analyzed how students saw their identities and future possibilities in and through their participation in international education in Japan. It also investigated how the institutions saw their social existence and translated it into their internationalization discourses and practices.   An analysis of the intersection of the faculty/staff participants? accounts of internationalization and international students? stories illuminated the challenges and the potential of internationalization. Firstly, the findings revealed that the imaginations of both the institutions and students were shaped by their social positions and dominant social imaginaries of globalization. How the institutions with contrasting levels of academic prestige and international students with different socio-economic backgrounds participated in internationalization illuminated their self-positioning strategies in a competitive world. The closely linked self-positioning strategies of the institutions and students indicated the challenge of internationalization in disrupting the existing material and ideological conditions.  Secondly, students? stories indicated the potential and the limitations of the institutional environments, which are marked by many international students and the use of the English   iii  language. Some students described their transformative learning experiences emerging from the social, cultural, and political complexity of Japanese society and of their institutional settings. However, the majority of students tended to be disengaged from such complexity by seeing themselves living in an imagined pristine multicultural community on their campuses and feeling detached from the rest of Japanese society. The study concludes that internationalization in the paradigms of competition and a ?creation of cultural diversity and a containment of cultural difference? (Bhabha, 1990, p. 208) holds limited potential for social transformation.     iv  Preface  This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, H. Tsukada. The fieldwork reported in Chapters 5-8 was covered by the Certificate of Approval (Minimal Risk) by The University of British Columbia (UBC) Office of Research Ethics Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) on November 1, 2010. UBC BREB Number: H10-02630.   v  Table of Contents Abstract...................................................................................................................................... ii Preface....................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ ix List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ x Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. xi Dedication ............................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Research purpose and questions. ............................................................................................ 5 Theoretical framework............................................................................................................ 6 My personal trajectory to the research.................................................................................... 8 Research design. ................................................................................................................... 13 Layout of the dissertation...................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................... 18 Globalization and internationalization: Conceptual problems.............................................. 19 Manifestation of the problems of internationalization at a macro level. .......................... 21 Imagined communities.......................................................................................................... 25 Social imaginary. .................................................................................................................. 27 Social imaginary in policy. ............................................................................................... 29 Social imaginary in globalization and internationalization. ................................................. 30 Internationalization within a Western imaginary of globalization. .................................. 33 Internationalization within a neoliberal imaginary of globalization................................. 34 International organizations as policy actors.................................................................. 36 Competition and cooperation........................................................................................ 38 Internationalization at an institutional level.......................................................................... 40 Imagined communities for students. ................................................................................. 41 Imagined communities for higher education institutions.................................................. 42 International students? identities. .......................................................................................... 42 Imagination in global student mobility. ............................................................................ 43 Biographical solution of systemic contradictions. ........................................................ 44 Global student mobility as a manifestation of a classed imagination........................... 45 Students? imagination embedded in a neoliberal imaginary of globalization............... 46 International students? identities in contact zones. ........................................................... 48 Imagined communities in contact zones. ...................................................................... 48 Self-positioning in a contact zone................................................................................. 50 Summary. .............................................................................................................................. 51 Chapter 3: Historical, Social, and Policy Contexts of Internationalization in Japan....... 54 Historical roots of the discourse of kokusaika. ..................................................................... 55 The discourse of kokusaika................................................................................................... 56 Nationalism in the discourse of kokusaika. ...................................................................... 58 Cultural nationalism: The nihonjinron.......................................................................... 59 Political nationalism...................................................................................................... 61 Critical debates on nationalism in the discourse of kokusaika. .................................... 62   vi  Englishization as a way of internationalization. ................................................................... 64 Critical debates on Englishization. ................................................................................... 68 International student policies. ............................................................................................... 71 The 100,000 International Student Plan............................................................................ 71 The 300,000 International Student Plan............................................................................ 75 International students as ?high quality? human resources. ........................................... 78 Supporting policies and programs. ............................................................................... 80 Discussion. ........................................................................................................................ 81 The Japanese higher education system. ................................................................................ 83 A close relationship with the Japanese economy.............................................................. 85 Demographics of international students in Japan. ................................................................ 88 International students in Japan?s cultural diversity........................................................... 90 Chapter 4: Literature Review................................................................................................ 93 Internationalization of higher education at the institutional level. ....................................... 93 The internationalization of Japanese universities. ............................................................ 97 Global student mobility....................................................................................................... 101 Chinese international student mobility. .......................................................................... 104 Historical relationship between China and Japan. ...................................................... 105 Chinese international student mobility to Japan. ........................................................ 107 International students? experiences and identity formation in the host society. ................. 109 Imagined international student community by the host society...................................... 110 International student community as imagined by international students........................ 112 International students? experiences and identity formation in Japan.............................. 115 Summary. ............................................................................................................................ 119 Chapter 5: Methodology....................................................................................................... 124 Methodological approach and study design........................................................................ 124 Cases. .................................................................................................................................. 127 College of International Liberal Arts at Kasuga University. .......................................... 129 Hokuto Global University............................................................................................... 132 Participants.......................................................................................................................... 135 Faculty and staff members. ............................................................................................. 136 International students. ..................................................................................................... 137 Data collection. ................................................................................................................... 142 Institutional documents................................................................................................... 143 Interviews with faculty/staff members............................................................................ 143 Interviews with international students. ........................................................................... 144 Researcher subjectivity. ...................................................................................................... 145 Data analysis. ...................................................................................................................... 147 Trustworthiness................................................................................................................... 149 Credibility. ...................................................................................................................... 149 Transferability................................................................................................................. 151 Dependability and confirmability. .................................................................................. 152 Summary. ............................................................................................................................ 153 Chapter 6: Institutional Discourses and Practices of Internationalization ..................... 155 Physical institutional environments. ................................................................................... 157 Genesis of the two international institutions: context and impetus. ................................... 158   vii  Institutional relationships with national policies on internationalization. .......................... 162 Institutional discourses and practices of internationalization. ............................................ 166 Diverse student body with international students. .......................................................... 166 For institutional identity as ?international? institutions.............................................. 167 For a multicultural learning environment: The creation of a ?small world.? ............. 168 For economic competitiveness: A ?treasure house? for global human resources. ..... 174 For academic competitiveness: ?It?s OK that we become like Wimbledon.? ............ 181 Use of languages: Japanese and English......................................................................... 186 Different language policies with the same imagination.............................................. 187 English and Japanese for institutional competitiveness.............................................. 190 Summary. ............................................................................................................................ 191 Chapter 7: International Students? Identity Formation through Global Mobility ........ 195 Growing up with images and memories from Japan. ......................................................... 197 Studying overseas as a common, possible, and ideal life option. ....................................... 201 Japanese universities initiating the imagination of Japan as a destination country. ........... 205 Pursuit of solution versus prestige. ..................................................................................... 207 Coming to HGU: A biographical solution of systemic contradictions in China. ........... 208 Convenient solution to the competitive university entrance exam in China. ............. 208 Strategic solution to the future labour market competition. ....................................... 210 Coming to CILA: ?Because it?s famous.? ...................................................................... 212 Japanese higher education system as a sorting and reproductive mechanism of class. .. 215 Emerging imagination of a life as transnationals: Desire for a ?colourful life.? ................ 217 Desire for a tourist life style: ?Over the world!? ............................................................ 220 Longing for the imagined West as elsewhere. ................................................................ 222 Life between privilege and a lack thereof....................................................................... 225 Commodification of international education experiences. ............................................. 226 Summary. ............................................................................................................................ 229 Chapter 8: International Students? Identity Formation through Experiences in Japan       ................................................................................................................................................. 232 Overview of the contexts of students? experiences in Japan. ............................................. 233 International institutional environments versus ?real Japan.? ............................................ 237 A Japanese-speaking community versus an English-speaking ?fantasyland.?............... 239 Questions of Englishization. ....................................................................................... 240 Life with/in Chinese communities: ?Yappari ch?gokujin (Of course, Chinese).?............. 245 Institutional mechanism for the formation of a national group identity. ........................ 247 The imagination and specificity of ?the same background.?.......................................... 250 Detached sense of self from Chinese students or China. ................................................ 252 Self-positioning with Japanese peers as Other.................................................................... 256 Japanese peers as Other: ?The Japanese don?t care about education.?........................... 256 Marginalization by Japanese peers: ?We are not the same as them, they think.?........... 258 Self-positioning with socio-political tensions in Japan. ..................................................... 261 Experience of being ?other Asians?: ?Japanese people really like Western people.? .... 263 Life in political tensions.................................................................................................. 266 Acceptance of socio-political tensions in Japan: ?It doesn?t trouble me.? ..................... 268 Missed and emerging learning opportunities for socio-political engagement. ............... 270 Missed opportunities in international-student-friendly institutional settings. ............ 270   viii  Emerging learning opportunities in on-campus and off-campus contact zones. ........ 273 Summary. ............................................................................................................................ 276 Chapter 9: Discussion of Findings and Conclusion ........................................................... 279 Emerging imagined communities in global student mobility. ............................................ 282 Actors? aligned self-positioning within global and domestic systems................................ 284 Creation of cultural diversity and students? dis/engagement. ............................................. 290 Conclusion. ......................................................................................................................... 295 Implications......................................................................................................................... 297 Implications for practice. ................................................................................................ 298 Implications for policy.................................................................................................... 301 Contributions. ..................................................................................................................... 306 Limitations. ......................................................................................................................... 307 Suggestions for future research........................................................................................... 309 Reflection............................................................................................................................ 311 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 315 Appendices............................................................................................................................. 347 Appendix A: Third party recruitment request (English)..................................................... 347 Appendix B: Third party recruitment request (Japanese) ................................................... 350 Appendix C: Invitation letter for faculty/staff members (English)..................................... 353 Appendix D: Invitation letter for faculty/staff members (Japanese) .................................. 355 Appendix E: Consent form for faculty/staff members (English)........................................ 356 Appendix F: Consent form for faculty/staff members (Japanese) ...................................... 358 Appendix G: Invitation letter for international students (English) ..................................... 360 Appendix H: Invitation letter for international students (Japanese) ................................... 362 Appendix I: Invitation letter for international students (Mandarin) ................................... 364 Appendix J: Consent form for international students (English) ......................................... 366 Appendix K: Consent form for international students (Japanese) ...................................... 368 Appendix L: Interview protocol for faculty/staff members (English) ................................ 370 Appendix M: Interview protocol for faculty/staff members (Japanese)............................. 373 Appendix N: Interview protocol for international students (English) ................................ 376 Appendix O: Interview protocol for international students (Japanese) .............................. 379 Appendix P: Original Japanese quotes ............................................................................... 382   ix  List of Tables Table 1 Overview of international student participants.............................................................. 140	 ?Table 2 Individual international student participants.................................................................. 141	 ?Table 3 Educational and professional backgrounds of student participants' parents.................. 216	 ?   x  List of Abbreviations AHCE  Ad Hoc Council on Education  CILA  College of International Liberal Arts (pseudonym) CND  Canadian dollar FLE  Fundamental Law of Education GATS  General Agreement on Trade in Services  HGU  Hokuto Global University (pseudonym) IELTS  International English Language Testing System JASSO Japan Student Services Organization  JET  Japan Exchange and Teaching  LDP  Liberal Democratic Party METI  Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry  MEXT  Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology  OECD  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization  WTO  World Trade Organization     xi  Acknowledgements My journey as a doctoral student at a university in a foreign country has been a privilege and a liberating experience. At the same time, the day-to-day experience of unlearning what I had previously learned and acquiring a new set of cultural and theoretical languages has been like sinking and swimming alone in a dark, deep, and turbulent ocean. However, as I finally pull my head above the water and see the shore, I feel that all the memories of those who have been part of the journey are coming back to me. There is nothing that makes me feel more humbled and grateful.   I first would like to acknowledge and thank the Musqueam people for allowing me to study and nurture new friendships on their traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory where UBC is housed. I am grateful for their generous hospitality for making this experience possible.   My sincere appreciation goes to my co-supervisors, Dr. Donald Fisher and Dr. Ry?ko Kubota, both of whom accepted the supervisory role over my work at a time when my academic journey was in its most unsettling stage. I especially thank Dr. Fisher for his advice and scholarly expertise in higher education research and for directing me to helpful literature. I owe a special thank you to Dr. Kubota for her detailed feedback on and critical insights into all of my dissertation drafts, not to mention numerous other documents, and for the positive spirit with which this feedback was given. My deep gratitude also goes to my committee member, Dr. Pierre Walter, who has always supported me with his respect and his genuine interest in my research. I feel extremely privileged and fortunate to have taken this academic journey with them to a place that I could not have imagined upon departure.   I am deeply indebted to all the participants in this study for their generous cooperation with the interviews and follow-up inquiries. I very much appreciate their kindness and the insights, and expertise they shared with me. I would also like to thank numerous other people who helped my fieldwork in various ways, such as by connecting me with key people in the two institutions, assisting me with recruiting student participants, and by taking the time to talk with me when I was lost in the unfamiliar process of fieldwork. I am especially thankful to those faculty members who gave me access to and helped me navigate their institutions. This study would not have been possible without them.    I am grateful to UBC for its generous financial support through the Graduate Entrance Scholarship, the Tuition Fee Award, and the International Partial Tuition Scholarship. I also thank the Centre for Japanese Research (CJR) at UBC for a CJR research grant. I also owe much gratitude to Dr. Bernard Mohan and Ms. Anja Brandenburger for generously providing me with housing for eight months, which meant a lot to a student living in an expensive city like Vancouver.    Various campus communities have enormously enriched and supported my doctoral student experience at UBC. I thank faculty and staff members in the Department of Educational Studies for their academic and administrative support throughout the years. I am grateful to Dr. Amy Metcalfe in the department for giving me the opportunity to work as her research assistant.   xii  My sincere gratitude also goes to the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology where I have been blessed with inspiring colleagues and professional opportunities. In particular, I thank Dr. Judy Chan, Dr. Yael Harlap, and Ms. Amy Perreault for their incredibly supportive mentorship. They have created a welcoming and collaborative space where I could explore new areas of education and grow as both a learner and an educator. I am also thankful to the CJR, especially its Director, Dr. Julian Dierkes, for providing me with an office space and opportunities to connect with other researchers whose work focuses on Japan. My sincere thank you also goes to Dr. Y?ko Shibata at the CJR who has constantly expressed her kindness to me with much sincerity and generosity.   Although writing can be a lonely process, I have been fortunate to have supportive writing group members from my doctoral program cohort (Gen Creighton, Tara Gibb, Erin Graham, Isabeau Iqbal, Maryam Nabavi, Nora Timmerman, and Linh Tran) and from the Department of Educational Studies (Andr?e Gacoin, Wendy Hartford, and Roselynn Verwoord). I am indebted to their constructive feedback, editorial support, and fellowship. My gratitude also goes to Lily Gu and Ming Hui Xu who kindly translated my participant recruitment materials from English to Mandarin. I also thank Erin Williams for editing this entire dissertation.   Surviving this challenging journey would have been utterly unimaginable if I had not met friends who have been there for me with constant sincerity and compassion through both thick and thin. The comradeship as well as friendship of Kozue Matsumoto, Ee-Seul Yoon, and Dilek Kayaalp has made the whole graduate school experience not only bearable but also memorable. I also thank Alejandra Dominguez for her genuine friendship and her family for their warmest hospitality during my numerous visits.    