https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2857-1353
Abstract
Japan has traditionally emphasized international student recruitment and exchange as priorities in its internationalization strategy. However, little attention has been given to the increasing importance of international program and provider mobility (IPPM), which includes international branch campuses, franchise programs, international joint universities and joint/double degree programs. This article analyzes the policies, status and role of IPPM to meet future needs of Japanese higher education. The study reveals that the full potential of IPPM is not realized given the government's restrictive regulations for the establishment of Japanese programs and international branch campuses abroad as well as foreign higher education providers in Japan. While regulations are necessary to ensure quality and achieve the multiple benefits of IPPM provision, there is a need to re-examine and relax some of the government regulations that serve as barriers. The success of the three Japanese international joint universities provides evidence that Japanese universities are motivated and experienced in working collaboratively with international partners and looking for new IPPM opportunities. Scholars, policy analysts, and academics interested in Japan’s engagement with the rest of the world through collaborating with foreign higher education partners will benefit from this analysis of current and past IPPM activities and policies and the call for further research.
Introduction
Globalization has promoted the mobility of people, goods, money, ideas, and values worldwide. The impact has been enormous on various sectors in Japan, including the higher education sector. The internationalization of higher education is seen as both a key actor and reactor to the impact of globalization and has resulted in a major emphasis on recruiting more international students to study in Japan. Starting with the1983 Nakasone Plan to attract 100,000 international students, various policies have been implemented and financed by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), such as the 2008 Fukuda Plan to attract 300,000 international students, the Global 30 Project to internationalize Japanese universities from 2009 to 2014, and the Top Global University Project, a new policy to internationalize research, education, and administration of Japanese universities launched in 2014. In these policies, the promotion of student mobility and international student recruitment are recognized as top priorities in Japan’s higher education internationalization strategy (Ota Citation2018).
Regarding the internationalization of higher education, besides international student mobility, another major trend which merits further attention is international program and provider mobility (IPPM). Unlike student mobility, which looks at the mobility of people, international program and provider mobility focuses on the mobility of educational institutions and programs across borders, through different modes such as international branch campuses (IBCs), international joint universities (IJUs), distance education and joint/double degree programs. The growth of IPPM around the world is demonstrated by the exponential increase in student enrolments in IPPM. For example, according to a report by Universities UK and British Council (Citation2016), 52 per cent of all international students who are enrolled in a UK qualification awarding program take some or all their program through IPPM programs delivered to the students in their home or neighboring country. In Mauritius, approximately 43 per cent of all local students are enrolled in some type of IPPM program operated by a foreign institution (Knight Citation2019). In Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Botswana, about 30 per cent of all local students are enrolled in an IPPM program of some kind (Knight and McNamara Citation2017). This demonstrates the increasing importance of foreign academic programs and providers moving to the students in their home country, as opposed to students moving to an international destination to study.
While the recruitment of international students to Japan for full-time degrees remains the top priority for the Japanese government, there are signs of an increasing interest in IPPM given the reality of a declining youth population and the subsequent higher education enrolment challenges (MEXT Citation2019a). Considering global health issues, increasing environmental and climate concerns, the turbulence in geo-political relationships, which is closing borders, and the ongoing security risks facing international student mobility and study abroad, IPPM now needs to be given more serious consideration as a way for Japan to continue its international engagement and achieve its desire to improve the quality, accessibility, and international dimensions of its higher education sector. As this article will review, the Japanese government has promoted several modes of IPPM, such as IBCs and international double and joint degree programs, but the progress is limited and there are several issues and challenges that need to be addressed.
There has been substantial research on Japan’s approach to the internationalization of higher education in general (Goodman Citation2010; Yonezawa Citation2010), and student mobility in particular. By contrast, there is very little scholarly work on IPPM in Japanese higher education. This exemplifies the narrow perspective often attributed to the concept of ‘kokusaika’ in the Japanese context as discussed by Goodman (Citation2007). To that end, this article focuses on Japan’s incoming and outgoing program and provider mobility and aims to analyze the current development of IPPM and its future potential. The three objectives of the article are (1) to introduce the concept of IPPM and present the IPPM classification framework as an analytical tool to examine IPPM in Japan; (2) to discuss the current status of IPPM policies and incoming/outgoing activities in Japan according to the IPPM classification framework; and (3) to discuss the potential role of IPPM to meet the future needs of the Japanese higher education sector and to identify challenges going forward.
Given the ongoing interest and sense of urgency for increased internationalization of Japanese higher education as expressed by the political and industrial sectors, there is a need to address IPPM by both domestic and overseas researchers in Japanese studies and higher education. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to raise awareness about the practice and potential of IPPM in Japan by closely examining the policies, regulations and current status of IPPM activities in Japan, and to identify the pressing issues and challenges associated with Japan’s seemingly reluctant and cautious engagement in IPPM. Finally, this study is expected to add to the understanding of Japanese society and particularly Japanese higher education’s international engagement.
The article is organized as follows. The next section focuses on the IPPM classification framework and starts with a discussion about the confusion and consequences related to the different meaning and interpretation of programs and providers moving across borders. This leads to a review of the proposed classification framework which categorizes the different types of IPPM. The framework serves as the analytical frame for this study on IPPM in Japan and therefore the guiding principles and major categories are explained in detail. However, it is not the intention of this article to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the IPPM framework itself, even though this would be a very useful academic contribution to the discussion of internationalization in general and IPPM more specifically. The next two sections focus on the IPPM policies established by the MEXT and the current status IPPM activities in Japan. The IPPM framework is divided into two major parts. The first part focuses on Independent IPPM provision and includes incoming and outgoing international branch campuses and franchise programs. The second part deals with Collaborative IPPM and focuses on Japan’s three international joint universities and the multiple joint/double degree programs. The following section analyses the international satellite offices of Japan universities around the world. Even though they are not IPPM activities per se they are a key characteristic of Japan’s international higher education engagement and may broaden their services in the future to include IPPM. In the last section two new Japanese IPPM initiates are introduced and a look to the future is provided.
