Konnichiwa: Japanese scientists and their struggle to speak English

Abstract

Japanese students’ seeming low proficiency of English is not caused by lack of efforts to internationalize, but rather changing career preferences.

It seems every generation of academics complains about the poor skills of their incoming students: “They are lazy. Unprepared. Spoiled”. In fact, older people lamenting about the perceived faults and shortcomings of the next generation is probably as old as human civilization itself (Protzko & Schooler, 2019). Professors in Japan are no different in claiming that their students lack many skills, including a sufficient proficiency in speaking English.

However, when the same observation is made by an outsider, such as the Chief Editor of this journal, it deserves more consideration. At a meeting of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan (MBSJ), Bernd Pulverer was struck by how effortlessly senior Japanese scientists engaged in discussions, whereas their junior colleagues appeared intimidated by the prospect of speaking aloud in English. The experience left the editor worried if there were a generation gap in communication skills that could hamper international collaborations.

While English has long been a primary language for science, it has only recently become the primary language. Consider the Solvay Conference in 1927, epitomized by the photo of legendary scientists such as Einstein, Curie, and Bohr, which was a Babylonian debate. Even in the 1990s, the University of Toronto encouraged students in its mathematics program to study French, German, or Russian. Today, however, anyone aspiring to become a scientist is obliged to have a strong grasp of the English language, a point that is not lost on Japanese students.

Internationalization of Japanese universities

For long, Japan had an ambivalent view of the West and pursued isolationist policies (Fujimoto‐Adamson, 2006). During the so‐called “Edo‐period” from 1603 until 1853, all foreign trade was banned with the exception of Holland and China. The following Meji period, marked by the move of the capital and imperial residence from Kyoto to Tokyo in 1868, saw a massive cultural shift as Japan quickly caught up with industrialized countries and enhanced its international status. Part of this effort included a concerted effort to send its people abroad for study and learning the English language. Arinori Mori, the first Minister of Education, went so far as to recommend English as the official language in 1873.

In 2011, the public school system began teaching English in elementary school, and it can be assumed that almost all university students have learned the language for at least 6 years. However, the quality of teaching leaves much to desire. For one, many teachers struggle with spoken English themselves and often resort to teaching in their mother tongue. Japan has compensated by implementing the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program since 1987. Here, a native English speaker is placed in the classroom as an assistant, but while all JETs have a university degree, none need to have a Bachelor of Education or any previous experience in the classroom. Uncertified private schools, which are just about everywhere in Japan, hire even less qualified people. Overall, despite efforts to promote learning English, the language remains a statement of elitism that is studied more to pass examinations than anything else.

… despite efforts to promote learning English, the language remains a statement of elitism that is studied more to pass examinations than anything else.

It is in this environment that Japanese universities have pushed forward with internationalization. In 2015, Approximately 40% of Japanese universities offered programs completely in English, a rise from less than 25% in 2005 (Bradford, 2019). These programs were part of a national goal to increase the number of international students from 125,000 in 2009 to 300,000 in 2020. This policy has worked to some degree, and while the percentage remains modest compared to other countries, it nevertheless shows that Japan is moving in this direction. Top universities have also received millions of dollars for projects such as Go Global Japan to send Japanese students abroad.

Regarding research, the World Premier Institutes (WPI) were introduced in 2007 to recruit foreign researchers to work in Japan. Each WPI specializes in a natural science field, and the primary language of operation is English. Originally just 5, there are now 13 across the country. Other research institutes like RIKEN, the largest in Japan, provide fellowships exclusive to foreigners. The Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences (JSPS) also provides generous fellowships to foreign post‐doctorates that includes not only a salary and modest travel funds, but also money for Japanese lessons. Finally, major Japanese granting agencies now accept applications in English.

Another initiative is the On‐site Laboratories established by Kyoto University after being designated one of seven members of the National University Corporation by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Each member is evaluated based on three criteria including the international mobility of students and researchers. Kyoto University has currently established ten On‐site Laboratories with partner institutions across the globe.

Japan has little brain circulation

These are some examples of how Japan is developing an international research environment, which should attract more foreign researchers and thus demand domestic researchers to become more competent in English. In other words, since the turn of the century, Japan’s academia has inarguably taken several steps to internationalize.

Yet, the country has started from so far behind that the impact of these efforts is still modest. A 2012 study that compared the migration rates of scientists from 16 countries showed little international flow into the Japanese research community (Franzoni et al, 2012). Unsurprisingly, the USA showed far more immigration than emigration, with only 5% of its scientists working abroad, but nearly 40% of its scientists coming from another country. India fell on the opposite side of the spectrum, with fewer than 1% of its scientists coming from abroad, but 40% of scientists leaving the country. Other countries have a more balanced flux: Germany, for example, had 23% immigrants and 23% emigrants and Canada had 47% and 24%, respectively. In Japan, unlike in any other country in the study, neither percentage was more than 5% (Table 1). These data suggest that a young Japanese researcher can go through training without ever having worked with a colleague from abroad.