Last, but far from least, I would like to express my heartfelt thank you to my family, especially my parents, Motohiro and Motoko Tsukada, for their unconditional love and support. Words cannot describe how grateful I am to them for giving me a safe and loving foundation for life. It was because of this foundation that I could throw myself into an ocean full of unknowns and keep going. They make me feel rooted and blessed.    xiii  Dedication To two unique women, Akan and Dottie, who loved me and taught me what it is to live true to myself. And to my nieces, Sae and Hina, and my nephew, Y?go, for your futures.  1  Chapter 1: Introduction In the 1980s, following Japan?s remarkable economic success in the global market, numerous words referring to kokusai (international) began to appear in Japanese society as fashionable buzzwords, including kokusai jin (international person), kokusai shakai (international society), and kokusai kankaku (international sensibility). The popularity of these words seemed almost uncontainable. To illustrate the peculiar popularity of these words, Ebuchi (1997) pointed to the prevalence of business names listed in the telephone directory that included the word, kokusai, including even ?kokusai pachinko? (international pachinko1 parlors) and ?kokusai dorai kur?ningu? (international dry cleaning) (p. 38). The term, kokusaika (internationalization), also emerged alongside these kokusai buzzwords and became a popular slogan in educational and economic reforms during this time in Japan.  Today, these kokusai-related words have lost their novelty, and the slogan of kokusaika in the area of education reforms in Japan has also been subject to scholarly criticism and skepticism. For example, internationalization has come to mean different things to different actors in Japan. As Goodman (2007) states, ?Everyone supported the idea of ?internationalisation,? but what was exactly meant by the term was far from clear? (p. 72). As I discuss in greater detail in subsequent chapters, other scholars have looked deeper into the multiple meanings of kokusaika and discovered that not only have multiple ideologies (e.g., nationalism), realities, and practices been smuggled into the vague, and yet still popular, slogan of kokusaika, but these ideologies, realities and practices are often competing and paradoxical (Kubota, 1998, 2002; Mochizuki, 2004; Tsuneyoshi, 2011; Yoshino, 1997). Despite the vague and incoherent conceptualizations of kokusaika, kokusaika remains central to Japanese higher                                                 1 Arcade game    2  education reforms, and the higher education policies and practices that were informed by the discourse of kokusaika set the stage for this dissertation.  The contemporary process of kokusaika in Japanese higher education and the popularization of the discourse in Japan began under the administration of former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone. In 1983, the Japanese government launched the 100,000 International Student Plan under the slogan of making an ?international Japan (kokusai kokka nihon)? (Rivers, 2010, p. 443). This policy aimed to increase the number of international students at Japanese higher education institutions to 100,000 by the year 2000. Since then, increasing the number of international students has been a main pillar of the internationalization of the Japanese higher education system. Twenty-five years later, in 2008, the Japanese government announced a subsequent international student policy, the 300,000 International Student Plan, with the goal of hosting 300,000 international students by the year 2020 (Ministries of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [MEXT]; Foreign Affairs; Justice; Health, Labour and Welfare; Economy, Trade and Industry; Land, Infrastructure and Transport, 2008).  Just as the Japanese government intended, the number of international students at Japanese higher education institutions continues to rise. In 2009, the number reached its highest point in history, 132,720 students,2 which includes those who are enrolled in graduate schools, universities, junior colleges, professional training colleges, and university preparatory courses3 (Japan Student Services Organization, 2010c). Over 75% of these international students are enrolled in undergraduate or graduate programs offered by Japanese universities. Over 90% of international students come from Asian countries, and students from the People?s Republic of                                                 2 Includes 11,546 short-term (less than six months) non-degree-seeking international students. 3 University preparatory courses are for those who have had less than 12 years of high school education in foreign countries.   3  China4 constitute by far the largest international student population in Japan, accounting for 59.6%, followed by Korea (14.8%) and Taiwan (4.0%) (Japan Student Services Organization, 2010c).  When international students are key actors of kokusaika, what are their actual experiences of kokusaika in Japan? What do their experiences in Japan mean to them? What does kokusaika look like when seen from international students? points of view? Some may also wonder how Japanese universities interpret the meaning of kokusaika and implement it and for what purpose. Others may wonder why kokusaika has attained such a high level of popularity in Japan despite  lacking a clear definition.  As I demonstrate in Chapter 3, the literature on kokusaika and its historical development process emphasizes that kokusaika has been the basis of Japan?s self-positioning strategy. However, there still is a dearth of knowledge about the self-positioning strategies of the other major actors of kokusaika who are considered in this study, namely Japanese universities and international students, and the intersections between the institutional and student actors. These research gaps can be summarized in the following three points. First, studies have demonstrated that Japanese universities see internationalization as a way for them, and for Japan more generally, to position themselves in the domestic and international arenas of higher education and research (Goodman, 2007; T?hoku University, 2008; Yokota, ?ta, Tsuboi, Shiratsuchi, & Kud?, 2006). While these studies provide a valuable overview of Japanese higher education institutions? approaches to internationalization, there are few qualitative studies on the matter. As a result, existing knowledge about how Japanese universities see their position and seek to position themselves, through internationalization, in the world of higher education in Japan and                                                 4 Includes Hong Kong and Macau. I will use the term China hereafter in this dissertation.    4  beyond, lacks depth. In addition, as mentioned above, increasing the number of international students has been a major focus of internationalization policies in Japan for nearly three decades. Yet, we still know very little about how institutional actors involved in internationalization view the Japanese government?s internationalization policies and international students and then translate their view into institutional discourses and practices of internationalization.    Second, numerous scholars, primarily in Anglo-Saxon country settings, have framed international students? participation in international education as an identity construction process. They have studied how international students work to position themselves in the world through their participation in international education (Baas, 2010; Doherty & Singh, 2005a; Rizvi, 2005; Waters, 2009a) and how they identify themselves in relation to host country communities (Beoku-Betts, 2004; Doherty & Singh, 2005a; Kenway & Bullen, 2003; Koehne, 2005). These studies locate international students in unequal power relations within the international field of higher education (Altbach, 2004) and in the host society. There are few equivalent studies that examine Japan as a host country, even though scholarly attention has focused on the significant presence of Asian international students in Japan, particularly those who are from China, their motivations for coming to Japan, and their experiences in Japan (Asano, 1997; J. Chen & Takataya, 2008; Duan, 2003; Shiratsuchi, 2007; Tsuboya, 2010). These studies tend to be descriptive and offer little analysis of the power relations that are part of these students? experiences. As a result, it is unclear how these students exercise their agency to position themselves in and through their international education in Japan.  Third, studies about the internationalization of Japanese universities and international students? experiences in Japan have been conducted in isolation from each other. Consequently, there is a lack of contextualized understanding of international students? experiences and identity   5  construction in the current internationalization of their host universities in Japan. Connecting international students more closely with their Japanese universities is important when Japan and Japanese universities invoke the popular slogan of kokusaika to recruit more international students. When we have a window into how kokusaika is understood from these stakeholders? points of view, we will finally be able to start understanding in a more tangible way the meaning of kokusaika, including both its challenges and its potential.   Research purpose and questions. Based on the research gaps identified above, this study examines the construction of international students? identities in the context of the internationalization of Japanese higher education institutions. While investigating the internationalization from the institutions? points of view, the study analyzes how international students experience the internationalized Japanese university settings and how they position themselves in and through their participation in international education in Japan. By exploring the intersections of the internationalization of Japanese universities and the construction of international students? identities, the study aims to uncover some of the challenges and potentials of the internationalization of Japanese universities that might not have been discussed in the existing literature. The questions that guide the inquiry are as follows:  1) How do Japanese universities see their social existence and translate it into their internationalization discourses and practices?  a) How are international students positioned in the universities? internationalization discourses and practices?  b) What is the relationship between the internationalization of the universities and the internationalization policies of the Japanese government?    6  2) How do international students see their identities and future possibilities in and through their international education in Japan?  a) What drives international students? desire to participate in international education in Japan and specifically at Japanese universities?  b) How do international students experience and position themselves in Japanese universities and Japanese society?  c) How do their experiences in Japan shape how they imagine their futures? Theoretical framework.  Imagination is an overarching concept in this study. Imagination should not be equated with illusion or fantasy, and while it can be a property of individuals, it can also take a collective form. Appadurai (1996) distinguishes imagination from fantasy, and describes that a collective form of imagination can lead to action, as follows: The idea of fantasy carries with it the inescapable connotation of thought divorced from projects and actions, and it also has a private, even individualistic sound about it. The imagination, on the other hand, has a projective sense about it, the sense of being a prelude to some sort of expression, whether aesthetic or otherwise. Fantasy can dissipate . . . , but the imagination, especially when collective, can become the fuel for action. It is the imagination, in its collective forms, that creates ideas of neighborhood and nationhood, of moral economies and unjust rule, of higher wages and foreign labor prospects. The imagination is today a staging around for action, and not only for escape. (p. 7)  Highlighting the collective form of imagination and its role in social processes, scholars have developed concepts such as imagined communities (Anderson, 1991) and social imaginary   7  (Taylor, 2004). The concepts of imagined communities and social imaginary resonate with each other because both concepts express our imaginative capacity to perceive our social existence and our future possibilities. As I will elaborate in Chapter 2, while the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, there is a nuanced difference between them, and I use the two concepts to understand different aspects of internationalization.  Anderson (1991), who introduced us to the concept of ?imagined communities,? argues that what we think of as nations are in fact imagined ?because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion? (p. 6). For Anderson, this is to say that communities are a socially constructed idea, rather than a reflection of reality. ?Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined? (Anderson, 1991, p. 6). While Anderson?s original conceptualization of imagined communities is concerned with explaining the role of imagination in nation-building and nationalism, Norton (2001) applies the concept to an educational setting. Specifically, Norton uses the concept to understand how we see our social existence and invest in learning in order to belong to a new community, transcending time and space. As Anderson sought to understand why people?s sense of belonging to an imagined political community (the nation) became so powerful that millions were willing to sacrifice their lives for the imagined community, the role of the individual is not absent in his conceptualization of imagined communities. However, while Anderson?s focus is on explaining the mechanisms through which people?s collective sense of belonging to a nation as an imagined community was developed (e.g., territories traversed by pilgrimages and print), Norton?s use of the concept of imagined communities emphasizes individuals? desire and agency to belong to their envisioned communities. I draw on Norton?s use of imagined communities to   8  understand how actors in the internationalization of Japanese higher education see their social existence in relation to their imagined communities, as well as to immediately accessible communities, and how they exercise their agency to affiliate themselves with the communities they aspire to join.  By contrast, the concept of social imaginary solely refers to a collective form of imagination and emphasizes a normative sense of our social existence shaped by hegemonic ideology and discourse, while also holding out the possibility of an alternative imaginary to counteract hegemony (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). I use this concept to explain how and why actors in the internationalization of Japanese higher education have come to imagine the possibility of joining particular communities. I also turn to this concept to illuminate how and why certain internationalization policies and practices have become dominant in Japanese higher education. In essence, by using these ideas relating to imagination, I illustrate self-positioning strategies of the actors involved, namely Japan, Japanese universities, and international students, and the imaginations that they bring into the process of kokusaika. My personal trajectory to the research. My doctoral studies, including this research project, reflect my own struggle to find my voice and sense of self that were lost in my na?ve and uncritical participation in the benign discourse of the internationalization of higher education. I spent my adolescence in the 1980s in Japan immersed in the popular discourse of kokusaika. As the discourse of kokusaika implies a positive change or even progress, internationalization meant nothing but a ?good thing? to me for a long time. I still recall, during my first study abroad experience in Ontario in 1995, the thrill of thinking about many future possibilities opening up to me. I learned to speak English, I had a friendly host family who treated me as part of their own family, and I became friends with   9  wonderful people from different parts of the world, people with whom I would have never met if I had stayed in my rural hometown in Japan. I could not imagine anything more exciting. In 2000, I embarked on my Master?s study in the United States with a goal of working in the field of international education, and I landed a position as an International Student Advisor at a predominantly white university in 2002. I was excited about the opportunity to work as part of the very same world of internationalization of higher education that had brought so many incredible learning opportunities to my life.  However, five years later, I left the job feeling confused, disappointed, and frustrated. On the one hand, I was, and always will be, grateful for the opportunities and support to learn and grow during those years. On the other hand, I was frustrated with the lack of critical engagement of international educators, including myself, in their work. And yet, due to my insufficient analytical language, I could not spell out what I felt was problematic. Only after six years have I finally come to understand what those feelings were, why they mattered, and how they now relate to this study. The international student office where I worked referred to international students as ?cultural informants,? and often invited them to be guest speakers at various intercultural understanding workshops for university faculty and staff members. I also on occasion served as one of the speakers. Initially, it was refreshing and empowering to know that international students? stories like mine were heard and valued. However, as I established my professional and personal life in the United States, I started to see myself more as a member of American society than as a guest or a cultural informant. Yet, I gradually learned that a non-white non-native English-speaking foreign woman did not easily qualify for such membership. At the end of the day, I was still seen as different, exotic, or ?interesting.? With a growing awareness of my   10  marginal social position within American society, I began to feel that it was not enough to simply appraise cultural informants? ?interesting? cultural perspectives and their resilience in the face of all the challenges of living in the United States. I once asked my colleagues why it was that we would not do anything differently, especially in light of the stories the students told. Since we were not making any changes in our work to support our students better, I felt as if we were listening to their stories only for our own sake, either to enjoy their authentic cultural narratives or to put ourselves in a safe position of being an ?open-minded host? with listening ears. After some discussions, however, we concluded that any change needed to begin with ?baby steps.? During my entire time working in that office, we hardly went past the mere baby step of just listening. My time in the United States coincided with the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the aftermath. My colleagues passionately argued against the US government?s tightening of immigration measures insisting on the value of diversity that international students brought to American universities. However, as my office increasingly engaged in international student recruitment after 9-11, several questions began to surface in my mind: Why do we need more diversity? Isn?t this country already diverse enough? How are we engaging with the diverse people around us, including domestic minority students? Nevertheless, I did not know what I wanted to achieve by challenging my colleagues? good intentions to welcome, rather than block, more international students.  Bennett and Bennett (1994) succinctly explain the shared sentiment, which I myself could not articulate at that time, regarding diversity in the field of international education and its disengagement from domestic diversity in the United States as follows:   11  It may even be suggested that international program administrators somehow find it easier or ?safer? to deal with ?exotic? learners from faraway places than to confront the very complex issues of domestic oppression of people of color, gays, lesbians, and women. (p. 150) Within this paradoxical sentiment, I could not find a space for a critical dialogue that would go beyond comfortable cultural learning. I wanted to engage in the social and political complexity of international students? identities and experiences, and I realized that talking about power relations, such as the issues of privilege, was essential for that. Yet, I did not know how to initiate and deliver conversations on such socially contentious issues in an effective manner. My attempts at such conversations more often resulted in silencing rather than empowering myself. With a few exceptions, my colleagues would usually conclude those conversations by politely thanking me for sharing my thoughts. They would also attribute my sensitivity to insidious power relations to my Japanese cultural background, which emphasizes ?reading between the lines,? and ensuring that I did not question their motives or integrity. The confusion and frustration that I felt at that time were very similar to those of a teenager awakening to contradictions in society and yet having no adult to talk to about it.  Despite my colleagues? good intentions and kind words, I left the office wondering if my existence there meant anything more than having a traditional Japanese doll sitting at the front desk. My presence there was welcomed and even celebrated as long as I acted as an appreciative guest or a cultural informant without problematizing anything. I was rewarded well for playing the role. In return, however, I lost my voice and sense of self as an international student, educator, and above all as a human being.    12   This marginal sense of self that I felt in the United States, and in a slightly different way in my subsequent life in Canada, led me to wonder how much I really knew about international students in Japan, the country I still called home. Rather than critiquing North American society, where I felt powerless, studying international students in Japan seemed to be a more sensible choice for me. The combination of the research context (Japan) and the subject group (international students) resonated most with my sense of self at the time. Yet, during my research process, I wondered numerous times whether I was the right person to conduct this research, and I still wonder to what extent the sense of resonance and belonging that I felt to the research subjects was just part of my imagination.   Nonetheless, this research project has taught me about the interrelated nature of the internationalization of higher education which is embedded in the web of global and local power relations. My research participants, the country of Japan, all the people with whom I worked in the United States, and myself all form a constellation of actors of internationalization occupying multiple social positions and constituting different power relations with one another. For example, on the one hand, as an international student and in many other capacities, I often find myself in a marginal position in North America due to my racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. On the other hand, I am endowed with tremendous privilege; I am a globally mobile student from a so-called developed country, and I am pursuing a doctoral degree at an English-speaking Canadian university that occupies a privileged position within the uneven global field of higher education (Altbach, 2004). This set of privileges puts me in an elevated position in relation to many international students in Japan, particularly those who come from developing countries. With this particular researcher subjectivity that I bring to the study, I situate international students, Japanese universities, and Japan in global and local power   13  relations. This study represents my humble first attempt to understand the complexity of internationalization and the actors in it, instead of uncritically promoting internationalization merely as a ?good thing? or even as a requirement of globalization.   Research design.  This study employs a case study design (Gerring, 2007; Yin, 2003). Using the extreme-case selection method (Gerring, 2007), I selected two private Japanese higher education institutions that have been extremely successful in implementing the ideas of internationalization proposed by the Japanese government. The institutions that I selected are: Hokuto Global University (HGU) and the College of International Liberal Arts (CILA) of the Kasuga University. These institution names are pseudonyms. HGU and CILA were established, after the year 2000, as ?international? institutions that: a) recruit a large number of international students and faculty members; and b) provide degree programs that can only be completed in English, both of which are still rare in the Japanese higher education system, and which recent Japanese internationalization policies and programs have aimed to promote further.   While similar in some ways, the two institutions hold contrasting institutional profiles. CILA is part of the Kasuga University, a prestigious comprehensive university located in one of Japan?s urban areas. In contrast, HGU is a smaller and less prestigious university located in a rural area.   The study targeted two participant groups at each institution: international students and faculty and staff members. For the international students, by adopting purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2007), I selected the most representative international student population at Japanese higher education institutions, namely, those who were self-funded degree-seeking undergraduate students from China who were also humanities and social science majors enrolled at private   14  universities (Japan Student Services Organization, 2010c). I further narrowed down the sample group to those who were in or beyond the third year of their undergraduate studies. I made this selection based on the assumption that these more senior students, compared to students at earlier stages of their studies, had more time to make sense of their experiences in Japan and to contemplate their future plans. As to faculty/staff participants, I selected individuals who held leadership positions at their institutions in the area of internationalization, whether it was in student recruitment, academic affairs, career support, or central administration.    