[Feature: International Exchange at Keio University] Marie Lall / Licia Proserpio / Camille Kandiko Howson: Internationalization and the Ranking Game in Japanese Universities

2024/10/07

Internationalization—generally measured by global university rankings—has now become a common endeavor for many educational institutions. Research on rankings tends not only to provide analysis but also to bring about judgments regarding a university's capabilities in some form. On the other hand, ranking research, based on globalization studies and postcolonial theory (the critical academic study of the cultural, political, and economic legacies of colonialism and imperialism), highlights the myriad problems and limitations characteristic of rankings. These include, for example, a lack of transparency in methodology, a bias toward STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) subjects and the English language, and the effect of socially homogenizing academic organizations in the Global South. A common fundamental criticism is that rankings tend to concentrate on easily measurable factors (such as resources and research output) and overlook other important aspects of the mission of higher education, such as the quality of teaching and learning and broader contributions to society. Conversely, scholars continue to value rankings as rational and legitimate tools that serve a purpose (i.e., the growing demand for accessible, manageable, and packaged simple information regarding educational quality, and a system of accountability for institutions), even if improvements are needed to make them more accurate, fair, and ultimately valid.

In this article, we discuss how the debate over world university rankings affects Japanese higher education institutions and their researchers. We also reflect on the outcomes of two workshops we conducted at Keio University, posing questions to university management about the issues raised by internationalization and rankings, and suggesting ways for Japanese institutions to regain agency in broader processes that they cannot control but also cannot avoid.

Universities have always been collaborative yet competitive. For centuries, competition was assessed through implicit reputation and status without supporting quantitative data. Entering the 21st century, commercial ranking systems began to be developed to "evaluate the performance of higher education programs, activities, institutions, and systems numerically" (Siwinski et al., 2021). In the increasingly complex global environment of higher education today, all stakeholders are drawn to the simplified measures provided by commercial rankings to understand this complexity.

The widespread prevalence and accessibility of rankings, as well as the significant promotional effect given to them, have a major impact on students and their choices. Research has repeatedly shown a strong correlation between institutional reputation, rankings, and the application behavior of students (both domestic and international). While rankings initially targeted these external stakeholders (prospective students and their families), interest in and use of rankings has gradually spread to universities themselves (as tools for internal audit, governance, and management) and to governments, particularly as world university rankings began to be published regularly. Similarly, rankings have become a primary tool for directing universities' global partnerships and internationalization strategies. High-ranking universities primarily collaborate with other high-ranking institutions, while lower-ranking universities find they lack the necessary capital to attract partners. In this competition for global status, policymakers and university governance stakeholders often use ranking data to create and justify frameworks for decision-making and resource allocation.

According to research by Professor Akiyoshi Yonezawa of Tohoku University, higher education in East Asia seems to have been very sensitive to university rankings even before the rise of commercial rankings. Comparing discussions on rankings in Japan and the United States in the 1970s, Ulrich Teichler concluded that the social relevance of rankings in Japan was much higher than in the U.S. (Shin, Toutkoushian, and Teichler, 2011). This appears to be related to the fact that in Japan, professional success was thought to depend more strongly on which university one attended, compared to America, where the "rags to riches" dream of career advancement was possible even after a mediocre education.

More recently, surveys have highlighted that since the 1990s, many national leaders in East Asia have looked to rankings as an indicator of a country's socio-economic development in line with the global trend of building knowledge economies. Against this backdrop, governments have intentionally used international rankings as part of their globalization strategies, investing heavily in their top-level universities to rapidly improve their capacity to produce high-quality research. Rankings have become a policy tool for governments to measure and monitor university performance and guide the higher education sector toward global standards. As a result, an enthusiasm emerged to transplant Western norms and standards in order to achieve world-class status. This enthusiasm is based on a postcolonial perspective, according to which the direction of higher education development has always been shaped by the binary opposition of East and West, and the internationalization of higher education has often been interpreted as Westernization.

Professor Philip Hallinger of Mahidol University compares world university rankings to a tiger, arguing that "the 'tiger' is driving most East Asian universities toward goals that do not reflect the aspirations of their societies or the people who work and study there. However, it often feels as dangerous to get off the 'tiger' as it is to cling to its back" (Hallinger, 2014). One cannot escape the rankings, and universities have little control over the results. In fact, rankings have the essence of a zero-sum game. Therefore, a university's significant drop in rank in a given year may not be due to poor performance (it may even be performing better than the previous year in relative terms), but simply because other competing universities increased their indicator outputs or the system changed its scoring methodology.