Table 1.

Scientist mobility.

Country	Immigration (%)	Emigration (%)
Australia	44.5	18.3
Canada	46.9	23.7
France	17.3	13.2
Germany	23.2	23.3
India	0.8	39.8
Japan	5.0	3.1
Sweden	56.7	33.1
United Kingdom	32.9	25.1
United States	38.4	5.0

Source: Franzoni et al (2012).

… the migration rates of scientists from 16 countries showed little international flow into the Japanese research community.

… a young Japanese researcher can go through training without ever having worked with a colleague from abroad.

This lack of brain circulation and international experience could also explain why Japan lags behind other nations in terms of international publications. A study by Nature found that just about every major scientific nation now publishes more international papers than domestic ones or is on track to do so (Hook et al, 2018) with Japan and the USA exceptions—but the situation of the latter is likely mitigated by the high representation of foreign researchers at domestic institutes. On the other hand, the same survey showed that Japan’s top national research universities—those that house a WPI or are designated as National University Corporations—have increased international publications between 2009 and 2017 by at least 5%. Thus, young researchers at these institutes are more likely to have access to international research networks and opportunities to interact in English than their peers at other research centers across the country.

Notably, the brain circulation of Japan is fairly representative of the overall population. Although increasing, Japan’s foreign‐born residents remain less than 3%, whereas the percentage is closer to ten times in countries like Canada and Germany. Thus, while Japanese students learn English throughout their primary and secondary education, many rarely if ever encounter it outside the classroom. This may have a deleterious effect on students choosing career paths that require English. One small survey of 112 first‐year university students in the Tokyo area showed that the format of English teaching in high schools diminished their interest and confidence in the language (Kikuchi & Browne, 2009). A much larger study by the British Council found that even for those who do go abroad, there is an ostensible nervousness about their poor grasp of the English language (https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/ei‐japan‐november‐14_0.pdf).

Furthermore, despite efforts to internationalize, the government’s budget for science and technology has remained effectively flat since 2001 (Table 2; Fuyuno, 2018). During much of this same period, national universities have seen an annual 1% drop in management funding. The number of fellowships given by JSPS to doctoral students and young post‐doctorates from 2014 to 2018 has consistently dropped too (Table 3; https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/aboutus/data/brochure18‐19_e.pdf). In addition, the USA is the country of destination for the majority of JSPS fellows, suggesting that researchers may be disinclined to leave Japan for an opportunity elsewhere. Although the data are older, the MEXT found a similar trend. From 2000 to 2012, the number of Japanese researchers going abroad for longer than three months steadily declined. There was a slight increase from 2009 to 2012, but these years were at most just two thirds the peak in 2000. In contrast, the number of posts less than 3 months long went up by more than 50% over the same time (Table 4; https://www.mext.go.jp/en/publication/report/title01/detail01/sdetail01/1373663.htm). Edwards and Ashida argue that the presentation of these data can give misleading impressions about the flow of students and researchers in and out of Japan (Edwards & Ashida, 2020). They claim there was a 50% drop in the number of Japanese university students who studied abroad between 2003 and 2017 but added that Japanese sources reported a 20% increase over the same period, because those sources include any overseas post regardless of duration.

Table 2.

Japan government science and technology funding.

Year	Trillions of yen
2001	3.47
2002	3.54
2003	3.60
2004	3.61
2005	3.58
2006	3.57
2007	3.51
2008	3.57
2009	3.56
2010	3.59
2011	3.66
2012	3.69
2013	3.61
2014	3.65
2015	3.48
2016	3.48
2017	3.49

Source: Fuyuno (2018).

Table 3.

Number of JSPS fellowships for doctoral students and post‐doctorates (2014–2018).

Year	Doctoral	Post‐doctoral
2014	4,660	1,166
2015	4,515	1,126
2016	4,425	1,047
2017	4,386	1,000
2018	4,293	1,000

Source: https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/aboutus/data/brochure18‐19_e.pdf.

Table 4.

Number of overseas researchers (2000–2012).

Year	Overseas stays > 3 months	All overseas stays
2000	7,674	1,12,372
2001	6,943	1,03,204
2002	6,515	1,15,838
2003	5,877	1,12,022
2004	5,385	1,24,961
2005	4,725	1,37,407
2006	4,163	1,36,751
2007	3,972	1,32,067
2008	4,034	1,41,495
2009	4,086	1,41,165
2010	4,272	1,40,731
2011	5,185	1,55,056
2012	5,175	1,65,569

Source: https://www.mext.go.jp/en/publication/report/title01/detail01/sdetail01/1373663.htm.