I administered semi-standardized interviews (Berg, 2007) with the two groups of participants who qualified using the above sampling criteria: 27 international students (15 at HGU and 12 at CILA); and 15 faculty/staff members (seven at HGU and eight at CILA/Kasuga). I provide further details of the study, including the methodological approaches and my data collection and analysis strategies, in Chapter 5. Layout of the dissertation.  Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical foundation for the study. To articulate why the concept of imagination is crucial in internationalization research, I begin by problematizing how internationalization is conceptualized in relation to globalization in major international scholarly debates. The rest of the chapter introduces key concepts: imagined communities, social imaginary, and associated concepts, and discusses how I use them in the study.   Chapter 3 presents the historical, policy, and social contexts of the internationalization of Japanese higher education. I illustrate the historical process in which the discourse of kokusaika was developed as Japan worked to elevate its position in the world, and more specifically in relation to the West, since the Meiji era (1868-1912). In so doing, I explain how and why the discourse has gained popular consensus in the country while accommodating a paradoxical   15  notion of nationalism. I also analyze Japan?s major international student policies of the past three decades and provide an overview of the Japanese higher education system and the demographics of international students in Japan.   Chapter 4 presents three domains of existing empirical literature relevant to the study: the internationalization of higher education institutions, global student mobility, and international students? identities. In my discussions of the literature, I apply the theoretical concepts described in Chapter 2 and integrate the social and policy contexts of the internationalization of Japanese higher education presented in Chapter 3. 	  Chapter 5 explains the methodology of the study. In addition, in this chapter, I provide details of the study?s research process, including sampling strategies, as well as details on the two cases, the participants, and data collection and analysis procedures.   In the subsequent three chapters (Chapter 6, 7, and 8), I present empirical findings of the study. In Chapter 6, I describe, based on my site visits and on faculty and staff participants? accounts, the physical institutional environment and the genesis of each institution, respectively. In addition, based on my interviews with faculty and staff participants, the chapter addresses the first research question, ?How do Japanese universities see their social existence and translate it into their internationalization discourses and practices?? as well as related sub-questions.   Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 present findings based on interviews with international student participants. Chapter 7 focuses on their identity formation through their global mobility and responds to the two sub-questions of the second research question: ?What drives international students? desire to participate in international education in Japan and specifically at the Japanese universities?? and ?How do their experiences in Japan shape how they imagine their futures?? I highlight international students? classed identity formation through their participation in   16  international education at the two different Japanese higher education institutions, as well as the institutions? involvement in the development of the students? future imaginations.   Chapter 8 focuses on the sub-question under the second research question, ?How do international students experience and position themselves in the Japanese universities and Japanese society?? I illustrate how international students see communities around them, such as their Chinese peers and Japanese peers, and how they identify themselves in relation to them. I also discuss how student participants experience the socio-political climate in Japan and engage or do not engage with their peers in discussions about socio-political issues in Japan or in the wider world. Based on their accounts of their experiences or lack of these experiences, I discuss not only how they see their social existence but also what constitutes some of the emerging and missed learning opportunities in the internationalized university settings.   Chapter 9 integrates the findings from the previous three chapters and interprets them by drawing on the relevant literature. I highlight three themes that emerged from my explorations on the intersections between international students and their host institutions. First, I discuss how imagined communities are expressed in students? narratives on their global mobility and how the institutions form part of the students? imagination. Second, I discuss alignments between how the institutions imagine their own future possibilities through internationalization and how students imagine their possibilities through their participation in international education in Japan. Third, I discuss theoretical and practical problems that arise from the institutions? strategies of creating cultural diversity through the recruitment of international students and the creation of English-medium programs, and I do so by comparing the institutions? intentions and students? engagement in the cultural diversity created on the Japanese campuses. I then integrate some of the challenges and potential that I discovered in my study?s findings into my discussions on the   17  study?s implications for internationalization policy and practice in Japan. The chapter also addresses the contributions and limitations of the study, followed by suggestions for future research. I close with my personal reflections.   18  Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework To theorize interactions between actors in higher education at the global, national, and local levels, Marginson and Rhoades (2002) focus on the role of agency, specifically, ?formal agencies and collective human actions? at each level (p. 289). By formal agencies, they refer to entities or organizations at each level, such as international organizations, governmental units, and higher education institutions. By collective human actions or agency of collectivities, they mean, ?the ability of people individually and collectively to take action (exercise agency)? (p. 289). According to the authors, the interactions between the actors at different levels are reciprocal and multidirectional. I use these understandings to locate the Japanese government, universities, and international students in a context in which multidirectional forces of influence at the global, national, and institutional level interact with one another. I turn to the notion of imagination in order to connect, as well as to unpack, the agency exercised by collective and individual actors at the different levels in the dynamic interaction process. The notion of imagination allows us to explore what guides and drives our individual and collective agency based on how we see ourselves in relation to others and how we see possibilities for action.  The purpose of this chapter is to develop the study?s theoretical foundation around the notion of imagination based on theoretical arguments by key theorists and educational researchers. I demonstrate how the notion of imagination can help us conceptualize internationalization, international students? identities, and the relationship between the two. The organization of the chapter is as follows. First, I outline key issues and debates on internationalization in order to provide the broad context for this study. In doing so, based primarily on Rizvi and Lingard?s (2010) conceptualization of a social imaginary of globalization, I suggest that the concept of social imaginary has been missing from our understanding of   19  globalization, internationalization, and the relationship between the two. Second, I develop the theoretical foundation for social imaginary and imagined communities based on the literature that theorizes these concepts or applies them to educational research. Third, to set up the broad theoretical contexts for my study, I apply the notion of the social imaginary to the conceptualization of globalization, internationalization, and the relationship between the two. Fourth, I narrow the focus of the discussion to internationalization policies and practices at an institutional level and the implications for these policies and practices of social imaginary and imagined communities. Finally, I shift the focus of the discussion to international students: how imagination, both in collective and individual sense, works to shape how they see their social existence and the possibilities for the future in relation to others in the world as well as in their immediate social context.  Globalization and internationalization: Conceptual problems. Internationalization is both an ?expression of and response to the contemporary processes of globalisation? located within historical and political contexts (Rizvi, 2006a, p. viii). Globalization is often framed as a descriptive phenomenon, and in the major literature on internationalization of higher education (Altbach & Knight, 2006; Altbach, 2004; Huang, 2007; Knight, 2003; van der Wende, 2001), internationalization is often framed as a response to empirical changes brought about by globalization as seen in the global flows of technology, economy, knowledge, and people. For example, Altbach (2004) defines globalization as ?the broad economic, technological, and scientific trends that directly affect higher education and are largely inevitable? (p.5). Based on the empirical understanding of globalization, he defines internationalization as ?specific policies and programmes undertaken by governments, academic systems and institutions, and even individual departments or institutions to cope with or exploit   20  globalisation. Internationalisation describes the voluntary and perhaps creative ways of coping? (p. 6).  Knight (2012) further elaborates that internationalization has two interrelated pillars: ?at home? and ?abroad.? The former refers to campus- and curriculum-based efforts to include the intercultural and international dimension in teaching and learning, research, and extracurricular activities. The latter refers to cross-border education involving ?the movement of people, programs, providers, policies, knowledge, ideas, projects and services across national boundaries? (Knight, 2012, p. 23). The newly emergent branch campuses, online education programs, double- and joint-degree programs, and franchise programs are also included in this category.  On the one hand, describing internationalization in relation to descriptive accounts of global changes is appropriate and useful at times. On the other hand, it is not sufficient when we try to make sense of and grapple with problematic issues of internationalization today. Over the past few decades, internationalization has brought about new opportunities and benefits, but it has also undergone significant changes and has resulted in some negative consequences. One troubling aspect of these consequences, as Knight (2012) states, is that ?Often they are at the macro level and become an implicit part of the culture or environment of international education without being questioned? (p. 21). I argue that the problems of internationalization have remained implicit and unquestioned because debates on internationalization have seldom addressed its relationship to implicit and normative aspects of globalization. We need to unpack the grand normative forces underpinning internationalization today in order to grapple with problems in internationalization and begin to imagine alternative ways of internationalization.    21  Below, I describe the major problematic changes in internationalization at a macro level in order to demonstrate that internationalization is not just a value-neutral response to empirical changes that globalization has brought to the field of education. In doing so, I argue that internationalization has always been a response driven by political and economic interests that are entrenched in the world?s uneven power configurations. Then, following primarily Rizvi and Lingard (2010), I suggest that the concept of social imaginary be integrated into our understanding of globalization and internationalization.  Manifestation of the problems of internationalization at a macro level.  According to a 2005 International Association of Universities survey of higher education institutions in 95 countries, both developing and developed, commercialization and commodification of education was identified as the number-one risk of internationalization (Knight, 2007). The dramatic shift of internationalization?s rationale and approach towards a market model has caused a great deal of concern and has promoted a great deal of debate among scholars (Altbach & Knight, 2006; Knight, 2007, 2009, 2012; Stromquist, 2007; Teichler, 2004; van der Wende, 2001). This shift can be observed, for example, in the intensifying global competition to recruit high tuition international students by higher education institutions, particularly those in English-speaking Western countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia (G?r?z, 2008). In addition, to take advantage of the growing international higher education market, ?foreign degree mills (selling ?parchment?-only degrees) and accreditation mills (selling bogus accreditations for programs or institutions), and rogue for-profit providers (not recognized by national authorities)? have all emerged (Knight, 2009, p. 9). Moreover, international students are not only a source of revenue but they are also a human resource. Countries such as Australia, Canada, and Japan take a skilled-migrant approach to lure   22  talented international students, retain them after graduation, and then incorporate them into the labour force in order to support the development of these countries? knowledge economies (P. Brown & Tannock, 2009; G?r?z, 2008; ?ta, 2012).  Moreover, there is intensifying competition among higher education systems and institutions across the world for name recognition and prestige in international university rankings (Marginson, 2006). According to Marginson (2006), the world of higher education is a site of production of ?positional goods? that provide national higher education systems and institutions with access to social prestige and income-earning. Yet, the competition takes place in a winner-takes-all paradigm. As Altbach (2004) describes, major research-oriented universities, particularly those that use English, are concentrated in the Global North. They attract more talented students and scholars from all over the world, produce more knowledge, distribute their knowledge widely through major international academic journals (which are predominantly in English), and consequently accumulate more knowledge and resources. Their academic knowledge, language, standards, and practices have become the dominant academic norm that other higher education systems in the rest of the world emulate. After all, those higher education systems and institutions that have prestige in the global higher education community can leverage that prestige to obtain more revenue (Marginson, 2006).   One of the most significant and tangible consequences of the uneven global higher education market is that high-status higher education systems and institutions attract more international students from around the world and gain significant income. In fact, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2012), the top host countries in 2010 are the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and France. The largest host country, the United States, alone attracts 684,714 international students, which   23  accounts for 19.2% of the world?s international student population (UNESCO, 2012). In the United States, international students brought in over $20 billion5 in 2010 (NAFSA: Association of International Educators, n.d.). In Australia, education is the third largest export sector and earned $12 billion6 in 2007, mostly from international students attending higher education institutions in that country (Marginson, 2009).   By contrast, less powerful countries in the uneven international academic arena lose not only their intellectual and cultural autonomy but also the educated human resources that are crucial for their national development. In the realm of global student mobility, China is the largest sending country, sending 562,889 students abroad, followed by India (200,621) and Korea (126,447) in 2010 (UNESCO, 2012). Even though new terms such as ?brain circulation? and ?brain sharing? have been invented to address some of the benefits and increasing complexity of the recent global mobility, there is a unchanging fundamental fact of global mobility: developing countries are losing the highly educated to more developed countries, and the flow of highly educated has never worked in the other direction (P. Brown & Tannock, 2009; T.-M. Chen & Barnett, 2000; Knight, 2012). Accordingly, although the rhetoric of the internationalization of higher education implies the notion of ?global engagement as two-way flows premised on mutual cultural respect,? Marginson (2006) asserts that, ?the reality is different. Global competition in degree programs is an export-import market in positional goods, characterized by uni-directional student flows and asymmetrical cultural transformations? (p. 18).   Referring to these unequal power dynamics, Altbach and Knight (2006) focus on the newly emerging commercialization and commodification trend in internationalization and                                                 5 The currency is not specified in the source. 6 The currency is not specified in the source.   24  express their concern that the aim of internationalization is shifting from serving a public good to a private good of the ?profit center? (p. 35). Knight (2012) elaborates on the shift, saying ?What is unexpected and somewhat worrisome are the different ends (rankings, profit, soft power) and some of the values (competitiveness, commercialization) that are now linked to internationalization? (p. 22). For example, for Knight, the original idea of facilitating global student mobility was to help students from developing countries to complete a degree and return home. Twenty-five years ago, it would have been unimaginable that it would evolve into a competitive multi-million dollar international student recruitment business.   However, it must be remembered that internationalization in the past was not necessarily a benign or value-neutral project serving a global public good. Internationalization has always been underpinned by a particular ideology (Stier, 2004) located within the world?s unequal power relations (Altbach, 2004). Currently, even though international development cooperation upholds a seemingly-benevolent vision of creating a better world, it does not escape the skepticism that it is often operated within the rich world?s ethnocentric and imperialist paradigm: ??[Developing countries] can learn from us? i.e., ?we have little to learn from them?? (Stier, 2004, p. 89).  The worldwide marketization trend in internationalization described above does not work to amend existing global inequalities but rather maintains or exacerbates them. Brown and Tannock (2009) contend that the intensifying global competition for international students is in essence driven by ?national self-interest, not a concern with global responsibility or the interests of other nations? (p. 385). As I will describe more fully later, the trend is informed by neoliberal ideologies, which view and treat education and students as a means for national and global economic competitiveness (Forstorp, 2008; Spring, 1998, 2008; Torres & Schugurensky, 2002).   25  Then, obviously, internationalization is not a value-neutral response merely to empirical changes that globalization has brought to the field of education. It has been entrenched and implicated in the uneven power configurations in a world with particular political and economic interests.   What has received scant attention in debates on globalization, internationalization, and the relationship between the two is the role of imagination guiding and driving the agency of higher education actors at the global, national, and local levels. Descriptive accounts of globalization mask why globalization and internationalization are happening in the way they are, who is making the changes in internationalization and for what purposes, and how those changes have gained public consent as a legitimate response to globalization (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). The understanding of internationalization grounded in globalization as a self-evident descriptive phenomenon constrains not only our understanding of internationalization but also our imagination for how internationalization could take other forms. Below, I discuss social imaginary and imagined communities, two concepts I use in this study to operationalize the notion of imagination. Imagined communities. As explained in Chapter 1, following Norton (2001), I borrow Benedict Anderson?s (1991) concept of imagined communities as an analytical tool to understand how we create a new sense of social existence for ourselves in a world with new or different people, values, meaning, and system, transcending time and space. In other words, an imagined community refers to an ?imaginative construction of the future,? as well as to a ?reconstruction? of the past (Norton, 2001, p. 164). In this regard, the concept of imagined communities has been applied to various areas of educational research to analyze, for example, how students? imagined communities impact their investment in learning (Norton, 2001) or study abroad (Fong, 2011),   26  how educational institutions? imagined communities shape their policies and practices (Kanno, 2003), and how an education institution space as an imagined community affects people?s sense of inclusion or exclusion in that space (Quinn, 2005; Shircliffe, Dorn, & Cobb-Roberts, 2006).  As manifested in the internationalization of higher education and in growing global student mobility, how we imagine our social existence and our possibilities often transcends national borders. Appadurai (1996) locates the notion of imagination within the globalizing context, which is characterized by the disjunctures of the flows of different scapes, namely ethnoscapes, technoscapes, financescapes, mediascapes, and ideoscapes. Today, we live amid the rapid, massive, and irregular global flows of people, technology, capital, electronic media and information, ideas and ideologies. Moreover, there are eduscapes: the global flows of education which involve the flows of the other scapes (K. V. Beck, 2008; Caluya, Probyn, & Vyas, 2011; Kyn?eslahti, 2003; Luke, 2006). These flows of scapes allow imagination to become a ?property of collectives,? not only for a limited number of elites, but also for ordinary people (Appadurai, 1996, p. 8). It does so by enabling them to share and consume goods, ideas, images, education, and so forth in a collective manner and to ?imagine and feel things together? at a global scale (Appadurai, 1996, p. 8). Yet, it is important to note that our imagination is not always wide open to any possibilities but rather is always socially situated. Extending Anderson?s (1991) notion of imagined communities, Appadurai (1996) explains the scapes as the ?landscapes? and the ?building blocks? of our ?imagined worlds, that is, the multiple worlds that are constituted by the historically situated imaginations of persons and groups spread around the globe? (p. 33). The scapes are ?not objectively given relations . . . but, rather, . . . deeply perspectival constructs, inflected by the historical, linguistic, and political situatedness of different sorts of actors?   27  (Appadurai, 1996, p. 33). Then, imagined worlds can be understood as an expression of how we as individuals or groups assess our current positions in the world and translate the images of our social existence into our future possibilities and actions. This is also to say that we have different levels of access to our imagined communities depending on our social positions (Norton, 2001).  I ground my analysis of the internationalization of the Japanese higher education system and international students in this socially situated notion of imagined communities in a global context, in other words, how the actors involved (i.e., the Japanese government, Japanese universities, and international students) imagine their social existence in relation to real and imagined communities around them and how they exercise their agency to align themselves to the communities of which they aspire to become part.  Social imaginary. How we imagine our social existence and possibilities are also embedded in social imaginaries that carry a particular ideological discourse permeating our broader society. While ideology is a system of beliefs, norms, values representing a particular interest of a group of people, social imaginary facilitates the process of translating ideology into actual material practices that steer our collective sense of how we fit into the world, what is normal, and what is possible (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Therefore, in this study, I draw on social imaginary to explain a normative and factual context in which actors in the internationalization of Japanese higher education (i.e., the Japanese government, universities, and international students) imagine joining particular communities as possible and normal. I also turn to the concept of social imaginary to understand how and why certain internationalization policies and practices have become dominant in Japanese higher education.   28  The role of social imaginary is central to Charles Taylor?s (2004) theorization of the formation of Western modernity. According to Taylor, social imaginary worked to develop the new notion of moral order held by some influential thinkers into the norm and practice shared by an entire society. Social imaginary thus worked to bring individuals together to form a political entity with the shared understanding of moral order that is characterized by the rights and obligations that allow them to live together. Thus, social imaginary can be understood as:  the way in which people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations. (Taylor, 2004, p. 23) The normative aspect of social imaginary resonates with Pierre Bourdieu?s (1997) concept of ?habitus,? which refers to individuals? embodied background understanding that dictates their perceptions, behaviors, actions, and so forth. Yet, according to Taylor (2001), social imaginary occupies a space between a theory and habitus. Social imaginary is not explicitly expressed in theoretical or doctrinal terms, but rather refers to a more taken-for-granted idea shared among people. At the same time, while developed in habitus, social imaginary is more explicitly expressed than habitus, in forms such as daily rituals, symbols, and artwork. As such, social imaginary is more explicitly expressed and is more collective than habitus. Today, electronic media also plays an increasingly significant role in the expression of social imaginary by offering ?new resources and new disciplines for the construction of imagined selves and imagined worlds? (Appadurai, 1996, p. 3). As such, social imaginary brings together both normative and factual understandings of our relation to the world.   