The decline of Japanese universities, which had established academic traditions and occupied top positions in the early days of rankings, has often been presented as a byproduct of the rise of neighboring China and South Korea (Yonezawa, 2021). In contrast to institutions in China and South Korea, Japan's top-tier universities have gradually slipped in the rankings over the past 20 years. This came as a surprise to both elite universities and the government, as high-quality higher education had always been considered a hallmark of Japanese education policy. Japanese university stakeholders attribute much of this to the language barrier, as education and research presentations are conducted entirely in Japanese and do not reach the wider international academic community. The Japanese government also launched initiatives to foster elite institutions, but the pace was slow and financial investment was limited. These initiatives to achieve excellence first took the form of intensive financial investment to support research, including the 21st Century COE Program from 2002 to 2009, and the Global COE Program from 2007 to 2014 (Yonezawa & Shimmi, 2015). Furthermore, various types of funding projects have been carried out to support world-class graduate schools and research institutions. For example, the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI) invests more intensively and over the long term (10 years) in a very small number of institutions (9 institutions have been selected since 2007) (Yonezawa & Hou, 2014).

Because the Japanese government recognized the importance of internationalizing higher education for Japan's international presence quite late, it launched a second wave of excellent schemes focused on introducing English-language education to Japanese campuses, such as the 2009 Project for Establishing Core Universities for Internationalization (Global 30) and the 2014 Top Global University Project, which included short-term dispatches of international researchers. By launching the Designated National University Corporation system in 2017, the government further shifted the focus of its excellence initiatives toward national socio-economic development. Therefore, this latest system requires six publicly funded universities to link research and education with the goal of promoting social change and industrial innovation. A major reason for the relatively poor results of these initiatives is the late start of these internationalization support schemes. In world university rankings, internationalization is also measured by indicators such as the ratio of international students and faculty, which are areas where Japanese universities are said to be particularly "weak." However, the main problem is the lack of emphasis on research at both the university and government levels. MEXT indicators for internationalization include the number of international students, classes conducted in English, and visits by foreign researchers, but there are none regarding research results published in English or the number of international research collaborations fostered by the university. Reductions in government research funding are a factor frequently cited by scholars to explain the lack of research performance (Yonezawa, 2023). Japanese universities focus on education rather than research for knowledge exchange. Finally, several factors, including traditional values stemming from domestic higher education, the existing national order, and power dynamics within universities, have proven that university leadership is resistant to change (Ishikawa, 2009). In short, reducing the burden of teaching and administration to allow for focus on research, collaboration, and publication remains a distant prospect.

Surveys with Japanese colleagues revealed a dissonance, with faculty increasingly frustrated by internationalization pressures and ranking games that are irrelevant to the core of their work. However, university management seems to have followed national policies influenced by the negative publicity of the ranking game. Despite the academic community as a whole feeling that aligning with global university trends is meaningless, university policies are changing and pressure on faculty is increasing.

In effect, frustration arises from a misalignment between what researchers themselves value and what they feel the university and management value. Researchers value education and research, and many express a desire to support the institution's clear mission and broader support for national development. Ranking priorities do not align with this, and scholars were forced into "gamesmanship" to support rankings. For example, they were asked to request international colleagues to rate their institution highly in reputation rankings, or to publish papers in specific journals or in English. These differences in values and in what is considered first-rate further led to negative individual feelings toward their affiliated institutions.

Given that dissatisfaction with the game everyone must play (Proserpio, Lall & Kandiko Howson 2024) is spreading across the higher education sector, this is a pivotal time for higher education in East Asia. Should institutions aim to "win" the game while following rules set by the West? Should global rankings be refined to better align with the goals of East Asian organizations and societies? Or should they quit this game entirely and direct their efforts toward regional and national initiatives? While such questions might seem to unfold at board meetings involving senior leaders, the responsibility for participating or not participating in this game lies with middle-level academic leaders. They must manage the paradox of university rankings. University rankings are increasing their influence on higher education, but at the same time, many studies have pointed out their methodological flaws and negative impacts on higher education institutions. The impact of rankings on individual faculty and staff has also been noted; positioning in rankings not only leads to a lack of agency and a lack of relevance to the purpose of higher education but also affects the competitive behavior of scholars and the importance of their affiliated institutions. Against the backdrop of macro-scale policies and government directions, we want to discuss how the ranking process needs to be understood in order for universities to regain some agency at both the institutional and individual academic levels.