Industry jobs discourage migration

There are several other reasons discouraging young Japanese scientists from leaving the islands. One is a 2003 amendment in labor law which incentivized universities to hire staff on fixed‐term contracts instead of lifetime contracts. The effect of this change was almost immediate: the percentage of university‐employed researchers younger than 40 years with fixed‐term contracts increased from 14.5% in 2007 to 20.3%, while those with permanent positions dropped from 18.8 to 10.9% (https://www.natureindex.com/news‐blog/japanese‐government‐urges‐young‐scientists‐towards‐industry). A 2017 survey of nearly 3,000 researchers in Japan indicated that this age group was more likely to suffer psychological distress under the new working conditions than older researchers (Takahashi et al, 2019).

The uncertainty of career prospects for young researchers in not unique to Japan. One recent survey reported that postdocs pessimistic about their future in academia outnumber their optimistic peers 2:1 (Woolston, 2020). Moreover, while the general consensus is that researchers should consider positions abroad early in their career, the benefits are not clear. While there is evidence that the quality of science improves, there actually may not be much to gain career‐wise. Indeed, Japanese researchers may find much more opportunity in industry than academia.

… Japanese researchers may find much more opportunity in industry than academia.

As a percentage, Japan’s private industry invests more in research and development than its counterparts in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany and also hires more researchers than those three nations (Table 5). Furthermore, those coveted permanent positions come faster in industry than they do at academic research institutes (https://www.oecd‐ilibrary.org/science‐and‐technology/careers‐of‐doctorate‐holders_5k43nxgs289w‐en). On the flip side, these same companies are sometimes unappreciative of overseas experience, as they put a higher value on their employees ability to integrate seamlessly into the company’s culture (Breaden, 2014). Moreover, even if the purpose of the job is overseas expansion, they seem hesitant to hire candidates with experience abroad if the candidate does not know the domestic market (Kobayashi, 2020). This attitude also applies to the non‐profit sector. One recent study reported that doctors who earned their medical degrees in Japan but pursued clinical training abroad met strong resistance by their employers who insisted that the repatriates practice medicine the “Japanese way” (Heist et al, 2019). At a personal level, one of us also found it difficult to reacclimatize after conducting research abroad.

Table 5.

Investment and hiring practices by industry.

	% of R&D investment by industry	% of reseachers employed in industry a
Japan	79.4	74.4
United States	72.8	71.3
Germany	68.8	60.4
France	65.4	62.3
United Kingdom	69.1	40.6
China	77.4	61.3
Korea	80.3	82.0

^aAll data from 2018 except Japan (2019) and the United States (2017).

Source: Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2020 (No. 295) (2020).

Clinicians have other reasons not to leave the country or even stay in research at all. Many countries are investing heavily in training clinician researchers, but temptations to leave this career path are abundant. The biggest, of course, is salary, not just in the clinic, but also in industry. The USA and the UK have been relatively successful at keeping their clinician researchers on a basic research track through generous funding programs, whereas Australia and Germany have shown mixed results (Noble et al, 2020). Japan, on the other hand, does not appear to have an environment that encourages its clinician researchers to continue with basic research. Even for those who secure independent funding, the demands of clinical work cause a high attrition rate (Toyoshima et al, 2020). This situation is also a concern at our institute: an internal survey found that 48% of our Ph.D. graduates go on to work in hospitals, most likely as clinicians.

Conclusion

What does all this mean for the current generation of young scientists? Japan has made several efforts to internationalize, but it appears academic careers are not as attractive as they used to be. Many of these scientists will therefore choose careers with a stronger emphasis on the domestic market, where English is not needed as much as it is in academic settings. Thus, if one were to attend a scientific meeting sponsored by a Japanese society like the MBSJ, it might indeed appear that senior researchers are more lucid, but only because they have continued on a path that requires strong English communication skills. As for the young scientists attending, only a minority of them will be participating at the same meeting twenty years hence, at which time an attending editor may make the same observation.

Japan has made several efforts to internationalize, but it appears academic careers are not as attractive as they used to be.

Fewer junior Japanese scientists share the view of past generations that an education is a passport. Instead, they prefer stable jobs and show a stronger inclination to stay in Japan, which explains why many leave the academic track for domestic industry or the clinic. This conclusion does not mean that junior scientists should be given a pass for poor English. Moreover, many already have a good grasp of English, even if they do not realize it. In general, the poor oral and aural skills observed by the EMBO Reports chief editor are complemented by a remarkable ability to extract critical information from erudite research papers. In other words, the skills are there, just not developed. Thus, for those who worry that future Japanese science will be handicapped by limited English skills, we would like to remind them that previous generations complaining about today’s youth has always been a favorite pastime of the old.

EMBO Reports (2021) 22: e52558.