29  Social imaginary in policy. As in our everyday practices and images, social imaginary is embedded in discourse that is informed by a particular ideology and enables, through hegemonic and authoritative power, a particular imagination of our social existence and practices. By implication, social imaginary is embedded in policies. Therefore, the concept of social imaginary has been deployed in education policy research to explain how and why a certain educational policies and practices have come to be seen by the public as normal and legitimate (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Rizvi, 2006b). This study also turns to the concept of social imaginary to understand how and why certain internationalization policies and practices have become dominant in Japanese higher education. Policy does not refer only to actual policy texts. Policy has two dimensions: policy as text and policy as discourse (Ball, 1993). According to Ball (1993), while policy as text refers to the actual words used in policy documents and policy speeches, policy as discourse constructs ?certain possibilities for thought? (p. 14). The notion of policy as discourse is underpinned by the idea that broader social and institutional discourses frame policy texts based on perceived problems. Ball elaborates, ?We are the subjectivities, the voices, the knowledge, the power relations that a discourse constructs and allows. . . . We are spoken by policies, we take up the positions constructed for us within policies? (p. 14). In this way, policies uphold a certain value and political interests that are informed by a certain discourse.  However, as Rizvi (2006b) argues, the above theorization of policy as text and discourse does not adequately explain what gives policy authority. Rizvi seeks the explanation in social imaginary as explained below:  In my view, social imaginaries play a major role in making policies authoritative, in securing consent and becoming legitimate. They provide the backdrop against which   30  people develop a common understanding that makes possible common policy practices and a shared sense of legitimacy. They bring together factual and normative aspects of policies, and enable people to develop a shared understanding of the problems to which policies are proposed as solutions. (p. 198) As such, policy as discourse presents problems and possible solutions in ways that represent certain values and preferences and frames the context of policy text. Social imaginaries enable the policies to work with authority and legitimacy by circulating a certain possibility for thought in order to develop a popular consensus about the problems and solutions presented by the policies.      In sum, in this study, I use the concept of imagined communities to examine how the actors involved in the internationalization of Japanese higher education see their social existence in relation to others and exercise their agency to participate in the communities they aspire to join. For example, the Japanese government?s internationalization policies, Japanese universities? internationalization practices, and international students? decisions to study overseas all signal the imagined communities they aspire to join. More specifically, these policies and decisions signal how they imagine the world in which they see themselves living, how they think they fit in the world, and how they aspire to position themselves differently. In order to contextualize their imagined communities, I draw on the idea of social imaginary that provides a normative and factual context against which the actors imagine their participation in particular communities as their possible and legitimate future possibilities and actions.  Social imaginary in globalization and internationalization.  I problematized earlier that globalization as the context of internationalization has been largely defined in descriptive terms. In this section, using the concept of social imaginary, I aim   31  to conceptualize the internationalization of higher education based on a more holistic understanding of globalization. I ground my analysis of internationalization in the conceptualization of globalization by Rizvi and Lingard (2010). According to them, there are at least three ways to understand globalization. Noting that the three ways are not mutually exclusive, they explain that globalization can be understood: as an empirical fact that describes the profound shifts that are currently taking place in the world; as an ideology that masks various expression [sic] of power and a range of political interests; and as a social imaginary that expresses the sense people have of their own identity and how it relates to the rest of the world, and how it implicitly shapes their aspirations and expectations. (p. 24) This conceptualization of globalization is consistent with Appadurai?s (1996) aforementioned notion of the flows of scapes that involve both factual and normative global flows. Then, internationalization can be understood as a driver of eduscape that is crisscrossed with other scapes involving factual and normative global flows.  To develop a theoretical understanding of internationalization based on the above understanding of globalization, I present below how internationalization has been embedded in two interrelated social imaginaries of globalization: a Western imaginary and a neoliberal imaginary. However, two caveats need to be made before proceeding. First, I do not intend to claim that these are the only social imaginaries operating in the internationalization of higher education. I use these two imaginaries as an entry point to unpack the hegemonic factual and normative forces underpinning internationalization at the macro level. As I will demonstrate in the next chapter, the imaginaries are highly relevant to the case of Japan because they connect the historical and contemporary internationalization processes that Japan has undergone.    32  Second, as Appadurai?s (1996) notion of ?vernacular globalization? (p. 10) suggests, globalization happens in the clash between top-down and locally-specific bottom-up forces, and so the flows of influence are multidirectional among various higher education actors at the global, national, and local levels (Lingard, 2000; Marginson & Rhoades, 2002; Singh, Kenway, & Apple, 2005). For example, I will discuss below how international organizations act as powerful policy actors and exert strong influence over educational policy-making across the world with a neoliberal imaginary of globalization. Nonetheless, the relationship between international organizations and educational policy development in each country is complex and two-way, rather than top-down. Globalization does not equal homogenization and the death of the nation states? role and power in higher education policy making (Dale, 1999; Ferlie, Musselin, & Andresani, 2008). Nation states deploy the international organizations? neoliberal discourse as a hegemonic policy device in order to develop a neoliberal imaginary in their own policy contexts and legitimize their policy ideas, texts, and practices while incorporating their particular histories, politics, and cultures (Rizvi, 2006b). Likewise, Western hegemony in the globalization process does not always work in a one-way manner, and does not always equate with Westernization. As I will present in the next chapter, internationalization of education in Japan is an excellent case to illustrate how Japan has worked to develop its national identity in relation to the West without actually becoming the West.  That being said, the existence of dominant historical, political, and economic forces in the field of higher education should not be completely dismissed but rather more clearly articulated. The purpose of presenting Western and neoliberal imaginaries of globalization in what follows is not to present a simplistic and deterministic view of internationalization. Rather, it is to articulate the historical, political, and economic power configurations of the world in which   33  internationalization is embedded. In other words, the purpose is to articulate how our imagination, which is involved in the internationalization of higher education, is socially situated and constructed.  Internationalization within a Western imaginary of globalization. As discussed earlier, the internationalization of higher education unfolds on an unequal field of global higher education. More specifically, it has been located within a sense of global interconnectivity that is built upon historical colonial power relations in which the West is central. In this dissertation, I refer to this particular understanding of global interconnectivity as a Western imaginary of globalization. Internationalization is an expression of and response to globalization, which has historical roots in Western imperialism and colonialism (Forstorp, 2008; Luke, 2006; Spring, 1998).  In the conceptualization of eduscape and internationalization, Luke (2006) goes back to the European model of educational institutions established across the world by the British Empire, the Dutch East Indian Company, and the Spanish Conquistadors to train local elites for the colonial bureaucracies. Likewise, after the Second World War, many Asian countries developed their higher education systems following the academic practices and ideologies of Anglo-Saxon countries as a way to modernize. To date, their internationalization policies and practices tend to be developed through the mere copying of policies of the Anglo-Saxon model (Deem, Mok, & Lucas, 2008; Mok, 2007).  For example, as a way to internationalize, more non-English-speaking countries adopt English as the language of instruction and adopt curricula from Anglo-Saxon countries (Altbach, 2004; Deem et al., 2008; Huang, 2007; Kubota, 2009; Mok, 2007; Tsuneyoshi, 2005). Moreover, according to Mok (2007), academics in non-English-speaking countries are pressured to publish   34  in English, preferably in Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index journals, to demonstrate their ?mastery of international standards? (p. 446). However, those indices were developed largely based on English-speaking Western countries? scholarly systems, and as a result, an uneven academic playing field has developed in the academic world (Altbach, 2004).  As a result, higher education systems in English-speaking Western countries tend to dominate the production and distribution of knowledge and further accumulate intellectual, human, and economic capital and prestige, and the process manifests neocolonialism (Altbach, 2004). Consequently, the inequitable world system of higher education under Western cultural hegemony is perpetuated (Altbach, 2004; Deem et al., 2008; Mok, 2007). The internationalization of higher education in non-English-speaking Western countries can be understood, at least in part, as an expression of their agency to participate in the international community of higher education informed and defined by Western standards, practices, and values. In other words, this community is located in a Western imaginary of globalization.  Internationalization within a neoliberal imaginary of globalization. Internationalization today is also embedded in what Rizvi and Lingard (2010) call a neoliberal imaginary of globalization. The neoliberal imaginary of globalization is informed by a neoliberal ideology that:  rests on a pervasive naturalization of market logics, justifying them on the grounds of efficiency and even ?fairness.? It emphasizes the notion of choice, and privileges ?lean? government, privatization, deregulation and competitive regimes of resources allocation over the notions of a centralized state. It stresses global regimes of ?free trade,? applying to both goods and services, even to services such as health and education that were traditionally marked by their highly national character. (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 51-52)    35  Informed by this particular ideology, globalization is interpreted as global economic interconnectivity and interdependence, in which economic interests and market logics are prioritized over other concerns, such as moral and political concerns.  The Western and neoliberal imaginaries of globalization work hand in hand to complicate the internationalization of higher education today. The modern global economy is built upon colonial power relations, and internationalization is entrenched in the historically uneven global power configurations (Forstorp, 2008; Spring, 1998). According to Ball and his colleagues, policy as text and policy as discourse work in a policy cycle, and the following three contexts interact with one another in the cycle in a non-linear manner: 1) the context of influence that gives rise to the production of a particular policy; 2) the context of policy text production; and 3) the context of policy practice (Bowe, Ball, & Gold, 1992). While a policy cycle used to be bounded within national borders, today the process has been increasingly globalized (Lingard, 2000; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Vidovich, 2007). In an education policy cycle in the era of globalization, economic- and market-oriented international organizations exert significant power to construct a neoliberal imaginary of globalization. Instead of colonizing land, they spread a new form of colonialism by disseminating the neoliberalist norm that the deployment of the free market mechanism is the best and most efficient solution to society?s problems (Spring, 1998). The nation states and geo-political coalitions, particularly in the West, use the neoliberal discourse of the knowledge society as a survival strategy for the perceived economic threat (Forstorp, 2008). They also emphasize the role of higher education as a strategic tool to secure privileged access to the knowledge society, while transferring manual labour to other parts of the world (Forstorp, 2008). The internationalization of higher education is embedded in the particular imaginary of globalization that sustains uneven global power relations. Below, I will   36  briefly explain two major mechanisms through which a neoliberal imaginary of globalization is developed and spread around the world: international organizations as policy actors, and competition and cooperation strategies.  International organizations as policy actors. Economic- and market-oriented international organizations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are influential policy actors in a policy cycle pertaining to the internationalization of higher education (Bassett, 2006; Henry, Lingard, Rizvi, & Taylor, 2001; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Rizvi, 2004; Spring, 1998, 2008). They use channels such as conferences, publications, rounds of trade negotiations to disseminate their neoliberal interpretation of globalization by describing, largely in economic terms, the challenges that globalization poses to education. They frame higher education as a commodity and as an instrument that serves the requirements of the global knowledge economy.  The aforementioned shift in the internationalization of higher education toward a market-based model is entrenched in the neoliberal imaginary of globalization largely constructed by international organizations. Today, education is one of the 12 service sectors in the WTO?s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS promotes education as a commodity to be sold and bought freely across national borders by removing existing barriers. As a result, the internationalization of higher education, more specifically cross-border education, is increasingly viewed within the free-trade framework (Altbach & Knight, 2006). In this regulatory context, the mobility of education programs and providers has grown significantly, whereas in the past student mobility constituted the major aspect of mobility in cross-border education (Knight, 2012).    37  The involvement of the WTO/GATS in the field of education is controversial. Concern has been raised that trade liberalization as promoted by the GATS could potentially dominate the higher education agenda in member countries and undermine the role of higher education as a public good (Altbach, 2002; Knight, 2002; Rizvi, 2004; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). However, the OECD?s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2004) naturalizes and justifies the shift towards the commodification of education. They argue the GATS is not the only factor promoting cross-border education and that cross-border provision of education as a trade commodity is inevitable and unstoppable.  Moreover, the OECD intervenes in the policy discourse of member countries with their anticipatory policy agenda in order to direct the countries? attention to a common likely future that they themselves define. The OECD presents its deterministic view of globalization in largely neoliberal terms and sets the agenda for higher education policies with its instrumentalist view of education (Henry et al., 2001; Lingard & Rizvi, 1998). For instance, in Education Policy Analysis: Focus on Higher Education 2005-2006, the OECD (2006) calls for a renewed emphasis on internationalization policies in higher education by presenting, in economic terms, challenges and opportunities caused by globalization. In terms of opportunities, the OECD highlights the economic benefits arising from cross-border education as a rationale for enhanced internationalization policies. In terms of challenges, they turn member countries? attention to the increasing competition between countries and between institutions to attract international students and academics. In this way, the OECD normalizes the promotion of the internationalization of higher education as a survival strategy in the global knowledge economy. The OECD develops "anticipatory policy convergence" across different countries? policies and   38  attempts to achieve their policy agenda, which is to have education across the world serve the requirements of the global economy (Dale, 1999, p. 13).  Competition and cooperation. Competition and cooperation are another set of mechanisms through which a neoliberal imaginary of globalization has become dominant in educational policy-making throughout the world (Rizvi, 2006b). Competition and cooperation have also become the conceptual and operational paradigms for the internationalization of higher education. The Bologna Process in Europe (Robertson, 2006), which was followed by the Campus Asia project in China, Korea, and Japan in 2010 (McNeill, 2010; Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, n.d.-d), illustrate these paradigms. As seen in the Bologna Process and Campus Asia, higher education systems in different countries bring their different higher education systems together in order to enhance the mobility of citizens as learners and human resources.  Van der Wende (2001) separates competition and cooperation into two paradigms of internationalization; the former, competition, being the dominant strategy Anglo-Saxon countries have brought into the global higher education market, and the latter being the other countries? response to this competition. However, they are not separate but rather interdependent paradigms, for cooperation at the end of the day is for the sake of competitiveness in the global higher education market (Ferlie et al., 2008; Rizvi, 2006b). Taking the case of the Bologna Process, Rizvi (2006b) asserts: [The Bologna Process] assumes the importance of Europe-wide commitment to neo-liberal reforms in higher education. While it does not completely support liberalization and deregulation of higher education, its main objectives are nevertheless informed by a   39  market logic ? the need for the European system to become a more effective and efficient player in the highly competitive global market in higher education. (p. 203)   Moreover, beyond these national-level initiatives, higher education institutions also develop regional or international networks of elite institutions through cooperation and competition. As seen in Universitas 21 (n.d.), a worldwide network of 24 research-intensive universities, higher education institutions simultaneously cooperate and compete in the same markets for the best students, academics, and resources (Ferlie et al., 2008).  Thus far, I have discussed how discourses of globalization - informed by neoliberal ideologies - have shaped a dominant social imaginary. This social imaginary expresses a sense of global interconnectivity that disproportionally emphasizes economic aspects of globalization. International organizations have been deeply implicated in locating the policy cycle for internationalization within the neoliberal imaginary of globalization. As a result, among governments and higher education institutions, there has been a shared understanding that the internationalization of higher education is a tool not only to meet the demands of the global knowledge economy but also to exploit opportunities provided by the global higher education market. In addition, the internationalization of higher education is located within a Western imaginary, as well as within the neoliberal imaginary of globalization, both of which are based on unequal colonial power relations. In other words, internationalization reflects a collective imagination of global interconnectivity developed through a historical and political process in which uneven global power relations are constructed and sustained. Conversely, then, to challenge and transform the prevailing social order, we need an alternative social imaginary with which to understand our relationship with the rest of the world. The first step is to articulate that the dominant social imaginaries enable and constrain not only our current internationalization   40  practices but also our imagination of how internationalization could otherwise exist in the future (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Rizvi, 2006b). Internationalization at an institutional level.  My discussion so far has focused on how the internationalization policy cycle has been encapsulated within Western and neoliberal imaginaries of globalization at the macro level. Now, we shift the level of analysis to the institutional level. If internationalization is an ?expression of and response to the contemporary processes of globalisation? (Rizvi, 2006a, p. viii), how do higher education institutions see global interconnectivity and their social existence within it? How do they translate this understanding into their internationalization policies (both as discourse and text) and practice in order to better position themselves within the global context? How do social imaginaries of globalization that are developed in broader educational policy and social contexts impact how higher education institutions see their social existence and coordinate their internationalization policy and practice?   While acknowledging the notion of imagination that constitutes education institutions? present image of who they are, in the present tense, as a community, I place greater emphasis in my discussion on the future-oriented aspect of imagination because of the purpose of this study. To understand why and how higher education institutions pursue internationalization the way they do, we need to understand who they aspire to become through internationalization. The ways literature describes the imagined communities that higher education institutions aspire to become through internationalization can be divided into the following two separate but interrelated categories: the communities that institutions imagine their students will join in the future, and the communities that the institutions themselves aspire to join in the global higher education community.    41  Imagined communities for students. As for students, Kanno (2003) describes how educational institutions hold collective visions of imagined communities for their students and how these future visions impact institutions? policies and practices. She states, "Schools . . . envision imagined communities for their students: what kind of adult the students will grow up to be and what communities they will join in the future? (p. 287). How universities internationalize their policies and practices can be seen as a reflection of the communities they envision their students joining in the future.  For instance, Knight (2012) grounds the rationale for ?internationalization at home? in the future vision that students, both those who are and are not globally mobile, are going live in a ?more interconnected and culturally diverse world? (p. 23). Based on this broad vision of students? imagined community, she states: ?Universities . . . have the responsibility to integrate international, intercultural and comparative perspectives into the student experience? (p. 23). Alternatively, when students? futures are imagined within a neoliberal imaginary of globalization, the world in which students are going to live can be compared with what the OECD (2008) describes as follows: ?Indeed, as world economies become increasingly inter-connected, international skills have grown in importance to operate on a global scale. Globally-oriented firms seek internationally-competent workers versed in foreign languages and mastering basic inter-cultural skills to successfully interact with international partners? (p. 54). Accordingly, if universities see their students? futures in the global market, they will coordinate their internationalization policies and practices along the lines of skill development so that their students can become productive members of the global economy.   