This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]On: 23 May 2013, At: 00:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Studies in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcse20

Issues surrounding English, theinternationalisation of higher educationand national cultural identity in Asia: afocus on JapanPhan Le Ha aa Faculty of Education, Monash University , Clayton , AustraliaPublished online: 17 May 2013.

To cite this article: Phan Le Ha (2013): Issues surrounding English, the internationalisation ofhigher education and national cultural identity in Asia: a focus on Japan, Critical Studies inEducation, 54:2, 160-175

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.781047

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Critical Studies in Education, 2013Vol. 54, No. 2, 160–175, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.781047

Issues surrounding English, the internationalisation of highereducation and national cultural identity in Asia: a focus on Japan

Phan Le Ha*

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

(Received 2 November 2012; final version received 26 February 2013)

The English language is significant to the internationalisation of higher educationworldwide. Countries in Asia are proactive in appropriating English for their nationalinterests, while paying attention to associated national cultural identity issues. This arti-cle examines the ways in which the role of English is interpreted and justified in differentcountries in Asia, with a particular focus on Japan, as these nations attempt to inter-nationalise their higher education within the broader processes of regionalisation andglobalisation and their own nationalist discourse. Through critical analyses and discus-sions of Japan’s two major government initiatives, the Action Plan 2003 to ‘CultivateJapanese with English Abilities’ and the ‘Global 30’ Project 2008, the article inves-tigates how cultural national identities are shaped, are altered and are put ‘at risk’ inpolicies and practices for the internationalisation of higher education and the overem-phasis on English. It argues for the importance of understanding the intersections ofEnglish language policy, the internationalisation of higher education and national cul-tural identity and also considers how the over-promotion of English in the case of Japanhas been energetically driven by the nation building agenda that tends to underminelocal languages and what this might mean for internationalisation.

Keywords: Asia-Pacific region; educational policy; English as an InternationalLanguage; globalisation and internationalisation; higher education

Introduction

The English language is significant for the internationalisation of higher education world-wide. The internationalisation of higher education has become institutionalised around alinguistic preference for English. The policies and practices of the internationalisation ofhigher education in global contexts often assume the importance of English in the pro-duction, circulation and dissemination of academic knowledge. Most academic programsin international education are taught in English. In Asia, in particular, systems of highereducation have promoted the development of English-medium programs and partnershipswith overseas universities, almost invariably through English. With the growing emphasison English in Asian higher education, English as a commercial, political, intellectual andcultural resource is increasingly appropriated by countries and universities throughout Asia.

The nation-state and nationalist discourse play an important role in constructing andreconstructing the nation’s national cultural identity through its language policy and inter-nationalisation agendas. I argue that it is highly necessary to further investigate and engagewith the significant role of the nation-state in relation to the internationalisation of higher

*Email: ha.phan@monash.edu

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

Critical Studies in Education 161

education and the dominance of English, thus arguing for the need to further understandhow internationalisation is occurring within national borders and in close relationship withthe nation-state’s identification with English.

At the same time, it has been clearly demonstrated that the construction of culturalnational identity in global contexts is largely embedded in the language project that shapeswhat it means to be one nation, one people, one shared culture and identity (Hall, 1997;Ricento, 2000; Tong & Cheung, 2011; Tsui & Tollefson, 2007). This process is morecomplex in postcolonial times when the current global status of English dominates locallanguages in many communities, thus reshaping the language culture identity dynamics ofthose contexts in varied ways. English simultaneously carries multiple meanings, includingmemories of a painful colonial past, the glorification of English as a global language ofnecessity, popularity, opportunity and advancement, a language of reconciliation, empow-erment and integration, a language of identity liberation and yet constraint, a language ofexclusion and discrimination and a language of local creativity and sensibility (Pennycook,1998, 2008, 2010; Phan, 2008, 2009). In the context of postcolonial English and the interna-tional status of English, the use of English and one’s identification with it play an importantpart in both one’s desire to communicate with the world and one’s will to preserve one’snational cultural identity (Hashimoto, 2000, 2007; Rappy & Wee, 2006). In this desire,English contributes dynamically to identity formation at all levels and in complex manners.

This article, therefore, examines the ways in which the role of English is interpreted,projected and justified in different countries in Asia (with a particular focus on Japan),as these nations attempt to simultaneously internationalise their higher education and pro-mote their national cultural identity. It discusses how the relationship which certain nationalcommunities have with English determines how they position their internationalisation ofhigher education projects within the broader processes of regionalisation and globalisation,while at the same time they also engage with their own nationalist discourses. It is impor-tant to recognise how such national interests are shaped, altered, achieved and are put ‘atrisk’ in policies and practices for the internationalisation of higher education.

The article argues for the need to understand the intersections of English languagepolicy, the internationalisation of higher education and national cultural identity and alsoconsiders how the over-promotion of English in Asia has been energetically driven bythe nation building agenda that tends to undermine local languages and what this mightmean for internationalisation and the nation’s cultural identity. To address these issues,Japan’s two major government initiatives, the Action Plan 2003 to ‘Cultivate Japanesewith English Abilities’ and the ‘Global 30’ Project 2008, are specifically discussed in thelater part of the article.

Internationalisation of higher education and the nation-state

The nation-state does play a significant role in pursuing and shaping the internationalisationof higher education in each respective country. Specifically, Huang (2003) maintains thatthe internationalisation of higher education highlights the role of the nation-state in termsof issues of identity, sovereignty and autonomy (p. 3). Knight (2003, 2004) argues that thelocal and national have their own ‘will’ in internationalisation which is not necessarily con-trolled by global processes. Marginson and Rhoade (2002) and Marginson and Sawir (2011)emphasise the intersections of the global, national and local in the internationalisation ofhigher education. For Yang (2002, p. 91), internationalisation tends to be ‘more closely tiedto the specific history, culture, resources and priorities of the specific institutions of highereducation’ and the respective nations in which they are located. Importantly, the nation-state

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

162 L-H. Phan

is seen as having a key role in shaping, responding to and enacting the internationalisationof higher education systems (Mok, 2011).