The IPPM classification framework
Along with the growth in enrolment in IPPM, there is a growing number of studies on the IPPM. As an example of the mobility of educational institutions, Wilkins and Rumbley (Citation2018) examined the concept of international branch campus (IBC), an entity owned, at least in part, by a specific foreign higher education institution under the name of the foreign institution and which offers programming and/or credentials that bear the name of the foreign institution. On the other hand, an example of educational programs is international joint and double degree programs. The double and joint degree programs are international programs of study offering an integrated curriculum delivered jointly in more than one institution and across national borders. Awarding single or multiple diplomas are also the major modes of double and joint degree programs (Bamford Citation2020). By citing Knight (Citation2013), Bamford (Citation2020) distinguishes between joint degrees as offering one joint qualification, and double degrees as offering two. Another example is transnational distance education programs. This has traditionally been recognized as an alternative way to provide education for underserved people, but the purpose of transnational distance education programs has become more diversified due to the development of online technology (Stewart Citation2019). These examples show that different researchers looked at different modes of the IPPM. Among them, perhaps the study that best systematizes each mode of an international program and provider mobility is a publication by Knight and McNamara (Citation2017). This study proposed the framework of the IPPM, and clarifies the characteristics of different modes, including each of the above IBC, transnational distance education programs, and international joint and double degree programs.
Terminology chaos
Recent studies indicate that there are over forty different terms being used around the world to describe the different modes of IPPM (Knight and McNamara Citation2017). To add to the confusion, the same terms, such as IBC, are used to denote very different modes of IPPM while different terms are being used to describe the same mode of IPPM. The result is terminology chaos.
The implications of this terminology chaos are many and significant. While it is important that each country uses terms that fit into the domestic higher education landscape, it is equally important that there is a shared understanding and use of IPPM terms across countries. The lack of a common understanding of the terms raises serious issues related to appropriate quality assurance processes, qualification recognition procedures, registration of new providers or programs, completion rates, and the collection of program level information and enrolment data.
The next sections provides some structure and logic to understanding the different modes of IPPM and how they relate to each other and the IPPM Classification Framework (Knight and McNamara Citation2017).
Two organizing principles of the classification framework
Two organizational principles are fundamental to the framework. The first principle organizes the framework into two vertical columns and makes the distinction between IPPM as a standalone or independent activity by the sending country HEI/provider and a collaborative effort between the host and sending HEIs/providers.
The distinction between academic collaborative provision, where the foreign sending HEI/provider is primarily responsible for the design, delivery and external quality assurance of their academic programs and qualifications being offered in another country, and independent provision, where a foreign sending HEI/provider and the host country HEI/provider work together on the design, delivery and/or external quality assurance of the program, is central to the framework. It has important implications for both host country and sending country regulations and policies related to registration, external quality assurance, awarding of qualifications, degree recognition, responsibility for the curriculum, and data management. Each type of IPPM also provides different benefits, as well as risks.
The collaborative IPPM programs offer a number of benefits such as (1) opportunities for joint curriculum development and delivery to ensure that programs are relevant to the local context, (2) possibilities for joint research on locally relevant topics, and (3) the potential for capacity building and internationalization of both the local host and foreign sending institutions.
Independent IPPM provision normally provides a curriculum designed, delivered and quality assured according to the regulations and standards of the sending country, and the qualification offered is from the foreign provider. For many students in host countries, having a foreign-based curriculum, pedagogy and qualification is the most attractive and sought after feature because it is more affordable than travelling abroad yet offers a foreign qualification that is often attractive to employers.
The second principle relates to six distinct categories or modes of IPPM as identified on the three horizontal rows of the framework presented in . The six categories represent different modes of international program and provider delivery and are carefully aligned with the independent or collaborative approaches.
Table 1 The IPPM Classification Framework.
It is important to note that row one in the six categories of IPPM below differentiates franchise programs/arrangements, which are primarily exported by a sending country, from partnership programs, which are based on collaboration between host and sending country HEIs/providers. The second row distinguishes between an international branch campus, which is essentially a satellite operation of a parent HEI in the sending country, from an international joint university, which is co-founded or co-developed by both sending and host countries HEIs.
The structure of the IPPM classification framework
integrates the two organizing principles into one framework and provides a short description and set of commonly used terms for each of the six categories. To ensure that the differences (or similarities) among the six categories are clear and understood, there are three key criteria or questions which are used to help to delineate and differentiate the characteristics of each mode or category. The three fundamental questions are: Who awards the qualification? Who has primary responsibility for the academic curriculum? Who has primary responsibility for external quality assurance?
While there are always exceptions, the overall logic is that for independent IPPM provision the sending country has primary responsibility for the curriculum, the qualification awarded, and external quality assurance. For collaborative IPPM provision, both the host and sending countries share or have joint responsibility for one or all of these three aspects of IPPM programs.
Independent IPPM policies and activities – International Branch Campus and Franchise Programs
Japan presents an interesting case in terms of IBCs as it has been a host to several incoming branch campuses during the last two decades (Tsukahara Citation2008) and currently has two outgoing branch campuses. This section starts with a historical review of incoming IBCs and then examines the current MEXT policies and status of both incoming and outgoing IBCs. The definition of a working IBC is ‘a satellite bricks and mortar campus established by a foreign sending HEI in a host country’. Usually, the sending parent institution provides the curriculum, external quality assurance, and awards the qualification.
Incoming branch campuses
Historical overview
The first wave of the incoming IBCs came in the 1980s when American universities established campuses in the country. According to a study conducted by Sukigara (Citation1991), American universities opened thirty six branch campuses in Japan between 1982 and 1990. The catalyst for this large number of American IBCs was the establishment of the US–Japan Trade Promotion Council. Membership included legislators from both countries and together they decided that the introduction of American IBCs could help to alleviate the economic friction between the two countries. While it can be considered a rather innovative strategy, the success of it is questionable because the sustainability of the American IBCs was in fact very low, as only two remain operational as of 2020.