42  Imagined communities for higher education institutions. The internationalization of higher education institutions can be understood as a reflection of the communities to which institutions aspire to belong in the global higher education community. The literature suggests that institutions? imagined communities are often located in the global higher education market that is embedded in neoliberal and Western imaginaries of globalization. Within these particular imaginings, institutions aspire to better position themselves in the stratified and uneven global higher education community through internationalization (Dixon, 2006; Stromquist, 2007). In addition, the ways institutions imagine their communities are intertwined with locally specific factors, such as cultural and historical contexts and institutions? positions in the higher education system at national and international levels (Chan & Dimmock, 2008; Huang, 2007; Stensaker, Fr?lich, Gornitzka, & Maassen, 2008). In this study, I examine the imagined communities manifested in Japanese universities? internationalization policies and practices by looking into what type of imagined communities they envision for their students and for themselves. I contextualize my analysis in the social imaginaries of globalization that were developed in broader policy and social contexts, as well as in the uneven power configurations. I also include those factors in my analysis of their imagined communities.  International students? identities.   As I deploy the concept of imagined communities to understand the internationalization of higher education institutions, I also draw on it as an entry point for unpacking the construction of international students? identities. To understand who they aspire to become in and through their international education experiences, I look into their imagined communities, as manifested in their decision to study overseas, their experiences in the host country, and their future   43  aspirations. At the same time, I address the implications of the social imaginaries of globalization for the formation of their imagined communities. I attempt to analyze international students? identities within these complex and often paradoxical contexts that consist of both material and discursive conditions at the global and local levels.  Below, I separate the discussion on international students? identities into two parts. First, I locate their identity construction in global student mobility in order to understand what drives them to participate in international education and how their imagined communities manifest in their decision to study overseas. Second, I shift the discussion to international students? identity construction during their sojourn. By framing their host country and institutions as ?contact zones? (Doherty & Singh, 2005b; Kenway & Bullen, 2003; Pratt, 1998), I discuss how international students see themselves and try to position themselves in the host society. Imagination in global student mobility.   Earlier in this chapter, I described the persistent flow of global student mobility at the macro level, from the Global South to the North, and to English-speaking countries in particular. Even though we cannot dismiss the importance of understanding the overall picture of global student flows, debates on global student flows have been criticized for taking an instrumental and positivist approach that objectifies students? human behaviors and experiences (Baas, 2010; Kell & Vogl, 2012). Baas (2010) argues, ?Mobility should not only be understood as merely physical, but also as having a mental dimension, one that is heavily embedded in how people imagine life elsewhere? (p. 182). Similarly, Fong (2011) refers to students? moves across national borders ?not only as a physical journey but also as a journey from one category of personhood to another? (p. 14).    44   Building on the work of these scholars who address the mental aspect of student mobility, this study frames global student mobility as an expression of students? pursuit of new identities, driven by their imagination of who they would like to become though international education in Japan. Using the idea of imagined communities, I seek to understand what kinds of communities students aspire to join through studying overseas. However, as discussed earlier, how we imagine our social existence and possibilities is not necessarily wide open, but rather socially situated in material and normative conditions (Appadurai, 1996). Then, how students seek international education opportunities can be understood as an expression of how they perceive their material and normative conditions and translate it into how they imagine who they are and who they would like to become through studying abroad.  Biographical solution of systemic contradictions.  According to Ulrich Beck (1992), in modern society individuals discover their identities individually by developing their own life styles and biographies as reflecting on the life circumstances and configurations of power relations in which they are located. Individuals have to make strategic choices and take risks as they develop their own biographies. Institutional connections and fractures, such as those between family life and wage labour, and between education and employment, ?continually produce frictions, disharmonies and contradictions within and among individual biographies. Under these conditions, how one lives becomes the ?biographical solution of systemic contradictions? (U. Beck, 1992, p. 137). A biographical solution mirrors the ?rule-based nature of imagined communities? (Kanno & Norton, 2003, p. 244). Anderson (1991) argues that a nation as a community is imagined because it is thought of as a bounded, sovereign, and fraternal entity in which all the members share the same set of rules and norms. People?s understanding of the rules and norms, in turn, has implications for the social   45  imaginaries in which they are immersed.? In other words, biographical solutions represent complex ? and often contradictory ? ways people combine normative and factual aspects of their lives and translate them into future imaginations and actions.   Doherty and Singh?s (2005a) empirical study of Asian international students enrolled in preparatory programs at an Australian university demonstrates those students? biographical solution of systemic contradictions. Their investment in English learning in Australia signals how they see their social existence in Asia embedded in neoliberal and Western imaginaries of globalization. They pursue mastery of English as both a cultural distinction that is unattainable in their home countries, as well as a requirement for becoming a competitive member of the world community. Accordingly, in this study I frame students? desires for studying overseas as their biographical solution to systemic contradictions, in which social imaginaries are entrenched. I address how international students see their social conditions and exercise their agency to respond to these conditions.  Global student mobility as a manifestation of a classed imagination.   Even if one decides to move across the globe as a biographical solution to systemic contradictions, it is important to recognize that global mobility is not a life choice available to everyone. Bauman (1998) states that global mobility is a stratifying phenomenon in that it distinguishes between ?tourists? and ?vagabonds.? On the one hand, Bauman (1998) explains that tourists are privileged, globally mobile individuals who have ?the means to become choosers? and can move based on their decisions in contemporary consumer society (p. 86). On the other hand, for Bauman, vagabonds move by being forced by someone else?s decision. Economic or political refugees are good examples. They move for different reasons, but the reasons are rooted in external conditions that are beyond their control.     46   By extending the notion of tourists, who combine leisure and travel, Kenway and Fahey (2007) define those who combine education and travel as ?student tourists.? Student tourists commodify mobility, knowledge, and experience for their careers in the global economy while establishing a consumerist traveling lifestyle through consuming goods, place, and culture (Kenway & Fahey, 2007). Thus, privileged students accumulate additional cultural and social capital through international education and better position themselves in the global economy, which is also linked to class reproduction (Rizvi, 2005; Waters, 2009b). Global student mobility takes place in a classed space. Students? imagination embedded in a neoliberal imaginary of globalization.  This study contextualizes students? imagination not only within their material conditions but also within the social and educational discourses in which they are immersed. According to Bauman (1998), in a contemporary consumerist tourist society that subjugates its members to engage as consumers, people are driven to attain a tourist lifestyle that is enabled and symbolized by wealth. They ?perceive the world as a food for sensibility ? a matrix of possible experiences . . . and they map it according to the experiences occasioned? (Bauman, 1998, p. 94). The value of the tourist society resonates with consumerist cosmopolitanism, which is based on neoliberal ideologies, assumes the world as a single free market, and celebrates globally mobile individuals and cultural diversity (Rizvi, 2005). Calhoun (2003) also refers to this value using terms such as ?actual existing cosmopolitanism? and ?the class consciousness of frequent travelers.? However, such a tourist lifestyle is available only for those who align themselves with the value of the consumerist tourist society and who can afford to pursue their individual interests without systemic constrains (Bauman, 1998; Calhoun, 2003).    47   By implication, student tourists, who are immersed in this tourist society?s consumerist ideals, imagine the world as a map of opportunities for education and career, as well as for traveling. As I discussed earlier, the internationalization of higher education has been embedded in a social imaginary that disproportionally emphasizes economic global interconnectivity (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Neoliberalism demands ?enterprising individuals? who can make a continual enterprise of themselves to meet the changing demands of the economy (Apple, 2001, p. 414). Schools act as sites that produce neoliberal subjectivities, where students take up the neoliberal narratives of individual responsibility and work pragmatically and strategically to use their education to better position themselves in the economy (Demerath & Lynch, 2008; O?Flynn & Petersen, 2007). In this study, it is particularly important to look into the implications of the internationalization of Japanese higher education as it is embedded in the neoliberal imaginary of globalization, and specifically to look for how students imagine their positions and futures in their normative institutional contexts as well as in the broader society.  In sum, how students seek education opportunities across the globe can be understood as an expression of how they perceive their factual and normative conditions, and how they translate those perceptions into their imagination of studying overseas as a possibility to attain a new identity. Using Beck?s (1992) concept of a biographic solution of systemic contradictions, I examine how students assess their life conditions at both the local and global levels. I also address how hegemonic social imaginaries inform their imagination. By bringing together the material and normative conditions of these students? lives, I aim to illustrate the process through which they develop the imagination of their positions in the world and exercise agency to attain a new identity through education abroad.    48  International students? identities in contact zones.  In addition to examining students? decisions to pursue international education opportunities, this study is concerned with how their experiences in their host countries contribute to shaping their sense of identity. I situate my investigation in what Pratt (1992) calls a ?contact zone,? a site of historical and cultural power struggles. As Pratt (1998) applies the concept to describe the types of dynamic interactions in a diverse university classroom setting, some scholars (Doherty & Singh, 2005b; Kenway & Bullen, 2003) have also framed the internationalized university setting as a contact zone. I apply the concept not only to a host university setting, but also to the off-campus society to contextualize the university setting and international students? experiences within Japan?s broader social context. Using the concept of contact zone, I analyze how international students make sense of their experiences in Japan as a contact zone and translate their sense-making into their sense of identity.  Imagined communities in contact zones.  Rooted in a post-colonial perspective, Pratt (1992) explains her coinage of the term contact zone as ?an attempt to invoke the spatial and temporal copresence of subjects previously separated by geographic and historical disjunctures, and whose trajectories now intersect? (p. 7). For Pratt (1992), in contact zones, while subjects are in ?radically asymmetrical relations of power,? they are constituted in and by their interactive, rather than diffusionist, relationship with one another (p. 7). Elsewhere, she elaborates on subjects? self-representations in contact zones as follows: Being the ?other? of a dominant culture involves living in a bifurcated universe of meaning. On the one hand, one must produce oneself as a self for oneself. That is   49  survival. At the same time the system also requires that you produce yourself as an ?other.? (Pratt, 1999, p. 40) This line of theorization of identities in contact zones implicitly necessitates the construction of an imagined homogeneous Other in contrast to that of Self.   Literature supports the construction of an imagined homogeneous Other in contrast to that of Self in a contact zone, despite the diversity among the constituencies in the contact zone. For instance, dominant social groups construct an essentialized and innocent imagined community for themselves as a Self by masking unequal power relations with the Other (Bhabha, 1990; Doherty & Singh, 2005b). Doherty and Singh (2005b) argue that dominant groups ?sanitize places of the historical legacy of unequal power relations? to construct ?pristine accounts? of their culture (p. 55). In addition, according to Bhabha (1990), a dominant society essentializes not only their own culture but also other cultures as well. He problematizes that a dominant society tends to respond to cultural diversity by constructing cultural differences in an essentialized manner based on their ethnocentric norms without acknowledging unequal power attached to the differences. Bhabha (1990) calls it a ?creation of cultural diversity and a containment of cultural difference? (p. 208). He explains: Although there is always an entertainment and encouragement of cultural diversity, there is always also a corresponding containment of it. A transparent norm is constituted, a norm given by the host society or dominant culture, which says that ?these other cultures are fine, but we must be able to locate them within our own grid.? (p. 208)  Thus, the construction of imagined communities is at work in contact zones. In a contact zone, homogeneous Self and Other are imagined despite the heterogeneity of the contact zone.    50  Self-positioning in a contact zone.  In contact zones, colonizer and colonized, or dominant and non-dominant groups, are not engaged in polarized and unidirectional power relations. Instead, identities are constructed in a reciprocal exchange of influences, and representations of Self and Other are in constant negotiation. Pratt (1992) refers to such an identity negotiation process as transculturation, by which she means to describe ?how subordinated or marginal groups select and invent from materials transmitted to them by a dominant or metropolitan culture? (p. 6).   Pratt?s idea of transculturation resonates with Hall?s (1990) notion of cultural identity as a ?matter of ?becoming? as well as of ?being?? (p. 225) and Bhabha?s (1990) notion of ?hybridity,? which refers to the ??third space? which enables other positions to emerge? (p. 211). What these ideas of identity by Pratt, Hall, and Bhabha have in common is that identity is constructed through our active acts of self-positioning. Bhabha elaborates on how one exercises agency in a given situation to generate a hybrid identity as follows: ?Hybridity is precisely about the fact that when a new situation, a new alliance formulates itself, it may demand that you should translate your principles, rethink them, extend them? (p. 216). Yet, while scholars acknowledge the role of agency, they also locate identities within the asymmetrical power configurations of contact zones, and that these configurations were developed in historical processes. For Hall, ?Identities are the names we give to the different ways we are positioned by, and position ourselves within, the narratives of the past? (p. 225). This theorization of identity resonates with the socially situated nature of people?s imagination (Appadurai, 1996). How we imagine our social existence is situated within historically constituted power configurations of contact zones.    51   Hence, to understand the construction of international students? identities, I examine first, how they imagine that they are currently positioned, and second, how they act to position themselves within the contact zones in their host society. To do so, I address how imagined communities are expressed by international students as well as by their host society, and how international students negotiate how to position themselves in the contact zones. In the analysis, I acknowledge that how students imagine new identities is, to some extent, if not entirely, conditioned by power configurations of the host society that are rooted in historical power relations. Moreover, as discussed earlier, their identity construction is layered with their class privilege, which has enabled them to be globally mobile students, and with the systemic contradictions imposed on them. Furthermore, how they see their relationships with the rest of the world and the meaning of their education is often informed by the dominant discourse of the neoliberal imaginary of globalization. As such, I attempt to analyze international students? identities within these complex and often paradoxical contexts that consist of both material and discursive conditions at the global and local levels. Therefore, the focus of my inquiry about international students? identities is on how they see their positions in the complex material and discursive contexts, and how they negotiate with those contexts to establish the positions that represent who they want to become.  Summary.  This study is concerned with the construction of international students? identities in and through their international education experiences in Japan. In particular, it explores the intersections between their identity construction and the internationalization of Japanese higher education. The internationalization of higher education, which enables and expands global student mobility, takes place against the backdrop of globalization. However, as discussed in this   52  chapter, the policy discourse and practice of internationalization have been based heavily on an empirical aspect of global changes, such as the rapid development of information technologies and global flows of people. This empirical aspect masks the ideological aspects that promote particular political and economic interests. Using the concept of social imaginary, I seek to explain how certain ideologies get translated into our sense of how we are related with one another, what is considered normal, and what is possible, and consequently how they shape and enable our common social practice. Because of a neoliberal imaginary of globalization, we internalize an economic sense of global interconnectivity as the inevitable or natural context, and we conceptualize and implement the internationalization of higher education based on this particular normative contextual understanding. Moreover, the neoliberal imaginary of globalization is deeply rooted in a Western imaginary of globalization. And this imaginary, in turn, is built upon the world?s unequal colonial power relations. The emergent marketization trend and persistent Western cultural hegemony in the internationalization of higher education cannot be fully understood unless we understand the role these social imaginaries play. I therefore locate actors in the internationalization of Japanese higher education (i.e., the Japanese government, universities, and international students) within these social imaginaries as a broad normative and factual context against which they perceive their sense of social existence and their futures.   To articulate how the actors see their social existence and translate that self-understanding into concrete action, I draw on the concept of imagined communities. Using the concept, I aim to explain how Japanese universities and international students imagine their social existence in relation to real and imagined communities around them, and how they exercise their agency to align themselves with the communities they aspire to join. However, as I   53  discussed earlier, one?s imagination is socially situated within his or her material life conditions, which are embedded in global and local power configurations and social imaginaries. To paint a more complete picture of the specific context of international students? experiences in Japan, my next task will be to outline the context of Japanese higher education and the historical and contemporary issues and debates about the internationalization of Japanese higher education.   54  Chapter 3: Historical, Social, and Policy Contexts of Internationalization in Japan  The purpose of this chapter is to embed this study within the historical, social, and policy contexts of the internationalization of Japanese higher education. Throughout this chapter, I demonstrate that the internationalization of Japanese higher education has represented Japan?s socially situated imagination (Appadurai, 1996) of the country?s position in the world, as well as its aspiration to improve this position. At the same time, I show how Western and neoliberal imaginaries of globalization have been woven into Japan?s discourses and policies of internationalization. Finally, I illustrate the implications of domestic circumstances, such as demographic changes, the state of the economy, and the higher education system, for the internationalization of Japanese higher education.   The organization of this chapter is as follows. First, I explain how the discourse of internationalization has been constructed and circulated in Japan since the Meiji era (1868-1912). For Japan, the internationalization of education was a vehicle for the development of a modern national identity. The process of modernization through internationalization was driven by Japan?s perception of its position in the world and its desire to establish itself as a modern nation by catching up with the West. Second, I illustrate how the historical roots of the internationalization of Japanese education have generated paradoxical internationalization policies and practices in Japan today. Third, I discuss two major international student policies that have played a key role in the internationalization of Japanese higher education since the 1980s. Fourth, I provide an overview of the Japanese higher education system and its close relationship with the economy. Lastly, I close the chapter by providing demographic information on international students in the Japanese higher education system and society.    55  Historical roots of the discourse of kokusaika.  The internationalization (kokusaika) of education has been Japan?s national strategy for positioning itself in the world, and it reflects how the country imagines its existence and its relationship with the rest of the world. The history of kokusaika dates back to the Meiji era, when Japan ended over two hundred years (1639-1854) of self-imposed isolation from foreign influences and began its modernization process. A guiding notion in Japan?s modernization was the imperative of ?catching up? with the West (Mochizuki, 2004; Rappleye & Kariya, 2011). Japan?s modern national identity as Self was developed based on its imagination of the West as the civilized Other, and as the universal point of reference (Mochizuki, 2004; Rappleye & Kariya, 2011). Japan aspired to establish its Self identity in the world as a modern nation in relation to the Western Other, and the internationalization of education became a leading vehicle for Japan?s self-positioning strategy. As Rappleye and Kariya (2011) meticulously document, during the Meiji era, intellectual leaders such as Yukichi Fukuzawa and Eifu Motoda argued intensely over whether Japan should adopt material, but not spiritual, civilization from the West, or vice versa. However, despite their disagreement, both camps worked within the Western paradigm of civilization toward the goal of internationalizing Japanese education. Mochizuki (2004) contends that they cooperated because both camps uncritically embraced Western racial hierarchies in their urge to create a modern Japanese identity and tried to ?elevate the Japanese race (either via cultivation of national pride or via assimilation of Western Enlightenment values)? (p. 209). Japan?s complete defeat in the Second World War devastated its national pride, and it subsequently focused on pursuing material parity with the West through ??GNP-ism? ? growth as political ideology? (Rappleye &   56  Kariya, 2011, p. 65). As a result, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Japan achieved remarkable economic growth.  The discourse of kokusaika. In this social context, the discourse of kokusaika emerged and gained popular consensus in Japanese society in the 1970s and 1980s. The emergence of globalization is often provided as a reason for the rise of the term kokusaika, not only in educational policy debates but also in Japanese public debates during this time. However, it should be noted that globalization was not necessarily completely new to Japan. As Rappleye and Kariya (2011) argue, Japan has been attuned to the West ever since the Meiji era, far earlier than when globalization is commonly believed to have ?arrived? in Japan. In other words, Japan has long had a sense of connection with the world, more precisely with the West. While being embedded in the Western imaginary of globalization, the new sense of global interconnectivity that the Japanese public started to feel in the 1970s and the 1980s is a neoliberal imaginary of globalization. By attaining economic parity with the West, Japan enjoyed the euphoric feeling of an elevated sense of self in the world. Following the country?s tremendous global economic success, Japanese political leaders and education policy makers declared that Japan had finally completed the process of catching up with the West (Rappleye & Kariya, 2011). However, according to Rappleye and Kariya (2011), for Japan, completing the process of catching up with the Western Other meant a loss of models to follow or emulate. The end of the reference to Other was followed by decades of ?lost wandering? in search of Japan?s self-identity, and of the future vision of education. When Japan experienced the bursting of the bubble economy in the early 1990s and entered a long period of economic recession, it blamed the catch-up model of the recent past and sought to replace it with neoliberal reforms (Rappleye & Kariya, 2011).    