However, the degree to which the nation-state plays these roles varies with the defi-nitions and understandings of the internationalisation of higher education, which involvesdifferent aspects and activities within different nations. This article puts forward that thesignificant role of the nation-state in relation to the internationalisation of higher educationneeds to be further engaged with and investigated, and thus focuses on Japan in particularas a case study.

English and the internationalisation of higher education in Asia

English as an international language, a global language, a world language and a languageof international/intercultural communication is an accepted understanding that internation-alisation of higher education is based upon and from which globalisation of knowledge isgenerated. English is not the property of the English-speaking West any more. It can nolonger be taken for granted that higher education institutions in Asia will submit passivelyto this version of English.

Being ‘international’ institutions nowadays largely means having English as themedium of instruction, and internationalisation in higher education is largely done throughEnglish language products and services. The policy adoption of English as the domi-nant (foreign) language across the educational system in many countries across Asia isa response to the increasing globalisation of English, among others. It is also a chan-nel through which governments exercise their will to build the nation, to internationalisetheir education and to integrate globally. National, regional and global moves have allworked together to promote the international dominant role of English in Asia. For exam-ple, ‘a number of countries and regional blocs have made moves that have influencedthe importance of English in the region, most notably the adoption by the Associationof Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) of English as the working language of the orga-nization (Kirkpatrick, 2011) and the entry of China into the World Trade Organization(WTO) (Nunan, 2003)’ (cited in Stroupe, 2011, p. 161). Further, a regional initiative sim-ilar to the Bologna Process to boost the ASEAN internationalisation of higher educationthrough English-medium programs and partnerships is now being discussed (Chapman,Cummings, & Postiglione, 2011; Ruby, 2010). The role of English is hence becoming evenmore significant among ASEAN nations.

Many Asian countries therefore now consider English as an Asian Language ofEducation (Kirkpatrick, 2010) and as a local language (Pennycook, 2010), that means‘learning English as a national mission’ has been specified in their national strategiesand educational reforms (Low & Hashim, 2012; Tsui & Tollefson, 2007, p. 4). Takingadvantage of being former colonies of Britain and the USA with English-medium pro-grams integral in their educational systems to varied degrees, Singapore, Malaysia, Indiaand the Philippines are among the top destinations for international students in the Asianregion. These countries are constantly improving ways for exporting their English-mediumeducation to other countries (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Huang, 2007). Mok (2011), Olds(2007) and Sidhu (2009) discuss Singapore’s internationalisation of higher education withregard to the country’s strategic partnerships with English-speaking foreign universities tomake it a global schoolhouse and a world leader in education, knowledge and innovation.To more effectively compete regionally and globally and strengthen its education, Malaysiahas also offered science and mathematics subjects in English in its higher education (Tsui &Tollefson, 2007) and has consistently invested in developing world-class English-medium

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

Critical Studies in Education 163

universities (Mok, 2011; Ruby, 2010). In Welch’s (2011) study on higher education inSoutheast Asia, Malaysia is considered the most successful country in internationalisingits higher education. Malaysia engages in both importing and exporting higher educationthrough English-medium products and uses English to create more access to higher edu-cation for its own people, diversify strategies to capacity building and generate significantincomes from international students.

The discussions presented above demonstrate that English no longer belongs just tonative English speakers from the English-speaking West. Other users of English can nowappropriate and ‘own’ it (Canagarajah, 1999, 2005; Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2012;Low & Hashim, 2012; Singh, Kell, & Pandian, 2002). These non-native speakers of Englishare becoming ‘the main agents in the ways English is used, maintained, and changed, and[those] who will shape the ideologies and beliefs associated with [English]’ (Seidlhofer,2003, p. 7). Warschauer (2000, p. 511) sees ‘a shift of authority to non-native speakers [ofEnglish]’ with the globalisation of that language.

However, Canagarajah (2005, p. xvi) also points out that ‘standard English’ is still thenorm in most Asian and Western Anglophone higher education institutions and that a placefor other languages and other forms of English is not yet guaranteed. Marginson and Sawir(2011) also assert that negative images attached to non-native international students inAustralia, as a result of their perceived non-native speakers of the English status, shock-ingly continue to be seen, heard, talked about and reported on in all different domains anddisciplines. At the same time, the nation-state and its universities, in various settings andunder varied conditions, have consumed and co-produced the seemingly taken-for-grantedWestern superiority mentality in drafting education reform and have simultaneously takenadvantage of the benefits associated with the global role of English in developing interna-tionalisation strategies. Choi (2010), for instance, discusses in detail how and why despitebeing the principal Chinese-medium university in Hong Kong, The Chinese Universityof Hong Kong justifies its policy and strategy to introduce significantly more Englishprograms to respond to and participate in internationalisation trends and the increasing aca-demic capitalism, which are largely embedded in and driven by the hegemony of English.

While internationalisation has largely been driven by nationalist discourses and con-currently shaped by globalisation, how interpretations of the role and significance attachedto English are reflected in internationalisation policies and practices of countries and uni-versities worldwide also reveal institutional strategies and visions of internationalisation.The above discussions of the nation-state and the internationalisation of higher education inrelation to the international status of English across Asia raise questions involving nationalcultural identity in each respective country, which are critically examined below.

English, internationalisation, and national cultural identity in Asia

This section discusses questions of national cultural identity in Asia from three per-spectives: the relationships between English, the West, colonialism and modernity; thecommercialisation of higher education through English; and national (English) languagepolicy across Asia.