The core of international ranking systems is research, along with the accompanying publications and citations. As a result, the number of international students increases, especially at older, famous, and strong universities. As a result, foreign staff also spend more time there. If attracting international students is seen as an end in itself, the problem is being approached from the wrong starting point. Japanese higher education policy seems to focus on rankings as a driver of change. However, this is the reverse; improvements in rankings are the result of positive changes in each university and in all universities trying to adapt to the rapidly globalizing world of higher education, where the dissemination of research results in English and international research collaboration are at the core. Therefore, to improve the quality of education, research, and service to global society, focus should be narrowed to the strengths of the university and how they can be utilized. In any case, this is the primary purpose of higher education, which includes the mission of shaping the minds of future generations, preparing students to tackle the problems they face, making them better aware of the world they live in, engaging more actively with different cultures, and preparing them to address global issues. These primary functions of the university seem to have been lost in the aggregation systems that the ranking game has unleashed upon the global academic community.

Research is the key driver that distinguishes universities from schools, where teachers tend to teach based on textbooks. In the higher education setting, scholars teach what they have researched to deepen knowledge, and they research to fill knowledge gaps and solve social problems. Research brings together diverse perspectives and talents, and when done collaboratively, it can reach and influence a wider audience. This results in new research questions and academic debates, sustaining collaboration. Excellent education at the university level is impossible without research that is directly reflected in a constantly changing curriculum and where both students and academic staff seek to further expand the frontiers of knowledge.

Below, we reflect on the outcomes of two workshops held at Keio University in 2023 and 2024. These workshops aimed to have university management (Vice-Presidents, Deans of faculties and graduate schools, etc.) engage with key issues related to the ranking game and internationalization. The goal was to find ways for Japanese universities to regain agency in a game they cannot control.

Given that rankings give a negative image to the Japanese higher education system, the workshop first reflected on the strengths of the country and its organizations, such as Japan's strong higher education system with its historical emphasis on science, technology, and medical sciences, and its tradition of new inventions using cutting-edge technology. Also, Japan has been a pioneer in international cooperation since the Meiji Restoration, incorporating ideas from overseas and adapting and improving them to be the best fit for Japan. Participants felt that these perceptions were a starting point, despite the many negative reputations.

As mentioned earlier, it was understood that the core of the ranking game is the publication of research results (rather than the number of international students at a university), and the challenge is to overcome language barriers and make Japanese academic output more easily accessible to the wider world with the help of artificial intelligence (AI). Despite many Japanese researchers being reluctant to write and publish in English, the rise and use of AI in academia is facilitating the dissemination of research results. Japan's traditional long-term sabbatical system is a major strength due to the experience and knowledge gained at host universities abroad. It was felt that sabbaticals also lead to closer strategic joint research with overseas colleagues and co-authoring in English.

Partnerships have become a key element characterizing the internationalization of higher education due to globalization. Participants reflected on the importance of international cooperation and discussed that cooperation only works when both sides identify benefits and are clear about their contributions to each other. While joint research exists in various forms, most international collaborations are based on individual academic levels, such as colleagues conducting joint research or writing. Key to the success of such collaborations are agreed-upon outcome indicators and specific criteria for partner selection. Research collaborators need not be limited to universities but can also include government, industry, and local communities.

The workshop further discussed that Japanese government support for internationalization, such as the Top Global University Project which invites overseas researchers to Japan, is an excellent way to promote mutual collaboration. In many cases, these opportunities are not utilized because research outcomes such as joint publications or research grant proposals are not agreed upon first. Such collaborations can lead to joint supervision of students in Doctoral Programs, benefiting both students and academic advisors. In the natural sciences, and increasingly in the social sciences, cross-sectional collaboration of international research teams is becoming normal. This automatically affects the curriculum as it helps incorporate international, intercultural, and global dimensions into not only curriculum content but also learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods, and support services for research programs.