57  This does not mean, however, that neoliberalism has completely replaced the preexisting catch-up model of internationalization. For one thing, both the catch-up model and the neoliberal reforms are underpinned in Japan by the idea of competitive self-positioning. Furthermore, as explained earlier, the spread of the neoliberalist norm in social and educational reforms across the world, including in Japan, is based on colonial power relations (Forstorp, 2008; Spring, 1998), and policies and practices of internationalization as Westernization has persisted in Japan (Mok, 2007). The introduction of English as the language of instruction and the quest for creating world-class universities, informed predominantly by Anglo-Saxon standards and ideologies, are prime examples (Deem et al., 2008; Mok, 2007).  As Kariya and Rappleye (2010) argue, the rhetorical use of globalization and an educational response to it, which is often framed as kokusaika, mask the distinction between globalization?s ?real? and ?imagined? impact on education. The discourse of kokusaika has been constructed within this conceptual ambiguity. Yet, rather than being a sign of conceptual failure, this ambiguity is a product of the complex historical process in which Japan saw its position in the world and sought to develop a modern Self by catching up with the West.  To complicate the matter further, the complex historical roots of kokusaika manifest the paradoxical ideologies and practices of internationalization today. Below, I present the simultaneous promotion of nationalism and kokusaika. The counterintuitive combination of nationalism and kokusika demonstrates that the internationalization of Japanese education has continued to be a site of struggle where Japan tries to define its Self identity in relation to the Western Other without becoming completely Western. In other words, kokusaika represents Japan?s biographical solution to systemic contradictions in the world.     58  Nationalism in the discourse of kokusaika.  According to Yoshino (1997), nationalism can be categorized into two types: political nationalism and cultural nationalism. The former is produced and distributed by the state, including through formal education, whereas the latter is produced, distributed, and consumed through an informal and market-oriented process (Yoshino, 1997). In Japan, both forms of nationalism have been promoted under the popular discourse of kokusaika. The combination of internationalization and nationalism is paradoxical because, on the one hand, internationalization suggests a notion of internationalism (Rivers, 2010; Stromquist, 2007), which, according to Kosterman and Feshbach, ?focuses on international sharing and welfare, and reflects empathy for the peoples of other countries? (as cited in Rivers, 2010, p. 446). On the other hand, nationalism suggests ?a perception of national superiority and an orientation toward national dominance? (Kosterman and Feshbach as cited in Rivers, 2010, pp. 446?447).   Numerous scholars have grappled with unpacking the paradoxical involvement of nationalism in kokusaika in Japan (Kariya & Rappleye, 2010; Kubota, 1998, 2002; Mochizuki, 2004; Rivers, 2010; Yoshino, 1997). Below, building on these scholars? literature, I elaborate on cultural nationalism and political nationalism to show the complexity of the discourse of kokusaika. I then present critical scholarly debates on the matter. Building on these scholarly debates, I argue that internationalization has always been a part of Japan?s historically rooted desire to join the ?imagined international community? largely embedded in the Western imaginary of globalization. Concomitantly, I argue that the inclusion of nationalism in Japan?s internationalization is an expression of Japan?s desire to assert its national identity and to avoid becoming completely Western in the imagined international community.   59  Cultural nationalism: The nihonjinron. According to Yoshino (1997), the discourse of nihonjinron (?theories on the Japanese?), which emerged and became popular in Japan in the 1970s and 1980s, played a key role in promoting cultural nationalism against the backdrop of the popular slogan of kokusaika. The discourse of nihonjinron emphasizes the distinctiveness of Japanese culture and society, and it contributed to developing a shared sense of Japaneseness among the mass public (Yoshino, 1997). The paradoxical popularization of both the nihonjinron and kokusaika reflects Japan?s historical pursuit of modernity based on Western civilization and of its Self identity while simultaneously emphasizing its cultural difference from the Western Other (Kubota, 1998, 1999, 2002; Mochizuki, 2004; Yoshino, 1997).  Yoshino (1997) contends that cultural nationalism promoted by the discourse of nihonjinron was different from nationalism promoted by narrow-minded pre-war nationalist ideologues who aimed to manipulate mass psychology among the Japanese with a sense of cultural superiority. According to Yoshino, the producers and distributers of the nihonjinron consisted of a wide variety of thinkers, including journalists, critics, writers, and business elites. Yoshino describes them as well-intentioned internationalists whose primary aim was to explain Japan?s economic success and its lack of social problems (such as crime and social divisions) as being attributable to the unique virtues of Japanese society and national character. Believing that learning about the distinctiveness of one?s culture would be the first step toward better intercultural understanding, they aimed to cultivate a large number of internationally-minded Japanese (Yoshino, 1997). The consumers of the nihonjinron were also driven by their desire to internationalize their knowledge for practical purposes, such as improving their ability to communicate with their international business counterparts (Yoshino, 1997). As such, the   60  nihonjinron became a subject of study within fields such as intercultural communication, and gained popularity among students, businessmen, and others.  Although it was promoted through the slogan of kokusaika, the nihonjinron was constructed specifically in relation to the West rather than in relation to the broader world. In the nihonjinron, the Western Other remained a universal point of reference to define Japaneseness. The nihonjinron identifies the following three characteristics as keys to the uniqueness of Japanese society and culture: 1) groupism, vertical stratification, and dependence, in contrast to Western society, which is characterized by individualism, horizontal stratification, and independence; 2) non-logical and non-verbal communication patterns, in contrast to Western communication patterns, which are characterized by logical and linguistic presentation; and 3) the uni-racial and homogeneous composition of society (Yoshino, 1997). In these characteristics, it is evident that the nihonjinron presents an essentialized idea not only of Japanese culture and society but also of the West. Yoshino (1997) explains that the nihonjinron reflected its producers? perception of Japan?s position in the world in terms of civilization:  Japanese elites long perceived themselves and their culture to be on the ?periphery? in relation to the ?central? civilizations (first that of China and then of the West) and constructed and reconstructed Japanese identity by stressing their ?particularistic? difference from the ?universal? Chinese and Westerners. . . . Because of their perception of being on the periphery, Japanese elites tended to see it as natural to adapt themselves to the more ?universal? ways of the West. (p. 141)   Thus, despite the completion of catching up with the West, in the construction of the nihonjinron, we see the continuation of Japan?s historical trajectory to attain an equal position to the West. The homogenized imagination of Self located in the periphery, and of the West as the   61  superior Other, which had been Japan?s framework for modernization, now became its framework for internationalization.  Political nationalism.  Under the national slogan of kokusaika, political nationalism was also promoted in Japan through educational policy debates and reforms. Educational policy debates and amendments since the mid-1980s addressed the urge to foster Japanese identity and love of country through education, and to do so against the backdrop of globalization. For example, an education reform council, the Ad Hoc Council on Education (AHCE) (rinji ky?iku shingikai) (1984-1987), issued influential reports in 1987 advocating for instruction that taught students about Japan?s uniqueness and fostered their love for the country. As Kariya and Rappleye (2010) mention, the AHCE was launched by then Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, who was a leading advocate of kokusaika in Japan. Roughly two decades after Nakasone?s AHCE, nationalism successfully found its way into the revision of the Fundamental Law of Education (FLE) (ky?iku kihonh?) in 2006. Goals and Principles of Education, Article III, 5 of the revised FLE addresses the point that education is expected to ?foster an attitude that respects tradition and culture and love of the national homeland that fostered them, an attitude that respects other nations and contributes to peace and development of the international community? (as cited in Kariya & Rappleye, 2010, p. 45). In this statement, it is clear that a nationalistic sense of Self is juxtaposed against the Other in the ?international community.?  According to Mochizuki (2004), such a nationalist approach to internationalization was opposed by Japanese ?progressives,? which consisted of Japanese leftist groups, including Socialist and Communist Parties, and the Japan Teachers Union (nikky?so). The progressive camp advocated ?the need for ?genuine? internationalization,? which upheld common themes   62  such as human rights and democracy, with the educational reforms instituted under the post-war Allied Occupation (1945-1952) (Mochizuki, 2004, p. 205). However, the conservative state?s nationalistic approach to internationalization constituted the ?actual? internationalization, while the progressive camp?s approach remained ?ideal? internationalization (Mochizuki, 2004). Nevertheless, the opposing ideals of internationalization, embraced by the progressives were combined with the conservative state under the popular slogan of kokusaika.    Critical debates on nationalism in the discourse of kokusaika.  The simultaneous promotion of political nationalism, on the one hand, to solidify a core Japanese national identity, and internationalization, on the other, to promote the opening up of the Japanese education system and society to people from around the world, is a problematic paradox because it does not accommodate the increasing diversity in Japanese society and people with a different sense of belonging. Kariya and Rappleye (2010) eloquently argue: Rather than ?imagining,? say, what changes Japanese society would need to undergo to transform itself into a place to welcome immigrants or attract the best and brightest students and scholars worldwide, the discourse on educational reform has been largely dominated by a belief in the need to strengthen Japanese identity and love of country. Operating under the surface usage of the term ?internationalization,? we find not the anticipated permeability but an immune response along Japan?s cultural-cum-political borders. (p. 45)  In addition, as Yoshino (1997) points out, cultural nationalism focusing on the unique qualities of the Japanese could result in overlooking commonalities shared by Japanese and non-Japanese people, thereby hampering intercultural communications and internationalization.   63   Aside from these critical debates, what also deserves equal recognition is that the paradoxical involvement of nationalism in internationalization in Japan is a historical product of Japan?s effort to establish its identity as an equal member of the West without becoming Western (Kubota, 1998, 1999, 2002; Mochizuki, 2004). This can be interpreted to mean that internationalization was, in one sense, Japan?s ?biographical solution of systemic contradictions? (U. Beck, 1992, p. 137). As a nation that has always seen itself as occupying a low position among the hierarchy of colonial powers, the discourse of kokusaika has been Japan?s strategy: neither to subjugate the nation to the West nor to seek a counter-hegemony against the West; it was to accommodate the hegemony of the West by becoming one of the equal members of the West and to convince the West and other nations of its position based on a distinct cultural heritage. (Kubota, 1998, p. 300) Understandably, the discourse of kokusaika, despite its paradoxes, succeeded in becoming a popular national slogan because the discourse ?harmoniously? embraced the tension between Westernization and nationalism (Kubota, 1998, p. 300).   To be clear, it is not my intention to justify nationalism, camouflaged with kokusaika, merely as Japan?s strategy for coping with Western hegemony. Neither is it my intention to uncritically accept the paradoxical discourse of kokusaika, which upholds intercultural understanding on the one hand, and either a nationalistic or well-intended emphasis on Japaneseness on the other. Rather, my intention is to shed light on the historical complexity in which Japan developed kokusaika in parallel to its national identity. Only when we understand the complex, albeit paradoxical, involvement of nationalism in the discourse of kokusaika in Japan, can we attain a contextualized understanding of the internationalization of Japanese higher education today. Therefore, like Mochizuki (2004), I argue that dismissing the discourse   64  of kokusaika as a mere manifestation of Japan?s nationalism or ethnocentrism is too simplistic and could unwittingly result in participating in the colonial discourse of Western modernity and progress. Mochizuki contends: Many critics of Japan?s internationalization have reproached Japan for being chauvinistic, but they have not criticized Japan?s conceptual complicity with the Western colonialist discourse, let alone the cultural hegemony the West tenaciously asserts. . . . . When we as comparative and international education researchers attack internationalism based in ?Japaneseness? without challenging internationalism based in ?Western-ness? or the notion of the universal West, the ultimate convergence of the Japanese model of internationalization with Western models is construed as an evolutionary march toward a global village. Ironically, this approach leaves no possibility for countries of the nonwhite Other to become ?international? without becoming ?Western? despite its emphasis on ?genuine? internationalism and cosmopolitanism. (p. 218-219)  Thus, what the debate on kokusaika also needs to scrutinize is the very debate itself, which is on ?an evolutionary march toward a global village? based on the Western paradigm (Mochizuki, 2004, p. 219). Otherwise, we cannot begin to imagine an alternative internationalization in Japan that is not constrained by the Western imaginary of globalization. In this study, I therefore embed my understanding of the internationalization of Japanese university education within the complex historical construction of the discourse of kokusaika. Englishization as a way of internationalization.  One concrete manifestation of Japan?s preoccupation with the West under the slogan of kokusaika is ?Englishization,? the promotion of increased use of English and English language   65  education as a way to internationalize (Tsuneyoshi, 2005).7 According to Kubota (2002), the discourse of kokusaika played a central role in promoting foreign language teaching and learning in Japan, with a disproportional focus on English. For example, then Prime Minister Nakasone, who upheld kokusaika as a national slogan in Japan in the 1980s, launched the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme with the ambition of placing a native English speaker in every public school in Japan (McConnell, 2000). In 1997, the preliminary report (kongo no ry?gakusei seisaku no kihon h?k? ni tsuite) by the governmental committee on international student policies (ry?gakusei seisaku kondankai) addressed the goal of attracting more international students and scholars to Japanese universities and advocated the establishment of English-medium programs at Japanese universities (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). In addition, Englishization became an integral part of the 300,000 International Student Plan in 2008. The Plan proposes increasing the number of courses conducted only in English in order to attract more international students, thereby promoting the ?globalization of universities? (MEXT et al., 2008). Moreover, the Global 30 program, which was launched in 2009 to support the 300,000 International Student Plan, poses a more concrete goal for universities selected for the program: ?Establish courses at the universities selected through which English-only degrees can be obtained: 33 undergraduate courses and 124 graduate courses over the next 5 years? (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, n.d.-b). The underlying assumption of these policies is that English is essential to internationalize Japanese higher education.   As Anderson (1991) describes the role of language as a medium through which people imagine their belonging to a certain nation as an imagined community, English has been a way                                                 7 The term, eigoka, which is literally translated as ?Englishization,? was first coined by Yoshino (2002) in Japanese to refer to the spread of the use of English in non-English-speaking countries. However, in this dissertation, I follow Tsuneyoshi?s (2005) use of the term ?Englishization? to mean the increased use of English specifically in the context of internationalization.   66  for Japan to join its ?imagined international community [emphasis added]? (Kubota, 2002, p. 19). Kubota (2002) explains,  In this community, it is assumed that communication takes place mainly with people from the economic and military powers of the West, particularly the USA. Consequently, English, typically regarded as the international language, has become the focus of teaching and learning. (p. 19) This particular understanding of the English language is underpinned by Japan?s perception of the racial power hierarchy in the imagined international community, which is connected to Japan?s Self identity development process in relation to the civilized Other, the West (Kubota, 1998, 2002; Rivers, 2010). Elsewhere, Kubota (1998) elaborates on what English has historically meant for Japan:  It is argued that by learning English, the Japanese have internalized . . . Anglo-Saxon views of the world. . . . The non-native speaker of English, or the Other, is viewed as uncivilized and inferior to the Anglo speaker of English. Learning English, a language of the ?civilized,? has been one of the means for the Japanese to identify themselves with Westerners. Here the Japanese identity is split ? although the Japanese are Asians, they have wished to identify themselves with Westerners, and their Asian self as well as other Asian peoples have been perceived as the inferior Other. (p. 298) As such, for Japan, just as internationalization was a way to establish its modern national identity, English has been a means to elevate its status in relation to the West, thereby becoming an equal member of the imagined international community.   The desire to be part of the international community by using the English language is prevalent throughout Japan, from universities to the economic sector. For example, a Japanese   67  national university, Yamanashi University, recently announced its goal of teaching almost all courses in English by 2016. Their explanation for this goal illuminates its desire ?not to be left out (gr?baruka ni noriokureru koto naku)? by the international community: ?We would like to establish an environment to nurture talented students without being left out by globalization? (?Sh?shoku y?ri, fuan,? 2012). Moreover, in April 2013, the Liberal Democratic Party?s (LDP) education reform panel (ky?iku saisei jikk? honbu) proposed to Prime Minister Shinz? Abe that minimum Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores be set as a requirement for admission into and graduation from universities in Japan (?Daigaku ny?shi,? 2013). This proposal is primarily driven by the idea that English skills are key for human resources to adapt to the global economy and therefore necessary for the Japanese economy?s revitalization (Yoshida, 2013).   A part of the economic sector has preceded these drastic education reforms on English. Some large Japanese companies such as Rakuten (an online shopping mall) and UNIQLO (a clothing retail store) recently announced their decision to shift their official language from Japanese to English (Maya Kaneko, 2010). While reactions from the media and scholars are a mix of praise (Newman, 2011; ?Rakuten?s English drive,? 2012) and criticism and skepticism (Botting, 2010; Torikai, 2010), the companies maintain that English is key to their survival in the global market. Their belief is based on the idea of English as a tool to keep their businesses part of the international community. As we will see in this study?s findings, Englishization in the economic sector provides impetus and a justification for Japanese universities to further Englishization.   68  Critical debates on Englishization.  The imagined international community manifested through Englishization in the Japanese education system has prompted critical scholarly debates (Kubota, 1998, 2002; Rivers, 2010; Tsuneyoshi, 2005, 2011). Among those debates, the critiques that are most pertinent to this study are first, those that deal with English?s mismatch with the ?real? cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity in Japan, and second, those that deal with the creation or reinforcement of the essentialized Self-Other dichotomy.   As for the first problem, scholars (Kubota & Mckay, 2009; Kubota, 2002; Tsuneyoshi, 2011) claim that English does not reflect the actual cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity that exists in Japan. For example, as mentioned earlier, over 90% of the international students who are enrolled in Japanese higher education institutions come from Asian countries (Japan Student Services Organization, 2010c). Moreover, Koreans and Chinese are the largest groups of registered foreigners in Japan, accounting for over 56% of the country?s registered foreigners as of 2009 (The Immigration Bureau of Japan, 2010). In addition, the revised Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act in 1990 created an influx of South Americans of Japanese descent who immigrated to work as foreign labourers. As a result, in Japan?s public elementary and secondary schools, Portuguese speakers constitute the largest group of students whose mother tongue is not Japanese (Tsuneyoshi, 2011). Thus, it is abundantly clear that the idea that English is the international language, and that one needs it to communicate with the international community, is an imagined social construct in Japan. Therefore, by referring to the uncritical promotion of Englishization, Tsuneyoshi (2011) asserts, ?The image of an ?internationalized? Japanese, meaning someone who can speak English is what is ?imagined? ? something that is clearly at odds with the realities of multicultural Japan? (p. 121).    69   The second problem of the imagined international community, in which English is central, is the creation or reinforcement of the essentialized Self-Other dichotomy between the Japanese and the Anglophone communities. As Rivers (2010) states, ?Most of Japan?s internationalization to date has imagined the other as being a Caucasian English speaking Westerner? (p. 451). Kubota (2002) describes the discourse of kokusaika as having been promoted with the assumption that the model for English should be standard North American or British varieties. Combined with another assumption of Englishization - that learning English promotes intercultural or international understanding - English language teaching in Japan resulted in presenting, in an essentialized manner, only cultural differences between Japan as Self and Anglophone countries as the Other (Kubota, 2002).  In addition, there is a concern that teaching in English in non-English-speaking countries could jeopardize the academic quality. de Wit (2012) states that the language shift is not as simple as switching the language of instruction from one language to another. The language shift, moreover, involves a cultural shift and requires structural support, including finding faculty members who are fluent in English and establishing an English-language support system for students and faculty (de Wit, 2012). Therefore, de Wit argues,  Teaching in English is not synonymous with internationalisation but only one of several instruments related to it. But if that instrument is being used we need to address the quality concerns that are related to it. Universities should think more strategically about when, where, how and why they should transfer programmes from being taught in their mother language into English (or any other second language). There is scant literature on the implications of Englishization for the quality of teaching and learning at Japanese universities. Yet, Nunan?s (2003) study reports that a lack of the English   70  language proficiency among English teachers is one of the major challenges in English language education in schools in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Japan. Finding instructors who can teach university-level courses in English to Japanese university classrooms is thus a predictable challenge for Englishization in Japan.   In sum, Englishization is a manifestation of Japan?s imagination that English is the international language, and reflects Japan?s historically rooted desire to join the international community as an equal member to the West. Consequently, consistent with the nihonjinron, Englishization has constructed an essentialized Self-Other dichotomy between Japan and the West. All in all, despite the goal of Englishization as the promotion of international or intercultural understanding, the uncritical promotion of Englishization keeps Japanese communities obsessed with joining the imagined international community rather than engaging with the real diverse communities in Japan and beyond (Kubota, 2002; Rivers, 2010; Tsuneyoshi, 2011). In addition, another problem of Englishization is that it is promoted while its implications for the quality of teaching and learning are unknown.  