The well-documented relationships between English, the West, colonialism and moder-nity have brought to light the concerns regarding the unequal ownership of English andthe reproduction of colonial dichotomies between the Self (the coloniser) and Other (thecolonised) that are consistently embedded in today’s educational policies, pedagogies andpractices (Canagarajah, 2005; Pennycook, 1998, 2008; Phillipson, 1992, 2009; Singh,2009). The internationalisation of higher education is not free from this problem. As such,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

164 L-H. Phan

questions concerning the celebration of the dominance of English in the internationalisationof higher education policy and practice in global contexts have been increasingly raised.The internationalisation of higher education is still largely geared towards importingand exporting English-language products and services from the English-speaking West(Altbach & Knight, 2007; Huang, 2007; Yang, 2011). This tendency plays a role in shapingpolicies and practices for internationalising higher education in ways that reinforce English-only pedagogies and intellectual dependency (Chen, 2010; Singh, 2011), which haveimplications for cultural national identity issues in each country and in the Asian region.

The growing commercialisation of higher education has been coupled with the com-modification of English which is also associated with the continuing belief that ‘the West isbetter’, and thus many products and services from the West are so-assumed superior (Luke,2010; Pennycook, 1998; Philippson, 2009). English has often been marketed as one of themost appealing elements and a must in the internationalisation of education if a nation isto gain a competitive advantage as well as bring people good jobs, status, knowledge andaccess (Choi, 2010; Doiz et al., 2012; Low & Hashim, 2012). The internationalisation ofhigher education through the medium of English is largely shaped by the hegemony ofWestern theoretical knowledge and the dominant role of English through Western univer-sities’ rules of commercialisation and world-class ranking practices, thereby reproducingacademic dependency and Western superiority (Choi, 2010; Kim, 2005; Marginson, 2004;Singh, 2011; Yang, 2011). The result is often the emergence and reproduction of hier-archical intellectual partnerships and unequal exchanges at all levels. This, again, raisesquestions concerning national cultural identity.

The interrelationship between English language policy and national cultural identityissues in various Asian countries is well documented. For example, Tsui and Toleffson(2007, p. 2) discuss ‘how governments in Asian countries resolve the paradox of preservingor building national cultural identities and promoting a foreign language that embodies dif-ferent values, cultures and traditions’, and ‘the relationship between language and nationalcultural identities, and what role language policy plays’. It appears that many Asian coun-tries have responded to these questions in ways that are specific to their colonial histories,local politics, economic development and nation building strategies and ways that are alsospecific to what role English plays in relation to a dominant national language. Formercolonies of Britain, such as India, Singapore and Malaysia, in different ways promoteEnglish as a shared historical heritage for their national cultural identity formation and fortheir national, cultural, racial, linguistic and ethnic reconciliation. Other Asian countriesincluding China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea navigate their foreign language policies towardsan almost absolute preference for English to achieve their nation building and international-isation missions that are also shaped by the globalisation of English (Choi, 2010; Seargeant,2008; Song & Tai, 2007; Trent, 2012; Yang, 2002).

So far, it is obvious that English has offered comparative advantage, opportunities aswell as effective ways for the nation-state to respond to regionalisation, globalisation andlocal issues. However, English has also brought with it complex issues as national culturalidentity often contends with Western hegemony, the widespread perception that ‘the Westis better’, the commercialisation of higher education and of English-medium products andservices and the pro-English language policies across Asia. It is also obvious that in relationto the dominant status of English, as shall be seen in the subsequent sections, the nation-state both is controlled by and takes control of this status in different ways and forms. Thishas painted a dynamic and complex picture of the internationalisation of higher educationin which the national status of English, the respective nation building strategies of eachcountry and how each national community perceives/positions itself vis-à-vis the global

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

Critical Studies in Education 165

status of English are richly intermixed. The subsequent section addresses these issues witha specific focus on Japan.

A focus on Japan: The English language, the internationalisation of higher educationand questions of national cultural identity

This section pays specific attention to the two major initiatives/policies in relation tothe promotion of English and the internationalisation of higher education in Japan:the 2003 Action Plan to ‘Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities’ and the ‘Global30’ Project 2008 endorsed by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT). The intersections of the English language, the internationalisationof higher education and Japanese national cultural identity embedded in these policies arespecifically discussed.

The 2003 Action Plan to cultivate ‘Japanese with English Abilities’

In 2002, MEXT released a report from the ‘Round-table Committee for the Improvementof English Teaching Methods’ and from meetings with experts from various fields deliber-ating over English Education Reform. MEXT then announced a plan called ‘Developing aStrategic Plan to Cultivate “Japanese With English Abilities” – A Plan to Improve Englishand Japanese Abilities’ (2002 Strategic Plan). This strategic plan was also informed by the‘Basic Policies for Economic and Fiscal Management and Structural Reform 2002’ andthe ‘Human Resources Strategy: Cultivating the Spirit of Japanese People to Carve outa New Era - From Uniformity to Independence and Creativity’ (2002 Vision). This pol-icy intersection resulted in MEXT’s official release of an action plan entitled ‘Regardingthe Establishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities”’(2003 Action Plan). Endorsing the critical role of English for Japan’s advancement and inte-gration and noting the essential requirement for global communication with English skillsfor the 21st century, MEXT’s objectives are stated as developing the ability of Japaneseto communicate clearly expressed opinions in Japanese – ‘a firm grasp on their own lan-guage’, and thereby improving the education of Japanese people, both for Japanese andEnglish language communication skills (Hisashi, 2007; MEXT, 2002, 2003; Tanabe, 2004).

MEXT (2002, 2003) rationalises the establishment of this 2003 Action Plan, statingthat globalisation, business, progress in information technology and links with the globalmarket and services have brought ‘a strong demand for the abilities to obtain and under-stand knowledge and information as well as the abilities to transmit information and toengage in communication’ in the English language by Japanese. MEXT considers the lackof sufficient ability as restricting the Japanese people in ‘their exchanges with foreigners’which could lead to ‘their ideas or opinions not [being] evaluated appropriately’. The pro-posed measures set out in the Action Plan include developing the ability to clearly expressJapanese people’s ideas in Japanese first in order to learn English well, improving teach-ing methods and the abilities of teachers, the selection of school and university applicantsand creating better curricula. This 2003 Action Plan clarifies the goals and directions to beachieved by 2008.