An analysis of the establishment of these thirty six IBCs reveals that half were established by private American universities and the other half were set up by state universities or community colleges. In terms of the legal status, twenty three were launched as independent corporations; nine were jointly established with local incorporated educational institutions in Japan, and the remaining four were established as foundations or unincorporated organizations. Fourteen offered degree programs, twelve offered preparatory courses only, and eight offered English language training courses only (Sukigara Citation1991). These differences can be attributed to the fact that Japan’s School Education Act in 1980 did not explicitly stipulate credentials and requirements for designation of IBCs as legitimate HEIs.
It is important to note that these thirty six IBCs were not deemed equivalent to university-level educational institutions, so students who graduated from these IBCs could not qualify for graduation from a Japanese university, nor were they granted credentials equivalent to those graduating from a Japanese university. This meant that students who earned a bachelor’s degree from the Japanese campus of a foreign university could not use that as a qualification for advancing to a Japanese graduate school. This presented a significant challenge for recruiting Japanese students.
In addition to the issue of legal certification, there were other difficulties, including the Japanese students’ proficiency in English and the higher tuition fees that American universities charged compared with Japanese universities (Torii Citation2003). Therefore, most of the branch campuses struggled to recruit students and ended up closing in the 1990s. According to Torii (Citation2003) the average number of years in operation was approximately four years. The expansion of American universities to Japan was not due to the educational needs of providing American-style higher education in Japan or increasing access to higher education; rather, it was driven by the need to reduce the United States’ trade deficit with Japan. One important lesson learnt is that a robust analysis of the academic needs and benefits of IBCs is a fundamental requirement and, second, the appropriate regulations must be in place to ensure that the students are not victims of early closures and that their qualifications are recognized in the host country.
Current regulations for incoming IBCs
In 2004, partly as a result of the closure of so many American IBCs, Japan made important amendments to the School Education Act. MEXT designated Japanese branches of foreign universities as ‘Locations of Foreign Universities in Japan’. The rationale driving the amendments was ‘to internationalize learning opportunities to meet education needs in response to the expansion of transnational higher education’. This amendment brought three major changes to the designation of IBCs in Japan (MEXT Citation2004).
The first was degree qualification. Graduates of undergraduate programs of IBCs were deemed as qualified to proceed to a graduate program at a Japanese university, and graduates of an associate degree programs of IBCs were deemed qualified to transfer to a bachelor’s program at a Japanese university. This means that the graduates of those IBCs could obtain qualifications equivalent to those obtained by graduates of Japanese HEIs.
The second was credit transfer to Japanese HEIs. Students of IBCs became able to transfer to a counterpart program at a Japanese university via credit transfer. MEXT regulations stipulate that a maximum of sixty out of 124 credits required for graduation can be transferred to a bachelor’s program at a Japanese university.
The third was to stipulate the ministerial requirements for receiving the designation as ‘Locations of Foreign Universities in Japan’. The requirements are: (1) the branch must be a part of a parent university in the foreign country; (2) the foreign university must be a recognized degree-granting institution in their country and be accredited; and (3) the credits earned and degrees awarded at the Japanese branch must be recognized as identical to those from home campus.
These amendments ensure that only bona fide accredited foreign universities with recognized qualifications are allowed to operate in Japan and this prevents rogue universities from entering Japan. Because students can now advance or transfer to Japanese universities from degree-granting IBCs, there is more incentive to admit IBCs that grant academic degrees rather than English language training courses or study abroad preparatory courses, as was the case in the 1980s.
Current status of IBCs and franchise arrangements
As of 2020, there are seven active IBCs designated by MEXT as ‘Locations of Foreign Universities in Japan.’ Information about each of these IBCs is shown in .
Table 2 Characteristics of Incoming IBCs to Japan.
There are some important observations to be made from the analysis of the information in . Temple University Japan is the only branch campus that offers programs in multiple fields, including the social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences. Lakeland offers different programs within the single field of humanities. The remaining five only offer single-programs which, according to the IPPM classification framework, means that they are more like franchise programs than comprehensive branch campuses. Unfortunately, the amended MEXT regulations do not distinguish between a branch campus with multiple programs and one with single program franchise arrangements. This lack of differentiation by MEXT between program-level franchises and IBCs provides the advantage of allowing foreign universities to operate relatively small campuses.
indicates the six IBCs that have administration affiliations with Japanese partners. This involves the Japanese university providing building facilities and support services, but it does not involve joint program development, as the MEXT regulation stipulates that the credits earned and qualification awarded at any IBC in Japan must be recognized as identical to those from a home campus. An affiliation with a Japanese university allows the IBCs to lessen the risks associated with matters such as campus establishment and providing administrative and student support services.
The 2004 amendments to the Education Act have allowed foreign universities to establish smaller IBCs and franchise operations and to be affiliated with local partners for administrative support. This provides greater operational flexibility and lower risks. Nevertheless, since 2004, only three new IBCs (in reality franchise programs) have been established by Chinese institutions, so this flexibility does not appear to motivate foreign universities to establish IBCs in Japan. One possible reason for this is that although having a presence in Japan can be used for recruiting graduate students to the home campus, the decline in the population of 18-year olds and the capacity available in Japanese institutions of higher education means branch campuses may not be able to recruit as many students as they need to make the IBC viable.
Outgoing International Branch Campuses
As of 2020, only two Japanese institutions have IBCs located in a foreign country. They are the Hawaii Tokai International College (HTIC) and Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago (TTIC). Information on these two IBCs is provided in .
Table 3 Characteristics of outgoing Japanese IBCs.
According to Study Hacker (Citation2016), about 80 per cent of the students enrolled in HTIC are graduates of the senior high schools affiliated with Tokai University, 10 per cent are other Japanese students, and the remaining 10 per cent are students from Hawaii and Asia. Furthermore, over 80 per cent of graduates transfer into four-year undergraduate programs in the US, Japan, and elsewhere through transfer agreements arranged by HTIC. In this sense, HTIC functions as a two-year associate degree preparatory school for many Japanese students wishing to study abroad for an undergraduate degree program.
TTIC offers a PhD in Computer Science in cooperation with the University of Chicago. Computer science courses from both universities are cross-listed, which enables all students to take courses from both universities (Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago, TTIC Citation2020). TTIC also has a research institute that strives to secure outstanding students from around the world. The majority of students are on a scholarship, receive a monthly living stipend as well as a generous allowance for the purchase of computers and related equipment (TTIC Citation2018).