As I will elaborate in Chapter 9, my intention of presenting these critiques is not to deny the need to teach or learn English. Without English language skills, it is difficult to engage in critical dialogue on the language?s global prevalence with native speakers who benefit from the global power of English. Nor is it my intention to advocate uncritical promotion of Englishization in the name of internationalization. Rather, what is necessary, as Kubota (1998) argues, is ?both critical awareness of the power of English and communicative skills in English? (p. 304). With both, English becomes a tool for social transformation (Kubota, 1998, 1999).   Thus far, I have laid out the historical and conceptual foundation of the internationalization of Japanese education. I have illustrated that internationalization is deeply   71  rooted in Japan?s modern identity development vis-?-vis Western civilization and that the historical roots manifest in the paradoxical involvement of nationalism and Englishization in internationalization. By unpacking the paradoxes of nationalism and Englishization in internationalization, I have demonstrated two conflicting desires driving internationalization in Japan: the desire to join the imagined ?international community? embedded in the Western imaginary of globalization; and the desire to assert its national identity to avoid becoming Western in the imagined international community. I now turn to the policy context of the internationalization of Japanese higher education since the 1980s in order to examine internationalization in Japan in more concrete terms. International student policies.   In this section, I present two international student policies that have been the cornerstone of the internationalization of Japanese higher education: the 100,000 International Student Plan and the 300,000 International Student Plan. Both of the policies were initiated by the Japanese government and represent more than higher education reform policies. They reflect Japan?s self-positioning strategies in the world. I show how the policies have been shaped both by Japan?s socially situated imagination of its current and future position in the world, and by social imaginaries of globalization developed and circulated at the global level.  The 100,000 International Student Plan.  In 1983, then Prime Minister Nakasone, a strong advocate for kokusaika, launched the 100,000 International Student Plan with a goal of hosting 100,000 international students by the year 2000. Hosting international students has been a central aspect of the internationalization of Japanese higher education institutions since then (Yokota et al., 2006). The policy?s goal was   72  extremely ambitious considering that in 1983 Japan hosted only 10,428 international students (Japan Student Services Organization, 2010c) and that the Japanese higher education system did not have sufficient infrastructure to accommodate a large number of international students (Suhara, 2002).   Japan?s concerns with its economic and political relationship with the rest of the world provided strong impetus for the creation of this ambitious policy. With Japan?s increasing economic power in the world, internationalization became a particularly important concern for the Japanese government in the 1970s and 1980s. Among pressures from international organizations such as UNESCO and OECD (Ehara, 1992), it was a report by an OECD mission that visited Japan in 1970 in particular that played a critical role in shaping that country?s notion of internationalization (Kitamura, 1989; Kurimoto, 1997). The report, titled Review of National Policies for Education: Japan, included a chapter on Education for World Participation that forcefully made the case for Japan to become a contributing member of the world through the internationalization of its education system. It made this case as follows:  Today there is a need for new attitudes. The world can no longer be seen simply as a market in which skills and raw materials can be acquired and products sold. Internationalism has acquired a new meaning. A hundred years ago, after the Meiji restoration, Japan entered the international stage sending Japanese abroad to learn and work on behalf of their country. Today, the demands made on Japan, as on the other Member countries, are for international participation on behalf of the world. (as cited in Kurimoto, 1997, p. 88) Based on this perspective, the OECD report made recommendations for improving foreign language teaching, officiating study abroad, and opening up Japanese educational institutions to   73  foreign students. These recommendations for Japan to open its education system to students from around the world can be explained by the large gap in the number of international students in Japan compared to other developed countries. Comparative data on the number of international students in various countries in 1970 are not readily available, but according to a report prepared by a committee responsible for Japan?s international student policy, Japan hosted only 10,428 international students in 1983, while the number was 311,882 in the United States, 119,336 in France, and 52,889 in the United Kingdom (Suhara, 2002).   In response to the 1970 OECD report, guidelines for the internationalization of higher education were issued by the Academic Council in 1973 and by the Central Education Council in 1974 (Yokota, 1993). The private sector reacted favourably, and in 1979, the education committee of the Japan Association of Corporate Executives (keizai d?y?kai) issued suggestions for improving the education system in order to produce well-prepared human resources to work in the international community (Kurimoto, 1997).   Finally, in 1983, Japan launched the 100,000 International Student Plan under the Nakasone Administration. The policy is constituted by recommendations made in two reports that were produced by a committee Nakasone commissioned to consider education for foreign students in the 21st century. One of the reports, produced in 1983, was called ?teigen (proposal),? and articulated the goal of hosting 100,000 international students by the year 2000 (Terakura, 2009a). The other report, in 1984, was called ?tenkai (development)? and specified long-term plans to achieve the goal, first by designating the period between 1983 and 1992 as an infrastructure development period, and second by designating the period between 1993 and 2000 as an expansion period during which the number of international students would be allowed to grow because of this enhanced infrastructure (Terakura, 2009a). To achieve this, the Japanese   74  government significantly expanded the budget for promoting international student admissions from 7.7 billion yen (approximately 77 million Canadian dollars [CND]) in 1983 to 53.2 billion yen (approximately 532 million CND) in 2003 (C. Ishikawa, 2006).   According to Ebuchi (1997), the primary focus of the 1000,000 International Student Plan was ?international development aid (taigai enjo)? as an ?expected role (hatasu beki yakuwari)? that ?Japan in the world (sekai no nakano nihon)? could play (p. 128). This focus mirrors the 1970 OECD report that demanded that Japan make more international contributions, and there is scholarly consensus that the policy?s prime focus was on meeting the educational needs of neighbouring Asian countries (Ebuchi, 1997; M. Ishikawa, 2011; Takeda, 2006; Terakura, 2009a; Walker, 2005). In fact, the policy relied on the government budget for Overseas Development Assistance to cover scholarships for Japanese government-sponsored students and for some primarily self-funded students from other Asian countries (M. Ishikawa, 2011). In addition, some countries, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, sponsored their own students to study in Japan as part of their countries? development strategies (M. Ishikawa, 2011).   However, some scholars claim that the policy was intended not only as an extension of international development aid, but also as a political strategy for Japan to better position itself in the world. Pointing to Japan?s history of pursuing its modern national identity by referring to Western civilization, Mochizuki (2004) argues that the ultimate aim of Japan?s policy was to play a ?civilizer?s role? for international students from developing Asian countries. According to Mochizuki, Japan?s policy goal was to ?be recognized as a ?civilized? nation? that could make intellectual contributions to the world while at the same time strengthening the country?s ?symbolic power and cultural authority? to impress the West (p. 215). In a similar vein, Japan was conscious of its position in the international competition for international students. The   75  policy?s ambitious numerical goal of 100,000 international students reflected Japan?s desire to catch up with another non-English-speaking country, France, which had approximately 120,000 international students in 1983 (C. Ishikawa, 2006). Suhara (2002) puts it simply, asserting that the policy was a statement about Japan?s national dignity as an economic giant; otherwise, it was hard to understand the rationale for the policy?s highly ambitious numerical goal.     Japan finally achieved the goal of hosting 100,000 students in 2003, three years later than originally intended. Despite various interpretations of the policy?s rationale, the shift from the initial policy to the subsequent 300,000 International Student Plan in 2008, is often described as a shift ?from ?aid? and ?train and send home? to ?proactive recruitment? for ?boosting competitiveness?? of Japanese universities and the economy (M. Ishikawa, 2011, p. 210).  The 300,000 International Student Plan.  Scholars consistently identify the declining domestic student population and the emergence of the global knowledge economy as the two major contextual factors that gave rise to the 300,000 International Student Plan and its associated internationalization policies and programs (M. Ishikawa, 2011; Terakura, 2009a; Yonezawa, Akiba, & Hirouchi, 2009). Indeed, the decline in the size of Japan?s domestic student population intensified the need to seek international students as future human resources to support the country?s economic competitiveness. In 1992, the domestic student population of 18-year olds in Japan was 2.05 million, which declined to 1.21 million in 2009 and by 2024 is estimated to decline further to 1.09 million (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, n.d.-a). Therefore, it is expected that Japan will need to bring in up to 30 million foreigners by 2050 in order to maintain its current living standards and level of economic output (Johnston, 2008). Within this   76  significant demographic change, international students have come to be seen not only as students but also as potential members of the labour force to support the Japanese economy.     According to Tsuruta (2003), two summits, one held in Cologne in 1999 and the other in Tokyo in 2000, played a key role in directing the attention of higher education policy debates among the G8 countries, including Japan, to the emergence of the global knowledge economy. At the Tokyo summit, the Education Ministers and the Member of the European Commission responsible for Education were joined by participating observers from the OECD and UNESCO, and emphasized points that had been made in the 1999 Cologne Charter: 1) ?education and lifelong learning provide individuals with the ?passport to mobility??; and 2) ??adjusting to flexibility and change? is needed due to the shift from a traditional industrialized society to an ?emerging knowledge society?? (Tsuruta, 2003, p. 121). As such, education has been clearly defined in economic terms as a tool to expand global mobility and to meet the changing needs of the global knowledge economy.   Against these domestic and global backdrops, then Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda, in his speech at the 169th Diet in January 2008, proposed the ?Plan for 300,000 Exchange Students? (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2008). Subsequently, in July 2008, six ministries issued the aforementioned 300,000 International Student Plan (MEXT et al., 2008). The new international student policy is therefore not solely a higher education policy but also a national policy involving multiple actors from various domains, such as immigration, labour, economy, and foreign affairs. Yet, given that Prime Minister Fukuda introduced the policy in the speech section titled ?Creating an Economic Society with Vitality,? the policy in particular focuses on enhancing Japan?s economic competitiveness in the world. The policy states, ?As a part of the ?global strategy? to open up Japan to the whole world and expand flows of people, goods, money   77  and information between Japan and countries in Asia and other regions in the world, Japan will aim to accept up to 300,000 international students by the year 2020?8 (MEXT et al., 2008). As seen in this statement, the policy emphasizes an empirical aspect of globalization and frames Japanese higher education and international students as vehicles for enhancing Japan?s mobility in globalization, more specifically in a neoliberal imaginary of globalization. In addition, as previously described, the new policy explicitly promotes Englishization as a way to internationalize Japanese universities, which is a clear manifestation of a Western imaginary of globalization.   In particular, the policy is distinguished from the 100,000 International Student Plan in that it describes international students as ?high-quality? human resources. Moreover, the policy is coordinated with other policies and programs that consistently frame international students and internationalization in economic terms. Below, I elaborate on these two new economic aspects of the policy, but only after noting that while this new international student policy is driven by neoliberal principles, the policy?s primary focus is not on expanding national revenues from accepting international students as customers, as is the case in the United Kingdom, or as a source of export revenue, as is the case in Australia (Terakura, 2009b). It is undeniable that sustaining Japanese universities in the face of the rapid decline of the university-age population is part of the policy?s rationale. Yet, the primary focus of the new policy is recruiting and retaining a large volume of international students as highly skilled human resources rather than treating them as a revenue source (Terakura, 2009b). For the fiscal year 2008, the Japanese government budgeted approximately 40,000 million yen (approximately 400 million CND) to                                                 8 The translation adopted from the Outline of the Student Exchange System: Study in Japan and Abroad by the Student Exchange Office, Student Services Division, Higher Education Bureau of MEXT (2008a).   78  accept Japanese government-sponsored international students, to provide financial support for self- or otherwise-financed international students, and to enhance accommodations for international students (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2008a).   International students as ?high quality? human resources.  What is most noteworthy about the 300,000 International Student Plan is that it focuses on recruiting and retaining international students as ?high quality? human resources (k?do jinzai) for the Japanese economy. Two issues need to be highlighted. First, the new policy targets ?high quality? international students, whereas the priority of the previous international student policy was on expanding the ?quantity? (Terakura, 2009a). The intention of the 300,000 International Student Plan is that, ?Efforts should be made to strategically acquire excellent international students? (MEXT et al., 2008). The discourse of the ?quality? of international students emerged in the context of Japan?s rapidly expanding international student population, which was a result of the 100,000 International Student Plan, and it magnified the problems associated with international students in Japan (Lassegard, 2006; Terakura, 2009a). These problems included international students whose real intent of coming to Japan was employment rather than education, their low degree completion rates, and illegal overstays. However, many of the problems can be attributed to the flawed Japanese higher education system and visa screening procedures (C. Ishikawa, 2006; Lassegard, 2006). Nonetheless, the shift in focus from the quantity of international students to their quality has been a highly debated policy issue in Japanese higher education, and it has become a particular concern for Japan as global competition for ?brains? (zun? kakutoku ky?s?) intensifies (Terakura, 2009a).  Second, whereas international students had been deemed ?guests? who would return home after graduation (Kurimoto, 1997), the 300,000 International Student Plan now treats   79  international students as potential human resources for the Japanese economy. The policy proposes the enhancement of career support for international students so that they remain in Japan to work. The policy sets forth the measure, ?Promoting acceptance of international students into society after graduation or completion of courses? as a way to promote the ?globalization of society (shakai no gur?baruka)? in Japan (MEXT et al., 2008). The measure calls for collaboration between government, industry, and academia to facilitate enhanced internship opportunities and job-hunting support, and flexible visa extension process.  However, it should be noted that the policy envisions international students? post-graduation stays as temporary. On the one hand, the policy upholds the goal of the ?globalization of society.? On the other hand, as Rivers (2010) rightly problematizes, the policy, not to mention its confused use of the terms globalization and internationalization,9 does not propose the enhancement of opportunities for international students to live in Japan permanently. The policy only proposes extending the period of time these students are permitted to stay in Japan and maintaining contact with them after they return home. This lack of commitment to integrating international students into Japanese society on a permanent basis is consistent with the persistent resistance against increasing the number of immigrants, as opposed to relying on temporary foreign labour, by the Diet, bureaucracy, and business leaders, who are represented by the powerful business-lobbying group, the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) (Johnston, 2008). Rivers therefore contends that the internationalization of Japanese higher education is based on Japan?s self-serving nationalistic ideologies. Regardless of whether we should interpret the resistance to immigration as a manifestation of Japanese leaders? nationalistic desire to maintain                                                 9 See Burgess, Gibson, Klaphake, & Selzer (2010) for how the term kokusaika (internationalization) has been overtaken by the term gr?baruka (globalization) in internationalization policy texts in Japan.    80  the homogeneity of Japanese society, it is undeniable that the policy is self-serving and strives to fulfill the country?s economic needs without making a commitment to the lives of international students. Nonetheless, supporting international students? careers in Japan is a new feature that the previous international student policy did not have. This change reflects a significant paradigm shift in Japan?s international student policies: from an international development aid model to a self-serving national strategy model that emphasizes the recruitment and development of high quality human resources (Terakura, 2009b). This policy shift is evidence of the 300,000 International Student Plan adopting the neoliberal imaginary of globalization.    Supporting policies and programs.  The 300,000 International Student Plan is supported by a number of policies and programs. Firstly, in 2009 the MEXT launched the Global 30 Program, which selects 30 ?core? universities for internationalization from among more than 750 universities in Japan. The selected universities are expected to ?play a major role in dramatically boosting the number of international students educated in Japan? (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, n.d.-b). To that end, the program annually supplies each selected university with 200 to 400 million yen (approximately 2 to 4 million CND) for five years, and in return each selected university is expected to recruit 3,000 to 8,000 international students (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, n.d.-b). So far, 13 universities (seven national universities and six private universities) have been selected for the program10 (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 2009).                                                 10 Due to the Government Revitalization Unit Scruitinizing Public Projects (jigy? shiwake), initiated by the Hatoyama Administration in September 2009, the budget for the Global 30   81    In addition, as the OECD (2006) encourages, the 300,000 International Student Plan is coordinated with other policies and programs. For example, the Asian Gateway Initiative by the Cabinet Office (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2007), the Career Development Program for Foreign Students in Japan by the MEXT and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (n.d.), and the Economic Growth Strategy by the METI (2006) consistently refer to the internationalization of Japanese higher education as a strategy for enhancing Japan?s economic and research competitiveness, and they also refer to international students as human capital to support the Japanese economy. This policy coordination strategy resonates with what Ball (1993) calls a ?policy ensemble? of different policies referring to each other through the use of certain words and concepts, thereby generating a hegemonic policy discourse (p. 14). Likewise, these policies and programs that are coordinated with the 300,000 International Student Plan consistently describe higher education and international students as a means to enhance Japan?s economic competitiveness in the global knowledge economy. As such, the 300,000 International Student Plan, together with these programs and policies, are located in the neoliberal imaginary of globalization. Discussion.  Central to both the 100,000 International Student Plan and the 300,000 International Student Plan is that the internationalization of Japanese higher education has been Japan?s self-positioning project in the world, rather than being only a matter of higher education reform. This internationalization policy trajectory, along with national self-positioning, is consistent with the historical tendency since the late 1860s to see the internationalization of Japanese education as a                                                                                                                                                        program was reduced (Nemoto et al., 2009). As a result, the call for applications for the remaining 17 slots has not been announced as of November 23, 2012.    82  way to modernize. This observation leads us to conclude that the internationalization of Japanese education has always been a means through which Japan pursues its aspirations to participate in the international community.   Yet, rather than simply labeling it as a self-serving nationalistic project to fulfill the country?s identity needs (Rivers, 2010), internationalization in Japan requires a more nuanced understanding. It needs to be understood as an expression of Japan?s socially situated imagination (Appadurai, 1996) of how the country perceived its position in the world?s power configurations, and how it has aspired to better position itself. At the same time, it is difficult to accept as plausible that recent internationalization, which is preoccupied with global competitiveness and human resource development, is a self-evident or inevitable response to changing socio-economic and political contexts (M. Ishikawa, 2011). As Japan?s modern national identity development was informed by the discourse of Western modernity, both the 100,000 International Student Plan and the 300,000 International Student Plan were significantly ?spoken by? discourses outside Japan?s national boundaries. The former policy was constructed based on how Japan should participate in the international community, at least as prescribed by the OECD. Later, the idea of the international community became more heavily informed by neoliberal ideologies of global interconnectivity. While incorporating needs and circumstances within the national borders, the subsequent policy, the 300,000 International Student Plan, upholds the need for Japanese higher education to serve the global knowledge economy. Some scholars problematize the Japanese government?s and universities? skewed pursuit of international competitiveness and call for increased attention to the educational value of internationalization (Yonezawa et al., 2009). Nonetheless, in the literature on the   83  internationalization of Japanese higher education, critical debates on the neoliberal shift regarding the purpose of education (Rizvi, 2007) are scarce. The Japanese higher education system.   Now, let us turn our focus from internationalization policies to the Japanese higher education system in relation to its changing domestic environment. The post-war Japanese higher education system was developed in a close relationship with the Japanese economy and is now encountering unprecedented challenges due to the changing economic and demographic contexts. To contextualize the understanding of the internationalization of Japanese universities, I will illustrate these contextual changes and challenges as I provide an overview of the higher education system and its close relationship with the Japanese economy. Although international students are the focus of this study, the following discussions include issues concerning Japanese students because they constitute a significant student group not only as stakeholders in the Japanese higher education system but also as counterparts to the international student population.   