In analysing all these plans, Tanabe (2004) puts forward that English is seriously con-sidered [by the government] ‘to be one of the most essential tools for human resourcesin the new era for the new generation’ in Japan and regards the Action Plan as ‘one ofthe most essential and substantial announcements made by MEXT in the last thirty years’.He discusses the how and why of the Action Plan, calling it a case of ‘yutori education’ –meaning ‘latitude’, or ‘being free of pressure’. In the context of the Action Plan and the pro-motion of English in Japan, Tanabe considers the Action Plan even as a way for Japanese

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

166 L-H. Phan

to enjoy ‘the real spirit of yutori’ through language education by the whole nation. In hiswords, ‘it undoubtedly provides Japanese with opportunities to grow’ with a strong sense ofyutori, considered ‘truly vital and meaningful for Japanese aesthetics’. It has the potentialto ‘cultivate’ Japanese and direct them from ‘Uniformity to Independence and Creativity’(2002 Vision). Tanabe associates English with this very important value/spirit honouredby the Japanese society. This value/spirit not only helps identify Japanese and its culturalidentity but also recognises humanity, individuality and freedom that might be gained morevia rigourous English and Japanese language education, as set out in the Action Plan.

The promotion of English language education in Japan by the government as dis-cussed in Tanabe (2004) and identified in MEXT (2002, 2003) has actually continued tostrengthen Japan’s well-recognised internationalisation philosophy, which has been consis-tently argued by Hashimoto (2000, 2007) as a success for Japan in maintaining the valueof its own cultural identity through its English language education policies, particularly bysustaining an overall framework of ‘Japanese internationalisation’ and the essential qual-ities of Japanese culture, whilst simultaneously promoting the learning of English. In herearlier work, Hashimoto (2000) argues that ‘the commitment of the Japanese governmentto internationalisation in education actually means “Japanisation” of Japanese learnersof English’ (p. 39); and Hashimoto (2007) holds firm to her position by debating thatJapan has been able to maintain ‘cultural independence by removing English, the mostpowerful language in the world, from the core identity of Japan without excluding the lan-guage completely from Japanese society’ (p. 27). In other words, according to Hashimoto,Japan has been able to appropriate English to resist Western globalisation and Englishdominance while promoting unique Japanese culture and identity to the world through itsinternationalisation and English language policies and strategies.

However, other scholars such as Kubota (1998, 2002), Rivers (2011), and Seargeant(2008) assert that English has fundamentally influenced Japan in much deeper and complexways. For example, Japanese tend to believe that in order for them to communicate well inEnglish and to be understood in English they have to have a concrete identity as Japanese.A careful look at MEXT (2002, 2003) confirms this point, as what is expressed in thesedocuments makes it clear that learning English would help Japanese express themselvesbetter in Japanese and as Japanese.

Japan is a country highly regarded by the West (Pennycook, 1998). As an economicsuperpower, Japan does not suffer from the cultural, economic and structural disadvantagesof developing countries and is often looked up to by many other countries as an exemplaryachiever of nation building that has focused on self-determination and self-pride and oneffective measures to preserve national cultural identity under the pressure of globalisationand the widespread threat of Westernisation, as shown in Hashimoto (2000, 2007) andKubota (1998, 2002). Nonetheless, Japan’s ideologies of English and the implications thatmay have on Japan’s self-representation and its identification with others have seriouslyquestioned the long-sustained claim discussed above that Japan has succeeded in promoting‘Japanese internationalisation’ through the English language while being able to safeguarditself from Westernisation. As observed by Kubota (1998, p. 295),

the dominance of English influences the Japanese language and people’s views of language,culture, race, ethnicity and identity which are affected by the world view of native Englishspeakers, and . . . teaching English creates cultural and linguistic stereotypes not only ofEnglish but also of Japanese people. Thus, through learning English, the Japanese haveidentified themselves with Westerners while regarding non-Western peoples as the Other.

What Kubota argues here points to the essence of the colonial mentality whereby Japan’sidentification with the West and the non-West, in her views, reproduces the superior

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

Critical Studies in Education 167

‘Western’ Self and the inferior Other mindset. Her arguments also shows how the ‘Japaneseinternationalisation’ through the English language helps sustain Westernisation (which isoften spelt out as internationalisation) that assumes who has power and who is consid-ered superior. Japanese internationalisation, in this case, has appeared to be well maskedby an overemphasis on solidifying Japan’s unique cultural national identity in those offi-cial documents discussed above, and thus it is seen by Kubota (2002) as a combination ofAnglicisation (Westernisation) and nationalism. English has been at the heart of this issue.

The Global 30 Project

Despite being world famous for its educational system for the past century, Japan is increas-ing its English-medium programs across the entire tertiary system to cater to the needs ofits domestic students, to attract more international students, and to raise its internationalprofile (Yonezawa, 2011; Yonezawa & Meerman, 2012). The latest and most ambitiousgovernment initiative is the Global 30 Project announced in 2008 in response to globalcompetitiveness and the increasing worry among the government and its universities aboutJapan losing its attractiveness to foreign students. This Global 30 Project is also situatedin the context of an effort on the part of the government to intensify and diversify Japan’sinternationalisation of higher education endeavour and to make Japan a hub for the globalelite as well as a country with the highest number of international students in the region(Burgess, Gibson, Klaphake, & Selzer, 2010; Huang, 2009; Ishikawa, 2009; Kuwamura,2009; Yonezawa, Akiba, & Hirouchi, 2009). The Global 30 Project energetically promotesEnglish as the medium of instruction at all levels in the country’s 13 most prestigious uni-versities with the hope of bringing 300,000 international students to Japan by 2020. Thissection analyses both the MEXT official site of the Global 30 Project launched in 2010 andthe content of the Project itself to highlight the complex relationship between English,internationalisation and national cultural identity as projected and justified by the Japanesegovernment and its universities.