MEXT regulations for outgoing IBCs
One may ask why there are only two outgoing IBCs in operation despite calls by MEXT in the early 2000s for Japanese universities to be more internationally engaged. One concrete reason is the very restrictive requirements for establishing outgoing IBCs, which include the fulfillment of the Standards for the Establishment of Universities, based on the 2004 Ministerial ordinance of the revised School Education Act (MEXT Citation2018, Citation2019b). A close examination of the new regulation helps to understand why the regulations can be considered as barriers not incentives for Japanese universities to establish IBCs abroad.
There are basically two ways a Japanese university can establish an IBC and they apply to both public and private universities. The first is for the branch campus to offer an entire degree program at a branch campus. This requires the Japanese university to own the land and buildings abroad and to secure the required number of full-time teaching staff. In addition, the Japanese university’s admissions quota authorized by MEXT must include enrollments at both the home and branch campuses. This means that a university needs to transfer the admissions for the branch campus from the authorized overall quota. Having to own the land and buildings and splitting an admission quota can be seen as serious barriers and are unique to Japan. There is no evidence that other IPPM active sending countries impose these requirements on their IBCs.
The second way to open a branch campus is under the umbrella of the incorporated educational institution. In this way, the onerous requirements outlined for the first method do not apply. However, the IBC operating under an incorporation license cannot grant Japanese degrees. Compared with the first approach, this method is more practical and feasible, and has been used by both HTIC and TTIC but is still a deterrent. The IBCs established using the incorporation method must grant the degrees of the foreign host country and therefore must be accredited in that country. If the IBC cannot obtain the necessary host country accreditation, its qualifications will not be recognized by either the host country or Japan. Many Japanese universities do not have the means to obtain the foreign accreditation due to lack of knowledge and experience in the procedures and foreign language ability.
Collaborative IPPM policies and activities – international joint universities and joint/double degree programs
The main feature of Collaborative IPPM is the close academic cooperation between the local host institution and the foreign partner university in terms of developing and delivering joint programs, and, in the case of international joint universities, engaging in joint governance and management as well. This close collaboration is what distinguishes them from independent IPPM activities, which is more of an import/export model.
International joint universities (IJUs)
The working definition of an IJU is ‘a new HEI co-founded and established in a host country, involving both local and foreign sending HEI/providers who collaborate on academic program development and delivery’. Qualifications can be awarded by either or both host and sending country HEIs. IJUs are a relatively new phenomenon and differ significantly from IBCs. As of 2020, there are only twenty two international joint universities (IJUs) around the world. In terms of host countries, China has nine IJUs, followed by Vietnam with three. The other host countries normally have just one. Regarding international partner countries, Germany is involved with seven IJUs located primarily in Asia and the Middle East, and Japan ranks second with three IJUs (Knight and Simpson Citation2021). The three IJUs established as joint projects between the Japanese and foreign governments and universities are the Egypt–Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST), the Vietnam–Japan University (VJU), and the Malaysia–Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT). The characteristics of those three IJUs are provided in .
Table 4 Description of Japan’s International Joint Universities.
The IJUs are developed and monitored by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as part of the Official Development Assistance (ODA). Thus, MEXT has not been formally involved with the development of them. The rationales driving Japan’s development of these IJUs is to respond to requests from the governments of Egypt, Vietnam, and Malaysia who want further collaboration with Japanese universities in both program development and research, and to import the Japanese-style education given the growing demand for highly skilled workers. In turn, Japan is also motivated by diplomatic benefits not only as the symbol of Japan's contribution to creating the knowledge base in host partner countries but also to strengthen future institutional linkages between Japanese and foreign universities (Kayashima Citation2019).
MEXT has not been involved in Japan’s IJU projects, which means that they are outside of MEXT’s regulatory framework. While this provides more latitude it also means that these IJUs are not accredited by a Japanese accreditation body. They are therefore guided and regulated by host countries’ policies and laws. Accordingly, their degrees are recognized as a host country’s qualifications. This is the usual case with other IJUs around the world except when the IJU provides a joint/double degree and, in exceptional cases, the foreign partner degree only.
All three IJUs were established in the 2000s, and their academic programs focus on engineering and graduate-level education. The three host partner countries all have a long-standing good relationships with Japan and face a shortage of human resources able to take on the tasks of upgrading industry and these countries’ research. According to JICA (Citation2011, Citation2013, Citation2014, Citationn.d.), one of the primary objectives of these IJU projects was to respond to requests from the host countries to expand their higher education offer and increase the supply of human resources with high-level engineering and technical knowledge through collaboration with Japanese universities. There is great interest in the Japanese-style of engineering education, which emphasizes practical and applied approaches to both research and education while ensuring a close relationship with industry.
The three IJUs have been supported by the consortia of Japanese universities (twelve universities for E-JUST, seven universities for VJU, and twenty six universities for MJIIT) working with their counterparts from the planning stage to the ongoing joint governance of the institution. Accordingly, Japan has been deeply committed to the management of the IJUs as evidenced by Japanese academics assuming responsibilities such as vice presidents, board members, and directors (Kayashima Citation2019).
Japan’s rationales and benefits of IJUs are multiple, including geo-political motivations to develop closer relations with host partner countries, developing graduates who can be a source of skilled labor for Japanese industry, providing international teaching and research opportunities for Japanese academics, offering study abroad and exchange opportunities for Japanese students, and finally the potential for student recruitment into graduate or post-doctoral programs at Japanese universities. The development of IJUs is a complex, challenging and long-term endeavor requiring a strong commitment and investment from both countries. Japan has been successful in the development of IJUs which serve as an important feature of its diplomatic and higher education engagement with other countries.