Most participants felt that the burden of teaching and administration was a major barrier to implementing reforms that would increase research and international collaboration and improve university rankings. It became clear that junior faculty, in particular, need support to be able to write and publish papers, while mid-career faculty need support to participate internationally in research projects that lead to research bids and publications. Senior faculty were seen as leaders of "research groups" that generate new ideas leading to research and publication. Without the support and buy-in of the academic community, no program will lead to transformation.

It also became clear that this program works through cooperation between faculty and administrative staff, as it is an academic rather than a clerical process, requiring the submission of standard datasets and an institutional understanding of what data needs to be presented and how. Managing an international image requires support from the Office of Communications and Public Relations or public relations officers. Great weight is placed on collecting reputational input (up to 50% in QS rankings). Alumni also play an important role, especially regarding image and branding.

It also seemed that promoting national debate and closer cooperation among Japanese universities could lead to the creation of guidelines and recommendations for participating universities that take into account the specificities of Japanese universities. Ultimately, balancing competition and cooperation between universities could lead to more positive progress for all universities.

The workshop concluded that some change is necessary for Japanese universities in light of global changes in the higher education sector. However, these changes should be driven by a desire to strive toward the purpose of higher education in a globalizing world, rather than being pushed around by rankings. At the heart of any higher education reform program are the academics. They support the vision of their institution, not one based on rankings. Scholars take pride in their universities. They are more likely to accept and support improving the institution to create a better higher education institution than doing specific things to satisfy a ranking system.

While a sense of fatigue toward the world university ranking system was a common feeling, through the workshops, Keio University's management was able to remember the strengths of their own organization and design a strategic transformation program that they own and believe in.

The way forward to solve the problems created by top-down internationalization and the ranking game would be to investigate what Japanese scholars perceive as valuable and how those perceptions differ from institutional policies as well as domestic and international priorities. Government officials and senior university officials tend to be guided by the quantitative approach characteristic of the ranking game—an approach that seeks hard numbers as results. In contrast, middle-level academic leaders tend to think strategically about how rankings can be used to advance their organization's mission. Therefore, they want to prioritize how the university addresses national development over international competition and status-seeking. This might include better alignment of ranking criteria with contemporary world challenges, such as focusing on sustainability, environmental awareness, and the third mission. Understanding evaluation criteria in the context of academic values and institutional missions and goals will help align values and support middle-level academic leaders in driving positive change within and outside higher education institutions. (Original in English)

(References)

*1 Hallinger, P. (2014). Riding the Tiger of World University Rankings in East Asia: Where are We Heading?. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(2), 230-245.

*2 Ishikawa, M. (2009). University Rankings, Global Models, and Emerging Hegemony: Critical Analysis from Japan, Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308330853

*3 Proserpio, L. Lall, M. and Kandiko Howson, C. (2024) The University Ranking Game in East Asia: The Sensemaking of Academic Leaders between Pressures and Fatigue, Asia Pacific Education Review.

*4 Shin, J.C, Robert K. Toutkoushian, and Ulrich Teichler, (Eds) (2011). University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education, Springer. University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education | Springer Nature Link

*5 Siwinski, W., Holmes, R., and Kopanska, J. (Eds) (2021). IREG Inventory of International University Rankings 2021. Perspektywy Education Foundation.

*6 Yonezawa A. (2021). Reimaging University Identities through Rankings in Japan: The Transformation of National Policies and University Behaviours in the Broader East Asian Context. In E. Hazelkorn, & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research Handbook on University Rankings: Theory, Methodology, Influence, and Impact (pp. 231– 246). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974981.00027

*7 Yonezawa A. (2023). Japan's Higher Education Policies under Global Challenges, Asian Economic Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12421

*8 Yonezawa A., and Angela Yung Chi Hou, (2014). Continuous Challenges for World-Class Status among Universities in Taiwan and Japan as Ageing Societies. In: Ying C., Qi W., and Nian C. L.(Eds.), How World-Class Universities Affect Global Higher Education(pp. 85–101). Brill. https://brill.com/display/title/37103

*9 Yonezawa, A., and Shimmi, Y. (2015). Transformation of University Governance through Internationalization: Challenges for Top Universities and Government Policies in Japan. Higher Education, 70(2), 173–186. Transformation of university governance through internationalization: challenges for top universities and government policies in Japan | Higher Education | Springer Nature Link