In Japan, there are 86 national universities,11 90 local public universities, and 589 private universities (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2008b). Because private universities make up such a large proportion of all universities, they enroll over 73% of the overall post-secondary level students in Japan, including both domestic and international students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2008b). While Japan?s private universities contribute to mass higher education, primarily at the undergraduate level, national universities play a significant role in research and graduate-level education (Motohisa Kaneko, 2004).                                                  11 Japanese national universities used to be directly operated by the MEXT. In 2004, however, as part of the neoliberal Structural Reform (Yokoyama, 2008), they were incorporated to become ?national university corporations? with increased autonomy and new managerialism (?ba, 2007). 	   84   The massive private university sector in Japan is a result of the increasing demand for higher education after Japan?s economic growth in the late 1950s, and of the Japanese government?s disproportional investment in national universities (Motohisa Kaneko, 2004). The continuing excessive demand for higher education has generated fierce competition for university admissions and intensive cramming, referred to by the infamous name, ?entrance exam hell? (juken jigoku). The Japanese higher education system thus became stratified primarily based on the selectivity permitted by university entrance exam scores. To respond to criticisms about the one-dimensional assessment of universities, new indicators were created to measure the quality of Japanese universities from different perspectives (Yonezawa, 2002). Nonetheless, the Japanese university ranking based on student selectivity has been too entrenched for too long for those new indicators to have much effect (Yonezawa, 2002). With a few exceptions, national universities, particularly former imperial universities, generally occupy the top tier, and the vast majority of private universities are ranked in the middle to lower levels of the hierarchy (Asahi Shinbun Shuppan, 2009).  However, due to the shrinking size of the 18-year-old cohort, higher education institutions have become too numerous. As a result, the massive private university sector?s position, particularly among lower-ranking universities, has become vulnerable (Akabayashi, 2006). In 2009, 46.5% of private universities in Japan could not fill their seats (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, n.d.a). Except for those who seek admissions to the small number of the most prestigious universities, being admitted to a university has become easier, and the ?entrance exam hell? has become a thing of the past. The change can be seen in the numbers; The percentage of applicants admitted to colleges or universities was only 51.7% in 1990, but rose to 81.8% in 2005 (Kariya & Rappleye, 2010).   85  A close relationship with the Japanese economy.  Aside from the rapid decline in the number of the 18-year-olds, changes in the Japanese economy have dramatically changed the landscape of the Japanese higher education system. The competition for university admissions used to be driven by the popular belief that entrance into a good university would lead to a good job, which in turn would lead to a good life. The belief was supported by two characteristics of traditional Japanese employment practices: the mass graduate recruitment system and the life-long employment system (Kariya & Rappleye, 2010). Japanese companies used to, and still do to a lesser extent, recruit their annual quota of new employees from soon-to-be school or university graduates and hire them for a lifetime. The hierarchical higher education system worked as a mechanism for sorting university graduates into different segments of the employment market, which resulted in an obsessive social focus on educational credentialism (gakureki shakai), or what Dore (1976) called ?diploma disease.? At the same time, the close linkage between the higher education system and the labour market provided an incentive for students to study hard to enter a good university while also fueling the competition for university admissions.   Japanese employment practices, which relied heavily on the university entrance exam to sort the talent level of prospective employees, contributed to shaping a particular lifestyle of Japanese university students. In the traditional lifetime employment system in Japan, employers invested in their employees? training after employment (Ellington, 1992). Therefore, academic achievements, or a lack thereof, during university rarely affected students? employability. For many Japanese students who were finally free of the pressure to pass their university entrance examinations, four years of university meant time to enjoy freedom (Ellington, 1992). Moreover, non-academic activities such as student clubs and part-time jobs have become central to Japanese   86  university students? lives. Japanese universities have thus become subject to severe criticism for merely acting as employment agents to meet the demands of the capitalist society, rather than as academic or educational institutions (McVeigh, 2002, 2005).   However, the smooth school-to-work transition for university students in Japan was disrupted by changes in the Japanese economy (Kariya & Rappleye, 2010). As economic stagnation set in Japan in the 1990s, the Japanese government launched a series of neoliberal reforms called the Structural Reform (k?z? kaikaku), which was introduced by the Hashimoto Cabinet (1996-1998) and extensively promoted by the Koizumi Cabinet (2001-2006) under the slogan, ?reform without sanctuaries (seiiki naki kaikaku).? As part of the reforms, the Koizumi Cabinet deregulated labour market policies in 2003 to allow companies to engage in non-standard employment practices and to keep the Japanese economy competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. In line with the neoliberal agenda, Japanese companies adopted the policies to hire more part-time (arubaito), dispatched (haken), and contract (keiyaku) workers, while still maintaining the long-standing custom of offering lifetime employment. As a result, Japanese companies started to hire fewer school or university graduates as full employees (sei shain) instead of laying off middle-aged employees. Consequently, the linkage between university entrance examination success and a secure life with lifetime employment was broken. It has been a common employment practice in Japan for university students to attain job offers before graduation in April, which is the beginning of the new fiscal year in Japan. However, in October 2010, the ratio of prospective graduates from Japanese universities with a job offer (naitei ritsu) for the following April was 57.6%, the lowest percentage in history (Hanano & Yoshida, 2012).    87   The fractured connection between university and employment, combined with the ?easier? admission to universities, has resulted in deteriorating motivation to study (Kariya & Rappleye, 2010). The aforementioned ?relaxed? lifestyle of Japanese university students has not changed, and the amount of time that they spend on studying has remained very small. In 2006, the average time that college or university students ? including graduate students ? in Japan spent on schoolwork12 was only three and a half hours per day13 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2006). Moreover, the declining number and percentage of Japanese university students going abroad to study has been interpreted as Japanese students becoming more inward-looking (uchimuki) and has caused concern among those policy-makers who promote the development of global human resources (The Council on Promotion of Human Resource for Globalization Development, 2012). Accordingly, in 2011, the MEXT launched a new project called the Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development in collaboration with the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, n.d.). This project is widely known as Global 30 Plus. While the Global 30 Program, launched in 2009, focuses on enhancing inbound student mobility, the Global 30 Plus focuses on the outbound student mobility by encouraging Japanese students to study overseas.   Meanwhile, Japanese companies are turning elsewhere to scout for prospective employees. Many see ambition, aggressiveness, and English skills as lacking among Japanese university students and have thus started recruiting international students who studied at Japanese universities or graduates from top universities in other Asian countries. Chinese students are particularly popular among Japanese companies due to the growing Chinese market.                                                 12 This includes classes and homework. 13 The time spent on schoolwork by the same category of students was three hours and 40 minutes in 1986, and three hours and 29 minutes in 1991 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2006).   88  On the one hand, this new trend has attracted considerable media attention (?Firms fight,? 2010, ?Firms turning,? 2010, ?Japanese corporate giants,? 2010, ?More Japanese companies,? 2010; McNeill, 2011). On the other hand, it is too early to gauge the pervasiveness and persistence of this emerging trend in Japanese companies? hiring practices. For one thing, it remains unknown to what extent Japanese companies are open to hiring new types of employees. For instance, some argue that Japanese companies? rigid and inflexible job-hunting system and their lack of interest in hiring Japanese students who had studied abroad are some of the major causes of the aforementioned Japanese students? reluctance to study overseas, rather than the students? inward-looking mentality (Burgess, 2013; Kakuchi, 2012). The development of Japanese companies? hiring trend and its implications for the Japanese higher education system, including Japanese and international students, will deserve scholarly attention in the future.  Demographics of international students in Japan.  To add a final contextual layer to the study, I provide information on the demographics of international students in Japan. Below, I contextualize the international student population first within the Japanese higher education system and then within the broader social context.   According to the Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) (2010c), 132,720 international students were enrolled in Japanese higher educational institutions as of May 2009. The countries that send the largest percentage of international students to Japan include China (59.6%), Korea (14.8%), and Taiwan (4.0%). Approximately 90% of international students in Japan are self-funded. The distribution of male and female international students in Japan is roughly equal.   International students? degree level, type of institution, and field of study reflect the aforementioned characteristics of the Japanese higher education system, namely the different   89  roles and the distribution of national and private universities in Japan: A small number of national universities focus on graduate-level education and research, while the massive private university sector enrolls the majority of undergraduate students. According to JASSO (2009), over 90% of the international students in Japan are degree-seekers, and approximately 26% and 48% of degree-seeking international students are at the graduate level and at the undergraduate level, respectively. While over 60% of graduate-level international students in Japan are enrolled in national institutions, and over 50% of them study in scientific fields, over 80% of undergraduate international students in Japan are enrolled in private institutions, and over 80% of them study social sciences and humanities, 56.2% and 24.9% respectively.14 Chinese students constitute the largest international student nationality group in Japan, and 87% of them are degree-seeking. Out of these degree-seeking students, 68% are enrolled in undergraduate programs as of 2009.15   As discussed earlier, the 300,000 International Student Plan (MEXT et al., 2008) aims to promote post-graduate employment for international students in Japan. Undergraduate programs in Japanese universities are the largest pipelines through which international students move into the Japanese labour market. According to JASSO (2010b), in 2008, 3,873 undergraduate international students remained in Japan for employment,16 while 672 and 2,063 international students graduating from doctorate and master programs, respectively, remained in Japan for the same reason.                                                 14 Data on international students? majors by degree levels and institution types were obtained through personal correspondence with JASSO in June 2010. The data are from the fiscal year 2009. 15 Ibid. 16 This figure, 3,873, accounts for 34.9% of all international students graduating from undergraduate programs in Japan. The remaining undergraduate-level international graduates stayed in Japan for education (26.8%) or other reasons (14.4%), returned home (22.4%), or moved to a third country other than Japan and their home country (1.4%).    90   In 2008, out of the international students who changed their residence status in Japan from student to employee, Chinese nationals represented the largest group, accounting for 69.3%, and over 75% of them were in the visa category of ?specialist in humanities/international services? (The Immigration Bureau of Japan, 2009). This visa category suggests that those Chinese workers engage in businesses that deal with China or other Chinese speaking regions of the world, and thus make use of their bilingual skills and their Chinese cultural backgrounds (Liu-Farrer, 2010).   In sum, the majority of international students in Japan study humanities and social sciences at the undergraduate-level at private universities. Chinese students are by far the largest nationality group among international students who study at Japanese higher education institutions and who enter the Japanese labour market after graduation. In other words, Chinese international students play a significant role in fulfilling one of the major goals of the 300,000 International Student Plan: to retain international students for employment in Japan after graduation. International students in Japan?s cultural diversity.    In 2009, the proportion of Japan?s registered foreigners,17 including international students, was only 1.71% (The Immigration Bureau of Japan, 2010). These statistics appear to confirm the long-held myth of Japan being a homogeneous country. However, the low proportion of foreign residents in Japan is not necessarily an accurate reflection of Japan?s actual                                                 17 Foreigners registered under Alien Registration Law. This population is comprised of permanent residents (24.4%), special permanent residents (who were forcibly relocated to Japan from former colonies and their offspring) (18.7%), spouses of Japanese nationals (10.2%), long-term residents (10.1%), college students (6.7%), dependents (5.3%), specialists in humanities/international services (3.2%), trainees (3.0%), engineers (2.3%), pre-college students (2.1%), and others (14.0%).   91  cultural diversity. Firstly, the demographic category ?Japanese? can include a diverse group of people. There have been historically and systematically marginalized populations in Japan, such as the Ainu (indigenous people in Hokkaido), Okinawans (indigenous people in Okinawa), and the burakumin (a social minority group occupying the bottom of the Japanese social order, which had been developed during the Japanese feudal era) (Weiner, 1997; Willis & Murphy-Shigematsu, 2008a). Currently, Japan does not track statistics on its population?s self-reported ethnic or cultural origins. Therefore, Japanese citizens who are not culturally or ethnically Japanese (e.g., the Ainu, Okinawans, people of mixed heritage18) have no way to report their identity other than ?Japanese? (Willis & Murphy-Shigematsu, 2008b). In addition, once foreign nationals take on Japanese nationality, they are counted as ?Japanese? (Tsuneyoshi, 2011). Each year between 2003 and 2012, 10,000-to-17,000 foreign nationals in Japan acquired the status of naturalized citizen (Ministry of Justice, n.d.).  Secondly, even among the population of ?registered foreigners,? there is diversity, such as ?old comers,? who came to Japan mostly from Japan?s former colonies in Asia before or during the Second World War, and ?new comers,? who arrived in Japan since the 1980s mostly as foreign labour. Lastly, the largest nationality groups among foreign residents in Japan are Chinese (31.1%) and Koreans (26.5%) (The Immigration Bureau of Japan, 2010), which means that many ethnic minorities and foreigners in Japan are visibly indistinguishable from ethnic Japanese (Tsuneyoshi, 2011; Willis & Murphy-Shigematsu, 2008b). International students in Japan are located in a nuanced demographic context of Japanese society, because homogeneity has been imagined for so long, while real diversity is often hidden, invisible, or unknown.                                                  18 Children of mixed heritage can acquire Japanese nationality from either parent.   92   International students currently occupy a small segment of the foreign resident population in Japan, accounting for only 6.7%19 in 2009 (The Immigration Bureau of Japan, 2010). With the 300,000 International Student Plan, there is potential growth in the number of not only international students but also of those international students who enter the Japanese labour market and choose to live in Japan for a period after graduation. The actual pace of growth and the duration of individuals? stays in Japan have yet to be documented.                                                  19 This does not include those who are enrolled in non-higher-education institutions, such as a high school, a professional training school, or a language school (2.1%).   93  Chapter 4: Literature Review  In the previous chapter, I explored the discourses and policies of internationalization at the national level with a particular focus on Japan, and did so in order to provide a contextual overview of the internationalization of Japanese higher education. In the current chapter, I shift the level of analysis to the institutional and student levels. This chapter is organized along the lines of the key components of this study: 1) the internationalization of higher education institutions; and the construction of international student identities in and through 2) global mobility; and 3) international education experiences in host countries. For each area, I will provide a review of the relevant empirical studies beginning with countries other than Japan before narrowing the focus to the Japanese context. Internationalization of higher education at the institutional level.  In the previous chapter, I showed that internationalization has been Japan?s self-positioning strategy and reflects its ?biographical solution of systemic contradictions? (U. Beck, 1992, p. 137) in the world, including in the global higher education market. Literature on the internationalization of universities in Japan and in other parts of the world also shows that internationalization is a self-positioning tool for universities in the uneven international and domestic fields of higher education. The literature suggests that universities? internationalization approaches reflect their socially situated imagination of their current and future positions in the domestic and international higher education fields.  In Chapter 2, I introduced two interrelated types of imagined communities that higher education institutions aspire to become through internationalization: the communities to which institutions imagine their students will belong in the future, and the communities to which the   94  institutions themselves aspire to belong in the global higher education community. As for the former, even though the meaning of global citizenship is highly contested (Bowden, 2003; Parekh, 2003; Roman, 2003), numerous scholars have called for curriculum reforms and education programs to prepare students to future global citizens, and this is based on the prediction that students will live in an increasingly interdependent world (Agnello, White, & Fryer, 2006; M. Evans, 2006; Hanson, 2010; Nussbaum, 2002; Sheppard, 2004). Yet, it is not clear whether such an imagined global community for students is the central impetus for higher education institutions to internationalize their institutions and their approach to education.   The literature often discusses ? and does so explicitly - internationalization in terms of higher education institutions? positioning in the world at the domestic, regional, or international levels (Cantwell & Maldonado-Maldonado, 2009; Chan & Dimmock, 2008; Dixon, 2006; Stensaker et al., 2008; Stromquist, 2007). The literature suggests that many higher education institutions? imagined community is located within the global higher education market, which is embedded in neoliberal and Western imaginaries of globalization. Within these particular imaginings, institutions aspire to better position themselves in the stratified and uneven global higher education community through internationalization.   For example, Stromquist?s (2007) case study of a private research-intensive university in the United States reveals that for that university, internationalization was in essence an international positioning strategy guided by the principles of neoliberalism, namely, marketing and competition. Stromquist concludes that internationalization was ?an expression of economic and technological globalization in which university ?entrepreneurs? are not merely looking for more contracts and contacts with industry but, ultimately, are concerned with establishing regular international sites and presence? (p. 102).   95   However, how higher education institutions imagine their positions in the global higher education community and approach internationalization are embedded not only in a neoliberal imaginary but also in a Western imaginary of globalization. For example, Dixon?s (2006) case study of an international joint program between universities in Australia and Thailand illuminates the intersection between the neoliberal and Western imaginaries of globalization. How the universities saw their positions in the international higher education community and in the partnership relationship were informed by the two social imaginaries of globalization. Both of the universities entered the partnership with the desire to become competitive players in the global higher education community. However, they were driven by different concerns because of their different positions in that community. The Thai side was driven to acquire Western knowledge and pedagogy from their Australian counterpart in order to join the international higher education community. Their concern was social mobility and status through the acquisition of Western qualifications, which would be served by the partnership. In contrast, the Australian side already had an established position in the international community. Their interest was primarily in financial gain through commodification of their knowledge and pedagogy. These findings demonstrate how higher education institutions imagine their current and future positions in the global higher education community are rooted in the world?s colonial power relations, as well as in the contemporary market paradigm of higher education.   These two case studies by Stromquist (2007) and Dixon (2006) reveal an interesting yet concerning overlap that suggests that a neoliberal imaginary of globalization is disguised in the benign discourse of internationalization. Their institutions in both of their studies highlight a benevolent and useful aspect of their internationalization activities, such as intercultural understanding and international collaboration. Stromquist and Dixon problematize how the   96  innocent discourse of internationalization masks the economic link between internationalization and globalization. As Stromquist puts it succinctly, ?At the university level, globalization is manifested by what is termed by insiders as ?internationalization?? (p. 81). Similarly, Dixon argues that her participant institutions are unwittingly participating in the neoliberal discourse of globalization in the name of internationalization when they should be critically scrutinizing their involvement in it.   As such, the neoliberal and Western imaginaries of globalization provide a broad context against which higher education institutions imagine their position in the world and try to reposition themselves through internationalization. Yet, at the same time, locally specific contextual factors also matter. For example, an empirical study of higher education institutions in Scandinavian countries demonstrates that despite the one-dimensional economic focus of internationalization policies at the national level, higher education institutions? geographical locations (i.e., urban, rural) and institutional status (i.e., university, college) dictate their internationalization needs and strategies (Stensaker et al., 2008). In addition, internationalization reflects institutions? historical and political contexts. A comparative study by Chan and Dimmock (2008) of two universities in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong provide a good example. The Hong Kong university?s aspiration for internationalization was to ?enhance its capacity to act as ?a gateway between mainland China and the global community,?? reflecting that city?s desire to develop a new national identity in relation to mainland China (Chan & Dimmock, 2008, p. 190). For the university in the United Kingdom, internationalization was primarily for its international positioning, as British universities always have been seen as ?outward looking? ever since the colonial time of the British Empire (Chan & Dimmock, 2008, p. 191).   97   These findings point to the intersection between social imaginaries and imagined communities in higher education institutions? internationalization policies (as both text and discourse) and practices. These policies and practices reflect their socially situated imagination of their current positions and future possibilities in global and local higher education fields. Their different approaches to internationalization illuminate how they imagine the higher education community around them and how they see their position in relation to this community, as well as how they see their future possibilities from their particular vantage point. While their imagined communities are influenced by numerous locally specific factors, they are simultaneously entrenched in the neoliberal and Western imaginaries of globalization.  The internationalization of Japanese universities.  For Japanese universities, internationalization is a self-positioning strategy, both for the universities thems