Joint and Double Degrees (JDD)
Joint and double degree programs are part of the Partnership programs category in the IPPM Classification Framework. They are described as ‘academic programs which are jointly designed, delivered and quality assured through collaboration between host and sending country partners’. The qualification(s) can be awarded by either or both host and sending country HEIs in the form of single, joint or double/multiple degrees. This description places the focus entirely on the joint preparation and delivery of academic programs and courses across borders. The Japanese interpretation of JDD programs differs substantially from this definition and also the understanding and practice of JDD programs in other countries of the world by looking at JDD programs as opportunities for student exchange between partner universities.
The Central Council for Education (Citation2014) argues that the development of joint and double degree programs between universities in Japan and foreign countries enables the former to offer wider educational possibilities, give Japanese students opportunities to experience different cultures, and contribute to the enhancement of regional cooperation. Furthermore, Japanese universities can strengthen their international presence and improve their international competitiveness by making curricula more relevant through joint and double degree programs (Central Council for Education Citation2014). Yet, in practice, at the institutional level, JDD programs are generally used as a way to enhance international student mobility, not program mobility.
Double degree programs have been interpreted by Japanese universities as the expansion of credit transfer, originally started from traditional one-to-two semester student exchange programs, leading to double counting of credits so that two separate degree certificates are awarded to the students. Double counting of the same credits and workload for two different qualifications – one from the home university and one from the foreign partner university – can put the integrity of these ‘earned’ qualifications in jeopardy.
Double degree programs, as a mode of student exchange, have been spreading rapidly among Japanese universities. According to the 2017 MEXT survey results (Citation2020a), eighty five universities had double degree programs in 2008 and that number increased to 189 (24 per cent of the universities) in 2017. Furthermore, 126 private universities accounted for 67 per cent of all universities which had double degree programs, compared with 26 per cent (forty nine) from national universities. With respect to joint degrees, MEXT’s (Citation2020b) list shows only eleven universities offered joint degree programs in 2020 due to the short history of such programs (legalized in 2009) and several operational complications required MEXT approval for the establishment of such programs (National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education (NIAD-QE) Citation2016).
MEXT policies for JDD programs
According to MEXT’s guidelines for joint degree programs, at least half of the total credits required for graduation should be obtained from the Japanese university, while a minimum of a quarter (for bachelor’s degrees) or a third (at the graduate level) should be earned from the overseas university. The requirements for the remaining credits can be met by courses set up jointly by the Japanese and foreign universities (jointly established courses). However, setting up such courses is optional and, where they are established, the credits are treated as being from either the Japanese or the foreign university (MEXT Citation2018). Additional MEXT requirements demand that a special department for developing and monitoring joint degree curriculum be established at a Japanese university and that MEXT approval is need for its establishment (NIAD-QE Citation2016). Setting up a special department and getting MEXT approval add another layer of bureaucracy, can be time and labor intensive, and serve as deterrents to arranging joint degrees.
In the case of double degree programs, the regulations in the Standards for the Establishment of Universities regarding credit transfers apply and determine that ‘In an undergraduate program, a maximum of sixty credits (out of 124 credits) are allowed to be transferred and a maximum of ten credits (out of thirty credits) in a graduate program’ (NIAD-QE Citation2016). In other words, credits for courses completed at the partner university can be transferred to become a considerable proportion of the credits required for graduation. It appears that usual practice for both partners is to deliver their own curricula and cooperate on credit transfer, rather than collaborate to set up joint curricula. For this reason, increasing student mobility is a key rationale and part of double degree programs.
There are five distinctive features in the use of joint and double degree programs in Japan. First, there are seemingly a large number of such programs, but not all of them are active. In many cases, even when JDD programs are established through partnership agreements, no students take part. For instance, in 2017, ten of the twenty two joint degree programs created by national universities were active. With respect to the 524 double degree programs, only 259 (49 per cent) had one or more students. The equivalent figure for private universities is 360 (56 per cent), out of 642 double degree programs, are active (MEXT Citation2020c). Thus, the large number of JDDs on paper do not translate into a large number of students participating in them.
Second, JDDs are mainly at the graduate level. In 2017, at national universities, all twenty two joint degree programs were at the graduate level, while only nineteen of the 524 double degree programs (4 per cent) were at the undergraduate level. For private universities 355 (55 per cent) out of 642 were undergraduate double degree programs (MEXT Citation2020c).
Third, universities in Asian countries form the core of partner universities for JDDs while for the rest of the world American universities are the most frequent partners (MEXT Citation2020c).
Fourth, when it comes to fields of study, there are more programs in the natural sciences and engineering than in the humanities and social sciences. This is because there seems to be a higher degree of compatibility with curricula at Asian universities in the natural sciences and engineering, and the majority of programs are at the graduate level (MEXT Citation2020c).
Fifth, the vast majority of students who participated in joint and double degree programs are inbound. In 2017, 84 per cent of those participants were inbound students from overseas and a disproportionately small percentage of Japanese students studied abroad through such programs (MEXT Citation2020c). This shows that while JDDs are popular in Japanese universities they are not increasing outbound student mobility to a large extent. Nor are they contributing to developing and upgrading joint programs and courses. Furthermore, there will continue to be a very small number of joint degree programs unless the current strict regulations are relaxed.
International Satellite Offices of Japanese Universities
An important feature of the Japanese universities’ international engagement has been the establishment of international satellite offices (ISOs) around the world. While these offices are not offering academic programs at the present time, they may develop the ability to do so in the future, and thus be a catalyst for IPPM in the coming years.
In 2012, there were 439 ISOs and that number increased to 672 in 2017 (MEXT Citation2020c). Many, but not all, of the ISOs are located on the campuses of partner universities abroad. For instance, in Thailand, 75 per cent of ISOs fall into this type (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Bangkok Office Citation2020). It can be said that ISOs are one of the more important aspects of Japanese universities’ internationalization considering the low levels of participation in other forms of IPPM such as IJUs, IBCs and JDDs. Each university has its own strategy and rules for ISOs since MEXT does not have any regulations or guidelines relating to ISOs.
According to a 2017 survey (MEXT Citation2020c), 62 per cent of the ISOs were set up by national universities. This is very high given that national universities represent only 11 per cent of all Japanese universities. China hosted the largest number (150) of ISOs, followed by Thailand (70), Vietnam (56), the US (44), and Indonesia (40).