MEXT GLOBAL 30 WEBPAGE

(Source: http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp, accessed on the 4th August 2012)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

168 L-H. Phan

The most obvious text on the webpage is ‘Study in English’, followed by ‘at JapaneseUniversities’ in smaller font size. The Global 30 logo alongside the same text is in thetop banner on the page, with a red highlight on the word ‘in’ English – as differentiat-ing from the study ‘of’ English, or ‘studying English [language]’. The logo incorporatesan image drawing on traditional Japanese imagery – Mount Fuji, a temple, and a crane.This is replicated below it with a photo next to the dominant heading text, of a tradition-ally styled building in a verdant lakeside setting. It is also important to note that the redcircle around ‘in’ is likely meant to call to mind the ‘Hinomaru’ – the ‘circle of the sun’that is on the Japanese flag, and is a very common symbol for Japan. A strong messageabout Japanese culture and identity conveyed in English and through recognisable signi-fying symbols, namely the red circle and traditional Japanese imagery, is projected in thisgovernment’s latest determination, the Global 30 Project, to promote English in Japanesehigher education, particularly among top Japanese universities.

A link at the top of the homepage leads to further explanations about the Global30 project such as the following:

ABOUT THE GLOBAL 30 PROJECT (http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/global30/).

The ‘Global 30’ Project to Invite 300,000 International Students to Japan.

13 universities were selected by the Japanese Government to be a member of the “Global 30”Project. These selected universities aim to nurture internationally competent individuals bycreating an academic environment where international and Japanese students can learn fromone another and build lasting international bonds that will propel them into the internationalscene.

The four main headings on the website are: No Japanese Proficiency Required at the Timeof Admission; Take Entrance Examinations at Home; Immerse Yourself in Japan; andSupport for International Students.

Near the bottom of the page, there is a map of Japan with the numbers of Internationalstudents currently studying in the various universities of Japan: ‘As of 2011: 21,429 intotal’.

The page also contains two (PDF) documents, one entitled ‘Study in English at JapaneseUniversities’ and another which is a brochure on the Global 30 Project for EstablishingUniversity Networks for Internationalisation.

The first document: Study in English at Japanese Universitieshttp://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/documents/Study_in_English_at_Jp_Univ.pdfThe ‘Study in English at Japanese Universities’ document consists of a number of slides

specifically promoting international student programs in English at Japanese universities.Specifically, 18 nicely presented slides are used to introduce the Global 30 English-mediumprograms under 10 main headings, such as Japan Is the Place for You, Rich Culture,Mix of Tradition and Cutting-edge High Technology, No Japanese Proficiency Requiredat the Time of Admission, Immerse Yourself in Japan and Support for InternationalStudents.

This basic information is followed by a page with a picture representing each of the13 universities, a paragraph describing their ‘uniqueness’ and/or history and accolades, aswell as contact details. The most interesting aspect that seems to make this a far better‘advertisement’ for the different universities are the creative descriptions and sloganspresented by each institution, including Imagine The Future; Traditionally at the Cutting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

Critical Studies in Education 169

Edge; Academic Freedom, Outstanding Guidance, Excellent Facilities; Live Locally, GrowGlobally; Empowering the Individual in an Intellectual Global Commons; Opening theDoor to a New Century of Knowledge; and Inheriting Tradition, Creating an Era, NurturingKnowledge.

Everything included in this document is intended to present Japan as an open andwelcoming country with a distinctive cultural identity and internationalised universitiesoffering a wide variety of English-medium programs that international students can enjoyand easily access. However, as will be discussed later, the invisible and almost unimpor-tant role of Japanese language in the internationalisation agendas of all the participatinguniversities as embedded in their self-promotion messages questions Japan’s strategy topromote its culture and language while resisting the hegemony of English through interna-tionalisation, as discussed by Hashimoto (2000, 2007) and Seargeant (2008) and as impliedin the ‘Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities’ presented in the previoussection.

The second document: Global 30 Project for Establishing University Network forInternationalisation

http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/documents/Global30_Initiatives_in_FY2011_en.pdf

In this document, each of the 13 participating universities has one page to self-introduce. The emphasis of these universities tends to be on English-language programscatering to all the needs of international students and on academic opportunities that wouldonly seem possible through English. For example, English is the medium in all short-termprograms and summer programs at Tohoku University for exchange students, interna-tional students, and visiting scholars in both Science and Humanities. English-mediumundergraduate and postgraduate programs are fast growing in all universities, and insome cases are the only option available for students, for instance the ‘Chemistry-BiologyCombined Major Program’ and the ‘Human Sciences All-English Undergraduate Program’at Osaka University, the International Graduate Course in Environmental Studies at SophiaUniversity, and over 30 degree programs in English in 10 graduate schools at the Universityof Tokyo. There is almost no mention of any other languages (occasionally Japanese) thatinternational students can learn as part of their international experience in Japan.

A careful look at all the information presented above from the MEXT Global 30 Projecthomepage and the related documents and links demonstrates that English is vital in theinternationalisation of higher education in Japan. This observation is consistent with thefindings of earlier works (Huang, 2009; Ishikawa, 2009; Kuwamura, 2009; Ninomiya,Knight, & Watanabe, 2009; Yonezawa et al., 2009). This, however, calls into question thevalue of English-only programs from Japanese universities for international students, andraises a concern as in what ways higher education in Japan through English-medium pro-grams is attractive to international students, when the absence of Japanese could well leadto superficial interactions and limited engagement with Japan and the proposed uniquenessof its national cultural identity, the very characteristic that the Japanese government hasoften been mindful of promoting in its internationalisation policies (Burgess et al., 2010;Hashimoto, 2000, 2007).

