Some argue that the inherent challenges facing Japan in its drive towards internationalization lie in the country’s cultural profile. This profile, influenced by geographic and historic isolation, results in characteristics and attitudes that are unique compared with other countries; even those in the same East Asian region (Hofstede et al, 2010; Burgess at al., 2010; Seargeant, 2005). Hofstede developed multiple models on national culture through data collected from IBM employees during the 60s and 70s, and his findings were revalidated in 2009. In his six-dimension model of national culture, he
established a score for most countries under the following six dimensions: (a) power distance, (b) individualism, (c) masculinity, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) long-term orientation, and (f) indulgence. Scores for each dimension are scaled with 0 being the minimum, 100 the maximum, and 50 as a midlevel. As seen in Figure 1, Japan is particularly masculine (95), uncertainty avoiding (92), and long-term oriented (88). On the individualism scale, Japan appears more individualistic than its regional neighbors of South Korea and China; however, it still resides in the collectivistic half of the spectrum.
Hofstede et al.’s (2010) dimensions are considered as a comprehensive framework to defining cultural values and characteristics; however, its limitations and validity have been criticized. Ailon (2008) and McSweeney (2002) challenge the model and point out various
weaknesses. They argue that it is difficult to define national culture based on only six dimensions and that all members of society are not equally represented as there will be discrepancies in gender, age groups, income groups, and ethnicities. Also, the results do not recognize that culture is fluid and that it can vary widely within the borders of a single nation, given differences in language, religion, and local traditions. While the methodology involved in collecting data has evolved since the 60s, when only IBM employees were involved, the sample is still limited to professional adults, making the data best suited towards identifying business culture instead of student culture.
Despite the many legitimate critiques of Hofstede’s work, its key analytical elements seem applicable to this research, and Japanese HEIs as a whole, since Japan represents an ethnically homogenous country where values and beliefs may be more consistent across the nation, compared to multicultural nations, such as the US and UK. Furthermore, it is posited that the majority of university students in Japan intend to seek employment with corporate entities, thus making them similar in profile to the sample used in Hofstede’s research. With the decision to include Hofstede’s findings in this thesis, the four dimensions of
individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation will be the focus of the following subsections since they are deemed as most relevant in addressing the
research questions.
Figure 1. Hofstede et al. (2010) Cultural Dimensions comparing Japan, South Korea, and China. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
individualism masculinity uncertainty
avoidance orientationlong-term
Japan South Korea China
2.4.1. Individualism.
According to the literature, one of the most dominating social characteristics of the Japanese population is the adherence to groupism, defined as “harmonization within the in- group, achieved when members downplay their individualism for the well-being of the group” (Hinenoya & Gatbonton, 2000, p. 229). Asiatic and Confucian beliefs align people of East Asian countries to a group consciousness (Hinenoya & Gatbonton, 2000). This reflects the parlance and collective vernacular of Japanese people when describing how an unspoken consensus exists amongst them, alongside the belief that non-Japanese people are unable to fully comprehend these silent communicative dynamics (Greenholtz, 2003). The belief in a unique and collective mindset accompanying the ability to understand each other without words is termed haragei. This attitude can manifest in English discourse when Japanese interlocutors use the phrase “we Japanese” in speaking definitively about the preferences and inclinations of all Japanese people. As a grouping society, classifying all citizens as unified when explaining phenomena and attitudes reaches back to 1939 when Suma describes the potential of invading China: “We Japanese are not under the illusion that we can conquer China” (Suma, 1940, p. 233). This is prevalent in modern day Japanese society, as someone may claim that Korean food is “too spicy for we Japanese”.
The Japanese brand of groupism is unique when compared to regional neighbors. Japan values the collectivistic trait of harmony, yet small groupings (e.g. the nuclear family unit) and a preference for privacy explain why Japan scores higher than China and South Korea in individualism (Hofstede et al., 2010). Despite this, evidence of groupism can be displayed in the classroom, the boardroom, and the streets to the extent that Japan has been described as a “herd society” (Tsuneyoshi, 1992, p. 31). The virtues of groupism result in a population that is generally polite, serious, modest, yet resistant to change (Hofstede et al., 2010). These traits can be misconstrued by non-Japanese people, who may label certain Japanese individuals and groups as exclusive or elitist (Hofstede et al., 2010).
2.4.2. Masculinity and long-term orientation.
Masculinity refers to the degree that people in a society are driven by achievement, competition, and success (Hofstede et al., 2010). Japan’s high score is reflected in long- working hours and the desire to make superior products, such as automobiles and electronics.
If extending these values to HEIs, some contradictions emerge. In developing the Global 30 initiative, MEXT identified apathetic attitudes and a lack of motivation in learning (Clark, 2010). This was attributed to the education structure in Japan that involves a reluctance to fail students, and the notion that grades are seldom important in achieving long-term ambitions, such as finding desirable employment. The practice of dismissing grades can discourage students from making adequate efforts in class, and it can also act as an excuse for instructors to not dedicate themselves to developing high-quality curriculum. In connecting Japan’s high masculinity with its aversion to study abroad, the question emerges of how Japanese students perceive study abroad experience in relation to future ambitions and competitiveness. This could be answered, in part, by considering Japan’s long-term orientation. Countries scoring high in this category – as do Japan and its neighbors – “encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future” (Hofstede, n.d., para. 7). Financial issues have been identified as a barrier to study abroad in non-Japanese research (see 2.2.2. and 2.2.3.), so this will be further investigated in the current thesis.
2.4.3. Uncertainty avoidance.
Japanese students have been described as risk-averse, insular, inward thinking, and reluctant to experience the unknown world outside of Japan’s borders (Fukushima, 2010; Asaoka & Yano, 2009). Ota (2011) reinforced this notion by suggesting that younger generations of Japanese people have an apathetic attitude towards the prospect of living abroad due to the cultural and linguistic challenges that are expected, alongside a belief that foreign countries are dangerous. This perception of danger and safety could enact uncertainty avoiding tendencies, resulting in students who are unwilling, unmotivated, and poorly
prepared for study abroad.