The top three activities of ISOs are ‘the collection of information on the local educational and research situation,’ followed by ‘overseas public relations activities,’ and ‘recruitment of international students’. It is worth noting that for ISOs located in Asian host countries such as China, Thailand, and Vietnam, the recruitment of international students was the most frequent function of ISOs. On the other hand, ‘local support for its own students studying abroad and internship’ was the second most frequent function of ISOs in the US, which is consistent with the fact that the US is the most popular study abroad destination among Japanese students (MEXT Citation2020c). Reflecting the current stringent regulations, less than 10 per cent of ISOs have an educational function, such as ‘provision of education’ accounted for 8.0 per cent and ‘provision of Japanese language training’ for 7.9 per cent.. It is interesting to speculate whether the ISOs have the potential to offer franchised Japanese programs in the future or to be developed into IBCs. This would necessitate MEXT giving IPPM a higher priority and relaxing the current restrictive regulations to offering programs abroad.
Looking to the future
A review of IPPM activities in Japan reveals that the three Japanese IJUs are successful, providing evidence that Japanese universities are motivated and experienced in working collaboratively with international partners and looking for new IPPM opportunities. Given the MEXT regulations regarding incoming and outgoing IBCs, however, IBCs are not yet a government priority or an important part of internationalization in universities or colleges. The 2004 amendments to the MEXT regulations have led foreign universities to enter the Japanese international higher education sector by establishing small-scale IBCs with local partners, and this has resulted in higher operational flexibility and lower risk. Additionally, some IBCs play a role in recruiting students as an extension arm. One of the primary reasons for the low numbers of outgoing IBCs and joint programs is MEXT’s restrictive regulations. While regulations are necessary to ensure the quality of, and achieve the multiple objectives of, IPPM provision, there is a need to relax some of the regulations that serve as barriers, not incentives, for IPPM. These include regulations regarding land ownership and the enrolment quota of IBCs and the government approval required for joint degree programs. Recognizing these issues, the Central Council for Education in its Grand Design for Higher Education toward 2040 (Citation2018) proposed relaxing the regulations on campus land and building ownership, the number of full-time faculty, and the student enrollment quota pertaining to outgoing IBCs.
In 2019, the University of Tsukuba announced a project to establish a branch campus on the premises of the University of Malaya in Malaysia, planned to open in September 2022. This branch campus will offer a liberal arts program at the undergraduate level intended for Malaysian students. Classes will be mainly conducted in Japanese, with supplementary classes taught in English. The enrollment quota is set at 160 students per academic year (Oba Citation2019). This number is significantly higher than those for HTIC and TTCI, which have been operating for fifteen years. As the University of Tsukuba will confer degrees, this will be the first case of a Japanese university establishing a Japanese degree-granting branch campus overseas (Oba Citation2019). Malaysia has developed the ‘Look East Policy,’ which includes establishing branch campuses of Japanese universities in the country. This policy initiative has two main advantages for Japan: it will help strengthen understanding of Japanese language and culture among Malaysian youth, and help prepare Japanese-speaking graduates to work at Japanese companies in Malaysia upon graduation. According to a 2018 Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) survey, there were 1,385 Japan-affiliated companies in Malaysia, and in recent years, these companies have been shifting their main function from manufacturing to research and development, localizing their management. This shift leads to a change in human resource management as fewer Japanese staff are stationed in-country and a correspondingly greater need arises for Japanese-speaking and culturally aware Malaysian employees (Oba Citation2019).
This new branch campus could be a model for Japanese outgoing IBCs in the future, although significant financial and regulatory support from government is indispensable for the University of Tsukuba to realize this project. The Japanese government stated that they would provide the university with special funding for the start-up costs (Oba Citation2019). It seems, therefore, that MEXT is moving forward with the aforementioned policy reform proposed by the Central Council on Education. This appears to be an important step towards stimulating Japanese universities to establish IBCs abroad. Given the declining birth rate in Japan and resulting decrease in the college-age population, IBCs could become a worthwhile option for Japanese universities.
Moreover, a new project in which Arizona State University (ASU) and Hiroshima University (HU) agreed to jointly establish the Thunderbird Graduate School of Global Management–Hiroshima University Global Initiative inside the HU campus in August 2021 was announced in 2020 (Hiroshima University Citation2020a). Although this is a single-disciplinary program focusing on global management and sustainable business, it is a significant endeavor for Japanese higher education to host the first incoming IBC at a national university. This IBC offers a bachelor’s program in which all classes are instructed in English, and the program has ‘2 + 2’ and ‘4 + 0’ streams (Hiroshima University Citation2020a). The ‘2 + 2’ stream allows students to take ASU courses at HU for the first two years and to study at ASU for the remaining two years. The ‘4 + 0’ model offers all ASU courses at the HU campus. Students who complete either program will receive a bachelor of global management or international trade from ASU. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the first year is limited to approximately thirty five, but it is planned to admit the full quota of 250 in later years. This IBC project will apply for recognition by MEXT as a ‘Location in Japan of a Foreign University’ (Hiroshima University Citation2020b). There are three advantages to this IBC project. First, HU can enhance internationalization at home, e.g., internationalizing the curriculum and learning environment. Second, HU expects the project to lead to management reforms through learning from ASU’s management practice, especially in funding, student recruitment, and on-campus business (Nikkei Citation2020). Third, HU will be able to recruit students thanks to ASU's business school, which is accredited by AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business). AACSB is an internationally well-respected educational accreditation for business schools, but only four Japanese business schools are currently accredited.
In addition, another positive sign is the establishment of the 635 ISOs located around the world. The ISOs are developing close relationships with partner universities and could have the potential to widen the scope of their activities to offer joint programs, franchise arrangements, distance education, and joint research in the future.