It is also clear that almost all English-medium programs under offer are ‘new’ (from2008) and are still being developing and/or improving. This ‘newness’ could indicate theinexperience of Japanese universities with English language programs in terms of content,appearance, delivery, depth and breath as well as with effective international student pro-grams and appropriate support (Burgess et al., 2010; Kuwamura, 2009). More concernscould be raised here: how is it possible for international students to engage meaningfully

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

170 L-H. Phan

with scholarship and philosophy produced in Japanese language when they study in Japanand are not encouraged to learn Japanese? Is the internationalisation of higher education inJapan so desperate for English that the often expressed self-pride associated with Japaneselanguage and culture is undermined?

The Action Plan 2003 to ‘Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities’ and the ‘Global 30’Project

Bringing together the two Japanese government initiatives surveyed above, I want to arguefurther that the intersections of English, internationalisation and national cultural identityissues are all complicatedly manifested in these initiatives. English language education isseen as being closely linked to Japan’s identity formation and the reinvention of Japaneseidentity and its internationalisation motto (Kubota, 1998, 2002; Seargeant, 2008; Tanabe,2004). Internationalisation (kokusaika) in Japan has been charged with a highly nationalis-tic mentality and a very strong interest in self-protection in response to ‘harmful’ externalforces coming along with globalisation and to a self-perceived identity crisis since the ‘lostdecade’ of the 1990s when Japan’s economy stalled (Burgess et al., 2010; Hashimoto, 2000,2007). There are multiple interpretations of internationalisation in Japan and the govern-ment’s English language policy. At one level, these government initiatives present a typicalexample of the nation’s proactive role in engaging with the world to promote its identitythrough English and to solidify Japanese identity and to resist Western influence amongJapanese through their learning of English. From the government’s perspectives, ‘Englishis able to symbolise both an intersubjective and an objective international community; it isboth the bridge connecting Japan to the rest of the world and the strait separating it fromthat world’ (Seargeant, 2008, p. 139).

At another level, these government initiatives imply that the Japanese government isattempting to stop ‘international experience’ and ‘international academic exchange’ ofinternational students at the doorstep of Japanese culture and identity, so as to safeguardits uniqueness and to guarantee its immunisation from Westernisation and other globalthreats, as has been widely discussed by Hashimoto (2000, 2007) and Burgess et al. (2010).In particular, Burgess et al. (2010, p. 461) argue that the Global 30 Project ‘highlights thecontradictory goals in a policy that combines a nationalistic ‘closing in’ with a cosmopoli-tan “opening up”’. This appears to be a common thread in Japan’s history since the 17thcentury, that is, from the sakoku (closed-country) period when the country was still opento the outside world in a limited sense through places like Nagasaki, through the changesin the early twentieth century from the open years of the Meiji and Taisho eras to the morenationalistic and militaristic era of the 1930s and 1940s, up to the contradictory elementsthat we find in the present.

From another angle, the release of these initiatives suggests Japan’s lack of confidencein itself and its prolonged obsession with maintaining the assumed unproblematic purityof Japanese identity when it comes to internationalisation and English, as consistentlyshown in the literature. More precisely, Usui (2000) claims that it is ‘completely possi-ble for a person [and a nation] to have multiple identities’ (p. 289), and hence criticisesthose who promote the idea of pure Japanese identity and culture as well as the widespreadfear of Japan being Westernised through English language education as a ‘harbinger ofpetit-nationalism” which confines people into a “small mould labelled ‘Japanese’ and doesnot allow free, personal choice of multiple identities’ (p. 289). As pointed out by Matsutani(2012), Usui’s argument challenges the concept of a coherent Japanese identity and pointsto the personal, cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity within the Japanese society.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

Critical Studies in Education 171

So far it is not an exaggeration to argue that the internationalisation of Japan’s highereducation through the English language is occurring in a period of self-doubt amongJapanese in their national cultural identity and in the Japanese language as points of attrac-tiveness, competitiveness and reaffirmation of identity solidarity. At the same time, therather simplistic and highly problematic idea that introducing English-medium programswould be an essential coping strategy to enhance the internationalisation of Japanese uni-versities and to attract more international students demonstrates how deeply rooted theincreasing academic capitalism and hegemony through English is in the policy, practiceand mindset of the internationalisation of higher education (Choi, 2010; Singh, 2010). As aresult, the superficial appearance of having English-medium programs in the curriculum asa selling point to attract students rather than the value of these programs is traded. As rightlypointed out by Burgess et al. (2010) and by Kuwamura (2009), the inexperience with andunder-preparedness of many top Japanese universities in relation to English may well be acomparative disadvantage and this would convincingly support Askew’s provocative pointthat ‘the quality of Japanese higher education is so poor that at the moment foreign stu-dents have to be paid to study at Japanese universities, in the form of generous governmentscholarships’ (cited in Burgess et al., 2010, p. 472).

Now I want to specifically draw on the works of several Japanese scholars to highlighttheir strong concerns regarding the dominance of English in the Japanese government’slatest internationalisation initiative and what this may mean to Japan’s higher education,scholarship, intellectual engagement and the matter of Japanese identity. For Huang (2009,p. 157), ‘the academic profession in Japan still maintains its basic character of beingengaged in a process of catching up with advanced overseas countries, mostly identifiedwith the English-speaking countries in Europe and especially the United States’. Thisrelates to the ‘captive mind’ and the ‘academic dependence’ mentality that Alatas (1974,2006) discusses and is further engaged with by Singh (2010, 2011), in which the ‘Other’Asian’s reference to the (English-speaking) West is seen as a necessary authentication forthe recognised existence of their own work. Japanese scholars also urge for diversity andmultilingualism, seeing these elements as beneficial for academia, particularly in relationto intellectual engagement (Ishikawa, 2009; Kuwamura, 2009). When a great number ofinternational students in Japan come from Asian countries, the lack of investment andinterest in Asian languages can block Japanese students’ worldview, because engagementin an English-only environment is not only limited but against the natural tendency ofcommunication in the vast Asian region (Kuwamura, 2009). The concern about how rep-resentation and identity can be affected by the strong promotion of English is not new, butwhat Ishikawa (2009) raises is of particular importance. Ishikawa sees the increasing pub-lications in English by scholars worldwide including Japanese scholars as ‘smothering thenascent scholarship at local, regional, and national levels’, and thus this problem is ‘surelynot a matter of language alone, but of representation and identity’ (p. 172).