It is clear that recruitment of international students to Japan for full-time degrees remains the top priority for the Japanese government given the challenges of a declining youth population and the subsequent higher education enrolment challenges (MEXT Citation2019a). However, in light of global health issues, increasing environmental and climate concerns, the turbulence in geo-political relationships which is closing borders, and the ongoing security risks facing international student mobility and study abroad, perhaps IPPM needs to be given more serious consideration as a way for Japan to continue its international engagement and achieve its desire to improve the quality, accessibility, and international dimensions of its higher education sector. This will require careful strategic planning, the appropriate enabling policies, and adequate investment by the government and higher education institutions to enable the stable and sustainable growth of IPPM activities. In addition, more research on the rationales, benefits, and impacts of IPPM by Japanese academics and policymakers is called for.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Shingo Hanada
Shingo Hanada, is associate professor of the Faculty of Global and Regional Studies at Toyo University, Japan. His research focuses on empirical studies of the impacts of international education programs on student development. He served as a member of the external evaluation committee of the Support Program for Development of Infrastructure for Japanese Studies by the Japan Foundation. He received Ph.D. from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto and M.A. from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Email: hanada@toyo.jp
Jane Knight
Jane Knight, of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto focuses her research on the international dimension of higher education at the institutional, national, regional and international levels and on knowledge diplomacy. Her work in over 70 countries brings a comparative, development and international perspective to her research, teaching, and policy work. She is the author of numerous publications and sits on the advisory boards of several international organizations, universities, and journals. She is the recipient of many international awards and two honorary doctorates for her contribution to higher education internationalization.
Hiroshi Ota
Hiroshi Ota, is Professor at the Center for General Education at Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, where he serves as Director of the Global Education Program. His research primarily focuses on higher education policies and practices related to internationalization and international student mobility from a comparative perspective. Prior to his current position, he worked for the Office of International Education at State University of New York at Buffalo, and Toyo University. From SUNY at Buffalo, Ota received his Ed.M. and Ph.D. in Comparative Education. He was also awarded a Fulbright Scholarship.
References
- Bamford, J. K. 2020. International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education: The Self, Pedagogy and Culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Beijing Language and Culture University Tokyo College (BLCU). 2020. “Enkaku [History]” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.blcu.jp/about/history(open in a new window)
- Central Council for Education. 2014. “Guidelines for Building International Joint Diploma Programs Including Double and Joint Degree Programs.” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/04/17/1356863_1.pdf(open in a new window)
- Central Council for Education. 2018. “2040nen nimuketa kotokyoiku no gurando dezain [Grand Design for Higher Education toward 2040].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2018/12/20/1411360_1_1_1.pdf(open in a new window)
- Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology 2020. “Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://ejust.edu.eg/about-ejust/(open in a new window)
- Far Eastern State University, Hakodate (FESU) 2020. “Far Eastern State University, Hakodate.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.fesu.ac.jp/(open in a new window)
- Goodman, R. 2007. “The Concept of Kokusaika and Japanese Educational Reform.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 5 (1): 71–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720601133413(open in a new window).
- Goodman, R. 2010. “The Rapid Redrawing of Boundaries in Japanese Higher Education.” Japan Forum 22 (1–2): 65–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09555803.2010.488944(open in a new window).
- Hawaii Tokai International College (HTIC). 2020a. “Accreditation Statistics and Reports.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.htic.edu/about-us/accreditation-statistics/(open in a new window)
- Hawaii Tokai International College (HTIC). 2020b. “University Overview.” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://htic.pr.tokai.ac.jp/annai/index.html(open in a new window)
- Hiroshima University. 2020a. [Hiroshima University] Case Study. Accessed January 2021. https://tgu.mext.go.jp/symp02/pdf/4-1.pdf(open in a new window)
- Hiroshima University. 2020b. “Arizona syuuritsu daigaku (ASU) no hirodai guroubal kou secchi wo hagiuda monbu kagaku daijin ni houkoku shimashita [Report to the MEXT Minister Hagiuda about Establishment of the Hiroshima University Global Initiative of the Arizona State University]” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/nyugaku/news/59958(open in a new window)
- JICA. 2011. “Egiputo-Nihon kagaku gijyutsu daigaku [Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST)].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/kokusai/010/shiryou/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/11/08/1312142_05_3.pdf(open in a new window)
- JICA. 2013. “Mareishia-Nihon kokusai kokain seibi jigyo futai purojekuto shosai keikaku sakutei chosa houkokusho [Report on Planning for Malaysia - Japan International Institute of Technology Project].” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12126363.pdf(open in a new window)
- JICA. 2014. “Jigyo jizen hyokahyo [Project Pre-Evaluation Sheet].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www2.jica.go.jp/ja/evaluation/pdf/2014_1402891_1_s.pdf(open in a new window)
- JICA. n.d. “Purojyekuto gaiyo [Project Overview].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.jica.go.jp/project/egypt/0604392/01/index.html(open in a new window)
- JSPS Bangkok Office. 2020. “Japanese Universities in Thailand.” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://jsps-th.org/jsps_en/japanese_univ/(open in a new window)
- Kayashima, N. 2019. “Koto kyoiku kian no setsuritsu ikusei [Establishment and Development of Higher Education Institutions].” In Japan’s International Educational Cooperation: History and Prospects, edited by Nobuko Kayashima and Kazuo Kuroda, 223–246. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo Press.
- Knight, J., and D. Simpson. 2021. “The Growth of International Joint Universities around the World.” In Handbook of International Education, edited by Darla K. Deardorff, Han de Wit, Betty Leask and Harvey Charles. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
- Knight, J. 2013. “Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programs: Definition, Doubts, and Dilemmas.” In Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs, edited by Matthias Kuder, Nina Lemmens, and Daniel Obst, 1–15. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
- Knight, J. 2019. “International Programme and Provider Mobility in Selected African Countries: A Mapping Study of National Policies, Regulations and Activities.” British Council. Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/k003_ippm_africa_report_a4_final_web_1.pdf(open in a new window)
- Knight, J., and J. McNamara. 2017. “A TNE Classification Framework for International Programme and Provider Mobility (IPPM).” British Council and DAAD. Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/tne_classification_framework-final.pdf(open in a new window)
- Lakeland University Japan (LUJ). 2020. “Lakeland University Japan.” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://www.japan.lakeland.edu/(open in a new window)
- Malaysia Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT). 2020. “Malaysia Japan International Institute of Technology.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://mjiit.utm.my/(open in a new window)
- McGill MBA Japan (MGMJ). 2019. “McGill MBA Japan: Bringing you to the World.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://mcgillmbajapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/201908_McGillMBAJapan-Brochure.pdf(open in a new window)
- MEXT. 2004. “Designation of the ‘Locations in Japan of a Foreign University’.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title02/detail02/1373880.htm(open in a new window)
- MEXT. 2018. “Diagakuno kaigai tenkai ni tsuite [International Expansion of Japanese Universities].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/043/siryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2018/09/10/1409011_2.pdf(open in a new window)
- MEXT. 2019a. “Kokusai koryu kyoryoku no suishin [Promotion of International Exchange and Cooperation].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200731-mxt_kouhou02-000009140_18.pdf(open in a new window)
- MEXT. 2019b. “Daigakuno kaigai tenkai ni tsuite – kaigai kou wo chuusin ni [International Expansion of Japanese Universities].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/043/siryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2019/01/21/1396556_3.pdf(open in a new window)
- MEXT. 2020a. “Daigaku niokeru kyouiku naiyou to no kaikaku jyokyo ni tsuite [Survey on Education Reform at Japanese Universities].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200428-mxt_daigakuc03-000006853_1.pdf(open in a new window)
- MEXT. 2020b. “Establishment of Joint Degree Scheme.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/houkoku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2020/20200420_mxt_kouhou02_1353907_2.pdf(open in a new window)
- MEXT. 2020c. “Kaigai no daigaku tono daigaku kan koryu kyotei, Kaigai ni okeru kyoten ni kansuru chosa kekka [Survey on Exchange Agreements with Overseas Universities and International Satellite Offices].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/shitu/1287263.htm(open in a new window)
- NIAD-QE. 2016. “Glossary of Quality Assurance in Japanese Higher Education.” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://www.niad.ac.jp/n_kokusai/publish/no17_glossary_4th_edition.pdf(open in a new window)
- Nikkei. 2020. “Hiroshima daigaku kounai ni beidai wo yuuchi: uchinaru kokusaika kasoku ochi mituo Hiroshima daigaku gakuchou [Hiroshima University Hosts U.S. Universities on Its Campus: Internationalization at Home Interview to the President Dr. Mitsuo Ochiai]” Nikkei, September, 2. https://r.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO64045480Y0A910C2CK8000?s=6(open in a new window)
- Oba, Y. 2019. “Tsukuba daigaku ga nihon hatsu no honkaku kaigaibunkou wo maraishia ni kaisetsu he, sono igi to kitai sareru yakuwari to ha? [Tsukuba University Will Establish the First Outgoing IBC in Malaysia: The Significance and the Expected Roles]” Limo Life and & Money, November, 8. https://limo.media/articles/-/14229(open in a new window)
- Ota, H. 2018. “Internationalization of Higher Education: Global Trends and Japan’s Challenges.” Educational Studies in Japan 12 (0): 91–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.7571/esjkyoiku.12.91(open in a new window).
- Ritsumeikan University. 2020. “Egiputo-Nihon kagaku gijyutsu daigaku [Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST)].” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/intl/program/bilateral/e_just.html/(open in a new window)
- Shanghai University Tokyo College (SUTC). 2020. “Shanghai University Tokyo College.” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://www.u-shanghai.jp/(open in a new window)
- Stewart, W. H. 2019. “The Complexity of Transnational Distance Students: A Review of Literature.” The Open PRAXIS, 11 (1): 23–39. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/208074/article_208074.pdf(open in a new window)
- Study Hacker. 2016. “Hawai dai shikichi naini kaiko? Gakusei mo daigaku mo konnkido ga chigau Tokai daigaku no gurobaru kyoiku [Open Tokai Campus in UH Campus? Global Education at Tokai University].” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://students.studyhacker.net/interview/hawaii-tokai(open in a new window)
- Sukigara, M. 1991. “Daigaku no kokusai sinshutsu – gaikokudaigaku no nihon sinshutsuu to nihon no daigaku no kaigai sinshutsu- [the International Expansion of Universities – The Expansion of Foreign Universities in Japan and Japanese Universities in Overseas-].” The Open University of Japan Repository 35: 55–87.
- Temple University Japan (TUJ). 2019. “Temple University Japan Campus At a Glance.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.tuj.ac.jp/about/japan-campus/pdf/at-a-glance.pdf(open in a new window)
- Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medication, Japan College (TUTCM). 2020a. “2019AY Admission Guidelines.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://k-toyoiryo.com/examination.html#heishu(open in a new window)
- Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medication, Japan College (TUTCM). 2020b. Curriculum. Accessed 10 November 2020. https://k-toyoiryo.com/curriculum.html#heishu(open in a new window)
- Torii, Y. 2003. “Beikoku daigaku nihonkou no sinshutsu to tettai [the Expansion and Withdrawal of American Universities in Japan].” National Institute for Educational Policy Research Bulletin 132: 199–206.
- Tsukahara, S. 2008. Koto kyoiku shijyo no kokusaika [Internationalization of the Higher Education Market]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
- TTIC. 2018. “Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago Annual Report 2017–18.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.ttic.edu/dl/annual_report.pdf(open in a new window)
- TTIC. 2020. “About TTIC.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.ttic.edu/about/(open in a new window)
- Universities UK and British Council. 2016. “The Scale and Scope of UK Transnational Education.” Accessed 10 November 2020. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/scale-and-scope-of-uk-he-tne-report.pdf(open in a new window)
- Vietnam Japan University. 2020. “Vietnam Japan University.” Accessed 10 November 2020. http://vju.vnu.edu.vn/VietnamJapanUniversity.html(open in a new window)
- Wilkins, S., and L. E. Rumbley. 2018. “What a Branch Campus is: A Revised Definition.” International Higher Education 2 (93): 12–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.93.10379(open in a new window).[https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.0.93.10416(open in a new window)]
- Yonezawa, A. 2010. “Much ado about ranking: why can’t Japanese universities internationalize?” Japan Forum 22 (1–2): 121–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09555803.2010.488948(open in a new window).