While Japan has for a long time been paying more attention to minimising the poten-tial to ‘lose’ the uniqueness of its national cultural identity through contact with Englishand the West under the pressure of globalisation, Japanese scholars have now warnedthe government and Japanese universities about something bigger and more fundamen-tal. Precisely, they point to the potential loss of knowledge production in Japanese andother Asian languages should these languages not receive serious consideration from thenational level of policy and support. This issue, as I have argued elsewhere (Phan, 2013),tends to most powerfully (re)produce superficial engagement with scholarship under thebanner of internationalisation largely driven by commercialisation, the overindulgence of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

172 L-H. Phan

English in government policies as well as the nation building discourse that tend to takemany shortcuts to English while undermining local languages.

The Japanese government’s policies to strengthen Japanese culture and identity throughits English language education and the internationalisation of higher education are causingmore concerns regarding the government’s perceived identity crisis among Japanese andthe decreasing interest in Japanese universities from both Japanese and international stu-dents. These policies also show the government’s nervousness and desperation to identifyitself with ‘the West’, the very thing that it has simultaneously been trying to resist. On thisbasis, I want to contend that together with the investment in English, it is through the simul-taneous promotion of and confidence in Japanese language and Japanese-medium programsthat Japan would be able to meaningfully engage globally and be engaged with fully by bothJapanese and non-Japanese.

Conclusion

This article has discussed the intersections of English, the internationalisation of highereducation, the nation building project and questions regarding national cultural identity inAsia, with a particular focus on Japan. The nation-states identify their agenda for the inter-nationalisation of higher education as a response to and expression of national interests, asthese relate to regional and global movements. Japan’s two major government initiatives,the Action Plan 2003 to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities and the Global 30 Project2008, are discussed to illustrate these points.

However, it seems the internationalisation policies of countries and universities in Asiaseldom question the global dominance of English and what consequences this may causeto knowledge and scholarship building and the general well-being of these societies in thelong run. This issue has been well noted by Chapman et al. (2011), Kirkpatrick (2010),and Yang (2011), and by the Japanese scholars I cited above. In the same vein, the over-promotion of English by Asian governments can also serve to strengthen the English-onlymentality and pedagogy (Singh, 2010, 2011), the unequal international partnerships andthe assumed inferior status of local universities and their staff (Huang, 2009) and linguisticimperialism (Philippson, 2009).

Notes on contributorPhan Le Ha is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia andholds honorary positions at universities in Vietnam. She also holds a Visiting Professorship appoint-ment at the Institute of Education, the University of Reading, UK. She is the co-convenor of theDisruptive Notions Seminar Series with the Monash Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (GlobalEngagement), which engages in notions impacting the changing landscape of higher education glob-ally. Her teaching and research interests include language, culture and identity studies, Englishas an international language, international education, knowledge mobilization, cultural politics ofeducation, and writing.

ReferencesAlatas, S.H. (1974). The captive mind and creative development. International Social Science

Journal, 36, 691–699.Alatas, S.F. (2006). The autonomous, the universal and the future of sociology. Current Sociology,

54(1), 7–23.Altbach, P., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalisation of higher education: Motivations and

realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

Critical Studies in Education 173

Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J., & Selzer, M. (2010). The ‘Global 30’ Project and Japanesehigher education reform: An example of a ‘closing in’ or an ‘opening up’? Globalisation,Societies and Education, 8(4), 461–475.

Canagarajah, S.A. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: OUP.Canagarajah, S.A. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.Chapman, D.W. Cummings, W.K., & Postiglione, G.A. (Eds.) (2011). Crossing borders in east Asian

higher education. New York, NY: Springer.Chen, K.H. (2010). Asia as method: Toward deimperialisation. Durham: Duke University Press.Choi, K.C. (2010). ‘Weep for Chinese university’: A case study of English hegemony and academic

capitalism in higher education in Hong Kong. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 233–252.Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (Eds.). (2012). English-medium instruction at universities:

Global challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Hall, S. (1997). Introduction. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying

practices. London: Sage Publications/Open University Press.Hashimoto, K. (2000). ‘Internationalisation’ is ‘Japanisation’: Japan’s foreign language education

and national identity. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 21(1), 39–51.Hashimoto, K. (2007). Japan’s language policy and the “lost decade”. In Tsui & Tollefson (Eds.),

Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 25–36). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Hisashi, O. (2007). A critical discussion on the action plan to cultivate “Japanese with EnglishAbilities”. The Journal of Asia Tefl, 4(4), 133–158.

Huang, F. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Discussions about its definitions.Retrieved from http://www.gcn-osaka.jp/project/finalreport/1/1-2e.pdf

Huang, F. (2007). Internationalisation of higher education in the developing and emerging countries:A focus on transnational higher education in Asia. Journal of Studies in International Education,11(3–4), 421–432.

Huang, F. (2009). The internationalization of the academic profession in Japan: A quantitativeperspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 143–158.

Ishikawa, M. (2009). University rankings, global models, and emerging hegemony: Critical analysisfrom Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 159–173.

Kim, T. (2005). Internationalisation of higher education in South Korea: Reality, rhetoric, anddisparity in academic culture and identities. Australian Journal of Education, 49(1), 1–28.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). Learning English in ASEAN: Myths and principles. Language Education inAsia, 1–7.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as an Asian Lingua Franca and the multilingual model of ELT.Language Teaching, 44(2), 212–224.

Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3.Knight, J. (2004). Internationalisation remodeled: Definitions, approaches and rationales. Journal of

Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.Kubota, R. (1998). Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes, 17(3), 295–306.Kubota, R. (2002). Impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block & D. Cameron

(Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 13–28). London: Routledge.Kuwamura, A. (2009). The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese higher edu-

cation through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education,13(2), 189–202.

Low, E.L., & Hashim, A. (Eds.). (2012). English in southeast Asia: Features, policy and language inuse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Luke, A. (2010). Educating the ‘Other’: Standpoint and the internationalisation of higher educa-tion. In E. Unterhalter and V. Carpentier (Eds.), Global inequalities in higher education: Whoseinterests are you serving?(). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marginson, S. (2004). Don’t leave me hanging on the Anglophone. Higher Education Quarterly,58(2/3), 74–113.

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of highereducation: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281–309.

Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2011). Ideas for intercultural education. New York, NY: PalgraveMacmillan.

Matsutani, Y. (2012). Japanese ELT teachers’ professional identity formation in Australian TESOL(Unpublished MA thesis). Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

174 L-H. Phan

MEXT. (2002). Developing a strategic plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities.” Retrievedfrom http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm

MEXT. (2003). Regarding the establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japanese with EnglishAbilities.” Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm

Mok, K.H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing heterarchies, organizationalhybridization, and new governance in Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education Policy,26(1), 61–81.

Ninomiya, A., Knight, J., & Watanabe, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of internationalizationin Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 117–124.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practicesin the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613.

Olds, K. (2007). Global assemblage: Singapore, Western universities, and the construction of a globaleducation hub. World Development, 35(6): 959–975.

Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.Pennycook, A. (2008). Multilithic English(es) and language ideologies. Language in Society, 37(3),

435–444.Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London: Routledge.Phan, L.H. (2008). Teaching English as an international language: Identity, resistance and negotia-

tion. Clevedon, Tonawanda, NY, and North York, ON: Multilingual Matters.Phan, L.H. (2009). English as an international language: International students and identity forma-

tion. Journal of Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(3), 201–214.Phan, L.H. (2013, January 24). Are we promoting superficial and instant global higher educa-

tion. Smart Societies. Retrieved from http://smart-societies.com/2013/01/24/are-we-promoting-superficial-and-instant-global-higher-education/

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. New York, NY: Routledge.Rappy, A., & Wee, L. (2006). Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the

Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. New York, NY: Springer.Ricento, T. (2000). Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.Rivers, D. (2011). Japanese national identification and English language learning processes.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 111–123.Ruby, A. (2010). The uncertain future for international higher education in the Asia Pacific. NAFSA

e-books.Seargeant, P. (2008). Ideologies of English in Japan: The perspective of policy and pedagogy.

Language Policy, 7(2), 121–142.Seidlhofer, B. (2003). A concept of international English and related issues: From ‘real English’ to

‘realistic English’? Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SeidlhoferEN.pdfSidhu, R. (2009). Running to stay still in the knowledge economy. Journal of Education Policy, 24(3),

237–253.Singh, M. (2009). Using Chinese knowledge in internationalising research education: Jacques

Rancire, an ignorant supervisor and doctoral students from China. Globalization Societies andEducation, 7(2), 185–201.

Singh, M. (2010). Ignorance, Bradley’s international students and Bourdieu. Australian Journal ofEducation, 54(1), 31–45.

Singh, M. (2011). Learning from China to internationalise Australian research education: Pedagogiesof intellectual equality, ‘optimal ignorance’ and the ERA journal rankings. Innovations inEducation and Teaching International, 48(4), 395–405.

Singh, M., Kell, P., & Pandian, A. (2002), Appropriating English: Innovation in the global businessof teaching English. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Song, M.M., & Tai, H.H. (2007). Taiwan’s responses to globalisation: Internationalisation andquesting for world class universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(3), 323–340.

Stroupe, R. (2011). Supporting the success of English language learners in the Asian region.Language Education in Asia, 2(2), 161–168.

Tanabe, Y. (2004, March). What the 2003 MEXT Action Plan proposes to teachers of English. JapanAssociation of College English Teachers (JACET), 28.3. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/730-what-2003-mext-action-plan-proposes-teachers-english

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3

Critical Studies in Education 175

Tong, H.K., & Cheung, L.H. (2011). Cultural identity and language: A proposed framework for cul-tural globalisation and glocalisation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,32(1), 55–69.

Trent, J. (2012). The internationalisation of tertiary education in Asia: Language, identity and conflict.Journal of Research in International Education, 11(1), 50–69.

Tsui, A., & Tollefson, J. (Eds.). (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Usui, N. (2000). The anti-English linguistic imperialism movement: Savior of Japanese identity orharbinger of petit nationalism? Educational Studies, 42, 277–303.

Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOLQuarterly, 34(3), 511–535.

Welch, A. (2011). Higher education in South East Asia: Changing balance, blurring borders.London: Routledge.

Yang, R. (2002). University internationalisation: Its meanings, rationales and implications.Intercultural Education, 13(1), 81–95.

Yang, R. (2011). Self and other in the Confucian cultural context: Implications of China’s higher edu-cation development for comparative studies. Springer Science + Business Media B.V . Retrievedfrom http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv49014

Yonezawa, A. (2011). The internationalization of Japanese higher education: Policy debates andrealities. In Marginson, et al. (Eds.), Higher education in the Asia-Pacific, higher educa-tion dynamics 36 (pp. 329–342). Dordrecht: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-1500-4_17?LI=true#

Yonezawa, A., Akiba, H., & Hirouchi, D. (2009). Japanese university leaders’ perceptions of interna-tionalization: The role of government in review and support. Journal of Studies in InternationalEducation, 13(2), 125–142.

Yonezawa, A., & Meerman, A. (2012). Multilateral initiatives in the East Asian arena and thechallenges for Japanese higher education. Asian Education and Development Studies, 1(1),57–66.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

23

May

201

3